tisdag 5 april 2022 kl. 19:47:36 UTC+2 skrev WM:
> horand....@gmail.com schrieb am Montag, 4. April 2022 um 22:13:30 UTC+2:
> > On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 14:54:46 UTC-3, WM wrote:
> > > horand....@gmail.com schrieb am Montag, 4. April 2022 um 14:09:19 UTC+2:
> > > > On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 07:48:38 UTC-3, WM wrote:
> > > > > [...] less than ℵo FISONs is dictated by mathematics. FISONs are finite sets, no matter how many of them are concerned. Since in FISONs the numbers cannot change places 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 expresses the same as ooooo. Any finite set of n FISONs has at least one FISON with n symbols. This holds for all finite n. If there should be more (ℵo) than any finite number of FISONs then there must be a FISON with more (ℵo) than any finite number of symbols.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, bullshit. *BULLSHIT* and quantifier dyslexia, moron.
> > > Of course I knew that you have no arguments.
> > Neither do you, obviously.
> Never the number of O's (= not enumerated fractions) decreases:
>
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> ...
>
> XXOO...
> OOOO...
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> ...
>
> XXOO...
> XOOO...
> OOOO...
> XOOO...
> ...
>
> XXXO...
> XOOO...
> OOOO...
> OOOO...
> ...
>
> Never a union of all FISONs is larger than all unions of FISONs contained in the sequence of FISONs:
>
> {1} = {1}
> {1} U {1, 2} = {1, 2}
> {1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} = {1, 2, 3}
> {1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} U {1, 2, 3, 4} = {1, 2, 3, 4,}
> {1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} U {1, 2, 3, 4} U {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
> ...
>
> Regards, WM

The union of all FISONs is N, get over it already.

zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 5. April 2022 um 06:33:56 UTC+2:
> måndag 4 april 2022 kl. 12:48:38 UTC+2 skrev WM:
> > zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Montag, 4. April 2022 um 09:48:17 UTC+2:

> > > You assume only finite number of FISONs here, which is a false assumption
> > No, less than ℵo FISONs is dictated by mathematics.
>
> And the union of all is N

Fact is that never a union of all FISONs is larger than all unions of FISONs contained in the sequence of FISONs:

{1} = {1}
{1} U {1, 2} = {1, 2}
{1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} = {1, 2, 3}
{1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} U {1, 2, 3, 4} = {1, 2, 3, 4,}
{1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} U {1, 2, 3, 4} U {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
....

> >FISONs are finite sets, no matter how many of them are concerned.
> Individually yes, but the union of all is not.

Fact is that never a union of all FISONs is larger than all unions of FISONs contained in the sequence of FISONs:

{1} = {1}
{1} U {1, 2} = {1, 2}
{1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} = {1, 2, 3}
{1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} U {1, 2, 3, 4} = {1, 2, 3, 4,}
{1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} U {1, 2, 3, 4} U {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
....

Regards, WM

On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 14:47:36 UTC-3, WM wrote:
> horand....@gmail.com schrieb am Montag, 4. April 2022 um 22:13:30 UTC+2:
> > On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 14:54:46 UTC-3, WM wrote:
> > > horand....@gmail.com schrieb am Montag, 4. April 2022 um 14:09:19 UTC+2:
> > > > On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 07:48:38 UTC-3, WM wrote:
> > > > > [...] less than ℵo FISONs is dictated by mathematics. FISONs are finite sets, no matter how many of them are concerned. Since in FISONs the numbers cannot change places 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 expresses the same as ooooo. Any finite set of n FISONs has at least one FISON with n symbols. This holds for all finite n. If there should be more (ℵo) than any finite number of FISONs then there must be a FISON with more (ℵo) than any finite number of symbols.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, bullshit. *BULLSHIT* and quantifier dyslexia, moron.
> > > Of course I knew that you have no arguments.
> > Neither do you, obviously.
> Never the number of O's (= not enumerated fractions) decreases:
>
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> ...

Correct, and congratulations on this epiphany! At every finite step, there are aleph_0 fractions that have not yet been enumerated or processed.
> XXOO...
> OOOO...
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> ...

> XXOO...
> XOOO...
> OOOO...
> XOOO...
> ...
>
> XXXO...
> XOOO...
> OOOO...
> OOOO...
> ...

Nonetheless, as you should also see for yourself, unless your mind is too dark, that the 'X's slowly propagate to the right. (There are, of course, still aleph_0, just as there were at the start.) What happens as you continue this infinite process for a very long time? More and more 'X's will appear in the top (finitely many) rows, and the 'O's will be pushed further and further to the right. But the process is infinite, and in order to figure the position once the process has bee completed (which you could accomplish by taking half as long for every step as the previous one took) you have to take a fucking *LIMIT*. What do you think that limit looks like??

You clearly are not ready for the FISONs, so I have snipped the rest.
[...]

Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 5. April 2022 um 08:52:52 UTC+2:

> 1. The expression "finite number" is both illogical and anti-mathematical nonsense. The adjective "finite" cannot appear before "number". A number is represented by a fixed (not "finite" because then this might imply something else (pretty absurd) is possible) number of symbols.

"Finite number" need not imply infinite number but may emphasize that infinity is excluded.
>
> 2. The above drivel is equivalent to claiming that 1/3 cannot be represented in base 10 "finitely" which is a result of the same misguided thinking. 1/3 either can or can't be represented in decimal. A very important number theorem tells us clearly that 1/3 has no representation in decimal. To say:
>
> "You can't represent 1/3 finitely" is drivel. I just did ... look: "1 / 3" .

Of course. It is only possible to express numbers finitely. Infinite sequences can neither be written nor could they, if existing, be read.

Regards, WM

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:47:36 PM UTC-3, WM wrote:
...
>
> Never a union of all FISONs
>

Piffle,. There is only one "union of all FISONs", "Never a" is silly.

-- William Hughes

The set of FISONS does not have a largest element. Your contention that there is always a largest element but it is something that changes is nonsense.

--
William Hughes

horand....@gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 5. April 2022 um 20:04:59 UTC+2:
> On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 14:47:36 UTC-3, WM wrote:

> > Never the number of O's (= not enumerated fractions) decreases:
> >
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > ...
> Correct, and congratulations on this epiphany! At every finite step, there are aleph_0 fractions that have not yet been enumerated or processed.

And other steps are not available, at least they do not move any X or delete any O.

> Nonetheless, as you should also see for yourself, unless your mind is too dark, that the 'X's slowly propagate to the right.

They do - as slowly as they raise from the deep cellar. The swarm proceeds roughly clockwise.

> (There are, of course, still aleph_0, just as there were at the start.)

Even precisely as many with deciation +/- 0.

> What happens as you continue this infinite process for a very long time? More and more 'X's will appear in the top (finitely many) rows, and the 'O's will be pushed further and further to the right.

And to the cellar in the first column, because almost all X initially come from there.

> But the process is infinite, and in order to figure the position once the process has been completed (which you could accomplish by taking half as long for every step as the previous one took) you have to take a fucking *LIMIT*.

A limit is approached but never hit by *converging* sequences. They come closer and closer, but almost all terms before the limit are dark. The limit is never reached.

> What do you think that limit looks like??
>
Count with increasing velocity. Do you arrive at infinity or ω? Impossible.
Divide 1 by 2 and continue. Do you arrive at nothing or 0? Impossible.
Even converging sequences only appropach or approximate their limit but never reach it.

If there were a limit of the matrix, then all X covering the O's in other columns must be missing in the first column. The first column must be rather empty. This is typically forgotten when the origin of the X's is not analyzed.

Regards, WM

William schrieb am Dienstag, 5. April 2022 um 20:12:58 UTC+2:
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:47:36 PM UTC-3, WM wrote:
> ..
> >
> > Never a union of all FISONs
> >
> There is only one "union of all FISONs",

No, the potentially infinite set has many unions. But whether or not there are many unions or only one, everything that can be unioned in the set has been unioned in the sequence already. That is so by construction.

Regards, WM

William schrieb am Dienstag, 5. April 2022 um 20:25:42 UTC+2:
> The set of FISONS does not have a largest element.

But every element that exists has been unioned together with all others in the sequence already. Can you deny this fact? It is impossible to surpass all these unions.

Regards, WM

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 3:32:59 PM UTC-3, WM wrote:
> potentially infinite set

Piffle.

--
William Hughes

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 3:35:46 PM UTC-3, WM wrote:

> ...every element that exists

Piffle. Talking about "exists" is silly. The set of FISONs that "exists" does not change.

--
William Hughes

On 4/5/2022 1:06 PM, WM wrote:
> Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 5. April 2022 um 08:52:52 UTC+2:
>
>> 1. The expression "finite number" is both illogical and anti-mathematical nonsense. The adjective "finite" cannot appear before "number". A number is represented by a fixed (not "finite" because then this might imply something else (pretty absurd) is possible) number of symbols.
>
> "Finite number" need not imply infinite number but may emphasize that infinity is excluded.
>>
>> 2. The above drivel is equivalent to claiming that 1/3 cannot be represented in base 10 "finitely" which is a result of the same misguided thinking. 1/3 either can or can't be represented in decimal. A very important number theorem tells us clearly that 1/3 has no representation in decimal. To say:
>>
>> "You can't represent 1/3 finitely" is drivel. I just did ... look: "1 / 3" .
>
> Of course. It is only possible to express numbers finitely. Infinite sequences can neither be written nor could they, if existing, be read.
>
> Regards, WM

myopic nonsense

On 4/5/2022 2:06 PM, WM wrote:

> It is only possible to express numbers finitely.

It is possible to make a claim which is true of
each one of infinitely-many.

> Infinite sequences can neither be written nor could they,
> if existing, be read.

If
there is always some finite number k for which
k replications of distance y passes distance x, k*y > x
then
an infinite sequence of digits
represents
an infinite sequence of intervals
for which
no more than one point is in all intervals.

If
two curves which cross and are continuous at each point
must intersect at no less than one point,
then
no less than one point is in all those intervals.

If
no more than one point is in all those intervals
and
no less than one point is in all those intervals,
then define
an infinite sequence of digits
which represents
an infinite sequence of intervals
to represent
the one and only one point in all those intervals.

On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 15:30:21 UTC-3, WM wrote:
> horand....@gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 5. April 2022 um 20:04:59 UTC+2:
> > On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 14:47:36 UTC-3, WM wrote:
>
> > > Never the number of O's (= not enumerated fractions) decreases:
> > >
> > > XOOO...
> > > XOOO...
> > > XOOO...
> > > XOOO...
> > > ...
> > Correct, and congratulations on this epiphany! At every finite step, there are aleph_0 fractions that have not yet been enumerated or processed.
> And other steps are not available, at least they do not move any X or delete any O.
> > Nonetheless, as you should also see for yourself, unless your mind is too dark, that the 'X's slowly propagate to the right.
> They do - as slowly as they raise from the deep cellar. The swarm proceeds roughly clockwise.
> > (There are, of course, still aleph_0, just as there were at the start.)
> Even precisely as many with deciation +/- 0.
> > What happens as you continue this infinite process for a very long time? More and more 'X's will appear in the top (finitely many) rows, and the 'O's will be pushed further and further to the right.
> And to the cellar in the first column, because almost all X initially come from there.

Oh, brother. You really have no clue, do you? Well, the rest was obviously wasted on you. (Shrug.)

[...]

tisdag 5 april 2022 kl. 19:59:44 UTC+2 skrev WM:
> zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 5. April 2022 um 06:33:56 UTC+2:
> > måndag 4 april 2022 kl. 12:48:38 UTC+2 skrev WM:
> > > zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Montag, 4. April 2022 um 09:48:17 UTC+2:
>
> > > > You assume only finite number of FISONs here, which is a false assumption
> > > No, less than ℵo FISONs is dictated by mathematics.
> >
> > And the union of all is N
> Fact is that

the union of ALL FISONs, which is INFINITELY MANY, is N

> never a union of all FISONs is larger than all unions of FISONs contained in the sequence of FISONs:
> {1} = {1}
> {1} U {1, 2} = {1, 2}
> {1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} = {1, 2, 3}
> {1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} U {1, 2, 3, 4} = {1, 2, 3, 4,}
> {1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} U {1, 2, 3, 4} U {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
> ...
> > >FISONs are finite sets, no matter how many of them are concerned.
> > Individually yes, but the union of all is not.
> Fact is that never a union of all FISONs is larger than all unions of FISONs contained in the sequence of FISONs:
> {1} = {1}
> {1} U {1, 2} = {1, 2}
> {1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} = {1, 2, 3}
> {1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} U {1, 2, 3, 4} = {1, 2, 3, 4,}
> {1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} U {1, 2, 3, 4} U {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
> ...
>
> Regards, WM

Repeating wrong stuff doesn't make it more right. Union of all FISONs is N

tisdag 5 april 2022 kl. 20:32:59 UTC+2 skrev WM:
> William schrieb am Dienstag, 5. April 2022 um 20:12:58 UTC+2:
> > On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:47:36 PM UTC-3, WM wrote:
> > ..
> > >
> > > Never a union of all FISONs
> > >
> > There is only one "union of all FISONs",
> No, the potentially infinite

Is not in mathematics so shut up about it

>set has many unions.

There is only one union of all FISONs, N

>But whether or not there are many unions or only one, everything that can be unioned in the set has been unioned in the sequence already. That is so by construction.
>
> Regards, WM

Nope, the union of all FISONs is not in your sequence.

On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 21:06:32 UTC+3, WM wrote:
> Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 5. April 2022 um 08:52:52 UTC+2:
>
> > 1. The expression "finite number" is both illogical and anti-mathematical nonsense. The adjective "finite" cannot appear before "number". A number is represented by a fixed (not "finite" because then this might imply something else (pretty absurd) is possible) number of symbols.
> "Finite number" need not imply infinite number but may emphasize that infinity is excluded.

This is not what happens to a delusional mind. They use "finite number" so as to leave the door open to their drivel "infinite number".

> >
> > 2. The above drivel is equivalent to claiming that 1/3 cannot be represented in base 10 "finitely" which is a result of the same misguided thinking. 1/3 either can or can't be represented in decimal. A very important number theorem tells us clearly that 1/3 has no representation in decimal. To say:
> >
> > "You can't represent 1/3 finitely" is drivel. I just did ... look: "1 / 3" .
>
> Of course. It is only possible to express numbers finitely. Infinite sequences can neither be written nor could they, if existing, be read.

>
> Regards, WM

On Wednesday, 6 April 2022 at 08:30:25 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 21:06:32 UTC+3, WM wrote:
> > Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 5. April 2022 um 08:52:52 UTC+2:
> >
> > > 1. The expression "finite number" is both illogical and anti-mathematical nonsense. The adjective "finite" cannot appear before "number". A number is represented by a fixed (not "finite" because then this might imply something else (pretty absurd) is possible) number of symbols.
> > "Finite number" need not imply infinite number but may emphasize that infinity is excluded.
> This is not what happens to a delusional mind. They use "finite number" so as to leave the door open to their drivel "infinite number".
> > >
> > > 2. The above drivel is equivalent to claiming that 1/3 cannot be represented in base 10 "finitely" which is a result of the same misguided thinking. 1/3 either can or can't be represented in decimal. A very important number theorem tells us clearly that 1/3 has no representation in decimal. To say:
> > >
> > > "You can't represent 1/3 finitely" is drivel. I just did ... look: "1 / 3" .
> >
> > Of course. It is only possible to express numbers finitely. Infinite sequences can neither be written nor could they, if existing, be read.

Also I do not like the expression "express numbers finitely" because finitely is a redundant adjective.

I prefer to use "express numbers with a fixed number of symbols".

After all, the symbols we use to express numbers are NAMES and it is absurd to think that a NAME can be understood in any other way, for example as a never-ending string of digits (incomplete decimal expansion).

PhD students have been using "infinity" as a sugar tit far too long in order to obtain a degree which means absolutely nothing in real terms.
Since they have zero aptitude for mathematics, "infinity" provides a conduit for them to bullshit their way into the circle jerk of PhD grads.

>
>
> >
> > Regards, WM

On Wednesday, 6 April 2022 at 08:38:23 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Wednesday, 6 April 2022 at 08:30:25 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 21:06:32 UTC+3, WM wrote:
> > > Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 5. April 2022 um 08:52:52 UTC+2:
> > >
> > > > 1. The expression "finite number" is both illogical and anti-mathematical nonsense. The adjective "finite" cannot appear before "number". A number is represented by a fixed (not "finite" because then this might imply something else (pretty absurd) is possible) number of symbols.
> > > "Finite number" need not imply infinite number but may emphasize that infinity is excluded.
> > This is not what happens to a delusional mind. They use "finite number" so as to leave the door open to their drivel "infinite number".
> > > >
> > > > 2. The above drivel is equivalent to claiming that 1/3 cannot be represented in base 10 "finitely" which is a result of the same misguided thinking. 1/3 either can or can't be represented in decimal. A very important number theorem tells us clearly that 1/3 has no representation in decimal. To say:
> > > >
> > > > "You can't represent 1/3 finitely" is drivel. I just did ... look: "1 / 3" .
> > >
> > > Of course. It is only possible to express numbers finitely. Infinite sequences can neither be written nor could they, if existing, be read.
> Also I do not like the expression "express numbers finitely" because finitely is a redundant adjective.
>
> I prefer to use "express numbers with a fixed number of symbols".
>
> After all, the symbols we use to express numbers are NAMES and it is absurd to think that a NAME can be understood in any other way, for example as a never-ending string of digits (incomplete decimal expansion).
>
> PhD students have been using "infinity" as a sugar tit far too long in order to obtain a degree which means absolutely nothing in real terms.
> Since they have zero aptitude for mathematics, "infinity" provides a conduit for them to bullshit their way into the circle jerk of PhD grads.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Regards, WM

Imagine the following scenario:

I want to express the number that has exactly the same digits as pi
but varies in the trillionth digit only.

How do I express that number? 3.14159...x... ? Chuckle.

Does 3.14159...x... become a name then? Tsk, tsk.

Mainstream math academics have shit for brains.

onsdag 6 april 2022 kl. 07:30:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 21:06:32 UTC+3, WM wrote:
> > Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 5. April 2022 um 08:52:52 UTC+2:
> >
> > > 1. The expression "finite number" is both illogical and anti-mathematical nonsense. The adjective "finite" cannot appear before "number". A number is represented by a fixed (not "finite" because then this might imply something else (pretty absurd) is possible) number of symbols.
> > "Finite number" need not imply infinite number but may emphasize that infinity is excluded.
> This is not what happens to a delusional mind. They use "finite number" so as to leave the door open to their drivel "infinite number".
> > >
> > > 2. The above drivel is equivalent to claiming that 1/3 cannot be represented in base 10 "finitely" which is a result of the same misguided thinking. 1/3 either can or can't be represented in decimal. A very important number theorem tells us clearly that 1/3 has no representation in decimal. To say:
> > >
> > > "You can't represent 1/3 finitely" is drivel. I just did ... look: "1 / 3" .
> >
> > Of course. It is only possible to express numbers finitely. Infinite sequences can neither be written nor could they, if existing, be read.
>
>
> >
> > Regards, WM
You being too stupid ot get things does not mean it is drivel

You being too stupid to understand contexts does not mean others do not understand it

onsdag 6 april 2022 kl. 07:43:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 6 April 2022 at 08:38:23 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 6 April 2022 at 08:30:25 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 21:06:32 UTC+3, WM wrote:
> > > > Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 5. April 2022 um 08:52:52 UTC+2:
> > > >
> > > > > 1. The expression "finite number" is both illogical and anti-mathematical nonsense. The adjective "finite" cannot appear before "number". A number is represented by a fixed (not "finite" because then this might imply something else (pretty absurd) is possible) number of symbols.
> > > > "Finite number" need not imply infinite number but may emphasize that infinity is excluded.
> > > This is not what happens to a delusional mind. They use "finite number" so as to leave the door open to their drivel "infinite number".
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. The above drivel is equivalent to claiming that 1/3 cannot be represented in base 10 "finitely" which is a result of the same misguided thinking. 1/3 either can or can't be represented in decimal. A very important number theorem tells us clearly that 1/3 has no representation in decimal.. To say:
> > > > >
> > > > > "You can't represent 1/3 finitely" is drivel. I just did ... look: "1 / 3" .
> > > >
> > > > Of course. It is only possible to express numbers finitely. Infinite sequences can neither be written nor could they, if existing, be read.
> > Also I do not like the expression "express numbers finitely" because finitely is a redundant adjective.
> >
> > I prefer to use "express numbers with a fixed number of symbols".
> >
> > After all, the symbols we use to express numbers are NAMES and it is absurd to think that a NAME can be understood in any other way, for example as a never-ending string of digits (incomplete decimal expansion).
> >
> > PhD students have been using "infinity" as a sugar tit far too long in order to obtain a degree which means absolutely nothing in real terms.
> > Since they have zero aptitude for mathematics, "infinity" provides a conduit for them to bullshit their way into the circle jerk of PhD grads.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards, WM
> Imagine the following scenario:
>
> I want to express the number that has exactly the same digits as pi
> but varies in the trillionth digit only.
>
> How do I express that number? 3.14159...x... ? Chuckle.
>
> Does 3.14159...x... become a name then? Tsk, tsk.
>
> Mainstream math academics have shit for brains.
Those are notations only, no "name", besides we've established they all have the name bob

onsdag 6 april 2022 kl. 07:38:23 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 6 April 2022 at 08:30:25 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 21:06:32 UTC+3, WM wrote:
> > > Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 5. April 2022 um 08:52:52 UTC+2:
> > >
> > > > 1. The expression "finite number" is both illogical and anti-mathematical nonsense. The adjective "finite" cannot appear before "number". A number is represented by a fixed (not "finite" because then this might imply something else (pretty absurd) is possible) number of symbols.
> > > "Finite number" need not imply infinite number but may emphasize that infinity is excluded.
> > This is not what happens to a delusional mind. They use "finite number" so as to leave the door open to their drivel "infinite number".
> > > >
> > > > 2. The above drivel is equivalent to claiming that 1/3 cannot be represented in base 10 "finitely" which is a result of the same misguided thinking. 1/3 either can or can't be represented in decimal. A very important number theorem tells us clearly that 1/3 has no representation in decimal. To say:
> > > >
> > > > "You can't represent 1/3 finitely" is drivel. I just did ... look: "1 / 3" .
> > >
> > > Of course. It is only possible to express numbers finitely. Infinite sequences can neither be written nor could they, if existing, be read.
> Also I do not like the expression "express numbers finitely" because finitely is a redundant adjective.

Given there are finite AND infinite decimal expansions for non-zero trails, it is not redudant.

>
> I prefer to use "express numbers with a fixed number of symbols".

Which any sane person woudl say "finite number of symbols" which is what people use.

>
> After all, the symbols we use to express numbers are NAMES and it is absurd to think that a NAME can be understood in any other way, for example as a never-ending string of digits (incomplete decimal expansion).

Nope, those are symbols, not names.

>
> PhD students have been using "infinity" as a sugar tit far too long in order to obtain a degree which means absolutely nothing in real terms.
> Since they have zero aptitude for mathematics, "infinity" provides a conduit for them to bullshit their way into the circle jerk of PhD grads.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Regards, WM

Eram semper recta brought next idea :
> On Wednesday, 6 April 2022 at 08:38:23 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 6 April 2022 at 08:30:25 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 21:06:32 UTC+3, WM wrote:
>>>> Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 5. April 2022 um 08:52:52 UTC+2:
>>>>
>>>>> 1. The expression "finite number" is both illogical and anti-mathematical
>>>>> nonsense. The adjective "finite" cannot appear before "number". A number
>>>>> is represented by a fixed (not "finite" because then this might imply
>>>>> something else (pretty absurd) is possible) number of symbols.
>>>> "Finite number" need not imply infinite number but may emphasize that
>>>> infinity is excluded. This is not what happens to a delusional mind. They
>>>> use "finite number" so as to leave the door open to their drivel "infinite
>>>> number".
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. The above drivel is equivalent to claiming that 1/3 cannot be
>>>>> represented in base 10 "finitely" which is a result of the same misguided
>>>>> thinking. 1/3 either can or can't be represented in decimal. A very
>>>>> important number theorem tells us clearly that 1/3 has no representation
>>>>> in decimal. To say:
>>>>>
>>>>> "You can't represent 1/3 finitely" is drivel. I just did ... look: "1 /
>>>>> 3" .
>>>>
>>>> Of course. It is only possible to express numbers finitely. Infinite
>>>> sequences can neither be written nor could they, if existing, be read.
>> Also I do not like the expression "express numbers finitely" because
>> finitely is a redundant adjective.
>>
>> I prefer to use "express numbers with a fixed number of symbols".
>>
>> After all, the symbols we use to express numbers are NAMES and it is absurd
>> to think that a NAME can be understood in any other way, for example as a
>> never-ending string of digits (incomplete decimal expansion).
>>
>> PhD students have been using "infinity" as a sugar tit far too long in order
>> to obtain a degree which means absolutely nothing in real terms. Since they
>> have zero aptitude for mathematics, "infinity" provides a conduit for them
>> to bullshit their way into the circle jerk of PhD grads.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards, WM
>
> Imagine the following scenario:
>
> I want to express the number that has exactly the same digits as pi
> but varies in the trillionth digit only.
>
> How do I express that number?

You just did, well, almost. That would actually be more than one number
because we have a selection of more than one possible base ten digit to
occupy that 'changed' digit. You need to narrow it down to get it to be
only one number.

William schrieb am Dienstag, 5. April 2022 um 21:33:11 UTC+2:
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 3:32:59 PM UTC-3, WM wrote:
> > potentially infinite set
>
> Piffle.
>
Every element that exists has been unioned together with all others in the sequence already:

{1} = {1}
{1} U {1, 2} = {1, 2}
{1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} = {1, 2, 3}
{1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} U {1, 2, 3, 4} = {1, 2, 3, 4,}
{1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} U {1, 2, 3, 4} U {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
....

That holds for all the infinitely many FISONs of the sequence as the ... indicate. Another union cannot increase the result. Learn: cannot cannot cannot!

Regards, WM

William schrieb am Dienstag, 5. April 2022 um 21:41:29 UTC+2:
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 3:35:46 PM UTC-3, WM wrote:
>
> > ...every element that exists
>
> Piffle. Talking about "exists" is silly. The set of FISONs that "exists" does not change.
>
Every FISON has been unioned together with all others in the sequence already:

{1} = {1}
{1} U {1, 2} = {1, 2}
{1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} = {1, 2, 3}
{1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} U {1, 2, 3, 4} = {1, 2, 3, 4,}
{1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} U {1, 2, 3, 4} U {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
....

That holds for all the infinitely many FISONs of the sequence as the ... indicate. Another union cannot increase the result.

Regards, WM