On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:49:09 PM UTC+2, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 8:56:39 PM UTC+3, philipe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Oh, was it a sincere question?
> >
> > How would you like your answer? Some symbolic notation or rather decimal dot notation?
> >
> > Please note that (or so I think) we want an exact solution, not an approximation.
> >
> > By the way, you don't answer my questions. What was your point bringing e^-1 to the conversation? It was an easy exercise, but you never explained your reason why. Answer now.
> Cammon Philip, you notice yet that I don't believe those unreal numbers like (e), actually this was my old question (maybe in 2014) on Quora that I have asked where it received many foolish answers from the so expert professionals where they could entirely change my question after exposing their deepest ignorance
>
> I know that is the same as the definition of e, but in a different style in order to show the people how ignorants they are
>
> It is also very true that when you teach a common talented mathematician then he/she would run like a robot in reproducing what they usually learn
>
> But, generally speaking, they aren't clever enough to realize what are they do actually produce or talk about
>
> See HERE how my example
>
> (0.999...(n))^{10^n} = rational number for every well-defined natural number (n), and they keep absolutely increasing indefinitely with the size of digits and magnitude as well, so to say they are not any constant numbers
>
> and when you consider n goes to no number like infinity then the whole expression collapses to complete rubbish and total nonsense like this
>
> (0.999...(with no number of repetition 9's digits))^{10^{no number}} = No number
>
> In the present binary system the same like
>
> (0.111...(n))^{2^{n}} = 1/e, as rational number for any large number (but must be well defined)
>
> So to say, where is that Transfinite no number you are after? Wonder!
>
> Please don't tell me that is in your mind since I had faced many mental cases like that
> Hence you're well-known mathematical (e) number is in fact neither the constant number nor existing FOR SURE
>
> Not because there is no infinity anymore to hide behind but because the rational number field is also non-ending
>
> And you can't naturally stop at some given large integer since this must collapse your complete idiocy about the classification of what is the real number
> Hence, e is no existing number at all, FOR SURE
>
> So, your turn to answer (x^25 - x^5 - 1 = 0)
>
> So, dare to say (x = ???)
> Don't worry, Wolfram Alpha say it with a full mouth, it is so easy FOR SURE
>
> Ask a friend or the whole world about it, we want to enjoy the EXPERT professional answers since I didn't laugh for a day, sure
>
> BKK