If √infinity can be calculated, then we can know the number of numbers.

This makes no sense.

Only thing, that makes sense is
infinity=√infinity --------> infinity*infinity=infinity --------> infinity = 1

Begin to count the number of Logical Fallacies committed here. Of course the write must never have studied logic.
His first sentence is a disconnect-- the conclusion does not follow from premiss.

But the biggest mistake is the fool talks about infinity, yet never defines what the hell it is.

Certainly does not belong in sci.math. Maybe it is a AI robot who was neglected in having its head oiled and lubricated.

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:38:17 PM UTC-5, L wrote:
> If √infinity can be calculated, then we can know the number of numbers.
>
> This makes no sense.
>
> Only thing, that makes sense is
> infinity=√infinity --------> infinity*infinity=infinity --------> infinity = 1

On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 6:38:17 AM UTC+3, L wrote:
> If √infinity can be calculated, then we can know the number of numbers.
>
> This makes no sense.
>
> Only thing, that makes sense is
> infinity=√infinity --------> infinity*infinity=infinity --------> infinity = 1

The problem of one actually the most difficult concept that humans generally cannot comprehend, where one is infact not a number but one is the true creator of any existing number

Something that is extremely too difficult to be well-understood strictly by mathematicians, logicians, philosophers, ..., etc
Illustration: people generally believe that (1^2 =1), & also (1^3 = 1), then they stupidly conclude that (1^2 = 1^3), whereas the truth is (1^2) is an erea of a square with arbitrary existing unity side distance & (1^3) is the volume of a cube with arbitrary but existing unity side distance

So one isn't a number itself but a unity that can create the numbers or measures them as well

However; any real existing number is only the constructible number which can be an existing distance or an existing area
Also not every existing number must be a volume of a cube
Example: if P is a prime number; then P is absolutely impossible to be as a volume of any existing Cube

But usually humans do approximate things up to their capabilities & make false conclusions & believe themselves as if its a true rigorous proofs

Also humans can't comprehend yet that real numbers are absolutely discrete numbers that are only constructible numbers, FOR SURE

Bassam karzeddin

You’re reinforcing the stereotype of math nerds having zero social skills.

Catch 21 is NEW! NEW! NEW!

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:24:08 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Begin to count the number of Logical Fallacies committed here. Of course the write must never have studied logic.
> His first sentence is a disconnect-- the conclusion does not follow from premiss.
>
> But the biggest mistake is the fool talks about infinity, yet never defines what the hell it is.
>
> Certainly does not belong in sci.math. Maybe it is a AI robot who was neglected in having its head oiled and lubricated.
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:38:17 PM UTC-5, L wrote:
> > If √infinity can be calculated, then we can know the number of numbers.
> >
> > This makes no sense.
> >
> > Only thing, that makes sense is
> > infinity=√infinity --------> infinity*infinity=infinity --------> infinity = 1

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 11:38:17 PM UTC-4, L wrote:
> If √infinity can be calculated, then we can know the number of numbers.
>
> This makes no sense.
>
> Only thing, that makes sense is
> infinity=√infinity --------> infinity*infinity=infinity --------> infinity = 1

This presumes a singular infinity. It is agreeably nonsense.
Using digital analysis; as in a willingness to process digits, even in their radix ten form, would cause one to admit that there is no limit on the quantity of digits of the infinite value, and so values like:
333...33, 111...12
do make sense. Strangely, these values do allow computation, but it is of an inductive form. Classes can arise, as the product of two values requires the sum of their digits in quantity for the result, so that a value like 333...34555...51 should claim some superinfinite place.

Wiser still is probably to do away with this and settle for 10,000 as a large enough value... until you need something larger. The p-adic system I find to be in conflict with the straight inductive form. Then too, I bumped into a 'b-adic' form, but maybe that was just a typo done in data entry. They seem to abide that twice infinity is just infinity again, but twice the digits, now that is quite another thing. Using the digital analysis exposes natural analysis as having the creeps. Already these digital forms are far larger than their natural-built counterparts.

On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 6:38:17 AM UTC+3, L wrote:
> If √infinity can be calculated, then we can know the number of numbers.
>
> This makes no sense.
>
> Only thing, that makes sense is
> infinity=√infinity --------> infinity*infinity=infinity --------> infinity = 1

Instead, you have to ask the following question:

What is Square root of (No number)?
Isn't your infinity No number?
Or what is the Square root of a 🌳 tree?

Isn't a tree also No number?

Buy if such things with infinity ♾️ makes some lengthy unnecessary buissness for mathematickers where the rest are merely sheeples, then why not indeed?

BKK