On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 6:13:12 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 5:49:30 PM UTC+3, j4n bur53 wrote:
> > What is 2^{infinity}?
> >
> > Is {infinity} Wallis symbol?
> >
> > Do you know how it is used?
> Haven't you heard yet that *Infinity* IS NOT A NUMBER NOR ANYTHING ELSE? wonder!
> but it is a well-defined *CONCEPT* in your mathematics, isn't it MORON? wonder!
>
> So to say, 2^{n-->00} = 2^{well defined concept} = 2^{No number} = NO NUMBER, FOR SURE
>
>
> Oops, do you have a good catalogue about using infinity correctly such that no contradiction is ever allowed to be so clear even to school kids? wonder!
>
> Or is using infinity is restriected to MORONS of mathematics only? No wonder!
>
> Why don't go to WIKPIKI and try to save it by redefining it? Wonder!
>
> But please make sure to make it a number and also greater than any number absolutely, and don't forget as Wikipedia moron to handle it correctly in comparison with natural numbers, since natural numbers are truly too big to kick out your fiction infinity from all sections of false mathematics, FOR SURE
> BKK
> >
> > bassam king karzeddin schrieb:
> > > On Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 10:30:23 PM UTC+3, Mitch Raemsch wrote:
> > >> It is irrational...
> > >>
> > >> Mitchell Raemsch
> > >
> > > I'm truly not afraid to tell again and again the full truth about the story of *PI*
> > >
> > > 1) First of all, there is no existing circle (not only in physical reality but also in our so wrong imaginations or our wrong mere conceptions) to talk about *Pi* FOR SURE
> > > 2) So to say, what is the *TRUE* fact of *Pi* (the most worshipped non-existing object in mathematics)? wonder!
> > >
> > > 3) It is simply *Pi* a total property of *EXISTING* regular polygons FOR SURE
> > > Where the largest existing regular polygon (with a maximum number of sides doesn't exist)
> > >
> > > Where this property of regular existing polygons varies and a real constructible number and never a constant number as was taught to you *WRONGLY* in your early childhood in school
> > >
> > > And *Pi* can, therefore, be comparable or approximated in rational and decimal numbers the way people like to generally see it for the daily practical solution problems that actually require little comparison or approximations
> > >
> > > So, Remember very well, That *Pi* Is not for circle but for regular existing polygons
> > >
> > > Considering Vita formula for existing regular polygons with the number of sides say (2^n), we show how this generally works for *Pi*, (where (n) is a natural number)
> > >
> > > Now, considering (n = 8), (Let us denote it as Pi(n) = Pi(8))
> > >
> > > We get, Pi(8) = 8*sqrt(2-sqrt(2+sqrt(2))) = 3.121...
> > >
> > > So we have one accurate digit of *Pi* after the decimal notation
> > >
> > > Pi(32) = 32*sqrt(2-sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2))))) = 3.14033...
> > >
> > > So, with an existing regular polygon of (32) sides, we get two accurate digits
> > >
> > > Similarly, for Pi(64) we get
> > >
> > > Pi(64) = 64*sqrt(2-sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2)))))) = 3.141277...
> > >
> > > So you have three accurate digits
> > >
> > > Pi(128) is approximately (3.1415) (4 correct digits)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > And similarly, for Pi(2^10) = 3.141592..., we get (5 accurate digits)
> > > Pi(2^11) = 3.1415926..., you get (6 accurate digits)
> > >
> > > And so on..., as much of accurate digits as you can go, but not as you like or as you wish, with this the approximation formula for basically a real irrational but constructible number to compare with your rational decimals
> > >
> > > So, we prove here in the simplest common sense that *Pi* we are after was never related to a circle (unless we redefine correctly the circle as an existing regular polygon) and forget the older circle we know in our minds, FOR SURE
> > >
> > > **Note also, the constancy that was associated with the older wrong *Pi* is proven here to be absolute *WRONG* FOR SURE
> > >
> > > And of course, you can't go for Pi(2^{infinity}) in any case, Not only because there is No infinity to hide behind, but also it becomes total nonsense since this is absolutely an **IMPOSSIBLE** task beside the fact that infinity is not any existing number nor anything else to go or tend for FOR SURE
> > >
> > > So one might simply imagine this nonsense number
> > >
> > > 2^{infinity} = 2^{No number} = Total crab, FOR SURER
> > >
> > > So is *Pi* for the circle? Never and FOR SUREST
> > >
> > > Why?
> > > Because there is no circle and hence no *Pi* number for non-existing objects
> > > Good luck
> > > BKK
> > >