>What students think is that they need to understand. Your statement about what is mathematics is irrelevant because you have no clue what is mathematics

I know it far better than you :)

>It is very relevant and EVERYONE cares about it. So much so that morons like you are constantly arguing about it. The telling part is that even your fellow morons in the mainstream can't agree with you.

No one cares about it, that is why it is not used in any mathematical literature cause it is entirely meaningless.

>And that makes it relevant in mathematics? Get a clue, idiot.

Did I say it did? I never did :) You assumed. What I said is that humans have intuitive feelings for certain things within mathematics, which is a true statement just like within every field, and that it is nice when the formal and intuitive coincide, but they don't always do.

>You've never done a proof in your life. The fact that you constantly lie about me shows that you are one very desperate boy.

Besides my master thesis you mean?

>LMAO. That is not a proof. It is not even mathematics. Chuckle. I have already shown you in the past that if one uses sequences, you don't prove anything about numbers (the very concept you do not understand!).

It is a proof, it is mathematics, going "nu uh!" doesn't help you.

Sequences are used to CONSTRUCT real numbers. This is where your fixation on the word "number" do you problems. "Real numbers" is a system with certain properties, what the objects are is not important.

>The same drivel that is shown on that page could be used to "prove" that 0..999... < 1.

Try it.

>1 = [0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...] + [0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]
>
>From the above, one can infer that if 1 and 0.999... are the same, then there would be no sequence [0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...] which in fact bears no relation to 0 (a non-number) except that 0 is its limit. If you were honest, then you would recall that it was I who showed you this trick many months ago.

It belongs to the null-sequences equivalence class and hence is the 0 of this construction.

><<A sequence is NOT a number>>

Sequences are used to construct the real numbers, again, the properties of the field is what matters, not what the objects are.

>Not even in your bogus mythmatics is a sequence a number. In your laughable Wiki "proof", you add sequences as if they were numbers when in fact what you are doing is adding their limits.

Again, you fail to understand how number construction works.

>The ONLY weak support you have for this delusional claim is Euler's Blunder S = Lim S.

I have never claimed that, stop lying.

>It is indeed and this is why you should stop doing it!

I haven't lied, you however do it routinely.

>I regularly hear from mathematics teachers who write and post comments on my channel.

Cite the mathematical peer reviewed article citing your work. Everything else is irrelevant.

>ROFLMAO. Rubbish. An endomorphism (injective or not) proves NOTHING about infinity.

That is the definition of an infinite set. You asked for a definition, I gave you one. Stop moving the goal post.

>Saying "Nah Uh!" is just again your typical two year old arguing and being defiant.

Which is how you do whenever things don't fit your narrow desire of how you want things.

>It has been stated over and over again, not only here but in many other places. You are a crank who will simply repeat the same old drivel no matter where these things have been demonstrated.

Again, given I support the main view, I am by definition, NOT a crank.

You oppose it so YOU are the crank.

>ALL of those would not exist without the concept of NUMBER. Moreover, the ONLY parts of those topics that are useful are the ones that include number.. Those which do not are what morons like you use in your worthless school essays and dissertations. Topology as a subject is most laughable and useless. This is why topologists are awarded Abel prizes by their peers every year - baboons take care of their own.

They exist without numbers, there are many ways we can construct them and such that they do not use numbers. It is however usually more convinient to use numbers as they are well understood.

>I say that of you too, but how is such a comment even relevant in any discussion. Who gives a fuck about what morons do at university? The majority of them would not survive long outside a campus because like you they have no critical thinking skills besides the delusions they pretend shows them to be erudite.

Classical crank behavior, accusing of lack of critical thinking just because people disagree with you.

>You keep falling back on this drivel which is a well known <<fallacy of authority>>.

The fallacy is when I say "it is true because unrelated authority X says it is true", it is not a fallacy when one says "it is likely true when the vast majority of relevant experts agree it is true"

>Sorry, you'll never be allowed to peddle your drivel because you are a member of any university.

Anyone is allowed to say anything that they can back up. What you write however won't because the quality is absolutely garbage.

>When one supports drivel, one does not think independently. This defines YOU.

So that means you do not think independently.

>Has it ever occurred to you that that which is considered "established" may not be correct?

Yes, that is why I went to the basics, studied and concluded that I agree, it checks out.

>Over and over again, all you've proved is that you are a crank who never once was able to think independently. Like a good school boy you sucked up all the bullshit your teachers funneled into your brain in Sweden's public education.

Again, I agree with what is established, that instnatly excludes one from being a crank.

>It is a fallacy that only certain people have a talent for mathematics. Every normal person can master mathematics that is sound and taught correctly.. People like you have no talent. You simply memorise and follow what you are told without question believing it is established knowledge when it is no different than dogma.

People have talents for mathematics, but of all who does, you are not one of them. You have your pet ideas and refuse to accept anything that doesn't fit. Mathematics is much broader than you want it to be. You keep saying I only got it memorised, but no, I spent long time understanding the concepts behind, how they relate, how we build up mathematics from the foundations. Unlike you I actually understand how modern mathematics is structured and built.

>These things are evident over and over and over again when you are presented with facts and you simply shut your eyes and block your ears.

You stating your OPINION is not stating a fact.