On 5/31/2021 2:45 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> at an infinitesimal difference like
> zero the scale will not tip....

So they are exactly the same, and the difference is exactly 0, Roy.

On 5/31/2021 3:07 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 12:06:10 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 5/31/2021 2:45 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> at an infinitesimal difference like
>>> zero the scale will not tip....
>> So they are exactly the same, and the difference is exactly 0, Roy.
>
> No. They are not an absolute equality. Equality goes beyond it...
>
Nobody cares about your dumb opinion, Roy.

In math, two numbers are exactly equal or they are not equal at all. All
of your crying "not so!" doesn't make a bit of difference.

Did you ask Google what it means for the real numbers to be Archimedean
yet, so you can learn from your mistake?

On 5/31/2021 6:17 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 2:25:21 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 5/31/2021 3:07 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 12:06:10 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 5/31/2021 2:45 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> at an infinitesimal difference like
>>>>> zero the scale will not tip....
>>>> So they are exactly the same, and the difference is exactly 0, Roy.
>
> No. They are different by the smallest...

Which is zero, and they are exactly the same.
>
>>> No. They are not an absolute equality. Equality goes beyond it...
>>>
>> Nobody cares about your dumb opinion, Roy.

>> In math, two numbers are exactly equal or they are not equal at all. All of your crying "not so!" doesn't make a bit of difference.

>> Did you ask Google what it means for the real numbers to be Archimedean yet, so you can learn from your mistake?

> Unlimited small difference won't tilt the algebraic scale.

A difference of zero won't change a scale, correct.

> It shares a sameness to zero but is first quantity...

Because it is zero, Roy.

On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 8:04:45 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 5/31/2021 6:17 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 2:25:21 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 5/31/2021 3:07 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 12:06:10 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 5/31/2021 2:45 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> at an infinitesimal difference like
> >>>>> zero the scale will not tip....
> >>>> So they are exactly the same, and the difference is exactly 0, Roy.
> >
> > No. They are different by the smallest...
> Which is zero, and they are exactly the same.
> >
> >>> No. They are not an absolute equality. Equality goes beyond it...
> >>>
> >> Nobody cares about your dumb opinion, Roy.
>
> >> In math, two numbers are exactly equal or they are not equal at all. All of your crying "not so!" doesn't make a bit of difference.
>
> >> Did you ask Google what it means for the real numbers to be Archimedean yet, so you can learn from your mistake?
> > Unlimited small difference won't tilt the algebraic scale.
> A difference of zero won't change a scale, correct.
> > It shares a sameness to zero but is first quantity...
> Because it is zero, Roy.

No. zero and first quantity just behave the same in math...
They are closest to each other.

Mitchell Raemsch

On 6/1/2021 3:29 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 8:04:45 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 5/31/2021 6:17 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> It shares a sameness to zero but is first quantity...
>> Because it is zero, Roy.
>
> No. zero and first quantity just behave the same in math...

So you admit they are the same! That's what we've been trying to tell
you, Roy Masters!

onsdag 2 juni 2021 kl. 01:05:33 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 3:48:49 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 6/1/2021 3:29 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 8:04:45 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >> On 5/31/2021 6:17 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>> It shares a sameness to zero but is first quantity...
> > >> Because it is zero, Roy.
> > >
> > > No. zero and first quantity just behave the same in math...
> > So you admit they are the same!
> They behave that way alone. There is another kind of
> equality that is different by the smallest but math
> will not admit to that truth now will it?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

given real numbers are archimedian, you are entirely wrong.

On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 7:05:33 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 3:48:49 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 6/1/2021 3:29 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 8:04:45 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >> On 5/31/2021 6:17 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>> It shares a sameness to zero but is first quantity...
> > >> Because it is zero, Roy.
> > >
> > > No. zero and first quantity just behave the same in math...
> > So you admit they are the same!
> They behave that way alone. There is another kind of
> equality that is different by the smallest but math
> will not admit to that truth now will it?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

Well by the title of this thread Mitch is finally near to adopting polysign numbers. The balance can be had in large values:
- 1000.01 + 1000.01 = 0 !
or more generally:
- x + x = 0
or even more generally:
sum over s ( s x ) = 0.
And now the three-signed version...
- x + x * x = 0 ...
tada!
As P2 (the reals) demand the line for their geometry P3 demand the plane right there from that solitary line. This is balance. That the coordinate system which develops the plane is not an orthogonal coordinate system; here lays a detail yet to be digested by the Cartesian thinkers, who have named their system inaccurately, for DesCartes never adopted this coordinate system. Euler perhaps did, but I haven't done the research. That's third hand for you.

Descartes did in fact operate close to Mitch's assumptions, which reject the negative value outright; he called them false roots when they showed up in his equations. He was a true geometer, and this does expose the time line quite nicely for when geometry and the real line as two-signed got coupled up; roughly four hundred years ago.

Now in hindsight of polysign it is possible to ask whether the Cartesian product builds the plane as RxR, or is this merely a representation of the plane as a pre-existent object? As we take two straight-edges and lay them up against each other it is not as if anything magical happens when they pass through 90 degrees in contact with each other. Consider that back on the individual real line you had that algebraic demand of balance of the two signs. Yes, there the geometry is much more constructed, and so as we transition our habituated brains upward and onward to general sign we should be able to admit that the three-signed numbers are that much more pure in their construction of the plane.

As a corollary to this thinking, or possibly an earlier postulate: the ray is more fundamental than the line. That our numbers can and do carry a discrete sign connected with a supposedly continuous magnitude... this is merely a matter of applying structured thinking to arrive at the correct solution. That ordinary space need not claim six directions, but instead can be done in four; is this a gain? Shiver away and return to your comfort zone, weaklings...

No, really, I do see some considering polysign numbers here. As to how big a discovery they are... no, really, they are quite low down in the hierarchy. They presume such a fundamental position that I can go over to operator theory in search of new operators without as much as a glance. But where are all the new operators? Good gravy; let academia in here and we'll be swamped in detritus of detritus upon detritused details and transmogorphical namings and subcategoricationalizations. The modern mathematician surely must abhor the compiler level integrity that the computing machines run their best code on. Their own compilations do suffer massive structural failures. This is how this stuff works, people.

I'd like to get further to the bottom of things. It's a shame that it has become such a smelly place. The ones who pass this way and succeed through the bottleneck are selected for what exactly? Mimicry, as far as I can tell. To state an opening or to relate to a new interpretation is not their beverage. Still, there are purists who believe that they can individually start from scratch... yeah, and what, recover all of existing mathematical verbiage because it is perfect? Give me a break. That there is a protection racket in higher mathematics departments I find entirely believable. Do we really need it anymore? Isn't participation on the internet enough for the person with a curious mind? No... apparently not; it takes quite a bit more to become inculcated, and this paints the problem fairly clearly. (Lots of negative hand waiving here)

On 6/1/2021 7:05 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 3:48:49 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 6/1/2021 3:29 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 8:04:45 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 5/31/2021 6:17 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> It shares a sameness to zero but is first quantity...
>>>> Because it is zero, Roy.
>>>
>>> No. zero and first quantity just behave the same in math...
>> So you admit they are the same!
>
> They behave that way alone.

Because they are the same!

> but math will not admit to that truth now will it?
>
But why is that "truth", Moronic Mitch? Because you say so? No, sorry,
"truth" in math can be shown by mathematical proofs. Show us your
mathematical proofs or admit you're wrong.

On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 7:30:56 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 6/1/2021 7:05 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 3:48:49 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 6/1/2021 3:29 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 8:04:45 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 5/31/2021 6:17 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> It shares a sameness to zero but is first quantity...
> >>>> Because it is zero, Roy.
> >>>
> >>> No. zero and first quantity just behave the same in math...
> >> So you admit they are the same!
> >
> > They behave that way alone.
> Because they are the same!

No. They are not absolutely equal.
They are infinitely close instead...

> > but math will not admit to that truth now will it?
> >
> But why is that "truth", Moronic Mitch? Because you say so? No, sorry,

No. Because truth is truth no matter where it comes from you moron...
Zero math is a win by truth...

> "truth" in math can be shown by mathematical proofs. Show us your
> mathematical proofs or admit you're wrong.

..999 repeating and one are not the same quantity.
They are different by Calculus first infinite small.

Mitchell Raemsch

On 6/2/2021 3:26 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 7:30:56 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 6/1/2021 7:05 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 3:48:49 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 6/1/2021 3:29 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 8:04:45 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/31/2021 6:17 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> It shares a sameness to zero but is first quantity...
>>>>>> Because it is zero, Roy.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. zero and first quantity just behave the same in math...
>>>> So you admit they are the same!
>>>
>>> They behave that way alone.
>> Because they are the same!
>

> They are infinitely close instead...

Meaning they are exactly the same!
>
>>> but math will not admit to that truth now will it?
>>>
>> But why is that "truth", Moronic Mitch? Because you say so? No, sorry,
>
> No. Because truth is truth no matter where it comes from you moron...

I know that. But why is your blithering "truth", and why isn't what
mathematicians say is true not the truth?
>
>> "truth" in math can be shown by mathematical proofs. Show us your
>> mathematical proofs or admit you're wrong.
>
> .999 repeating and one are not the same quantity.
> They are different by Calculus first infinite small.

I asked for a proof, not more blithering. Give me a proof.

On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 1:07:45 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 6/2/2021 3:26 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 7:30:56 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 6/1/2021 7:05 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 3:48:49 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 6/1/2021 3:29 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 8:04:45 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/31/2021 6:17 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> It shares a sameness to zero but is first quantity...
> >>>>>> Because it is zero, Roy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No. zero and first quantity just behave the same in math...
> >>>> So you admit they are the same!
> >>>
> >>> They behave that way alone.
> >> Because they are the same!
> >
> > They are infinitely close instead...
> Meaning they are exactly the same!
> >
> >>> but math will not admit to that truth now will it?
> >>>
> >> But why is that "truth", Moronic Mitch? Because you say so? No, sorry,
> >
> > No. Because truth is truth no matter where it comes from you moron...
> I know that. But why is your blithering "truth", and why isn't what
> mathematicians say is true not the truth?
> >
> >> "truth" in math can be shown by mathematical proofs. Show us your
> >> mathematical proofs or admit you're wrong.
> >
> > .999 repeating and one are not the same quantity.
> > They are different by Calculus first infinite small.
> I asked for a proof, not more blithering. Give me a proof.

What is your disproof. Calculus saw that the infinitesimal
behaves like zero but is a quantity where zero is not...

Mitchell Raemsch

On 6/2/2021 4:58 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 1:07:45 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 6/2/2021 3:26 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 7:30:56 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 6/1/2021 7:05 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 3:48:49 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/1/2021 3:29 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 8:04:45 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2021 6:17 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It shares a sameness to zero but is first quantity...
>>>>>>>> Because it is zero, Roy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. zero and first quantity just behave the same in math...
>>>>>> So you admit they are the same!
>>>>>
>>>>> They behave that way alone.
>>>> Because they are the same!
>>>
>>> They are infinitely close instead...
>> Meaning they are exactly the same!
>>>
>>>>> but math will not admit to that truth now will it?
>>>>>
>>>> But why is that "truth", Moronic Mitch? Because you say so? No, sorry,
>>>
>>> No. Because truth is truth no matter where it comes from you moron...
>> I know that. But why is your blithering "truth", and why isn't what
>> mathematicians say is true not the truth?
>>>
>>>> "truth" in math can be shown by mathematical proofs. Show us your
>>>> mathematical proofs or admit you're wrong.
>>>
>>> .999 repeating and one are not the same quantity.
>>> They are different by Calculus first infinite small.
>> I asked for a proof, not more blithering. Give me a proof.
>
> What is your disproof. Calculus saw that the infinitesimal
> behaves like zero but is a quantity where zero is not...
>
I asked you for your proof, not for even more of your blithering.
Remember, your "infinitely small" is your claim, you have to support
it.If you want a disproof, Zelos already gave you your link to
Archimedean numbers. Read it.

onsdag 2 juni 2021 kl. 21:26:33 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 7:30:56 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 6/1/2021 7:05 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 3:48:49 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >> On 6/1/2021 3:29 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 8:04:45 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >>>> On 5/31/2021 6:17 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>> It shares a sameness to zero but is first quantity...
> > >>>> Because it is zero, Roy.
> > >>>
> > >>> No. zero and first quantity just behave the same in math...
> > >> So you admit they are the same!
> > >
> > > They behave that way alone.
> > Because they are the same!
> No. They are not absolutely equal.
> They are infinitely close instead...
> > > but math will not admit to that truth now will it?
> > >
> > But why is that "truth", Moronic Mitch? Because you say so? No, sorry,
> No. Because truth is truth no matter where it comes from you moron...
> Zero math is a win by truth...
> > "truth" in math can be shown by mathematical proofs. Show us your
> > mathematical proofs or admit you're wrong.
> .999 repeating and one are not the same quantity.
> They are different by Calculus first infinite small.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
There are no infinitesimals in reals, I have shown you already that real numbers are archimedian

onsdag 2 juni 2021 kl. 23:32:44 UTC+2 skrev Michael Moroney:
> On 6/2/2021 4:58 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 1:07:45 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 6/2/2021 3:26 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 7:30:56 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 6/1/2021 7:05 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 3:48:49 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/1/2021 3:29 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 8:04:45 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/31/2021 6:17 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> It shares a sameness to zero but is first quantity...
> >>>>>>>> Because it is zero, Roy.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No. zero and first quantity just behave the same in math...
> >>>>>> So you admit they are the same!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They behave that way alone.
> >>>> Because they are the same!
> >>>
> >>> They are infinitely close instead...
> >> Meaning they are exactly the same!
> >>>
> >>>>> but math will not admit to that truth now will it?
> >>>>>
> >>>> But why is that "truth", Moronic Mitch? Because you say so? No, sorry,
> >>>
> >>> No. Because truth is truth no matter where it comes from you moron...
> >> I know that. But why is your blithering "truth", and why isn't what
> >> mathematicians say is true not the truth?
> >>>
> >>>> "truth" in math can be shown by mathematical proofs. Show us your
> >>>> mathematical proofs or admit you're wrong.
> >>>
> >>> .999 repeating and one are not the same quantity.
> >>> They are different by Calculus first infinite small.
> >> I asked for a proof, not more blithering. Give me a proof.
> >
> > What is your disproof. Calculus saw that the infinitesimal
> > behaves like zero but is a quantity where zero is not...
> >
> I asked you for your proof, not for even more of your blithering.
> Remember, your "infinitely small" is your claim, you have to support
> it.If you want a disproof, Zelos already gave you your link to
> Archimedean numbers. Read it.
Sure did!

https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Archimedean_Principle

here it si again for you mitch!