If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.000...1 (also imagined to be an infinitesimal by many morons).

0.999... = [a_0.999...]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]=1

0.000...1 = [a_0.000...1]=[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=0

The sum of two Cauchy sequences is another Cauchy sequence whose limit is the sum of the previous two sequences:

[a_0.999...]+[a_0.000...1]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]+[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=1+0=1

Thus, according to mainstream morons, 0.000...1 is not greater than 0 mind you, not less than 0, but exactly equal to 0!

LMAO. The 0.999... Wikipedia entry had some similar bullshit about 0.999... and 1 until I ridiculed them so much, they removed it.

Mainstream math academics are incorrigibly stupid fucks and there is nothing that can be done to fix them:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH

On Monday, 28 June 2021 at 20:33:27 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.000...1 (also imagined to be an infinitesimal by many morons).
>
> 0.999... = [a_0.999...]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]=1
>
> 0.000...1 = [a_0.000...1]=[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=0
>
> The sum of two Cauchy sequences is another Cauchy sequence whose limit is the sum of the previous two sequences:
>
> [a_0.999...]+[a_0.000...1]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]+[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=1+0=1
>
> Thus, according to mainstream morons, 0.000...1 is not greater than 0 mind you, not less than 0, but exactly equal to 0!
>
> LMAO. The 0.999... Wikipedia entry had some similar bullshit about 0.999... and 1 until I ridiculed them so much, they removed it.
>
> Mainstream math academics are incorrigibly stupid fucks and there is nothing that can be done to fix them:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH

Students:

As you can see, the dumb bastards of mainstream math academia are telling you that there are two valid representations of zero! Chuckle. They just keep getting dumber, more vile, more dishonest, more fucked up as time goes by....

On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 5:44:52 PM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Monday, 28 June 2021 at 20:33:27 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.000...1 (also imagined to be an infinitesimal by many morons).
> >
> > 0.999... = [a_0.999...]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]=1
> >
> > 0.000...1 = [a_0.000...1]=[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=0
> >
> > The sum of two Cauchy sequences is another Cauchy sequence whose limit is the sum of the previous two sequences:
> >
> > [a_0.999...]+[a_0.000...1]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]+[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=1+0=1
> >
> > Thus, according to mainstream morons, 0.000...1 is not greater than 0 mind you, not less than 0, but exactly equal to 0!
> >
> > LMAO. The 0.999... Wikipedia entry had some similar bullshit about 0.999... and 1 until I ridiculed them so much, they removed it.
> >
> > Mainstream math academics are incorrigibly stupid fucks and there is nothing that can be done to fix them:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
> Students:
>
> As you can see, the dumb bastards of mainstream math academia are telling you that there are two valid representations of zero! Chuckle. They just keep getting dumber, more vile, more dishonest, more fucked up as time goes by....

They are beginning of math... a no quantity and an infinitely small.
First calculus was right to suggest they behave the same...

Mitchell Raemsch

On 6/28/2021 5:33 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.000...1 (also imagined to be an infinitesimal by many morons).
>
> 0.999... = [a_0.999...]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]=1
>
> 0.000...1 = [a_0.000...1]=[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=0
>
> The sum of two Cauchy sequences is another Cauchy sequence whose limit is the sum of the previous two sequences:
>
> [a_0.999...]+[a_0.000...1]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]+[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=1+0=1
>
> Thus, according to mainstream morons, 0.000...1 is not greater than 0 mind you, not less than 0, but exactly equal to 0!
>
> LMAO. The 0.999... Wikipedia entry had some similar bullshit about 0.999... and 1 until I ridiculed them so much, they removed it.
>
> Mainstream math academics are incorrigibly stupid fucks and there is nothing that can be done to fix them:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
>

Have you ever tried to use your technique to find roots in a Newton Fractal?

On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 8:33:27 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.000...1 (also imagined to be an infinitesimal by many morons).
>
> 0.999... = [a_0.999...]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]=1
>

I think you mean an infinite geometric series 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ... = 0.9 / (1 - 0.1) = 1

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series after you complete your GED course.

> [a_0.000...1]=[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=0

I think you mean lim (n-->oo): 10^(-n) = 0

WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't become a victim of JG's fake math

JG here claims to have a discovered as shortcut to mastering calculus without using limits. Unfortunately for him, this means he has no workable a definition of the derivative of a function. It blows up for functions as simple f(x)=|x|. Or even f(x)=0. As a result, he has had to ban 0, negative numbers and instantaneous rates of change rendering his goofy little system quite useless. What a moron!

Forget calculus. JG has also banned all axioms because he cannot even derive the most elementary results of basic arithmetic, e.g. 2+2=4. Such results require a few axioms, so he figures he's now off the hook. Again, what a moron!

Even at his advanced age (60+?), John Gabriel is STILL struggling with basic, elementary-school arithmetic. As he has repeatedly posted here:

"There are no points on a line."
--April 12, 2021

"Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
--July 10, 2020

"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017

“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015

"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
--October 28, 2017

"Zero is not a number."
-- Dec. 2, 2019

"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017

“There is no such thing as an empty set.”
--Oct. 4, 2019

“3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
--Oct. 22, 2019

No math genius our JG, though he actually lists his job title as “mathematician” at Linkedin.com. Apparently, they do not verify your credentials.

Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated March 10, 2020) at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog a http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

On Monday, 28 June 2021 at 20:44:52 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Monday, 28 June 2021 at 20:33:27 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.000...1 (also imagined to be an infinitesimal by many morons).
> >
> > 0.999... = [a_0.999...]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]=1
> >
> > 0.000...1 = [a_0.000...1]=[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=0
> >
> > The sum of two Cauchy sequences is another Cauchy sequence whose limit is the sum of the previous two sequences:
> >
> > [a_0.999...]+[a_0.000...1]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]+[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=1+0=1
> >
> > Thus, according to mainstream morons, 0.000...1 is not greater than 0 mind you, not less than 0, but exactly equal to 0!
> >
> > LMAO. The 0.999... Wikipedia entry had some similar bullshit about 0.999... and 1 until I ridiculed them so much, they removed it.
> >
> > Mainstream math academics are incorrigibly stupid fucks and there is nothing that can be done to fix them:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
> Students:
>
> As you can see, the dumb bastards of mainstream math academia are telling you that there are two valid representations of zero! Chuckle. They just keep getting dumber, more vile, more dishonest, more fucked up as time goes by....

Those who most opposed me on Wikipedia (morons such as Arthur Rubin, Michael Hardy, etc) are now retired and enjoying a nice pension after years of being paid way more than they were worth and taking your tuition fees to brainwash you with the utter garbage that is mainstream mathematics. And where are those of you who followed these fools like sheep, today?

There is ONLY one rigorous formulation of calculus in human history, the New Calculus:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view

It is free of ALL bullshit concepts such as infinity, infinitesimals and the rot of limit theory.

On 6/28/2021 5:33 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999..,

Give it a rest you retarded mouthload of Bolivian donkey bottoms.

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 4:44:46 AM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Monday, 28 June 2021 at 20:44:52 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Monday, 28 June 2021 at 20:33:27 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.000...1 (also imagined to be an infinitesimal by many morons).
> > >
> > > 0.999... = [a_0.999...]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]=1
> > >
> > > 0.000...1 = [a_0.000...1]=[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=0
> > >
> > > The sum of two Cauchy sequences is another Cauchy sequence whose limit is the sum of the previous two sequences:
> > >
> > > [a_0.999...]+[a_0.000...1]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]+[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=1+0=1
> > >
> > > Thus, according to mainstream morons, 0.000...1 is not greater than 0 mind you, not less than 0, but exactly equal to 0!
> > >
> > > LMAO. The 0.999... Wikipedia entry had some similar bullshit about 0.999... and 1 until I ridiculed them so much, they removed it.
> > >
> > > Mainstream math academics are incorrigibly stupid fucks and there is nothing that can be done to fix them:
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
> > Students:
> >
> > As you can see, the dumb bastards of mainstream math academia are telling you that there are two valid representations of zero! Chuckle. They just keep getting dumber, more vile, more dishonest, more fucked up as time goes by....
> Those who most opposed me on Wikipedia (morons such as Arthur Rubin, Michael Hardy, etc) are now retired and enjoying a nice pension after years of being paid way more than they were worth and taking your tuition fees to brainwash you with the utter garbage that is mainstream mathematics. And where are those of you who followed these fools like sheep, today?
>
> There is ONLY one rigorous formulation of calculus in human history, the New Calculus:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view
>
> It is free of ALL bullshit concepts such as infinity, infinitesimals and the rot of limit theory.

You are leaving something out you moron...
Infinity is quantity going up forever.
Remember your infinite sequence?
Can you take it back?

Mitchell Raemsch

On Tuesday, 29 June 2021 at 13:12:05 UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 4:44:46 AM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Monday, 28 June 2021 at 20:44:52 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Monday, 28 June 2021 at 20:33:27 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.000...1 (also imagined to be an infinitesimal by many morons).
> > > >
> > > > 0.999... = [a_0.999...]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]=1
> > > >
> > > > 0.000...1 = [a_0.000...1]=[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=0
> > > >
> > > > The sum of two Cauchy sequences is another Cauchy sequence whose limit is the sum of the previous two sequences:
> > > >
> > > > [a_0.999...]+[a_0.000...1]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]+[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=1+0=1
> > > >
> > > > Thus, according to mainstream morons, 0.000...1 is not greater than 0 mind you, not less than 0, but exactly equal to 0!
> > > >
> > > > LMAO. The 0.999... Wikipedia entry had some similar bullshit about 0.999... and 1 until I ridiculed them so much, they removed it.
> > > >
> > > > Mainstream math academics are incorrigibly stupid fucks and there is nothing that can be done to fix them:
> > > >
> > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
> > > Students:
> > >
> > > As you can see, the dumb bastards of mainstream math academia are telling you that there are two valid representations of zero! Chuckle. They just keep getting dumber, more vile, more dishonest, more fucked up as time goes by....
> > Those who most opposed me on Wikipedia (morons such as Arthur Rubin, Michael Hardy, etc) are now retired and enjoying a nice pension after years of being paid way more than they were worth and taking your tuition fees to brainwash you with the utter garbage that is mainstream mathematics. And where are those of you who followed these fools like sheep, today?
> >
> > There is ONLY one rigorous formulation of calculus in human history, the New Calculus:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view
> >
> > It is free of ALL bullshit concepts such as infinity, infinitesimals and the rot of limit theory.
> You are leaving something out you moron...
> Infinity is quantity going up forever.
> Remember your infinite sequence?
> Can you take it back?

Shut the fuck up. You're an idiot and you have no business on this newsgroup. Go away now!

>
> Mitchell Raemsch

On 6/29/2021 7:14 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 June 2021 at 13:12:05 UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 4:44:46 AM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>> There is ONLY one rigorous formulation of calculus in human history, the New Calculus:
>>>
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view
>>>
>>> It is free of ALL bullshit concepts such as infinity, infinitesimals and the rot of limit theory.
>> You are leaving something out you moron...
>> Infinity is quantity going up forever.
>> Remember your infinite sequence?
>> Can you take it back?
>
> Shut the fuck up. You're an idiot and you have no business on this newsgroup. Go away now!
>
Kꚙkfight!!!

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 2:44:52 AM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:

> If you accept [...] concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept [...] concepts such as 0.000...1

Where did you get that nonsense from, dumb?

Just another delusion?

On Tuesday, 29 June 2021 at 20:07:08 UTC-4, Greg Cunt wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 2:44:52 AM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> > If you accept [...] concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept [...] concepts such as 0.000...1
>
> Where did you get that nonsense from, dumb?

Hello Moron.

Perhaps if you took Real Analysis as part of a uni. math course, you might know.

0.000...1 is a well-formed Cauchy sequence according to the bullshit of mainstream theory.

It is exactly equal to 0.

Shut the fuck up and go away Mr. Cunt.

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 1:31:09 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:

> 0.000...1 is a well-formed Cauchy sequence according to the bullshit of mainstream theory.

Oh, really?! Can you point out a single source (internet or textbook) to prove your idiotic claim, dumbo?

On 6/30/2021 4:31 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:

Shut up idiot.

Eram semper recta wrote:

>
> 0.000...1 is a well-formed Cauchy sequence according to the bullshit of mainstream theory.

You don't know what a Cauchy sequence is.

--
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here
Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 4:31:09 AM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 June 2021 at 20:07:08 UTC-4, Greg Cunt wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 2:44:52 AM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >
> > > If you accept [...] concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept [...] concepts such as 0.000...1
> >
> > Where did you get that nonsense from, dumb?
> Hello Moron.
>
> Perhaps if you took Real Analysis as part of a uni. math course, you might know.
>
> 0.000...1 is a well-formed Cauchy sequence according to the bullshit of mainstream theory.
>
> It is exactly equal to 0.

No. The zero is no quantity but 1 is a quantity.
They do share a sameness by being fundamentally
equal. There is more than one equality. It is above
zero infinitesimal difference.
It is the reason for .9 repeating and 1 not being the
same quantity... only infinitely close on a number
line.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 13:30:45 UTC-4, Peter wrote:
> Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> >
> > 0.000...1 is a well-formed Cauchy sequence according to the bullshit of mainstream theory.
> You don't know what a Cauchy sequence is.

Really? Are you saying that 0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ... is not a Cauchy sequence, you stupid fuck?

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 8:19:46 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:

> Are you saying that (0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...) is not a Cauchy sequence?

Sure it is. The decimal representation for the real number "related" to that Cauchy sequence is

0.000...

You know.

On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 5:33:27 PM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept ill-formed

Zero is not a quantity or a physical size.
After the first real no quantity in calculus
there is the first real fundamental...

On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 14:45:43 UTC-4, Greg Cunt wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 8:19:46 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> > Are you saying that (0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...) is not a Cauchy sequence?
>
> Sure it is. The decimal representation for the real number "related" to that Cauchy sequence is

Good on you, Mr. Cunt! You finally got one thing right - you know what is a Cauchy sequence! Chuckle.

> 0.000...

Meh. You could write nothing in your radix template and that would represent 0. However, 0.000...1 is just another representation of an infinite decimal expansion, no? Why should every other number have two representations and not the pretend number 0? ROFLMAO.

Why do you hate it so much? You've got no problem with 0.333... and 0.999.... being infinite.

LMAO.

>
> You know.

On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 16:55:15 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 14:45:43 UTC-4, Greg Cunt wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 8:19:46 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >
> > > Are you saying that (0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...) is not a Cauchy sequence?
> >
> > Sure it is. The decimal representation for the real number "related" to that Cauchy sequence is
> Good on you, Mr. Cunt! You finally got one thing right - you know what is a Cauchy sequence! Chuckle.
>
> > 0.000...
>
> Meh. You could write nothing in your radix template and that would represent 0. However, 0.000...1 is just another representation of an infinite decimal expansion, no? Why should every other number have two representations and not the pretend number 0? ROFLMAO.
>
> Why do you hate it so much? You've got no problem with 0.333... and 0.999.... being infinite.

Let me show you from a different perspective.

0.333... means there is a 3 always following.
0.000...1 means there is a 0 always following.

What's the difference?

You just don't like that "1" there, eh? Is there ANY term in the sequence (0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...) that does not have a "1" in it? Of course not! They ALL have "1" in them. Forever and ever.

LMAO. You pathetic piece of shit.

Chuckle.

>
> LMAO.
>
> >
> > You know.

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 2:00:29 PM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 16:55:15 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 14:45:43 UTC-4, Greg Cunt wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 8:19:46 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >
> > > > Are you saying that (0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...) is not a Cauchy sequence?
> > >
> > > Sure it is. The decimal representation for the real number "related" to that Cauchy sequence is
> > Good on you, Mr. Cunt! You finally got one thing right - you know what is a Cauchy sequence! Chuckle.
> >
> > > 0.000...
> >
> > Meh. You could write nothing in your radix template and that would represent 0. However, 0.000...1 is just another representation of an infinite decimal expansion, no? Why should every other number have two representations and not the pretend number 0? ROFLMAO.
> >
> > Why do you hate it so much? You've got no problem with 0.333... and 0.999... being infinite.
> Let me show you from a different perspective.
>
> 0.333... means there is a 3 always following.
> 0.000...1 means there is a 0 always following.

There can be a 1 on the end of .000 repeating.
Add that to .999 repeating and you get the next
quantity of the first integer or 1...

Mitchell Raemsch

On 6/30/2021 2:00 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 16:55:15 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 14:45:43 UTC-4, Greg Cunt wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 8:19:46 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are you saying that (0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...) is not a Cauchy sequence?
>>>
>>> Sure it is. The decimal representation for the real number "related" to that Cauchy sequence is
>> Good on you, Mr. Cunt! You finally got one thing right - you know what is a Cauchy sequence! Chuckle.
>>
>>> 0.000...
>>
>> Meh. You could write nothing in your radix template and that would represent 0. However, 0.000...1 is just another representation of an infinite decimal expansion, no? Why should every other number have two representations and not the pretend number 0? ROFLMAO.
>>
>> Why do you hate it so much? You've got no problem with 0.333... and 0.999... being infinite.
>
> Let me show you from a different perspective.
>
> 0.333... means there is a 3 always following.
> 0.000...1 means there is a 0 always following.

Huh? You mean there is always a one on the end of it, right?

..0000001
..00000001
..000000001

....

>
> What's the difference?
>
> You just don't like that "1" there, eh? Is there ANY term in the sequence (0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...) that does not have a "1" in it? Of course not! They ALL have "1" in them. Forever and ever.
>
>
> LMAO. You pathetic piece of shit.
>
> Chuckle.
>
>>
>> LMAO.
>>
>>>
>>> You know.

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 11:00:29 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:

> 0.000...1 means <bla>

It doesn't mean anything, it's just nonsense made up by you, bird brain.

Btw. I asked for a single source (internet or textbook) to prove your idiotic claim.

You know your claim "0.000...1 is a well-formed Cauchy sequence according to the bullshit of mainstream theory."

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 4:59:31 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/30/2021 2:00 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 16:55:15 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 14:45:43 UTC-4, Greg Cunt wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 8:19:46 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Are you saying that (0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...) is not a Cauchy sequence?
> >>>
> >>> Sure it is. The decimal representation for the real number "related" to that Cauchy sequence is
> >> Good on you, Mr. Cunt! You finally got one thing right - you know what is a Cauchy sequence! Chuckle.
> >>
> >>> 0.000...
> >>
> >> Meh. You could write nothing in your radix template and that would represent 0. However, 0.000...1 is just another representation of an infinite decimal expansion, no? Why should every other number have two representations and not the pretend number 0? ROFLMAO.
> >>
> >> Why do you hate it so much? You've got no problem with 0.333... and 0.999... being infinite.
> >
> > Let me show you from a different perspective.
> >
> > 0.333... means there is a 3 always following.
> > 0.000...1 means there is a 0 always following.
> Huh? You mean there is always a one on the end of it, right?
>
> .0000001
> .00000001
> .000000001
>
> ...
>

If that is zero repeating with a one that is the first quantity in math.

Mitchell Raemsch