Euler most definitely wrote in his Elements of Al-Gibberish:

Daher ist uns Bruch 1/(1+a) {Lim S} gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.

Therefore is our fraction 1/(1+a) {Lim S} equal this unending series 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.

In other words S = Lim S. Sure, Euler didn't write {Lim S} but what the fuck is 1/(1+a), you vomit worthy morons?!

He also didn't write {S}, but what the fuck is 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c, you incorrigible fuck wads?! Euler even tells you it is a **series** and I can call it by any letter of the alphabet I damn well please.

In other words, he didn't have to insert {S} and {Lim S} because it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that is exactly what he meant. Euler knew NOTHING about limit theory - NOTHING. Moreover, Euler believed completely that a super task is possible. To call such a one a "mathematician" of any sort is an insult to one's intelligence. One of the greatest Gauss had identical sentiments to mine.. Gauss rejected infinity.

NONE of your hand waving drivel will save you from my wrath. I shall continue to expose your syphilitic brains till my last breath. You are ALL filth that cannot be salvaged and my efforts are certainly not for your benefit! LMAO.

Anyone who subscribes to bullshit like 1/3 = 0.333... or even more laughable 1 = 0.999... is and ALWAYS will be a FUCKING CRANK!

Students:

My efforts are for you! Study the very theory that mainstream academics advocate but do not understand themselves:

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

Ignore all the troll responses because they are vacuous vomit.

On 7/6/2021 6:57 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> Euler most definitely wrote in his Elements of Al-Gibberish:
>
> Daher ist uns Bruch 1/(1+a) {Lim S} gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
>
> Therefore is our fraction 1/(1+a) {Lim S} equal this unending series 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
>
> In other words S = Lim S. Sure, Euler didn't write {Lim S}

Of course not! You scribbled it, not him!

> but what the fuck is 1/(1+a),

It is your misinterpretation of what he said.

> vomit worthy morons?!

Why do you refer to yourself in the plural?
>
> He also didn't write {S},

Because you also scribbled that!

> but what the fuck is 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c,

Your misinterpretation again.

> incorrigible fuck wads?!

Why you refer to yourself in the plural again?

> NONE of your hand waving drivel will save you from my wrath.

Wrath? Why is everyone laughing at you so hard?

> I shall continue to expose your syphilitic brains till my last breath.

Translation: "My idee fixe is so welded into my brain I cannot be cured.
I will suffer from my delusions for the rest of my life."

> Students:

You are becoming more and more like Plutonium. He addresses his posts to
a (sparse) audience of "readers" (and gets mad when they respond), while
you address yours to nonexistent "students" (nonexistent other than
perhaps abnormal psychology students studying YOU, not your "math").

On Tuesday, 6 July 2021 at 08:14:37 UTC-4, Michael MORONy wrote:
> On 7/6/2021 6:57 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >
> > Euler most definitely wrote in his Elements of Al-Gibberish:
> >
> > Daher ist uns Bruch 1/(1+a) {Lim S} gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
> >
> > Therefore is our fraction 1/(1+a) {Lim S} equal this unending series 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
> >
> > In other words S = Lim S. Sure, Euler didn't write {Lim S}
> Of course not! You scribbled it, not him!

Isn't 1/(1+a) the limit of the series, MORONey?

Once you get past this, we'll deal with the rest. Maybe your idiot buddies like Quantum Babbling can chip in to help you? Chuckle. He seems more interested in writing long essays on nonsense.

On Tuesday, 6 July 2021 at 09:07:35 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Tuesday, 6 July 2021 at 08:14:37 UTC-4, Michael MORONy wrote:
> > On 7/6/2021 6:57 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >
> > > Euler most definitely wrote in his Elements of Al-Gibberish:
> > >
> > > Daher ist uns Bruch 1/(1+a) {Lim S} gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
> > >
> > > Therefore is our fraction 1/(1+a) {Lim S} equal this unending series 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
> > >
> > > In other words S = Lim S. Sure, Euler didn't write {Lim S}
> > Of course not! You scribbled it, not him!
> Isn't 1/(1+a) the limit of the series, MORONey?

In other words, if you kept adding the terms in the series 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c , what do you suppose is that fraction which can never be reached? Hint: 1/(1+a)

Now I call 1/(1+a) by the name Lim S. There is nothing that prevents me from doing this, is there MORONey?

>
> Once you get past this, we'll deal with the rest. Maybe your idiot buddies like Quantum Babbling can chip in to help you? Chuckle. He seems more interested in writing long essays on nonsense.

On Tuesday, 6 July 2021 at 09:10:29 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Tuesday, 6 July 2021 at 09:07:35 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 6 July 2021 at 08:14:37 UTC-4, Michael MORONy wrote:
> > > On 7/6/2021 6:57 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Euler most definitely wrote in his Elements of Al-Gibberish:
> > > >
> > > > Daher ist uns Bruch 1/(1+a) {Lim S} gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore is our fraction 1/(1+a) {Lim S} equal this unending series 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
> > > >
> > > > In other words S = Lim S. Sure, Euler didn't write {Lim S}
> > > Of course not! You scribbled it, not him!
> > Isn't 1/(1+a) the limit of the series, MORONey?
> In other words, if you kept adding the terms in the series 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c , what do you suppose is that fraction which can never be reached? Hint: 1/(1+a)
>
> Now I call 1/(1+a) by the name Lim S. There is nothing that prevents me from doing this, is there MORONey?

Except perhaps an authoritative order from one of your high priests? LMAO

I piss and shit on you, MORONey!

> >
> > Once you get past this, we'll deal with the rest. Maybe your idiot buddies like Quantum Babbling can chip in to help you? Chuckle. He seems more interested in writing long essays on nonsense.

On 7/6/2021 12:22 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Tuesday, 6 July 2021 at 09:10:29 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:

>> Now I call 1/(1+a) by the name Lim S. There is nothing that prevents me from doing this, is there MORONey?
>
> Except perhaps an authoritative order from one of your high priests? LMAO

You call it what you want. We'll continue to laugh at your antics.
And just remember you call it that, but Euler never did.
>
> I piss and shit on you, MORONey!

I'm sorry that in addition to your mental issues, you also have bladder
and bowel control problems. May I suggest Depends? Or some other adult
diaper?

On Tuesday, 6 July 2021 at 12:28:29 UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 7/6/2021 12:22 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 6 July 2021 at 09:10:29 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> >> Now I call 1/(1+a) by the name Lim S. There is nothing that prevents me from doing this, is there MORONey?
> >
> > Except perhaps an authoritative order from one of your high priests? LMAO
> You call it what you want.

See people. The moron doesn't even attempt to answer the question.

> We'll continue to laugh at your antics.

LMAO. They are laughing at YOU, you BIG APE!!!! You are too stupid to know this.

<drivel>

On 7/6/2021 2:42 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Tuesday, 6 July 2021 at 12:28:29 UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 7/6/2021 12:22 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 6 July 2021 at 09:10:29 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>
>>>> Now I call 1/(1+a) by the name Lim S. There is nothing that prevents me from doing this, is there MORONey?
>>>
>>> Except perhaps an authoritative order from one of your high priests? LMAO
>> You call it what you want.
>
> See people. The moron doesn't even attempt to answer the question.
>
>> We'll continue to laugh at your antics.
>
> LMAO. They are laughing at YOU, you BIG APE!!!! You are too stupid to know this..

Yes we'll continue to laugh at your antics, such as now when you get all
mad and huffy and call me an ape. You're a great example of
psychological projection.
>
> <drivel>
>

We also laugh at your drivel, which is most of your posts.

On Tuesday, 6 July 2021 at 09:10:29 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Tuesday, 6 July 2021 at 09:07:35 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 6 July 2021 at 08:14:37 UTC-4, Michael MORONy wrote:
> > > On 7/6/2021 6:57 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Euler most definitely wrote in his Elements of Al-Gibberish:
> > > >
> > > > Daher ist uns Bruch 1/(1+a) {Lim S} gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore is our fraction 1/(1+a) {Lim S} equal this unending series 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
> > > >
> > > > In other words S = Lim S. Sure, Euler didn't write {Lim S}
> > > Of course not! You scribbled it, not him!
> > Isn't 1/(1+a) the limit of the series, MORONey?
> In other words, if you kept adding the terms in the series 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c , what do you suppose is that fraction which can never be reached? Hint: 1/(1+a)
>
> Now I call 1/(1+a) by the name Lim S. There is nothing that prevents me from doing this, is there MORONey?
> >
> > Once you get past this, we'll deal with the rest. Maybe your idiot buddies like Quantum Babbling can chip in to help you? Chuckle. He seems more interested in writing long essays on nonsense.

Students:

As you can see once again, the questions remain unanswered. There is not even a single attempt by the baboons of mainstream academia to refute anything in S = Lim S, because Euler defined

Series = Limit of Series

There are many other hand waving idiocies. One takes the form of "given a series a value", but if a series has a value that is its limit, then surely it can't be an infinite series any longer, can it? Chuckle.

It is clearly evident that there is no such thing as infinity and especially a super-task.

It is completely unremarkable that a rational number p/q has a repeating non-terminating measure in base b when b does not contain all the prime factors of q.

It is completely unremarkable that an incommensurable magnitude or ratio pi = c : 2r has a non-repeating non-terminating measure in any base, because wait for it morons ... pi is not a rational number! It's not a number of any kind! Chuckle.

So, infinite decimal expansions are mythology - these are ill-formed concepts that do not exist outside of dysfunctional brains.