If indeed those mythical objects called "real numbers" can be expressed as "infinite decimals", then the "real number set" is indeed countable:

https://youtu.be/hlqTuuhR3-4

A set is countable IFF its members can be listed systematically.

Equivalent statements:

A set is countable IFF its members can be indexed.

A set is countable IFF its members can be named systematically.

Cantor was an insane crank!

I am a genius and I do know better than you and anyone else.

On Sunday, July 18, 2021 at 9:01:46 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:

> If indeed those mythical objects called "real numbers" can be expressed as "infinite decimals", then the "real number set" is indeed countable:

Wrong again, Troll Boy. There is nothing "mythical" about the real numbers. And they can indeed be expressed as infinite decimal expansions. When will you learn?

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be 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 the use of axioms, so he must figure 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

Anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen spammed:

> "There are no points on a line."

Lie. I never said that. What I did say is that a line does not consists of points. When we talk about points on a line, we really mean distances that are indicated much like road signs do for distances travelled along a road.

A line is one of innumerable distances between any two points.
A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.

> "Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"

True. Pi is merely a symbol for an incommensurable magnitude - apparently a concept too advanced for an imbecile like Dan Christensen.

> "1/2 not equal to 2/4"

Lie. I have NEVER said this. What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.

There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4. For example:

_ / _ _
_ _ / _ _ _ _

The length _ is not equal to the length _ _ .

> “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”

True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w

Also, my article on pi not being a number of any kind:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FFg_9XCkIwTZ9N1jbU4oMYfHHHuFHYf3

The true story of how we got numbers:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU

No such thing as a "real number" or a "real number line":

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMHVYcE8xcmRZRnc

There is no valid construction of "real number" - it's a myth:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU

> "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”

True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.

3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4

Actually, there is no "OR" part, so the logical disjunction is invalid.

> "Zero is not a number."

True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w2tt7IgoIu-ychDCoYi-4jOAzToy0ViM

> "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."

Half-truth. While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.

> “There is no such thing as an empty set.”

True. Even the father of all mainstream mathematical cranks rejected the idea of empty set. But let's not go too far ... there isn't even a definition of "set" in set theory!

https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w

https://youtu.be/1CcSsOG0okg

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

True. These are propositions that are implied by the given equations. For example, my historic geometric identity states:

[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = dy/dx + Q(x,h)

And so, f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)

The theorem:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

How it provides a rigorous definition of integral for the flawed mainstream calculus:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y

> Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see:

The day will come when this vicious anonymous troll Dan Christensen is convicted in a court of law.

Download for free the most important mathematics book ever written:

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

On Sunday, 18 July 2021 at 21:01:46 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> If indeed those mythical objects called "real numbers" can be expressed as "infinite decimals", then the "real number set" is indeed countable:
>
> https://youtu.be/hlqTuuhR3-4
>
> A set is countable IFF its members can be listed systematically.
>
> Equivalent statements:
>
> A set is countable IFF its members can be indexed.
>
> A set is countable IFF its members can be named systematically.
>
> Cantor was an insane crank!
>
> I am a genius and I do know better than you and anyone else.

"Cantor's elegant diagonal argument"
"Cantor tamed infinity"
- from a man who ended up in an insane asylum.
"Albert Einstein proved right yet again"
- from a man who had no clue what is the meaning of time and yet all his bullshit theories are based on time.
"There is nothing south of the South Pole. Therefore, there is no God. Q.E.D"
- from a crippled moron called Stephen Hawking (https://youtu.be/0q4MZ_EYHXs)
....

Lies repeated often eventually are accepted as truth and those who reject them are called cranks.

On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 6:52:17 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Anonymous coward...

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of JG's fake math

> > "1/2 not equal to 2/4"
> Lie. I have NEVER said this.

A direct quote from October 22, 2017 here at sci.math

> What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
> What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
> 2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.
>
> There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4. For example:
>

When will you learn, Troll Boy? 1/2 is ALWAYS EQUAL to 2/4.

[snip]

> > “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
> True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail...

If you can't dazzle them brilliance, baffle them with bullshit, right, Troll Boy?

> > "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
> True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.
>

Nothing "invalid" about it, Troll Boy.

> 3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4
>

It means 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4, which is always truly.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table#Logical_disjunction_(OR)

[snip]

> > "Zero is not a number."
> True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.
>

It really is a number, Troll Boy. Deal with it.

> > "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."

> Half-truth.

Nope. Completely false.

> While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.

<yawn!>

> > “There is no such thing as an empty set.”

> True.

Umm... What about the set of all your brilliant mathematical discoveries? Empty.

[snip]

> > “3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions”

> True.

Nope. The biconditional is logical connective. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_biconditional

3 is not a logical proposition or a statement that is true or false. 3 is a number. So 3 <=> 2+1 would be an error in syntax. Deal with it, Troll Boy.

[snip]

> > 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

Also, all direct quotes from you, Troll Boy. To the extent that you will be remembered at all, history will not be kind to you. Time to cut your losses and move on Troll Boy.

Dan

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

STUDENTS BEWARE: Dan Christensen is a vicious spamming troll and has been at it the last 5 years!

Anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen spammed:

> "There are no points on a line."

Lie. I never said that. What I did say is that a line does not consists of points. When we talk about points on a line, we really mean distances that are indicated much like road signs do for distances travelled along a road.

A line is one of innumerable distances between any two points.
A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.

> "Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"

True. Pi is merely a symbol for an incommensurable magnitude - apparently a concept too advanced for an imbecile like Dan Christensen.

> "1/2 not equal to 2/4"

Lie. I have NEVER said this. What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.

There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4. For example:

_ / _ _
_ _ / _ _ _ _

The length _ is not equal to the length _ _ .

> “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”

True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w

Also, my article on pi not being a number of any kind:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FFg_9XCkIwTZ9N1jbU4oMYfHHHuFHYf3

The true story of how we got numbers:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU

No such thing as a "real number" or a "real number line":

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMHVYcE8xcmRZRnc

There is no valid construction of "real number" - it's a myth:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU

> "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”

True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.

3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4

Actually, there is no "OR" part, so the logical disjunction is invalid.

> "Zero is not a number."

True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w2tt7IgoIu-ychDCoYi-4jOAzToy0ViM

> "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."

Half-truth. While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.

> “There is no such thing as an empty set.”

True. Even the father of all mainstream mathematical cranks rejected the idea of empty set. But let's not go too far ... there isn't even a definition of "set" in set theory!

https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w

https://youtu.be/1CcSsOG0okg

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

True. These are propositions that are implied by the given equations. For example, my historic geometric identity states:

[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = dy/dx + Q(x,h)

And so, f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)

The theorem:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

How it provides a rigorous definition of integral for the flawed mainstream calculus:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y

> Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see:

The day will come when this vicious anonymous troll Dan Christensen is convicted in a court of law.

Download for free the most important mathematics book ever written:

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

On Sunday, 18 July 2021 at 21:01:46 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> If indeed those mythical objects called "real numbers" can be expressed as "infinite decimals", then the "real number set" is indeed countable:
>
> https://youtu.be/hlqTuuhR3-4
>
> A set is countable IFF its members can be listed systematically.
>
> Equivalent statements:
>
> A set is countable IFF its members can be indexed.
>
> A set is countable IFF its members can be named systematically.
>
> Cantor was an insane crank!
>
> I am a genius and I do know better than you and anyone else.

The more obfuscated, the more ugly, the more filthy, the more nonsensical, the darker, the more mysterious, the more inexplicable, the more a theory is accepted and worshipped by the scum in mainstream mathematics academia and science:

The crippled moron Stephen Hawking's Last Theorem:

https://youtu.be/0q4MZ_EYHXs

What is "time" exactly?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLT1l1Z0hYRy1JaEk

Yes, I do know better! I am a genius.

Eram semper recta wrote:

> The more obfuscated, the more ugly, the more filthy, the more
> nonsensical,
> the darker, the more mysterious, the more inexplicable, the more a
> theory is accepted and worshipped by the scum in mainstream mathematics
> academia and science: The crippled moron Stephen Hawking's Last Theorem:

true, but the fraudcis are saying now, into your face, that you guys have
been injected *completely_unnecessarily*. What can you say now, in your
defense? Please argue.

The vaccinated people have therefore been vaccinated unnecessarily
https://www.bitchute.com/video/VA2PS2KuZpqQ/

Eram semper recta wrote:

> The more obfuscated, the more ugly, the more filthy, the more
> nonsensical,
> the darker, the more mysterious, the more inexplicable, the more a
> theory is accepted and worshipped by the scum in mainstream mathematics
> academia and science: The crippled moron Stephen Hawking's Last Theorem:

worse, from *vaccination_heroes* you guys are now *super_spreaders*.

Wow! Remember this guy? That didn’t take long!
https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=S3XK4H9WOAXO

On Saturday, 31 July 2021 at 17:36:04 UTC-4, Brunhilde Toneelknecht wrote:
> Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> > The more obfuscated, the more ugly, the more filthy, the more
> > nonsensical,
> > the darker, the more mysterious, the more inexplicable, the more a
> > theory is accepted and worshipped by the scum in mainstream mathematics
> > academia and science: The crippled moron Stephen Hawking's Last Theorem:
> worse, from *vaccination_heroes* you guys are now *super_spreaders*.
>
> Wow! Remember this guy? That didn’t take long!
> https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=S3XK4H9WOAXO

You better get vaccinated, you stupid moron! You are prolonging the pandemic.

Oh, and get off the internet. You are not smart enough to research these things on your own.

Clown that you are, you spread lies and misinformation that results in many (stupid) people ending up in ICU and dying.

Case after case, the facts have shown that regardless of your deluded conclusions, it is still better to be vaccinated.

Eram semper recta wrote:

>> worse, from *vaccination_heroes* you guys are now *super_spreaders*.
>>
>> Wow! Remember this guy? That didn’t take long!
>> https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=S3XK4H9WOAXO
>
> You better get vaccinated, you stupid moron! You are prolonging the
> pandemic.
> Oh, and get off the internet. You are not smart enough to research these
> things on your own.
> Clown that you are, you spread lies and misinformation that results in
> many (stupid) people ending up in ICU and dying.

The Fauci and the CDC is saying it plainly right now, you stupid wannabe
mathematician. Can't you hear it nor read?? *They* are saying, you are a
superspreader, you disgusting piece of shit. You are killing people
around you with your stupidity.

On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 08:33:18 UTC-4, Buck Ehler wrote:
> Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> >> worse, from *vaccination_heroes* you guys are now *super_spreaders*.
> >>
> >> Wow! Remember this guy? That didn’t take long!
> >> https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=S3XK4H9WOAXO
> >
> > You better get vaccinated, you stupid moron! You are prolonging the
> > pandemic.
> > Oh, and get off the internet. You are not smart enough to research these
> > things on your own.
> > Clown that you are, you spread lies and misinformation that results in
> > many (stupid) people ending up in ICU and dying.
> The Fauci and the CDC is saying it plainly right now, you stupid wannabe
> mathematician. Can't you hear it nor read?? *They* are saying, you are a
> superspreader, you disgusting piece of shit. You are killing people
> around you with your stupidity.

You listening to Faux News again? What a moron!

On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 01:19:14 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> Incorrect, as by the diagonal argument, I can find a real number you missed :) Ergo you are wrong.

LMAO. My refutation is 100% sound and your "proof" in the one-liner above sounds almost like that crippled moron Hawking's Last Theorem: Since there is nothing south of the south pole, there was nothing in the beginning. Q.E..D. Chuckle.

https://youtu.be/hlqTuuhR3-4

IF you assume that any "real number" can be represented as an infinite decimal expansion (bogus nonsense), then already you stab yourself in the eye because it becomes possible to list all the real numbers in the interval (0,1) and then since (0,1) is bijective with any other real interval, the conclusion is that your set of real numbers is indeed countable.

Actually, the set of "real numbers" is not countable because there is no such set. There is no such thing as a "real number" -it's a fantasy that does not exist outside of your syphilitic brain.

>LMAO. My refutation is 100% sound and your "proof" in the one-liner above sounds almost like that crippled moron Hawking's Last Theorem:

As we see here, you are jealous.

The diagonal argument demonstrates no matter what list you produce, you missed a real number. Hence you are wrong :)

>IF you assume that any "real number" can be represented as an infinite decimal expansion (bogus nonsense)

any function from {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}^N to R is surjective, even the default one, so no, it is not bogus.

>then already you stab yourself in the eye because it becomes possible to list all the real numbers in the interval (0,1)

Nope, you missed one and I can prove it :)

>Actually, the set of "real numbers" is not countable because there is no such set. There is no such thing as a "real number" -it's a fantasy that does not exist outside of your syphilitic brain.

Mathematics is all abstract concepts, they exists equally much each one.

On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 02:00:21 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 2 augusti 2021 kl. 15:37:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 08:01:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Your drivel is uninteresting. My video demonstrates that if you assume decimal expansions, the mythical set of "real numbers" is indeed countable - every one of them!
> >
> > https://youtu.be/hlqTuuhR3-4
> I can find an element

Name just one "element" I missed in my Gabriel tree, you fucking lying crank! They are ALL there -every single decimal expansion in the interval (0,1).. Ergo, your BOGUS set of "real numbers" is countable, you stupid fuck! LMAO

tisdag 3 augusti 2021 kl. 13:47:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 02:00:21 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > måndag 2 augusti 2021 kl. 15:37:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 08:01:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Your drivel is uninteresting. My video demonstrates that if you assume decimal expansions, the mythical set of "real numbers" is indeed countable - every one of them!
> > >
> > > https://youtu.be/hlqTuuhR3-4
> > I can find an element
> Name just one "element" I missed in my Gabriel tree, you fucking lying crank! They are ALL there -every single decimal expansion in the interval (0,1). Ergo, your BOGUS set of "real numbers" is countable, you stupid fuck! LMAO

All those with infintie decimal expansions. They are at no level in your tree. so 1/3 is not in it.

On Wednesday, 4 August 2021 at 01:27:01 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 3 augusti 2021 kl. 13:47:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 02:00:21 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > måndag 2 augusti 2021 kl. 15:37:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 08:01:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Your drivel is uninteresting. My video demonstrates that if you assume decimal expansions, the mythical set of "real numbers" is indeed countable - every one of them!
> > > >
> > > > https://youtu.be/hlqTuuhR3-4
> > > I can find an element
> > Name just one "element" I missed in my Gabriel tree, you fucking lying crank! They are ALL there -every single decimal expansion in the interval (0,1). Ergo, your BOGUS set of "real numbers" is countable, you stupid fuck! LMAO
> All those with infintie decimal expansions.

Nonsense. The tree is infinite even by your own double standards!

It's like you saying 0.333... is infinite because you placed an ellipsis after it. The same thing is true for the tree - I don't have to write it all down in order for anyone to understand that it goes on forever. You pathetic, lying, dishonest CRANK!

> They are at no level in your tree. so 1/3 is not in it.

FALSE. 0.333... is in my tree in very much the same way as 0.333... is considered to be "infinite" by morons like you!

Eram semper recta wrote:

> Nonsense. The tree is infinite even by your own double standards!
>
> It's like you saying 0.333... is infinite because you placed an ellipsis
> after it. The same thing is true for the tree - I don't have to write it
> all down in order for anyone to understand that it goes on forever. You
> pathetic, lying, dishonest CRANK!
>
>> They are at no level in your tree. so 1/3 is not in it.
>
> FALSE. 0.333... is in my tree in very much the same way as 0.333... is
> considered to be "infinite" by morons like you!

All right, you big mathematicians are hard convinceable. Compile this
somewhere, come back tell me what you got. Fell free to use all the
decimals in the world, to come closer.

//------------------------------
double d3 = 1/3, d0 = 0.33333;

if (d3 == d0)
printf("\nI\'m cool, 1/3 = 0.33333\n");
else
printf("\nI\'m a dirty, dirty asshole, 1/3 =/= 0.33333\n");
//------------------------------

Bud Schaaf explained on 8/4/2021 :
> Eram semper recta wrote:
>
>> Nonsense. The tree is infinite even by your own double standards!
>>
>> It's like you saying 0.333... is infinite because you placed an ellipsis
>> after it. The same thing is true for the tree - I don't have to write it
>> all down in order for anyone to understand that it goes on forever. You
>> pathetic, lying, dishonest CRANK!
>>
>>> They are at no level in your tree. so 1/3 is not in it.
>>
>> FALSE. 0.333... is in my tree in very much the same way as 0.333... is
>> considered to be "infinite" by morons like you!
>
> All right, you big mathematicians are hard convinceable. Compile this
> somewhere, come back tell me what you got. Fell free to use all the
> decimals in the world, to come closer.
>
> //------------------------------
> double d3 = 1/3, d0 = 0.33333;
>
> if (d3 == d0)
> printf("\nI\'m cool, 1/3 = 0.33333\n");
> else
> printf("\nI\'m a dirty, dirty asshole, 1/3 =/= 0.33333\n");
> //------------------------------

Computable numbers are only a subset of the reals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_number

We can still use what looks like an algorithm to "represent" a real
number without needing to conpute it. Said number could conceivably be
cancelled out later in algebraic manipulations and a solution found for
a given problem without needing the value of that number to ever be
calculated.

On Wednesday, 4 August 2021 at 09:02:52 UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Bud Schaaf explained on 8/4/2021 :
> > Eram semper recta wrote:
> >
> >> Nonsense. The tree is infinite even by your own double standards!
> >>
> >> It's like you saying 0.333... is infinite because you placed an ellipsis
> >> after it. The same thing is true for the tree - I don't have to write it
> >> all down in order for anyone to understand that it goes on forever. You
> >> pathetic, lying, dishonest CRANK!
> >>
> >>> They are at no level in your tree. so 1/3 is not in it.
> >>
> >> FALSE. 0.333... is in my tree in very much the same way as 0.333... is
> >> considered to be "infinite" by morons like you!
> >
> > All right, you big mathematicians are hard convinceable. Compile this
> > somewhere, come back tell me what you got. Fell free to use all the
> > decimals in the world, to come closer.
> >
> > //------------------------------
> > double d3 = 1/3, d0 = 0.33333;
> >
> > if (d3 == d0)
> > printf("\nI\'m cool, 1/3 = 0.33333\n");
> > else
> > printf("\nI\'m a dirty, dirty asshole, 1/3 =/= 0.33333\n");
> > //------------------------------
> Computable numbers are only a subset of the reals.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_number
>
> We can still use what looks like an algorithm to "represent" a real
> number without needing to conpute it. Said number could conceivably be
> cancelled out later in algebraic manipulations and a solution found for
> a given problem without needing the value of that number to ever be
> calculated.

Er, no. You can't. It's like saying x*x*pi = (3x^3*pi) -:- (x)

If you divide by pi, you haven't really performed any algebra with numbers, only with symbols.

Computable numbers! Don't make me laugh! You mean rational number approximations with symbols.

Algorithms do not represent "real numbers" which are a figment of your imagination. This is the same errant thinking as Wolfgang Mueckenheimer and Norman Wildberger. Chuckle.

All an algorithm does, is produce a rational number approximation.

A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.

On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 01:21:09 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Nonsense. The tree is infinite even by your own double standards!

> It is but at no point in your tree does it have infinite digits,

At no point in your drivel of 0.333... do you have "infinite digits".

> that is the issue.

It's not at all an issue because the tree traversal is done systematically and the set (0,1) is indeed countable since every node can be labeled uniquely.

As long as you can keep providing the digits, the path to any partial sum is there and has a label that is by no means different to 0.333 followed by an ellipsis You are simply too stupid to understand this.

On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 09:58:39 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 01:21:09 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >Nonsense. The tree is infinite even by your own double standards!
>
>
> > It is but at no point in your tree does it have infinite digits,
> At no point in your drivel of 0.333... do you have "infinite digits".
>
> > that is the issue.
>
> It's not at all an issue because the tree traversal is done systematically and the set (0,1) is indeed countable since every node can be labeled uniquely.
>
> As long as you can keep providing the digits, the path to any partial sum is there and has a label that is by no means different to 0.333 followed by an ellipsis You are simply too stupid to understand this.

Your basic argument is that the tree label is never complete but you are too fucking stupid to realise that the same argument applies to your label "0.333...". There is nothing worse than the blind who will not see.

On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 01:24:54 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >At no point in your drivel of 0.333... do you have "infinite digits".
> From the get go I have infinite digits in it cause that is what it alwaysh as.

Except that you are living in dreamland and claiming that it's okay for you to say you have infinite digits, but that in my tree there are not infinite digits. It's what I call selective knowledge - similar to what Trump supporters practice in their unreal reality.

> >It's not at all an issue because the tree traversal is done systematically and the set (0,1) is indeed countable since every node can be labeled uniquely.

> People have pointed this out to you already what is wrong, let me find it
>
> https://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2010/02/04/so-remember-back-in
>
> 11 years and you are still using the same shitty argument, smh

11 years ago and I was as RIGHT then as I am now.

The most telling part of your comment is that you have no response and of course Mark Chu Carroll only pointed out that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

"Your basic argument is that the tree label is never complete but you are too fucking stupid to realise that the same argument applies to your label "0.333...". There is nothing worse than the blind who will not see." - John Gabriel

But until you understand what it means for a set to be countable, you can't ever grasp the facts.

A set is countable if its members can be systematically named or listed or indexed. My tree does this exactly.

The proof is here:

https://youtu.be/hlqTuuhR3-4

>Except that you are living in dreamland and claiming that it's okay for you to say you have infinite digits, but that in my tree there are not infinite digits. It's what I call selective knowledge - similar to what Trump supporters practice in their unreal reality.

At no step in your tree do you have infinite digits, but the decimal has it from the get go.

>11 years ago and I was as RIGHT then as I am now.

You're still wrong, that is the issue. You never were right.

On Monday, 9 August 2021 at 01:39:58 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Except that you are living in dreamland and claiming that it's okay for you to say you have infinite digits, but that in my tree there are not infinite digits. It's what I call selective knowledge - similar to what Trump supporters practice in their unreal reality.
> At no step in your tree do you have infinite digits, but the decimal has it from the get go.

At no step in 0.333..., do you have "infinite 3s". LMAO

> >11 years ago and I was as RIGHT then as I am now.
> You're still wrong, that is the issue. You never were right.

Eram semper recta. :)