On 11/2/2021 3:56 PM, Arba Pye wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
>>> It was called (not the Manhattan Project2) but ,
>>> The Philadelphia Project.
>>
>> Yes, it's a fabricated story by... I forget his name... Berlitz or some
>> such? It was just a guy writing stories, anyone can do that.
>
> watch out, a cretin named Morony is saying 0.9(99) and 1.0 are the SAME
> number,

What is "0.9(99)" supposed to mean, nymshifter? Is that a poor attempt
to write a scientific measurement or calculation with an error range? If
so, do you know what you even wrote? Or is that just how you write
repeating digits in Russia?

> knowingly it never converges to 1.0.

Numbers don't converge, nymshifter. They just have a value.

Michael Moroney wrote:

> On 11/2/2021 3:56 PM, Arba Pye wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>>
>>>> It was called (not the Manhattan Project2) but ,
>>>> The Philadelphia Project.
>>>
>>> Yes, it's a fabricated story by... I forget his name... Berlitz or
>>> some such? It was just a guy writing stories, anyone can do that.
>>
>> watch out, a cretin named Morony is saying 0.9(99) and 1.0 are the SAME
>> number,
>
> What is "0.9(99)" supposed to mean, nymshifter? Is that a poor attempt
> to write a scientific measurement or calculation with an error range? If
> so,
> do you know what you even wrote? Or is that just how you write
> repeating digits in Russia?

that's standard math notation in decimals going to infinity in all math
books, you fucking uneducated and unemployable stupid.

>> knowingly it never converges to 1.0.
>
> Numbers don't converge, nymshifter. They just have a value.

that's not the point, cretin. You are implying are the same number, hence
they must converge, you idiot.

this imbecile, named Morony, isn't even knowing what convergence stands
for in mathematics. What an idiot.

Nym-shifting idiotic troll, aka Arba Pye wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> On 11/2/2021 3:56 PM, Arba Pye wrote:
>>> JanPB wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It was called (not the Manhattan Project2) but ,
>>>>> The Philadelphia Project.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it's a fabricated story by... I forget his name... Berlitz or
>>>> some such? It was just a guy writing stories, anyone can do that.
>>>
>>> watch out, a cretin named Morony is saying 0.9(99) and 1.0 are the SAME
>>> number,
>>
>> What is "0.9(99)" supposed to mean, nymshifter? Is that a poor attempt
>> to write a scientific measurement or calculation with an error range? If
>> so,
>> do you know what you even wrote? Or is that just how you write
>> repeating digits in Russia?
>
> that's standard math notation

No, it's not.

Python wrote:

>>>> SAME number,
>>>
>>> What is "0.9(99)" supposed to mean, nymshifter? Is that a poor attempt
>>> to write a scientific measurement or calculation with an error range?
>>> If so,
>>> do you know what you even wrote? Or is that just how you write
>>> repeating digits in Russia?
>>
>> that's standard math notation
>
> No, it's not.

yet another imbecile on the rampage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_decimal#Notation

the number in parentheses repeats to infinity, moron.

Nym-shifting stupid troll, aka Arba Pye wrote:
> Python wrote:
>
>>>>> SAME number,
>>>>
>>>> What is "0.9(99)" supposed to mean, nymshifter? Is that a poor attempt
>>>> to write a scientific measurement or calculation with an error range?
>>>> If so,
>>>> do you know what you even wrote? Or is that just how you write
>>>> repeating digits in Russia?
>>>
>>> that's standard math notation
>>
>> No, it's not.
>
> yet another imbecile on the rampage
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_decimal#Notation
>
> the number in parentheses repeats to infinity, moron.

Then you would have written 0.9(9) not 0.9(99). Idiot.

Python wrote:

> Nym-shifting stupid troll, aka Arba Pye wrote:
>> Python wrote:
>>
>>>>>> SAME number,
>>>>>
>>>>> What is "0.9(99)" supposed to mean, nymshifter? Is that a poor
>>>>> attempt to write a scientific measurement or calculation with an
>>>>> error range?
>>>>> If so,
>>>>> do you know what you even wrote? Or is that just how you write
>>>>> repeating digits in Russia?
>>>>
>>>> that's standard math notation
>>>
>>> No, it's not.
>>
>> yet another imbecile on the rampage
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_decimal#Notation
>>
>> the number in parentheses repeats to infinity, moron.
>
> Then you would have written 0.9(9) not 0.9(99). Idiot.

no, fucking stupid, but maybe rather 0.(9). However, morons other places
loses context. It's clear that 0.9(99) shows what is going on. Imbecile!

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/cc-eighth-grade-math/cc-8th-numbers-
operations/cc-8th-repeating-decimals/a/writing-repeating-decimals-as-
fractions-review

On 11/2/2021 6:35 PM, Arba Pye wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> On 11/2/2021 3:56 PM, Arba Pye wrote:
>>> JanPB wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It was called (not the Manhattan Project2) but ,
>>>>> The Philadelphia Project.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it's a fabricated story by... I forget his name... Berlitz or
>>>> some such? It was just a guy writing stories, anyone can do that.
>>>
>>> watch out, a cretin named Morony is saying 0.9(99) and 1.0 are the SAME
>>> number,
>>
>> What is "0.9(99)" supposed to mean, nymshifter? Is that a poor attempt
>> to write a scientific measurement or calculation with an error range? If
>> so,
>> do you know what you even wrote? Or is that just how you write
>> repeating digits in Russia?
>
> that's standard math notation in decimals going to infinity in all math
> books, you fucking uneducated and unemployable stupid.

And...

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_decimal#Notation

"In parts of Europe, Vietnam and Russia, the convention is to enclose
the repetend in parentheses."

I was right! It *is* how you do that in Russia, nymshifter. You are
going to get punished big time next time you report back to your bosses
in the Kremlin for letting it slip that you are a Russian stooge. As if
we didn't know already.
>
>>> knowingly it never converges to 1.0.
>>
>> Numbers don't converge, nymshifter. They just have a value.
>
> that's not the point, cretin. You are implying are the same number, hence
> they must converge, you idiot.

Numbers still don't converge, nymshifter.

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 12:56:48 PM UTC-7, Arba Pye wrote:

> watch out, a cretin named Morony is saying 0.9(99) and 1.0 are the SAME
> number, knowingly it never converges to 1.0. And therefore computers are
> wrong!

Well, you are wrong about this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...#:~:text=This%20repeating%20decimal%20represents%20the,1%22%20represent%20the%20same%20number.

" This repeating decimal represents the smallest number no less than every decimal number in the sequence (0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...).[1] This number is equal to 1. In other words, "0.999..." and "1" represent the same number."

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 12:42:00 AM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:

<snip>

> " This repeating decimal represents the smallest number no less than every decimal number in the sequence (0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...).[1] This number is equal to 1. In other words, "0.999..." and "1" represent the same number."

How do you call this repetition, genius?

7/11 = 0.636363636363636636363636363636636363636363636636363636363636636363636363636636363636363636......

On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 11:23:29 -0700 (PDT), JanPB <filmart@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 2:14:02 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Did Albert Einstein tell the military that
>> he can make a ship invisible and transport it
>> to another place????
>>
>> I mean, this was all happening at the same time
>> Albert Einstein wrote to the military:
>>
>> "According to these discussions and a remark you made yourself when
>> you were visiting me
>> it seems to be desirable to have a device which automatically brings
>> to explosion
>> a torpedo passing below a ship at the right moment.
>> I have an idea for an electro-magnetic device for this purpose which
>> I would like to submit to you for your judgement." -Albert Einstein
>>
>> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1432121477193613312
>>
>>
>> Did Albert Einstein tell the military that
>> he can make a ship invisible and transport it
>> to another place????
>>
>>
>> I understand the ship was actually transported but had a bad effect on
>> the ...crew.
>>
>> It was called (not the Manhattan Project2) but ,
>> The Philadelphia Project.
>
>Yes, it's a fabricated story by... I forget his name... Berlitz or some such?
>
>It was just a guy writing stories, anyone can do that.

Not anyone...only Albert Einstein Lies like that.

Only Albert Einstein could have come up with the idea
he can make a ship invisible and transport it
to another place, since he was trying to sell them on the Grand
Unified Theory idea he was working on to the military...selling the
sizzle.

The same way when he lied about the Germans were building an atomic
bomb...architects of fear.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 1:36:47 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 11:23:29 -0700 (PDT), JanPB <fil...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 2:14:02 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> Did Albert Einstein tell the military that
> >> he can make a ship invisible and transport it
> >> to another place????
> >>
> >> I mean, this was all happening at the same time
> >> Albert Einstein wrote to the military:
> >>
> >> "According to these discussions and a remark you made yourself when
> >> you were visiting me
> >> it seems to be desirable to have a device which automatically brings
> >> to explosion
> >> a torpedo passing below a ship at the right moment.
> >> I have an idea for an electro-magnetic device for this purpose which
> >> I would like to submit to you for your judgement." -Albert Einstein
> >>
> >> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1432121477193613312
> >>
> >>
> >> Did Albert Einstein tell the military that
> >> he can make a ship invisible and transport it
> >> to another place????
> >>
> >>
> >> I understand the ship was actually transported but had a bad effect on
> >> the ...crew.
> >>
> >> It was called (not the Manhattan Project2) but ,
> >> The Philadelphia Project.
> >
> >Yes, it's a fabricated story by... I forget his name... Berlitz or some such?
> >
> >It was just a guy writing stories, anyone can do that.
> Not anyone...only Albert Einstein Lies like that.
>
>
> Only Albert Einstein could have come up with the idea
> he can make a ship invisible and transport it
> to another place, since he was trying to sell them on the Grand
> Unified Theory idea he was working on to the military...selling the
> sizzle.
>
>
> The same way when he lied about the Germans were building an atomic
> bomb...architects of fear.
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> the unchallengeable.
Einstein always aproved the use of nuclear weapons against Germany, and felt sad for Japan (twice).

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 9:04:18 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 12:42:00 AM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > " This repeating decimal represents the smallest number no less than every decimal number in the sequence (0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...).[1] This number is equal to 1. In other words, "0.999..." and "1" represent the same number."

> How do you call this repetition, genius?
>
> 7/11 = 0.636363636363636636363636363636636363636363636636363636363636636363636363636636363636363636......

You don't have the brains given to a kumquat, Richard... my reference specifically said "THIS repeating decimal"..._ not *any* repeating decimal... are you now claiming that 0.999... does *not* = 1?

Like I said before, where I worked we never gave the engineers coffee breaks because it took too long to re-train them... but that was never an issue for the physicists...

On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 06:27:54 UTC+1, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 9:04:18 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 12:42:00 AM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > " This repeating decimal represents the smallest number no less than every decimal number in the sequence (0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...).[1] This number is equal to 1. In other words, "0.999..." and "1" represent the same number."
>
> > How do you call this repetition, genius?
> >
> > 7/11 = 0.636363636363636636363636363636636363636363636636363636363636636363636363636636363636363636......
> You don't have the brains given to a kumquat, Richard... my reference specifically said "THIS repeating decimal"..._ not *any* repeating decimal... are you now claiming that 0.999... does *not* = 1?
>
> Like I said before, where I worked we never gave the engineers coffee breaks because it took too long to re-train them...

Engineers are simple folk. It's hard for them to undertstand
that they're FORCED to make unusable junk, because some
insane gurus have announced it proper

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 2:27:54 AM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:

<snip>

> Like I said before, where I worked we never gave the engineers coffee breaks because it took too long to re-train them... but that was never an issue for the physicists...

In my case, I used two physicists that worked FOR ME to make the coffee and to program in QBasic interpreter because they were
too retarded to make anything of more value. The idiots numbered the lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,....

Eventually, I used them to change light bulbs. One imbecile lift the other one and turned around when the other idiot grab the lamp. It
was usual that both idiots turned into the wrong direction. I hired two monkeys after sacking them.

I didn't want them to make the coffee because it was too humiliating for such bright couple of C++ programmers of RTOS.

Curiously, the two imbecile physicists could find a job as zoo guardians.

And, for you, even 0.9 = 1. Being an imbecile is on your DNA, so you're happy enough with this approximation, like the cretin Einstein with
his calculations. I wonder if degenerative idiocy is related to inbreeding, as is your case (almost 90% sure, I mean it's almost 100%).

Michael Moroney wrote:

>> that's standard math notation in decimals going to infinity in all math
>> books, you fucking uneducated and unemployable stupid.
>
> And...
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_decimal#Notation
>
> "In parts of Europe, Vietnam and Russia, the convention is to enclose
> the repetend in parentheses."
> I was right! It *is* how you do that in Russia, nymshifter. You are
> going to get punished big time next time you report back to your bosses
> in the Kremlin for letting it slip that you are a Russian stooge. As if
> we didn't know already.

does not matter, imbecile, it's standard in all books, easy to write and
understand, and has nothing to do with Russia, *you_fucking_nazi*.

>> that's not the point, cretin. You are implying are the same number,
>> hence they must converge, you idiot.
>
> Numbers still don't converge, nymshifter.

it is saying it converges to 1.0, not me, proof enough that you are
exactly that cretin we talk about. Then again, slopes, lines and
functions do happen to converges, you idiot.

Paul Alsing wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 12:56:48 PM UTC-7, Arba Pye wrote:
>
>> watch out, a cretin named Morony is saying 0.9(99) and 1.0 are the SAME
>> number, knowingly it never converges to 1.0. And therefore computers
>> are wrong!
>
> Well, you are wrong about this...
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
0.999...#:~:text=This%20repeating%20decimal%20represents%20the,
1%22%20represent%20the%20same%20number.
>
> " This repeating decimal represents the smallest number no less than
> every decimal number in the sequence (0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...).[1] This
> number is equal to 1. In other words, "0.999..." and "1" represent the
> same number."

proof that wikipedia is also defecated by trolls.

JC Bosa wrote:

> Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>>> that's standard math notation in decimals going to infinity in all
>>> math books, you fucking uneducated and unemployable stupid.
>>
>> And...
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_decimal#Notation
>>
>> "In parts of Europe, Vietnam and Russia, the convention is to enclose
>> the repetend in parentheses."
>> I was right! It *is* how you do that in Russia, nymshifter. You are
>> going to get punished big time next time you report back to your bosses
>> in the Kremlin for letting it slip that you are a Russian stooge. As if
>> we didn't know already.
>
> does not matter, imbecile, it's standard in all books, easy to write and
> understand, and has nothing to do with Russia, *you_fucking_nazi*.
>
>>> that's not the point, cretin. You are implying are the same number,
>>> hence they must converge, you idiot.
>>
>> Numbers still don't converge, nymshifter.
>
> it is saying it converges to 1.0, not me, proof enough that you are
> exactly that cretin we talk about. Then again, slopes, lines and
> functions do happen to converges, you idiot.

"it was YOU saying ..."

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 9:33:08 AM UTC-7, JC Bosa wrote:
> JC Bosa wrote:
>
> > Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> >>> that's standard math notation in decimals going to infinity in all
> >>> math books, you fucking uneducated and unemployable stupid.
> >>
> >> And...
> >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_decimal#Notation
> >>
> >> "In parts of Europe, Vietnam and Russia, the convention is to enclose
> >> the repetend in parentheses."
> >> I was right! It *is* how you do that in Russia, nymshifter. You are
> >> going to get punished big time next time you report back to your bosses
> >> in the Kremlin for letting it slip that you are a Russian stooge. As if
> >> we didn't know already.
> >
> > does not matter, imbecile, it's standard in all books, easy to write and
> > understand, and has nothing to do with Russia, *you_fucking_nazi*.
> >
> >>> that's not the point, cretin. You are implying are the same number,
> >>> hence they must converge, you idiot.
> >>
> >> Numbers still don't converge, nymshifter.
> >
> > it is saying it converges to 1.0, not me, proof enough that you are
> > exactly that cretin we talk about. Then again, slopes, lines and
> > functions do happen to converges, you idiot.
> "it was YOU saying ..."

Einstein never wanted involvement in the bomb beyond
Hitler Germany. The liar lies and it was not Einstein...
It is YOU.

Mitchell Raemsch

On 11/3/2021 12:30 PM, JC Bosa wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>>> that's standard math notation in decimals going to infinity in all math
>>> books, you fucking uneducated and unemployable stupid.
>>
>> And...
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_decimal#Notation
>>
>> "In parts of Europe, Vietnam and Russia, the convention is to enclose
>> the repetend in parentheses."
>> I was right! It *is* how you do that in Russia, nymshifter. You are
>> going to get punished big time next time you report back to your bosses
>> in the Kremlin for letting it slip that you are a Russian stooge. As if
>> we didn't know already.
>
> does not matter, imbecile, it's standard in all books,

Nope. I have never seen that in the US. "All books" in the US use the
overline or the three dots (which don't tell you how many digits
repeat). I have seen the dot and overhead curve methods used rarely.

> easy to write

As is the overline. Even easier, actually.

> and understand, and has nothing to do with Russia,

Maybe your native Serbia also uses it?

> *you_fucking_nazi*.

I call Godwin, nymshifter.

>
>>> that's not the point, cretin. You are implying are the same number,
>>> hence they must converge, you idiot.
>>
>> Numbers still don't converge, nymshifter.
>
> it is saying it converges to 1.0, not me, proof enough that you are
> exactly that cretin we talk about. Then again, slopes, lines and
> functions do happen to converges, you idiot.

Numbers *still* don't converge, nymshifter. They have a single, exact
value. 0.999... is a number with a single exact value. Which is 1.0.

Now go away, nymshift a few times, and stay away.

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 2:25:15 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> Numbers *still* don't converge, nymshifter. They have a single, exact
> value. 0.999... is a number with a single exact value. Which is 1.0.

Numbers converge, fucking retarded!

The convergence depends on the FPU of the CPU that you are using right now! The rest is irrelevant.

1 - 1E-15 = 0.9999999999999990000000000

It registers 15 decimal digits with a 64-bits FPU.

If you had access to a 80-bits FPU used in a 128 bits CPU computer, you would have another 5 decimal digits and that would be all.

1 - 1E-15 = 0.9999999999999999999900000

Only in your idiot mind, the rotten mind of Einstein or JanPB's mind, they don't converge in the world of rainbows and unicorns, where
1/0 HAS A PHYSICAL MEANING, like in the realm of black holes and fairies.

Michael Moroney wrote:

>> it is saying it converges to 1.0, not me, proof enough that you are
>> exactly that cretin we talk about. Then again, slopes, lines and
>> functions do happen to converges, you idiot.
>
> Numbers *still* don't converge, nymshifter. They have a single, exact
> value. 0.999... is a number with a single exact value. Which is 1.0.

all above are about numbers, cretin. And still you says it's the same
number. Go away you uneducated unemployable idiot. You are a waste of
time. A fake moon landing.

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

>> > it is saying it converges to 1.0, not me, proof enough that you are
>> > exactly that cretin we talk about. Then again, slopes, lines and
>> > functions do happen to converges, you idiot.
>> "it was YOU saying ..."
>
> Einstein never wanted involvement in the bomb beyond Hitler Germany. The
> liar lies and it was not Einstein... It is YOU.

you don't understand mathematics. The young Einstine left to america
1933, the time hitler took power. He wouldn't know how bad hitler will be
in starting wars.

my bet he started the war against the east because his army material was
an western outcome. Not german.

The Biggest problem they had at the Manhattan Project was...

How do you blow up that atomic bomb without getting killed during a
test?

Same problem you had when you lit a firecracker or cherry bomb..
short fuse...you had to throw it away fact before it explodes in your
hand!

Of course, there is only one person that was an Expert in Denotation
of bombs in those days...Albert Einstein.

Albert Einstein lifted his finger and wrote: According to the
suggestion you expressed in your letter I am giving you here reasons
for my opinion concerning the best localization for initiation of the
Torpedo explosion...

https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1455974257809260546

Page 1
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FDSoXXFUUAApz8f?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
Page 2
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FDSojvRVQAAjcLq?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

https://twitter.com/Starmaker111

On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 11:32:05 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Shouldn't have Albert Einstein have gotten The Nobel Peace Prize for The Atomic Bomb?
>
>I mean, 'it' got Japan to surrender.
>
>The fact is, Albert Einstein is The Godfather of the Atomic Bomb, ...isn't that Right????
>
>
>
>
>The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 06 Aug 2021 18:17:32 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <610DDBC4.431@ix.netcom.com>,
>> > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Of course I know that...he dictated the letter to his secretary..(dats wat
>> >> they did in those
>> >
>> >Still wrong.
>>
>> So, Albert Einstein is groping his secretary..
>> rubbing her butt and putting his hand up her blouse..
>> and he tells her..
>>
>> "Did you finish typing that letter for me, honey?"
>>
>> She sez "Here it is, you pervert!"
>>
>> He looks at it...(then does a spell check)
>>
>> Understandably, she misspelled Dr. Zsilard's name a few times.
>>
>> He tells her "You wrote Zillard, but there is only one L, and it
>> begins with a S and small z, ..."
>>
>> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1425847669000343552/photo/1
>>
>> So she buttons up her blouse and retypes the letter...
>>
>> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1425847669000343552/photo/2
>>
>> Then he tells her..."BEND OVER YOU FUCKING RUSSIAN BITCH!"
>>
>> She tells him..."You're the bomb!"
>> --
>> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
>> the unchallengeable.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On 11/3/2021 1:48 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 2:25:15 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Numbers *still* don't converge, nymshifter. They have a single, exact
>> value. 0.999... is a number with a single exact value. Which is 1.0.
>
> Numbers converge, fucking retarded!
>
> The convergence depends on the FPU of the CPU that you are using right now! The rest is irrelevant.

Mathematics is not limited by the limitations of any particular CPU
involved.

What do you think mathematicians did before there were any such things
as CPUs or FPUs?

<snip crap>

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 8:24:37 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/3/2021 1:48 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 2:25:15 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Numbers *still* don't converge, nymshifter. They have a single, exact
> >> value. 0.999... is a number with a single exact value. Which is 1.0.
> >
> > Numbers converge, fucking retarded!
> >
> > The convergence depends on the FPU of the CPU that you are using right now! The rest is irrelevant.
> Mathematics is not limited by the limitations of any particular CPU
> involved.
>
> What do you think mathematicians did before there were any such things
> as CPUs or FPUs?
>
> <snip crap>

IBM first, Intel and AMD next and current manufacturers of 50 billion transistors CPU say that you are wrong.