On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 06:45:01 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >0.333... is not infinite in any sense of the word and is not a construction of an infinite series.
> It is notation and commonly viewed as such.

No. It is commonly viewed as 1/3 which is a well-formed number. Chuckle.

> >Your very own Rudin (who wrote the definitive mainstream book on real analysis) tells you that 0.333... is not at all obtained by an actual sum:
> I've read his book and knows what it says :)

I sincerely doubt it!

> It is a series, aka a sequence of partial sums....just like the cauchy construction of real numbers. Coincidence?

Has NOTHING to do with Cauchy sequence which is just another name given to a convergent sequence.

It would be a coincidence but alas Rudin had not even discussed it as such.

> >No moron. Once again, that is not what is being said at all by Euler.
> That is what YOU are saying when you keep writin lim S=S

No. That is EXACTLY what Euler said:

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

Only a complete CRANK like YOU Malum can still claim otherwise.

> >Euler claims: 0.333... = \sum_{k=1}^{oo} 3/10^k = Lim_{n->oo} (1/3)x[1 - 10^(-n)] = 1/3

> Which is not Lim S=S but Lim f(n)=r

Wha?!!! ROFLMAO Lim f(n) = r means what exactly, you fucking douchebag?!

By f(n) you mean S(n) = (1/3)x[1 - 10^(-n)] and by r you mean Lim_{n->oo} (1/3)x[1 - 10^(-n)] , so it's exactly the SAME thing, you vile, dishonest, lying dog!

>No. It is commonly viewed as 1/3 which is a well-formed number. Chuckle.

It is a notation for a number like many others.

>Has NOTHING to do with Cauchy sequence which is just another name given to a convergent sequence.

All cauchy sequences are convergent, not all convergent sequences are cauchy.

>It would be a coincidence but alas Rudin had not even discussed it as such.

it isn't a coincidence because they build on the same foundational ideas.

>Only a complete CRANK like YOU Malum can still claim otherwise

I do not care what Euler put in his book, if he wrote wrong or not is of no importance. What matters is what IS today.

>Wha?!!! ROFLMAO Lim f(n) = r means what exactly, you fucking douchebag?!
>By f(n) you mean S(n) = (1/3)x[1 - 10^(-n)] and by r you mean Lim_{n->oo} (1/3)x[1 - 10^(-n)] , so it's exactly the SAME thing, you vile, dishonest, lying dog!

Here we have another example of these crank traits
- misunderstand or not use standard notation and terminology,
- ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.

On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 01:18:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >No. It is commonly viewed as 1/3 which is a well-formed number. Chuckle.
> It is a notation for a number like many others.

It is a WELL-FORMED NAME, unlike the bullshit 0.333...

> >Has NOTHING to do with Cauchy sequence which is just another name given to a convergent sequence.
> All cauchy sequences are convergent, not all convergent sequences are cauchy.

All convergent sequences (without ANY exception) are CAUCHY. What this means is that said sequence has a limit which is either a rational number or an incommensurable magnitude. This is in agreement with mainstream theory - evidently something you did not understand!

> >It would be a coincidence but alas Rudin had not even discussed it as such.
> it isn't a coincidence because they build on the same foundational ideas.

Well, if one builds on shit, the end result is always shit.

> >Only a complete CRANK like YOU Malum can still claim otherwise
> I do not care what Euler put in his book, if he wrote wrong or not is of no importance.

You DO CARE! You still obey S = Lim S. Your student Markus Klyver recently admitted it - not that it matters much because he is a moron just like you.

Of course what Euler wrote is of importance. Didn't you just say "build on the same foundational ideas"? You pathetic, stupid crank!

> What matters is what IS today.

You mean what YOU think matters. Chuckle.

> >Wha?!!! ROFLMAO Lim f(n) = r means what exactly, you fucking douchebag?!
> >By f(n) you mean S(n) = (1/3)x[1 - 10^(-n)] and by r you mean Lim_{n->oo} (1/3)x[1 - 10^(-n)] , so it's exactly the SAME thing, you vile, dishonest, lying dog!
> Here we have another example of these crank traits

See, no answer because you know I am right!!!

måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:49 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 01:18:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >No. It is commonly viewed as 1/3 which is a well-formed number. Chuckle.
> > It is a notation for a number like many others.
> It is a WELL-FORMED NAME, unlike the bullshit 0.333...
> > >Has NOTHING to do with Cauchy sequence which is just another name given to a convergent sequence.
> > All cauchy sequences are convergent, not all convergent sequences are cauchy.
> All convergent sequences (without ANY exception) are CAUCHY. What this means is that said sequence has a limit which is either a rational number or an incommensurable magnitude. This is in agreement with mainstream theory - evidently something you did not understand!
> > >It would be a coincidence but alas Rudin had not even discussed it as such.
> > it isn't a coincidence because they build on the same foundational ideas.
> Well, if one builds on shit, the end result is always shit.
> > >Only a complete CRANK like YOU Malum can still claim otherwise
> > I do not care what Euler put in his book, if he wrote wrong or not is of no importance.
> You DO CARE! You still obey S = Lim S. Your student Markus Klyver recently admitted it - not that it matters much because he is a moron just like you.
>
> Of course what Euler wrote is of importance. Didn't you just say "build on the same foundational ideas"? You pathetic, stupid crank!
> > What matters is what IS today.
> You mean what YOU think matters. Chuckle.
> > >Wha?!!! ROFLMAO Lim f(n) = r means what exactly, you fucking douchebag?!
> > >By f(n) you mean S(n) = (1/3)x[1 - 10^(-n)] and by r you mean Lim_{n->oo} (1/3)x[1 - 10^(-n)] , so it's exactly the SAME thing, you vile, dishonest, lying dog!
> > Here we have another example of these crank traits
> See, no answer because you know I am right!!!
You mean S = lim S_n doe

On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:45:28 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:49 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 01:18:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >No. It is commonly viewed as 1/3 which is a well-formed number. Chuckle.
> > > It is a notation for a number like many others.
> > It is a WELL-FORMED NAME, unlike the bullshit 0.333...
> > > >Has NOTHING to do with Cauchy sequence which is just another name given to a convergent sequence.
> > > All cauchy sequences are convergent, not all convergent sequences are cauchy.
> > All convergent sequences (without ANY exception) are CAUCHY. What this means is that said sequence has a limit which is either a rational number or an incommensurable magnitude. This is in agreement with mainstream theory - evidently something you did not understand!
> > > >It would be a coincidence but alas Rudin had not even discussed it as such.
> > > it isn't a coincidence because they build on the same foundational ideas.
> > Well, if one builds on shit, the end result is always shit.
> > > >Only a complete CRANK like YOU Malum can still claim otherwise
> > > I do not care what Euler put in his book, if he wrote wrong or not is of no importance.
> > You DO CARE! You still obey S = Lim S. Your student Markus Klyver recently admitted it - not that it matters much because he is a moron just like you.
> >
> > Of course what Euler wrote is of importance. Didn't you just say "build on the same foundational ideas"? You pathetic, stupid crank!
> > > What matters is what IS today.
> > You mean what YOU think matters. Chuckle.
> > > >Wha?!!! ROFLMAO Lim f(n) = r means what exactly, you fucking douchebag?!
> > > >By f(n) you mean S(n) = (1/3)x[1 - 10^(-n)] and by r you mean Lim_{n->oo} (1/3)x[1 - 10^(-n)] , so it's exactly the SAME thing, you vile, dishonest, lying dog!
> > > Here we have another example of these crank traits
> > See, no answer because you know I am right!!!

> You mean S = lim S_n doe

What does it matter what I mean? You are too stupid to grasp the facts.

måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:50:22 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:45:28 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:49 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 01:18:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >No. It is commonly viewed as 1/3 which is a well-formed number. Chuckle.
> > > > It is a notation for a number like many others.
> > > It is a WELL-FORMED NAME, unlike the bullshit 0.333...
> > > > >Has NOTHING to do with Cauchy sequence which is just another name given to a convergent sequence.
> > > > All cauchy sequences are convergent, not all convergent sequences are cauchy.
> > > All convergent sequences (without ANY exception) are CAUCHY. What this means is that said sequence has a limit which is either a rational number or an incommensurable magnitude. This is in agreement with mainstream theory - evidently something you did not understand!
> > > > >It would be a coincidence but alas Rudin had not even discussed it as such.
> > > > it isn't a coincidence because they build on the same foundational ideas.
> > > Well, if one builds on shit, the end result is always shit.
> > > > >Only a complete CRANK like YOU Malum can still claim otherwise
> > > > I do not care what Euler put in his book, if he wrote wrong or not is of no importance.
> > > You DO CARE! You still obey S = Lim S. Your student Markus Klyver recently admitted it - not that it matters much because he is a moron just like you.
> > >
> > > Of course what Euler wrote is of importance. Didn't you just say "build on the same foundational ideas"? You pathetic, stupid crank!
> > > > What matters is what IS today.
> > > You mean what YOU think matters. Chuckle.
> > > > >Wha?!!! ROFLMAO Lim f(n) = r means what exactly, you fucking douchebag?!
> > > > >By f(n) you mean S(n) = (1/3)x[1 - 10^(-n)] and by r you mean Lim_{n->oo} (1/3)x[1 - 10^(-n)] , so it's exactly the SAME thing, you vile, dishonest, lying dog!
> > > > Here we have another example of these crank traits
> > > See, no answer because you know I am right!!!
>
>
> > You mean S = lim S_n doe
> What does it matter what I mean? You are too stupid to grasp the facts.
John, how old are you again?

>It is a WELL-FORMED NAME, unlike the bullshit 0.333...

no, it's name is Bob, we write it as 1/3

>Well, if one builds on shit, the end result is always shit.

That is why everything you have is shit. But the cauchy constructions are valid and works fine.

>You DO CARE!

I do not

>You still obey S = Lim S.

nope, again S=(0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
S=Lim S
Substitute
(0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)=Lim (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)

Is pure nonsense.

What we have is S=lim S_n

HUGE difference.

>Your student Markus Klyver recently admitted it - not that it matters much because he is a moron just like you.

He has admitted that S=lim S_n, not your shit.

>Of course what Euler wrote is of importance. Didn't you just say "build on the same foundational ideas"? You pathetic, stupid crank!

The ideas he wrote is what matters, if he miswrote somewhere is much less important.

>You mean what YOU think matters. Chuckle.

That is what matters to the mathematical community, of which you are not part.

>See, no answer because you know I am right!!!

Ah so by not addressing most of the things I post to you, you admit here that I am right then.

Or are you gonna do cherry picking/be a hypocrite and say it is suddenly different for you?

On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:09:31 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:50:22 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:45:28 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:49 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 01:18:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >No. It is commonly viewed as 1/3 which is a well-formed number. Chuckle.
> > > > > It is a notation for a number like many others.
> > > > It is a WELL-FORMED NAME, unlike the bullshit 0.333...
> > > > > >Has NOTHING to do with Cauchy sequence which is just another name given to a convergent sequence.
> > > > > All cauchy sequences are convergent, not all convergent sequences are cauchy.
> > > > All convergent sequences (without ANY exception) are CAUCHY. What this means is that said sequence has a limit which is either a rational number or an incommensurable magnitude. This is in agreement with mainstream theory - evidently something you did not understand!
> > > > > >It would be a coincidence but alas Rudin had not even discussed it as such.
> > > > > it isn't a coincidence because they build on the same foundational ideas.
> > > > Well, if one builds on shit, the end result is always shit.
> > > > > >Only a complete CRANK like YOU Malum can still claim otherwise
> > > > > I do not care what Euler put in his book, if he wrote wrong or not is of no importance.
> > > > You DO CARE! You still obey S = Lim S. Your student Markus Klyver recently admitted it - not that it matters much because he is a moron just like you.
> > > >
> > > > Of course what Euler wrote is of importance. Didn't you just say "build on the same foundational ideas"? You pathetic, stupid crank!
> > > > > What matters is what IS today.
> > > > You mean what YOU think matters. Chuckle.
> > > > > >Wha?!!! ROFLMAO Lim f(n) = r means what exactly, you fucking douchebag?!
> > > > > >By f(n) you mean S(n) = (1/3)x[1 - 10^(-n)] and by r you mean Lim_{n->oo} (1/3)x[1 - 10^(-n)] , so it's exactly the SAME thing, you vile, dishonest, lying dog!
> > > > > Here we have another example of these crank traits
> > > > See, no answer because you know I am right!!!
> >
> >
> > > You mean S = lim S_n doe
> > What does it matter what I mean? You are too stupid to grasp the facts.
> John, how old are you again?

Old enough to know you are a moron!

On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 03:35:11 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >It is a WELL-FORMED NAME, unlike the bullshit 0.333...
> no, it's name is Bob, we write it as 1/3
> >Well, if one builds on shit, the end result is always shit.
> That is why everything you have is shit. But the cauchy constructions are valid and works fine.
>
> >You DO CARE!
>
> I do not
> >You still obey S = Lim S.
> nope, again S=(0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
> S=Lim S
> Substitute
> (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)=Lim (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
>
> Is pure nonsense.
>
> What we have is S=lim S_n
>
> HUGE difference.
> >Your student Markus Klyver recently admitted it - not that it matters much because he is a moron just like you.
> He has admitted that S=lim S_n, not your shit.

S = Lim S_n is EXACTLY what is meant by S = Lim S.

Crank: One who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Fits you and Klyver perfectly!

> >Of course what Euler wrote is of importance. Didn't you just say "build on the same foundational ideas"? You pathetic, stupid crank!
> The ideas he wrote is what matters, if he miswrote somewhere is much less important.
> >You mean what YOU think matters. Chuckle.
> That is what matters to the mathematical community, of which you are not part.
> >See, no answer because you know I am right!!!
> Ah so by not addressing most of the things I post to you, you admit here that I am right then.
>
> Or are you gonna do cherry picking/be a hypocrite and say it is suddenly different for you?

tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:53:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 03:35:11 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >It is a WELL-FORMED NAME, unlike the bullshit 0.333...
> > no, it's name is Bob, we write it as 1/3
> > >Well, if one builds on shit, the end result is always shit.
> > That is why everything you have is shit. But the cauchy constructions are valid and works fine.
> >
> > >You DO CARE!
> >
> > I do not
> > >You still obey S = Lim S.
> > nope, again S=(0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
> > S=Lim S
> > Substitute
> > (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)=Lim (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
> >
> > Is pure nonsense.
> >
> > What we have is S=lim S_n
> >
> > HUGE difference.
> > >Your student Markus Klyver recently admitted it - not that it matters much because he is a moron just like you.
> > He has admitted that S=lim S_n, not your shit.
> S = Lim S_n is EXACTLY what is meant by S = Lim S.
>
> Crank: One who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
>
> Fits you and Klyver perfectly!
> > >Of course what Euler wrote is of importance. Didn't you just say "build on the same foundational ideas"? You pathetic, stupid crank!
> > The ideas he wrote is what matters, if he miswrote somewhere is much less important.
> > >You mean what YOU think matters. Chuckle.
> > That is what matters to the mathematical community, of which you are not part.
> > >See, no answer because you know I am right!!!
> > Ah so by not addressing most of the things I post to you, you admit here that I am right then.
> >
> > Or are you gonna do cherry picking/be a hypocrite and say it is suddenly different for you?
Why do you like to omit the subscript? S=lim S is bad notation since the right hand side depends on n, whereas the left hand side has no dependence on n.

It's S=lim S_n.

On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 19:28:57 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:53:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 03:35:11 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >It is a WELL-FORMED NAME, unlike the bullshit 0.333...
> > > no, it's name is Bob, we write it as 1/3
> > > >Well, if one builds on shit, the end result is always shit.
> > > That is why everything you have is shit. But the cauchy constructions are valid and works fine.
> > >
> > > >You DO CARE!
> > >
> > > I do not
> > > >You still obey S = Lim S.
> > > nope, again S=(0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
> > > S=Lim S
> > > Substitute
> > > (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)=Lim (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
> > >
> > > Is pure nonsense.
> > >
> > > What we have is S=lim S_n
> > >
> > > HUGE difference.
> > > >Your student Markus Klyver recently admitted it - not that it matters much because he is a moron just like you.
> > > He has admitted that S=lim S_n, not your shit.
> > S = Lim S_n is EXACTLY what is meant by S = Lim S.
> >
> > Crank: One who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> >
> > Fits you and Klyver perfectly!
> > > >Of course what Euler wrote is of importance. Didn't you just say "build on the same foundational ideas"? You pathetic, stupid crank!
> > > The ideas he wrote is what matters, if he miswrote somewhere is much less important.
> > > >You mean what YOU think matters. Chuckle.
> > > That is what matters to the mathematical community, of which you are not part.
> > > >See, no answer because you know I am right!!!
> > > Ah so by not addressing most of the things I post to you, you admit here that I am right then.
> > >
> > > Or are you gonna do cherry picking/be a hypocrite and say it is suddenly different for you?
> Why do you like to omit the subscript?

> S=lim S is bad notation since the right hand side depends on n, whereas the left hand side has no dependence on n.

The left hand side IS dependent on the right hand side. It is the LIMIT of the series S. The limit is very much dependent on n and also how it is realised in analysis.

The series IS its nth partial sum. Nothing else.

>
> It's S=lim S_n.

Grow a brain, you idiot! Suddenly you're worried about notation? LMAO.

tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:53:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 03:35:11 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >It is a WELL-FORMED NAME, unlike the bullshit 0.333...
> > no, it's name is Bob, we write it as 1/3
> > >Well, if one builds on shit, the end result is always shit.
> > That is why everything you have is shit. But the cauchy constructions are valid and works fine.
> >
> > >You DO CARE!
> >
> > I do not
> > >You still obey S = Lim S.
> > nope, again S=(0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
> > S=Lim S
> > Substitute
> > (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)=Lim (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
> >
> > Is pure nonsense.
> >
> > What we have is S=lim S_n
> >
> > HUGE difference.
> > >Your student Markus Klyver recently admitted it - not that it matters much because he is a moron just like you.
> > He has admitted that S=lim S_n, not your shit.
> S = Lim S_n is EXACTLY what is meant by S = Lim S.
>
> Crank: One who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
>
> Fits you and Klyver perfectly!
> > >Of course what Euler wrote is of importance. Didn't you just say "build on the same foundational ideas"? You pathetic, stupid crank!
> > The ideas he wrote is what matters, if he miswrote somewhere is much less important.
> > >You mean what YOU think matters. Chuckle.
> > That is what matters to the mathematical community, of which you are not part.
> > >See, no answer because you know I am right!!!
> > Ah so by not addressing most of the things I post to you, you admit here that I am right then.
> >
> > Or are you gonna do cherry picking/be a hypocrite and say it is suddenly different for you?

Nope, S=lim S means VERY different from S=lim S_n

that is why we write them differently.

"Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."

Ah that fits you, you are a crank!

onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:30:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 19:28:57 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:53:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 03:35:11 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >It is a WELL-FORMED NAME, unlike the bullshit 0.333...
> > > > no, it's name is Bob, we write it as 1/3
> > > > >Well, if one builds on shit, the end result is always shit.
> > > > That is why everything you have is shit. But the cauchy constructions are valid and works fine.
> > > >
> > > > >You DO CARE!
> > > >
> > > > I do not
> > > > >You still obey S = Lim S.
> > > > nope, again S=(0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
> > > > S=Lim S
> > > > Substitute
> > > > (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)=Lim (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
> > > >
> > > > Is pure nonsense.
> > > >
> > > > What we have is S=lim S_n
> > > >
> > > > HUGE difference.
> > > > >Your student Markus Klyver recently admitted it - not that it matters much because he is a moron just like you.
> > > > He has admitted that S=lim S_n, not your shit.
> > > S = Lim S_n is EXACTLY what is meant by S = Lim S.
> > >
> > > Crank: One who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > >
> > > Fits you and Klyver perfectly!
> > > > >Of course what Euler wrote is of importance. Didn't you just say "build on the same foundational ideas"? You pathetic, stupid crank!
> > > > The ideas he wrote is what matters, if he miswrote somewhere is much less important.
> > > > >You mean what YOU think matters. Chuckle.
> > > > That is what matters to the mathematical community, of which you are not part.
> > > > >See, no answer because you know I am right!!!
> > > > Ah so by not addressing most of the things I post to you, you admit here that I am right then.
> > > >
> > > > Or are you gonna do cherry picking/be a hypocrite and say it is suddenly different for you?
> > Why do you like to omit the subscript?
>
> > S=lim S is bad notation since the right hand side depends on n, whereas the left hand side has no dependence on n.
> The left hand side IS dependent on the right hand side. It is the LIMIT of the series S. The limit is very much dependent on n and also how it is realised in analysis.
>
> The series IS its nth partial sum. Nothing else.
>
> >
> > It's S=lim S_n.
>
> Grow a brain, you idiot! Suddenly you're worried about notation? LMAO.

Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, (e.g. mathematics, cryptography, physics) may:

exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
misunderstand or not use standard notation and terminology,
ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.

This is you now :)

onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:30:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 19:28:57 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:53:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 03:35:11 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >It is a WELL-FORMED NAME, unlike the bullshit 0.333...
> > > > no, it's name is Bob, we write it as 1/3
> > > > >Well, if one builds on shit, the end result is always shit.
> > > > That is why everything you have is shit. But the cauchy constructions are valid and works fine.
> > > >
> > > > >You DO CARE!
> > > >
> > > > I do not
> > > > >You still obey S = Lim S.
> > > > nope, again S=(0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
> > > > S=Lim S
> > > > Substitute
> > > > (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)=Lim (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
> > > >
> > > > Is pure nonsense.
> > > >
> > > > What we have is S=lim S_n
> > > >
> > > > HUGE difference.
> > > > >Your student Markus Klyver recently admitted it - not that it matters much because he is a moron just like you.
> > > > He has admitted that S=lim S_n, not your shit.
> > > S = Lim S_n is EXACTLY what is meant by S = Lim S.
> > >
> > > Crank: One who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > >
> > > Fits you and Klyver perfectly!
> > > > >Of course what Euler wrote is of importance. Didn't you just say "build on the same foundational ideas"? You pathetic, stupid crank!
> > > > The ideas he wrote is what matters, if he miswrote somewhere is much less important.
> > > > >You mean what YOU think matters. Chuckle.
> > > > That is what matters to the mathematical community, of which you are not part.
> > > > >See, no answer because you know I am right!!!
> > > > Ah so by not addressing most of the things I post to you, you admit here that I am right then.
> > > >
> > > > Or are you gonna do cherry picking/be a hypocrite and say it is suddenly different for you?
> > Why do you like to omit the subscript?
>
> > S=lim S is bad notation since the right hand side depends on n, whereas the left hand side has no dependence on n.
> The left hand side IS dependent on the right hand side. It is the LIMIT of the series S. The limit is very much dependent on n and also how it is realised in analysis.
>
> The series IS its nth partial sum. Nothing else.
>
> >
> > It's S=lim S_n.
>
> Grow a brain, you idiot! Suddenly you're worried about notation? LMAO.
The limit of the series (which is a constant) is the series itself, but that not how the series is defined.

The series is defined as the limit of the partial sums S_n.

Hence S = lim_n S_n.

S = lim_n S is trivially the since S does not depend on n.

On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 10:53:34 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:30:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 19:28:57 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:53:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 03:35:11 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >It is a WELL-FORMED NAME, unlike the bullshit 0.333...
> > > > > no, it's name is Bob, we write it as 1/3
> > > > > >Well, if one builds on shit, the end result is always shit.
> > > > > That is why everything you have is shit. But the cauchy constructions are valid and works fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > >You DO CARE!
> > > > >
> > > > > I do not
> > > > > >You still obey S = Lim S.
> > > > > nope, again S=(0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
> > > > > S=Lim S
> > > > > Substitute
> > > > > (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)=Lim (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
> > > > >
> > > > > Is pure nonsense.
> > > > >
> > > > > What we have is S=lim S_n
> > > > >
> > > > > HUGE difference.
> > > > > >Your student Markus Klyver recently admitted it - not that it matters much because he is a moron just like you.
> > > > > He has admitted that S=lim S_n, not your shit.
> > > > S = Lim S_n is EXACTLY what is meant by S = Lim S.
> > > >
> > > > Crank: One who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > >
> > > > Fits you and Klyver perfectly!
> > > > > >Of course what Euler wrote is of importance. Didn't you just say "build on the same foundational ideas"? You pathetic, stupid crank!
> > > > > The ideas he wrote is what matters, if he miswrote somewhere is much less important.
> > > > > >You mean what YOU think matters. Chuckle.
> > > > > That is what matters to the mathematical community, of which you are not part.
> > > > > >See, no answer because you know I am right!!!
> > > > > Ah so by not addressing most of the things I post to you, you admit here that I am right then.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or are you gonna do cherry picking/be a hypocrite and say it is suddenly different for you?
> > > Why do you like to omit the subscript?
> >
> > > S=lim S is bad notation since the right hand side depends on n, whereas the left hand side has no dependence on n.
> > The left hand side IS dependent on the right hand side. It is the LIMIT of the series S. The limit is very much dependent on n and also how it is realised in analysis.
> >
> > The series IS its nth partial sum. Nothing else.
> >
> > >
> > > It's S=lim S_n.
> >
> > Grow a brain, you idiot! Suddenly you're worried about notation? LMAO.
> The limit of the series (which is a constant) is the series itself, but that not how the series is defined.

Not at all. That is how you would like it to be, but the reality is very different.

A series is NOT an infinite sum.

>
> The series is defined as the limit of the partial sums S_n.
>
> Hence S = lim_n S_n.

Right. S = Lim S. No difference.

>
> S = lim_n S is trivially the since S does not depend on n.

S very much depends on its partial sums defined by S(n)=(1/3)[1-10^(-n)].

S is defined by its partial sums. There is no such thing as an infinite S or even a unique S.

onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 17:00:10 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 10:53:34 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:30:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 19:28:57 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:53:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 03:35:11 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >It is a WELL-FORMED NAME, unlike the bullshit 0.333...
> > > > > > no, it's name is Bob, we write it as 1/3
> > > > > > >Well, if one builds on shit, the end result is always shit.
> > > > > > That is why everything you have is shit. But the cauchy constructions are valid and works fine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >You DO CARE!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do not
> > > > > > >You still obey S = Lim S.
> > > > > > nope, again S=(0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
> > > > > > S=Lim S
> > > > > > Substitute
> > > > > > (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)=Lim (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is pure nonsense.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What we have is S=lim S_n
> > > > > >
> > > > > > HUGE difference.
> > > > > > >Your student Markus Klyver recently admitted it - not that it matters much because he is a moron just like you.
> > > > > > He has admitted that S=lim S_n, not your shit.
> > > > > S = Lim S_n is EXACTLY what is meant by S = Lim S.
> > > > >
> > > > > Crank: One who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fits you and Klyver perfectly!
> > > > > > >Of course what Euler wrote is of importance. Didn't you just say "build on the same foundational ideas"? You pathetic, stupid crank!
> > > > > > The ideas he wrote is what matters, if he miswrote somewhere is much less important.
> > > > > > >You mean what YOU think matters. Chuckle.
> > > > > > That is what matters to the mathematical community, of which you are not part.
> > > > > > >See, no answer because you know I am right!!!
> > > > > > Ah so by not addressing most of the things I post to you, you admit here that I am right then.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Or are you gonna do cherry picking/be a hypocrite and say it is suddenly different for you?
> > > > Why do you like to omit the subscript?
> > >
> > > > S=lim S is bad notation since the right hand side depends on n, whereas the left hand side has no dependence on n.
> > > The left hand side IS dependent on the right hand side. It is the LIMIT of the series S. The limit is very much dependent on n and also how it is realised in analysis.
> > >
> > > The series IS its nth partial sum. Nothing else.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It's S=lim S_n.
> > >
> > > Grow a brain, you idiot! Suddenly you're worried about notation? LMAO.
> > The limit of the series (which is a constant) is the series itself, but that not how the series is defined.
> Not at all. That is how you would like it to be, but the reality is very different.
>
> A series is NOT an infinite sum.
> >
> > The series is defined as the limit of the partial sums S_n.
> >
> > Hence S = lim_n S_n.
> Right. S = Lim S. No difference.
> >
> > S = lim_n S is trivially the since S does not depend on n.
> S very much depends on its partial sums defined by S(n)=(1/3)[1-10^(-n)].
>
> S is defined by its partial sums. There is no such thing as an infinite S or even a unique S.
S depends on its partial sums, but not on n.

It is lim_n S_n = S.

onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 17:00:10 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 10:53:34 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:30:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 19:28:57 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:53:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 03:35:11 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >It is a WELL-FORMED NAME, unlike the bullshit 0.333...
> > > > > > no, it's name is Bob, we write it as 1/3
> > > > > > >Well, if one builds on shit, the end result is always shit.
> > > > > > That is why everything you have is shit. But the cauchy constructions are valid and works fine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >You DO CARE!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do not
> > > > > > >You still obey S = Lim S.
> > > > > > nope, again S=(0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
> > > > > > S=Lim S
> > > > > > Substitute
> > > > > > (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)=Lim (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is pure nonsense.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What we have is S=lim S_n
> > > > > >
> > > > > > HUGE difference.
> > > > > > >Your student Markus Klyver recently admitted it - not that it matters much because he is a moron just like you.
> > > > > > He has admitted that S=lim S_n, not your shit.
> > > > > S = Lim S_n is EXACTLY what is meant by S = Lim S.
> > > > >
> > > > > Crank: One who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fits you and Klyver perfectly!
> > > > > > >Of course what Euler wrote is of importance. Didn't you just say "build on the same foundational ideas"? You pathetic, stupid crank!
> > > > > > The ideas he wrote is what matters, if he miswrote somewhere is much less important.
> > > > > > >You mean what YOU think matters. Chuckle.
> > > > > > That is what matters to the mathematical community, of which you are not part.
> > > > > > >See, no answer because you know I am right!!!
> > > > > > Ah so by not addressing most of the things I post to you, you admit here that I am right then.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Or are you gonna do cherry picking/be a hypocrite and say it is suddenly different for you?
> > > > Why do you like to omit the subscript?
> > >
> > > > S=lim S is bad notation since the right hand side depends on n, whereas the left hand side has no dependence on n.
> > > The left hand side IS dependent on the right hand side. It is the LIMIT of the series S. The limit is very much dependent on n and also how it is realised in analysis.
> > >
> > > The series IS its nth partial sum. Nothing else.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It's S=lim S_n.
> > >
> > > Grow a brain, you idiot! Suddenly you're worried about notation? LMAO.
> > The limit of the series (which is a constant) is the series itself, but that not how the series is defined.
> Not at all. That is how you would like it to be, but the reality is very different.
>
> A series is NOT an infinite sum.
> >
> > The series is defined as the limit of the partial sums S_n.
> >
> > Hence S = lim_n S_n.
> Right. S = Lim S. No difference.
> >
> > S = lim_n S is trivially the since S does not depend on n.
> S very much depends on its partial sums defined by S(n)=(1/3)[1-10^(-n)].
>
> S is defined by its partial sums. There is no such thing as an infinite S or even a unique S.

Big difference.

S=(0,0.1,0.11,0.111,...)
S=Lim S
Substitute
(0,0.1,0.11,0.111,...)=Lim (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,...)
Complete non-sense

That is why you cannot have the same variable on both here. This demonstrates you fail basic variable subtitution in mathematics.

On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:14:13 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 17:00:10 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 10:53:34 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:30:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 19:28:57 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:53:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 03:35:11 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > >It is a WELL-FORMED NAME, unlike the bullshit 0.333...
> > > > > > > no, it's name is Bob, we write it as 1/3
> > > > > > > >Well, if one builds on shit, the end result is always shit.
> > > > > > > That is why everything you have is shit. But the cauchy constructions are valid and works fine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >You DO CARE!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I do not
> > > > > > > >You still obey S = Lim S.
> > > > > > > nope, again S=(0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
> > > > > > > S=Lim S
> > > > > > > Substitute
> > > > > > > (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)=Lim (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is pure nonsense.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What we have is S=lim S_n
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > HUGE difference.
> > > > > > > >Your student Markus Klyver recently admitted it - not that it matters much because he is a moron just like you.
> > > > > > > He has admitted that S=lim S_n, not your shit.
> > > > > > S = Lim S_n is EXACTLY what is meant by S = Lim S.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Crank: One who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fits you and Klyver perfectly!
> > > > > > > >Of course what Euler wrote is of importance. Didn't you just say "build on the same foundational ideas"? You pathetic, stupid crank!
> > > > > > > The ideas he wrote is what matters, if he miswrote somewhere is much less important.
> > > > > > > >You mean what YOU think matters. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > That is what matters to the mathematical community, of which you are not part.
> > > > > > > >See, no answer because you know I am right!!!
> > > > > > > Ah so by not addressing most of the things I post to you, you admit here that I am right then.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Or are you gonna do cherry picking/be a hypocrite and say it is suddenly different for you?
> > > > > Why do you like to omit the subscript?
> > > >
> > > > > S=lim S is bad notation since the right hand side depends on n, whereas the left hand side has no dependence on n.
> > > > The left hand side IS dependent on the right hand side. It is the LIMIT of the series S. The limit is very much dependent on n and also how it is realised in analysis.
> > > >
> > > > The series IS its nth partial sum. Nothing else.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It's S=lim S_n.
> > > >
> > > > Grow a brain, you idiot! Suddenly you're worried about notation? LMAO.
> > > The limit of the series (which is a constant) is the series itself, but that not how the series is defined.
> > Not at all. That is how you would like it to be, but the reality is very different.
> >
> > A series is NOT an infinite sum.
> > >
> > > The series is defined as the limit of the partial sums S_n.
> > >
> > > Hence S = lim_n S_n.
> > Right. S = Lim S. No difference.
> > >
> > > S = lim_n S is trivially the since S does not depend on n.
> > S very much depends on its partial sums defined by S(n)=(1/3)[1-10^(-n)].
> >
> > S is defined by its partial sums. There is no such thing as an infinite S or even a unique S.

> S depends on its partial sums, but not on n.

Not quite correct. S depends on its nth partial sum as defined by S(n)=(1/3)[1-10^(-n)]. Therefore, the limit itself depends on n too, because the limit is realised by considering what happens as n becomes very large.

The limit is a very clear concept. S is not infinite and CANNOT be defined in ANY other way, except by its partial sums. If you think otherwise, then you would have to show me ALL of S. You can't.

There is no S = S_inf. That's just nonsense.
>
> It is lim_n S_n = S.

NO. Lim S is very well defined to be 1/3 in the case of 0.333...

All you've had so far is hand waving and excuses which for the most part are not even relevant to the discussion. You are trying to distract from the main topic which is the FACT that Euler defined S = Lim S and moreover that it was a very big blunder!

torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:45:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:14:13 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 17:00:10 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 10:53:34 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:30:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 19:28:57 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:53:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 03:35:11 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > >It is a WELL-FORMED NAME, unlike the bullshit 0.333...
> > > > > > > > no, it's name is Bob, we write it as 1/3
> > > > > > > > >Well, if one builds on shit, the end result is always shit.
> > > > > > > > That is why everything you have is shit. But the cauchy constructions are valid and works fine.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >You DO CARE!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I do not
> > > > > > > > >You still obey S = Lim S.
> > > > > > > > nope, again S=(0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
> > > > > > > > S=Lim S
> > > > > > > > Substitute
> > > > > > > > (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)=Lim (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is pure nonsense.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What we have is S=lim S_n
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > HUGE difference.
> > > > > > > > >Your student Markus Klyver recently admitted it - not that it matters much because he is a moron just like you.
> > > > > > > > He has admitted that S=lim S_n, not your shit.
> > > > > > > S = Lim S_n is EXACTLY what is meant by S = Lim S.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Crank: One who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fits you and Klyver perfectly!
> > > > > > > > >Of course what Euler wrote is of importance. Didn't you just say "build on the same foundational ideas"? You pathetic, stupid crank!
> > > > > > > > The ideas he wrote is what matters, if he miswrote somewhere is much less important.
> > > > > > > > >You mean what YOU think matters. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > That is what matters to the mathematical community, of which you are not part.
> > > > > > > > >See, no answer because you know I am right!!!
> > > > > > > > Ah so by not addressing most of the things I post to you, you admit here that I am right then.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Or are you gonna do cherry picking/be a hypocrite and say it is suddenly different for you?
> > > > > > Why do you like to omit the subscript?
> > > > >
> > > > > > S=lim S is bad notation since the right hand side depends on n, whereas the left hand side has no dependence on n.
> > > > > The left hand side IS dependent on the right hand side. It is the LIMIT of the series S. The limit is very much dependent on n and also how it is realised in analysis.
> > > > >
> > > > > The series IS its nth partial sum. Nothing else.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's S=lim S_n.
> > > > >
> > > > > Grow a brain, you idiot! Suddenly you're worried about notation? LMAO.
> > > > The limit of the series (which is a constant) is the series itself, but that not how the series is defined.
> > > Not at all. That is how you would like it to be, but the reality is very different.
> > >
> > > A series is NOT an infinite sum.
> > > >
> > > > The series is defined as the limit of the partial sums S_n.
> > > >
> > > > Hence S = lim_n S_n.
> > > Right. S = Lim S. No difference.
> > > >
> > > > S = lim_n S is trivially the since S does not depend on n.
> > > S very much depends on its partial sums defined by S(n)=(1/3)[1-10^(-n)].
> > >
> > > S is defined by its partial sums. There is no such thing as an infinite S or even a unique S.
>
> > S depends on its partial sums, but not on n.
> Not quite correct. S depends on its nth partial sum as defined by S(n)=(1/3)[1-10^(-n)]. Therefore, the limit itself depends on n too, because the limit is realised by considering what happens as n becomes very large.
>
> The limit is a very clear concept. S is not infinite and CANNOT be defined in ANY other way, except by its partial sums. If you think otherwise, then you would have to show me ALL of S. You can't.
>
> There is no S = S_inf. That's just nonsense.
> >
> > It is lim_n S_n = S.
> NO. Lim S is very well defined to be 1/3 in the case of 0.333...
>
> All you've had so far is hand waving and excuses which for the most part are not even relevant to the discussion. You are trying to distract from the main topic which is the FACT that Euler defined S = Lim S and moreover that it was a very big blunder!

The limit does not depend on n, n is the variable the limit is taken on to see what the limit is.

Again you are failing to understand

On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:02:18 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:45:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:14:13 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 17:00:10 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 10:53:34 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:30:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 19:28:57 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:53:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 03:35:11 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >It is a WELL-FORMED NAME, unlike the bullshit 0.333...
> > > > > > > > > no, it's name is Bob, we write it as 1/3
> > > > > > > > > >Well, if one builds on shit, the end result is always shit.
> > > > > > > > > That is why everything you have is shit. But the cauchy constructions are valid and works fine.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >You DO CARE!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I do not
> > > > > > > > > >You still obey S = Lim S.
> > > > > > > > > nope, again S=(0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
> > > > > > > > > S=Lim S
> > > > > > > > > Substitute
> > > > > > > > > (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)=Lim (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Is pure nonsense.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What we have is S=lim S_n
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > HUGE difference.
> > > > > > > > > >Your student Markus Klyver recently admitted it - not that it matters much because he is a moron just like you.
> > > > > > > > > He has admitted that S=lim S_n, not your shit.
> > > > > > > > S = Lim S_n is EXACTLY what is meant by S = Lim S.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Crank: One who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Fits you and Klyver perfectly!
> > > > > > > > > >Of course what Euler wrote is of importance. Didn't you just say "build on the same foundational ideas"? You pathetic, stupid crank!
> > > > > > > > > The ideas he wrote is what matters, if he miswrote somewhere is much less important.
> > > > > > > > > >You mean what YOU think matters. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > That is what matters to the mathematical community, of which you are not part.
> > > > > > > > > >See, no answer because you know I am right!!!
> > > > > > > > > Ah so by not addressing most of the things I post to you, you admit here that I am right then.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Or are you gonna do cherry picking/be a hypocrite and say it is suddenly different for you?
> > > > > > > Why do you like to omit the subscript?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > S=lim S is bad notation since the right hand side depends on n, whereas the left hand side has no dependence on n.
> > > > > > The left hand side IS dependent on the right hand side. It is the LIMIT of the series S. The limit is very much dependent on n and also how it is realised in analysis.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The series IS its nth partial sum. Nothing else.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's S=lim S_n.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Grow a brain, you idiot! Suddenly you're worried about notation? LMAO.
> > > > > The limit of the series (which is a constant) is the series itself, but that not how the series is defined.
> > > > Not at all. That is how you would like it to be, but the reality is very different.
> > > >
> > > > A series is NOT an infinite sum.
> > > > >
> > > > > The series is defined as the limit of the partial sums S_n.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hence S = lim_n S_n.
> > > > Right. S = Lim S. No difference.
> > > > >
> > > > > S = lim_n S is trivially the since S does not depend on n.
> > > > S very much depends on its partial sums defined by S(n)=(1/3)[1-10^(-n)].
> > > >
> > > > S is defined by its partial sums. There is no such thing as an infinite S or even a unique S.
> >
> > > S depends on its partial sums, but not on n.
> > Not quite correct. S depends on its nth partial sum as defined by S(n)=(1/3)[1-10^(-n)]. Therefore, the limit itself depends on n too, because the limit is realised by considering what happens as n becomes very large.
> >
> > The limit is a very clear concept. S is not infinite and CANNOT be defined in ANY other way, except by its partial sums. If you think otherwise, then you would have to show me ALL of S. You can't.
> >
> > There is no S = S_inf. That's just nonsense.
> > >
> > > It is lim_n S_n = S.
> > NO. Lim S is very well defined to be 1/3 in the case of 0.333...
> >
> > All you've had so far is hand waving and excuses which for the most part are not even relevant to the discussion. You are trying to distract from the main topic which is the FACT that Euler defined S = Lim S and moreover that it was a very big blunder!

> The limit does not depend on n, n is the variable the limit is taken on to see what the limit is.

WOW. You just admitted the limit depends on n. The sad part is that you are too stupid to realise it. Tsk, tsk. Gosh, is that what a master math degree at Uppsala teaches you? Were your lecturers bonobos or orangutans?

>
> Again you are failing to understand

Hey crank, you NEVER say to a genius that he does not understand because that is an insult that cannot be forgiven. I piss and shit on you!!!!!!!

fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:10:10 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:02:18 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:45:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:14:13 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 17:00:10 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 10:53:34 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:30:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 19:28:57 UTC-4, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > > > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:53:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 03:35:11 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >It is a WELL-FORMED NAME, unlike the bullshit 0.333...
> > > > > > > > > > no, it's name is Bob, we write it as 1/3
> > > > > > > > > > >Well, if one builds on shit, the end result is always shit.
> > > > > > > > > > That is why everything you have is shit. But the cauchy constructions are valid and works fine.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >You DO CARE!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I do not
> > > > > > > > > > >You still obey S = Lim S.
> > > > > > > > > > nope, again S=(0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
> > > > > > > > > > S=Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > Substitute
> > > > > > > > > > (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)=Lim (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0..1111,...)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Is pure nonsense.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What we have is S=lim S_n
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > HUGE difference.
> > > > > > > > > > >Your student Markus Klyver recently admitted it - not that it matters much because he is a moron just like you.
> > > > > > > > > > He has admitted that S=lim S_n, not your shit.
> > > > > > > > > S = Lim S_n is EXACTLY what is meant by S = Lim S.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Crank: One who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Fits you and Klyver perfectly!
> > > > > > > > > > >Of course what Euler wrote is of importance. Didn't you just say "build on the same foundational ideas"? You pathetic, stupid crank!
> > > > > > > > > > The ideas he wrote is what matters, if he miswrote somewhere is much less important.
> > > > > > > > > > >You mean what YOU think matters. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > That is what matters to the mathematical community, of which you are not part.
> > > > > > > > > > >See, no answer because you know I am right!!!
> > > > > > > > > > Ah so by not addressing most of the things I post to you, you admit here that I am right then.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Or are you gonna do cherry picking/be a hypocrite and say it is suddenly different for you?
> > > > > > > > Why do you like to omit the subscript?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > S=lim S is bad notation since the right hand side depends on n, whereas the left hand side has no dependence on n.
> > > > > > > The left hand side IS dependent on the right hand side. It is the LIMIT of the series S. The limit is very much dependent on n and also how it is realised in analysis.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The series IS its nth partial sum. Nothing else.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's S=lim S_n.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Grow a brain, you idiot! Suddenly you're worried about notation? LMAO.
> > > > > > The limit of the series (which is a constant) is the series itself, but that not how the series is defined.
> > > > > Not at all. That is how you would like it to be, but the reality is very different.
> > > > >
> > > > > A series is NOT an infinite sum.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The series is defined as the limit of the partial sums S_n.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hence S = lim_n S_n.
> > > > > Right. S = Lim S. No difference.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > S = lim_n S is trivially the since S does not depend on n.
> > > > > S very much depends on its partial sums defined by S(n)=(1/3)[1-10^(-n)].
> > > > >
> > > > > S is defined by its partial sums. There is no such thing as an infinite S or even a unique S.
> > >
> > > > S depends on its partial sums, but not on n.
> > > Not quite correct. S depends on its nth partial sum as defined by S(n)=(1/3)[1-10^(-n)]. Therefore, the limit itself depends on n too, because the limit is realised by considering what happens as n becomes very large.
> > >
> > > The limit is a very clear concept. S is not infinite and CANNOT be defined in ANY other way, except by its partial sums. If you think otherwise, then you would have to show me ALL of S. You can't.
> > >
> > > There is no S = S_inf. That's just nonsense.
> > > >
> > > > It is lim_n S_n = S.
> > > NO. Lim S is very well defined to be 1/3 in the case of 0.333...
> > >
> > > All you've had so far is hand waving and excuses which for the most part are not even relevant to the discussion. You are trying to distract from the main topic which is the FACT that Euler defined S = Lim S and moreover that it was a very big blunder!
>
> > The limit does not depend on n, n is the variable the limit is taken on to see what the limit is.
> WOW. You just admitted the limit depends on n. The sad part is that you are too stupid to realise it. Tsk, tsk. Gosh, is that what a master math degree at Uppsala teaches you? Were your lecturers bonobos or orangutans?
> >
> > Again you are failing to understand
> Hey crank, you NEVER say to a genius that he does not understand because that is an insult that cannot be forgiven. I piss and shit on you!!!!!!!

The limit doesn't depend on n, but is a variable the limit is taken over.

I wouldn't say that to a genius, but you are not a genius. You are an idiot, a mentally retarded ablist homophobic anti-semitic bigot.

On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 08:24:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:10:10 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:02:18 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:45:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:14:13 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 17:00:10 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 10:53:34 UTC-4, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:30:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 19:28:57 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:53:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 03:35:11 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >It is a WELL-FORMED NAME, unlike the bullshit 0.333....
> > > > > > > > > > > no, it's name is Bob, we write it as 1/3
> > > > > > > > > > > >Well, if one builds on shit, the end result is always shit.
> > > > > > > > > > > That is why everything you have is shit. But the cauchy constructions are valid and works fine.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >You DO CARE!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I do not
> > > > > > > > > > > >You still obey S = Lim S.
> > > > > > > > > > > nope, again S=(0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
> > > > > > > > > > > S=Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > > Substitute
> > > > > > > > > > > (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)=Lim (0,0.1,0.11,0.111,0.1111,...)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Is pure nonsense.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What we have is S=lim S_n
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > HUGE difference.
> > > > > > > > > > > >Your student Markus Klyver recently admitted it - not that it matters much because he is a moron just like you.
> > > > > > > > > > > He has admitted that S=lim S_n, not your shit.
> > > > > > > > > > S = Lim S_n is EXACTLY what is meant by S = Lim S.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Crank: One who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Fits you and Klyver perfectly!
> > > > > > > > > > > >Of course what Euler wrote is of importance. Didn't you just say "build on the same foundational ideas"? You pathetic, stupid crank!
> > > > > > > > > > > The ideas he wrote is what matters, if he miswrote somewhere is much less important.
> > > > > > > > > > > >You mean what YOU think matters. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > > That is what matters to the mathematical community, of which you are not part.
> > > > > > > > > > > >See, no answer because you know I am right!!!
> > > > > > > > > > > Ah so by not addressing most of the things I post to you, you admit here that I am right then.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Or are you gonna do cherry picking/be a hypocrite and say it is suddenly different for you?
> > > > > > > > > Why do you like to omit the subscript?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > S=lim S is bad notation since the right hand side depends on n, whereas the left hand side has no dependence on n.
> > > > > > > > The left hand side IS dependent on the right hand side. It is the LIMIT of the series S. The limit is very much dependent on n and also how it is realised in analysis.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The series IS its nth partial sum. Nothing else.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's S=lim S_n.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Grow a brain, you idiot! Suddenly you're worried about notation? LMAO.
> > > > > > > The limit of the series (which is a constant) is the series itself, but that not how the series is defined.
> > > > > > Not at all. That is how you would like it to be, but the reality is very different.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A series is NOT an infinite sum.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The series is defined as the limit of the partial sums S_n.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hence S = lim_n S_n.
> > > > > > Right. S = Lim S. No difference.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > S = lim_n S is trivially the since S does not depend on n.
> > > > > > S very much depends on its partial sums defined by S(n)=(1/3)[1-10^(-n)].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > S is defined by its partial sums. There is no such thing as an infinite S or even a unique S.
> > > >
> > > > > S depends on its partial sums, but not on n.
> > > > Not quite correct. S depends on its nth partial sum as defined by S(n)=(1/3)[1-10^(-n)]. Therefore, the limit itself depends on n too, because the limit is realised by considering what happens as n becomes very large.
> > > >
> > > > The limit is a very clear concept. S is not infinite and CANNOT be defined in ANY other way, except by its partial sums. If you think otherwise, then you would have to show me ALL of S. You can't.
> > > >
> > > > There is no S = S_inf. That's just nonsense.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is lim_n S_n = S.
> > > > NO. Lim S is very well defined to be 1/3 in the case of 0.333...
> > > >
> > > > All you've had so far is hand waving and excuses which for the most part are not even relevant to the discussion. You are trying to distract from the main topic which is the FACT that Euler defined S = Lim S and moreover that it was a very big blunder!
> >
> > > The limit does not depend on n, n is the variable the limit is taken on to see what the limit is.
> > WOW. You just admitted the limit depends on n. The sad part is that you are too stupid to realise it. Tsk, tsk. Gosh, is that what a master math degree at Uppsala teaches you? Were your lecturers bonobos or orangutans?
> > >
> > > Again you are failing to understand
> > Hey crank, you NEVER say to a genius that he does not understand because that is an insult that cannot be forgiven. I piss and shit on you!!!!!!!
> The limit doesn't depend on n, but is a variable the limit is taken over.

No The limit very much depends on n. It depends on NOTHING else but n. The limit does NOT care if all the terms are there or even there at all.

> I wouldn't say that to a genius, but you are not a genius.

You just did! :) I am a genius and you are a pigheaded moron.

> You are an idiot, a mentally retarded ablist homophobic anti-semitic bigot.

Now there's a word I've never heard of before: "ablist" ??? Chuckle.

Did you perhaps mean "ableist" ?

FUN FACT: I am officially (physically) disabled. I receive a meagre disability pension - so meagre it doesn't even pay rent for a bedroom, so I am homeless. I don't even have a bank account thanks to vile cunts like Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, Denis Muller, Prof. Gilbert Strang, etc, YOU and the rest of the cunts on this newsgroup. Some day you will pay for all the libel about me. When you call someone a crank, you destroy that one's life in ways you cannot even begin to imagine.

If I were an ableist, then I would be hating myself. This is illogical and geniuses are not illogical people.

I am convinced it would be easier to teach a retard mathematics than it is to correct brain-dead mainstream math academics.

>No The limit very much depends on n. It depends on NOTHING else but n. The limit does NOT care if all the terms are there or even there at all.

The limit is taken over n, but is not dependent on n.

>You just did! :) I am a genius and you are a pigheaded moron.

I didn't, you're not a genius. You're an idiot and a crank.

>Did you perhaps mean "ableist" ?

Woo misspelling.

>I am officially (physically) disabled.

You're still ableist :)

>so meagre it doesn't even pay rent for a bedroom, so I am homeless

If the world wouldn't be better with you dead, I'd spare some sympathy for you but unfortunately for you, the faster you die the better the world gets..

>I don't even have a bank account thanks to vile cunts like Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, Denis Muller, Prof. Gilbert Strang, etc, YOU and the rest of the cunts on this newsgroup

How did we do anything to you? I sure as hell ain't ever done anything to your banking situation.

But I will happily laugh at your misfortune :)

>Some day you will pay for all the libel about me.

It is only libel if its falsehoods made for defamation. I at least can demonstrate my claims.

>When you call someone a crank, you destroy that one's life in ways you cannot even begin to imagine.

No, but by being a crank your life do get ruined.

>If I were an ableist, then I would be hating myself. This is illogical and geniuses are not illogical people.

Incorrect, you can be ableist and be handicapped just like any person of any "race" can be racist, even toward their own group. You can have misogynous women and much more.

You are ableist because you harp on the fact that Hawking had a handicapped.. Just like you harp on someone being of jewish descent makes you anti-semitic. The fact you harp on the idea of someone being homosexual, as that is somehow relevant, makes you homophobic. That is why you're an ableist anti-semitic homophobic bigot of a crank. If you weren't those, you'd just address the points of statements.

If I now, with this information, which I have screenshotted by the way, was to start attacking you for being homeless and unbanked instead of addressing the points you're wrong at, it'd make be classist, but you won't see that happen :)

>I am convinced it would be easier to teach a retard mathematics than it is to correct brain-dead mainstream math academics.

It is easier to teach someone wrong things when they are ignorant, than when they know better.

That is why religions wants the kids so they can indoctrinate them early.

On Tuesday, 24 August 2021 at 01:25:03 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >No The limit very much depends on n. It depends on NOTHING else but n. The limit does NOT care if all the terms are there or even there at all.
> The limit is taken over n, but is not dependent on n.

The limit very much depends on n!

Look sonny: S(n)= (1/3) [1-10^(-n)]

Lim_{n->3} S(n) = 0.333
Lim_{n->oo} S(n) = 0.333... (at least according to your bogus mathematics!)

You really should try to learn these things properly.

> >so meagre it doesn't even pay rent for a bedroom, so I am homeless
> If the world wouldn't be better with you dead, I'd spare some sympathy for you but unfortunately for you, the faster you die the better the world gets.

The thanks I get for educating you?

> >I don't even have a bank account thanks to vile cunts like Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, Denis Muller, Prof. Gilbert Strang, etc, YOU and the rest of the cunts on this newsgroup
> How did we do anything to you?

You know very well what your misdeeds are and some day you will pay dearly, even if I am no longer around.
Don't bank on me dying any time soon. I've beaten the odds many times. I've even survived a moment of insanity! :)

I'll probably be around for a very long time even though it wouldn't bother me if I died in my sleep tonight.

> I sure as hell ain't ever done anything to your banking situation.

Everyone who has called me a "crank" is responsible for my current woes and that includes YOU.

>
> But I will happily laugh at your misfortune :)

You just proved my point!

> >If I were an ableist, then I would be hating myself. This is illogical and geniuses are not illogical people.

> Incorrect, you can be ableist and be handicapped just like any person of any "race" can be racist, even toward their own group. You can have misogynous women and much more.

I think you forget that I am not just "any person". Chuckle.

<drivel>

> >I am convinced it would be easier to teach a retard mathematics than it is to correct brain-dead mainstream math academics.
> It is easier to teach someone wrong things when they are ignorant, than when they know better.

That can't be true because someone I know from Oops-Allah (Uppsala university) can't be taught at all!

> That is why religions wants the kids so they can indoctrinate them early.

On 8/23/2021 9:38 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:

> FUN FACT: I am officially (physically) disabled. I receive a meagre disability pension - so meagre it doesn't even pay rent for a bedroom, so I am homeless. I don't even have a bank account thanks to vile cunts like Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, Denis Muller, Prof. Gilbert Strang, etc, YOU and the rest of the cunts on this newsgroup. Some day you will pay for all the libel about me. When you call someone a crank, you destroy that one's life in ways you cannot even begin to imagine.

What happened to Innisfree Village?

I would think that an actual "genius", when faced with such a bad
situation, would be able to figure out how to use government programs
for the disabled, charities and so forth so as to not be homeless. As
to not having a bank account, don't blame that on Dan etc. or on being
disabled. Being disabled (other than mental disability) does not
disallow bank accounts. Perhaps blame it on your poor management of
money? A genius should be able to manage money correctly.
>
> If I were an ableist, then I would be hating myself. This is illogical and geniuses are not illogical people.

You are rather illogical, what does that tell you. Anyway, there are
plenty of people who are members of a group who express hatred for their
own group. Gay-hating gays is particularly common. Given your comments
about the "cripple" Hawking, "retard" (mentally disabled) below, and
your own claim about being disabled, that is hatred toward a member of
your own group, the disabled.
>
> I am convinced it would be easier to teach a retard mathematics than it is to correct brain-dead mainstream math academics.