On Saturday, 2 May 2020 at 09:19:46 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> There is no such thing as an "irrational number" - it's a myth.
>
> A *NUMBER* is the *NAME* given to a *MEASURE* that describes a commensurable *MAGNITUDE* (length, area, mass, etc).
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-we-got-numbers-john-gabriel-1

I am no longer on LinkedIn. The above article is found at:

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

måndag 30 augusti 2021 kl. 13:13:02 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Saturday, 2 May 2020 at 09:19:46 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > There is no such thing as an "irrational number" - it's a myth.
> >
> > A *NUMBER* is the *NAME* given to a *MEASURE* that describes a commensurable *MAGNITUDE* (length, area, mass, etc).
> >
> > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-we-got-numbers-john-gabriel-1
> I am no longer on LinkedIn. The above article is found at:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU

I miss the Wildberger type of finitism. At least it was cultured and understood the concepts.

On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 8:01:09 AM UTC-7, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 30 augusti 2021 kl. 13:13:02 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Saturday, 2 May 2020 at 09:19:46 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > There is no such thing as an "irrational number" - it's a myth.
> > >
> > > A *NUMBER* is the *NAME* given to a *MEASURE* that describes a commensurable *MAGNITUDE* (length, area, mass, etc).
> > >
> > > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-we-got-numbers-john-gabriel-1
> > I am no longer on LinkedIn. The above article is found at:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> I miss the Wildberger type of finitism. At least it was cultured and understood the concepts.

Finite can go up forever... finites are unlimited
This shows how infinity is real in math.
Just as zero is...

Mitchell Raemsch

måndag 30 augusti 2021 kl. 13:13:02 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Saturday, 2 May 2020 at 09:19:46 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > There is no such thing as an "irrational number" - it's a myth.
> >
> > A *NUMBER* is the *NAME* given to a *MEASURE* that describes a commensurable *MAGNITUDE* (length, area, mass, etc).
> >
> > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-we-got-numbers-john-gabriel-1
> I am no longer on LinkedIn. The above article is found at:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
that is your pet idea, and nothing else. It is of no importance.

On Tuesday, 31 August 2021 at 01:02:13 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 30 augusti 2021 kl. 13:13:02 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Saturday, 2 May 2020 at 09:19:46 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > There is no such thing as an "irrational number" - it's a myth.
> > >
> > > A *NUMBER* is the *NAME* given to a *MEASURE* that describes a commensurable *MAGNITUDE* (length, area, mass, etc).
> > >
> > > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-we-got-numbers-john-gabriel-1
> > I am no longer on LinkedIn. The above article is found at:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> that is your pet idea, and nothing else. It is of no importance.

"If f=g+c THEN g=f-c is CIRCULAR" - Zelos Malum and Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python)

LMAO

On Mon Aug 30 22:02:08 2021 "zelos...@gmail.com" wrote:
> mndag 30 augusti 2021 kl. 13:13:02 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Saturday, 2 May 2020 at 09:19:46 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > There is no such thing as an "irrational number" - it's a myth.
> > >
> > > A *NUMBER* is the *NAME* given to a *MEASURE* that describes a commensurable *MAGNITUDE* (length, area, mass, etc).

*
Is sqrt(2) an irrational number?
* Sqrt(2) is the *NAME* given to a *MEASURE* of the *LENGTH* of the distance across the diagonal of the unit square.

If you do not understand this, I can suggest that you check with Archimedes Plutonium, whom I am sure will guide you.

earle
*

tisdag 31 augusti 2021 kl. 13:50:51 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 31 August 2021 at 01:02:13 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > måndag 30 augusti 2021 kl. 13:13:02 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Saturday, 2 May 2020 at 09:19:46 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > There is no such thing as an "irrational number" - it's a myth.
> > > >
> > > > A *NUMBER* is the *NAME* given to a *MEASURE* that describes a commensurable *MAGNITUDE* (length, area, mass, etc).
> > > >
> > > > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-we-got-numbers-john-gabriel-1
> > > I am no longer on LinkedIn. The above article is found at:
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> > that is your pet idea, and nothing else. It is of no importance.
> "If f=g+c THEN g=f-c is CIRCULAR" - Zelos Malum and Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python)
>
> LMAO
>Lying again, crank? Nowhere did I say this. Provide the link, you vile bastard!

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/5NjpX0It60I/m/nLvlglEMCQAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/bxHjnK8_00o/m/L5t27UkMCQAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/QMhqLZH1434/m/a_ShbscMCQAJ
Right in this post :slight_smile:

>I have NEVER defined the derivative in terms of a limit.

I didn't say you did, I said I did. D was defiend in terms of limit, T in terms of D, and you cry circular which is not it.

To be circular T is defined in terms of D, and D in terms of T, but it isn't. D is defined independently of T

>That's EXACTLY what YOU do in your bullshit MAINSTREAM calculus and it is CIRCULAR.

See, right here you do claim it is circular just like I said you do.

D defined in terms of limit
T defined in terms of D
Is not circular. It is a linear progression of definitions.

>Your drivel was nothing of the sort. You imagined that you were agreeing with your fellow asswipe Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python) and I made a fool of you yet again! LMAO.

You didn't, you did however manage to confirm in this post exactly what I said you did while denying it. That is quite foolish.