fredag 16 augusti 2019 kl. 23:01:50 UTC+2 skrev Ross A. Finlayson:
> \section{Introduction}
>
> Usual formalisms in finite combinatorics and
> also the resulting mathematics from geometry
> finds continuum analysis central and ubiquitous.
>
> TeX is a computerized typesetting system originated
> and specialized for often usual document contents
> and diagrams and in structured and semantic content
> settings.
>
> Mathematical proving systems are often computerized
> inference and result establishment settings, their
> often tractable symbolic form involves in a usual
> document framework what sorts would follow, the usual
> language of TeX and its normative computer language
> MIX, among mathematical proving systems, that results
> from the document as template, here what are among
> renderings, usual maintenance of inline rendering
> the collections and organizations of the mathematical
> proving systems establishments, or their values.
>
> Continuum Analysis fundamentals are formalizations,
> the axiomatics of continuum objects are shown to
> be of central forms and including for reasons of motion.
>
> The usual (and standard) mathematical formalizations
> are same, definitions of continuity are mathematical
> definitions about the continuity in space, fields,
> signals, and in spaces and functions, and about
> sets and parts and relations, their value representations
> and conditions as mathematical structures as
> maintaining and established "continuity", by definition.
> Referenced are ZF (Zermelo-Fraenkel, modern) set theory
> and usual terms from real analysis (standard), function
> theory, ordering theory, then for forms: usual modern,
> standard statements as above the combined representations
> for mathematical proving systems.
>
> A primary object in continuum analysis is a constant
> or object called "infinity" that in systems of numerical
> value and arithmetic evaluates as "greater than" than
> any named, finite, or bounded value. "Infinity" is
> written as "$\infty$".
>
> As a constant, definitions of establishment of
> relations of arithmetic forms of infinity, have
> that suitable organizations or structures,
> maintain the usual and exact representation
> of the "infinite value", in terms of the
> arithmetical constants $0$, $1$.
>
> In the quotient space as about the multiplicative identity and additive successor, to $0$, as a constant for ratio
> for value, the term "$\infty$" is not in the space of
> multiplicative results about 1, but, does maintain
> being its own multiplicative inverse, as if it were
> (in the space, or as that its product is from the quotient space).
>
> \[\frac{\infty}{\infty} = 1 \]
>
> Infinity is similarly "centralized" as about the origin.
>
> \[\infty-\infty = 0 \]
>
> The "value representations" of the systems of value
> can only write the constant "$\infty$" as maintains
> that in its expression, and that is an otherwise
> valueless constant, instead would most establish
> the reference of form of term, for "not equals
> infinity" or for "less-than" ($'<'$) then always writing
> infinity in terms of "greater-than" ($'<'$) (or for example
> in systems "less-than").
>
> This way the definition of arithmetic as from fundamentals,
> sees that the most usual or direct maintenance of relations
> of value in the value space, as the necessarily continuous
> space of relations is so maintained, the continuous or
> real value space, has that "$\infty$", the constant,
> maintains a valid expression, for its expression of
> constant, not necessarily empty, value relations in types.
>
> The continuous value relation in the terms looks as:
>
> \[ \frac{1}{\infty} = 0 \]
>
> that clearly the resulting use of the constant, is
> invalidated where a) $\infty$ doesn't exist in the
> value space, via any necessarily direct (or mutual) inference. Otherwise it's maintained as valid, the
> valid $1$ in its expression and as a constant and
> as an invariant, and also here where direct establishment
> via or under otherwise constant terms, sees that
> "$\infty$" maintains as if it were either potentially,
> or actually infinite, as about that in the terms, it's actual and constant.
>
> This is where otherwise that only "$>$" in an ordering of
> the numbers, not exhausting the ordering, where "$>$" is
> the only evaluation and "$\infty$" is outside the space
> (or otherwise "valid"), the only fact is that as the
> ordering is unbounded, that for any value that is not
> infinity (and none are), there exists an inverse
> that is less-than the inverse of the value. That
> it's also bounded below on 0.0 the additive identity
> (and multiplicative annihilator, besides), establishes
> zero as a critical point and also the only critical
> point of multiplicative inverses of positive integers.
>
> \[
> \forall n \in N,
> \exists m > n
> \implies
> \forall n \exists
> \text {"m-many m such that 1/m is closer to zero than 1/n"}
> \]
>
> A central fixture in continuum analysis that in results
> maintained directly by continuum analysis or space concerns,
> that exhaustion is incomplete from enumeration but complete
> from attenuation, here follows the simple establishment above, of that it's the only fact available to mutual
> (and deductive) inference, the existence of quantity (in the value space).
>
> The existence of "so many" larger, the "at least so many
> larger" instead of "all the rest (after, in the ordering) larger" establishes results in symmetries,
> under potential in usual potential spaces as for example
> quadratic in area. The central property of locality, in
> the value space, results in perfect equilibrium as usually
> constant under terms.
>
> This maintains that for the "actual infinity" in the
> value space, extreme in the value space, that there
> doesn't exist any other object in the value space,
> because infinity is the only non-finite and non-zero
> value, that "$\frac{1}{\infty} = 0$" and "$\lim_{n < \infty} \frac{1}{n} = 0$", that those equating the same zero in the value space
> is the establishment of the value semantics of infinity, for and about $\text{measure} 1.0$. Thus, either stipulation of potential or actual infinity has the possibility of mutual inference, constant in and under terms.
>
> \end{document}
what

On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 1:59:23 PM UTC-7, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> fredag 16 augusti 2019 kl. 23:01:50 UTC+2 skrev Ross A. Finlayson:
> > \section{Introduction}
> >
> > Usual formalisms in finite combinatorics and
> > also the resulting mathematics from geometry
> > finds continuum analysis central and ubiquitous.
> >
> > TeX is a computerized typesetting system originated
> > and specialized for often usual document contents
> > and diagrams and in structured and semantic content
> > settings.
> >
> > Mathematical proving systems are often computerized
> > inference and result establishment settings, their
> > often tractable symbolic form involves in a usual
> > document framework what sorts would follow, the usual
> > language of TeX and its normative computer language
> > MIX, among mathematical proving systems, that results
> > from the document as template, here what are among
> > renderings, usual maintenance of inline rendering
> > the collections and organizations of the mathematical
> > proving systems establishments, or their values.
> >
> > Continuum Analysis fundamentals are formalizations,
> > the axiomatics of continuum objects are shown to
> > be of central forms and including for reasons of motion.
> >
> > The usual (and standard) mathematical formalizations
> > are same, definitions of continuity are mathematical
> > definitions about the continuity in space, fields,
> > signals, and in spaces and functions, and about
> > sets and parts and relations, their value representations
> > and conditions as mathematical structures as
> > maintaining and established "continuity", by definition.
> > Referenced are ZF (Zermelo-Fraenkel, modern) set theory
> > and usual terms from real analysis (standard), function
> > theory, ordering theory, then for forms: usual modern,
> > standard statements as above the combined representations
> > for mathematical proving systems.
> >
> > A primary object in continuum analysis is a constant
> > or object called "infinity" that in systems of numerical
> > value and arithmetic evaluates as "greater than" than
> > any named, finite, or bounded value. "Infinity" is
> > written as "$\infty$".
> >
> > As a constant, definitions of establishment of
> > relations of arithmetic forms of infinity, have
> > that suitable organizations or structures,
> > maintain the usual and exact representation
> > of the "infinite value", in terms of the
> > arithmetical constants $0$, $1$.
> >
> > In the quotient space as about the multiplicative identity and additive successor, to $0$, as a constant for ratio
> > for value, the term "$\infty$" is not in the space of
> > multiplicative results about 1, but, does maintain
> > being its own multiplicative inverse, as if it were
> > (in the space, or as that its product is from the quotient space).
> >
> > \[\frac{\infty}{\infty} = 1 \]
> >
> > Infinity is similarly "centralized" as about the origin.
> >
> > \[\infty-\infty = 0 \]
> >
> > The "value representations" of the systems of value
> > can only write the constant "$\infty$" as maintains
> > that in its expression, and that is an otherwise
> > valueless constant, instead would most establish
> > the reference of form of term, for "not equals
> > infinity" or for "less-than" ($'<'$) then always writing
> > infinity in terms of "greater-than" ($'<'$) (or for example
> > in systems "less-than").
> >
> > This way the definition of arithmetic as from fundamentals,
> > sees that the most usual or direct maintenance of relations
> > of value in the value space, as the necessarily continuous
> > space of relations is so maintained, the continuous or
> > real value space, has that "$\infty$", the constant,
> > maintains a valid expression, for its expression of
> > constant, not necessarily empty, value relations in types.
> >
> > The continuous value relation in the terms looks as:
> >
> > \[ \frac{1}{\infty} = 0 \]
> >
> > that clearly the resulting use of the constant, is
> > invalidated where a) $\infty$ doesn't exist in the
> > value space, via any necessarily direct (or mutual) inference. Otherwise it's maintained as valid, the
> > valid $1$ in its expression and as a constant and
> > as an invariant, and also here where direct establishment
> > via or under otherwise constant terms, sees that
> > "$\infty$" maintains as if it were either potentially,
> > or actually infinite, as about that in the terms, it's actual and constant.
> >
> > This is where otherwise that only "$>$" in an ordering of
> > the numbers, not exhausting the ordering, where "$>$" is
> > the only evaluation and "$\infty$" is outside the space
> > (or otherwise "valid"), the only fact is that as the
> > ordering is unbounded, that for any value that is not
> > infinity (and none are), there exists an inverse
> > that is less-than the inverse of the value. That
> > it's also bounded below on 0.0 the additive identity
> > (and multiplicative annihilator, besides), establishes
> > zero as a critical point and also the only critical
> > point of multiplicative inverses of positive integers.
> >
> > \[
> > \forall n \in N,
> > \exists m > n
> > \implies
> > \forall n \exists
> > \text {"m-many m such that 1/m is closer to zero than 1/n"}
> > \]
> >
> > A central fixture in continuum analysis that in results
> > maintained directly by continuum analysis or space concerns,
> > that exhaustion is incomplete from enumeration but complete
> > from attenuation, here follows the simple establishment above, of that it's the only fact available to mutual
> > (and deductive) inference, the existence of quantity (in the value space).
> >
> > The existence of "so many" larger, the "at least so many
> > larger" instead of "all the rest (after, in the ordering) larger" establishes results in symmetries,
> > under potential in usual potential spaces as for example
> > quadratic in area. The central property of locality, in
> > the value space, results in perfect equilibrium as usually
> > constant under terms.
> >
> > This maintains that for the "actual infinity" in the
> > value space, extreme in the value space, that there
> > doesn't exist any other object in the value space,
> > because infinity is the only non-finite and non-zero
> > value, that "$\frac{1}{\infty} = 0$" and "$\lim_{n < \infty} \frac{1}{n} = 0$", that those equating the same zero in the value space
> > is the establishment of the value semantics of infinity, for and about $\text{measure} 1.0$. Thus, either stipulation of potential or actual infinity has the possibility of mutual inference, constant in and under terms.
> >
> > \end{document}
> what

Mathematical continuity was Einstein's central continuum...
Eternal continuity is real. It is mathematical gravity.
God creates gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 3:27:25 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 1:59:23 PM UTC-7, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > fredag 16 augusti 2019 kl. 23:01:50 UTC+2 skrev Ross A. Finlayson:
> > > \section{Introduction}
> > >
> > > Usual formalisms in finite combinatorics and
> > > also the resulting mathematics from geometry
> > > finds continuum analysis central and ubiquitous.
> > >
> > > TeX is a computerized typesetting system originated
> > > and specialized for often usual document contents
> > > and diagrams and in structured and semantic content
> > > settings.
> > >
> > > Mathematical proving systems are often computerized
> > > inference and result establishment settings, their
> > > often tractable symbolic form involves in a usual
> > > document framework what sorts would follow, the usual
> > > language of TeX and its normative computer language
> > > MIX, among mathematical proving systems, that results
> > > from the document as template, here what are among
> > > renderings, usual maintenance of inline rendering
> > > the collections and organizations of the mathematical
> > > proving systems establishments, or their values.
> > >
> > > Continuum Analysis fundamentals are formalizations,
> > > the axiomatics of continuum objects are shown to
> > > be of central forms and including for reasons of motion.
> > >
> > > The usual (and standard) mathematical formalizations
> > > are same, definitions of continuity are mathematical
> > > definitions about the continuity in space, fields,
> > > signals, and in spaces and functions, and about
> > > sets and parts and relations, their value representations
> > > and conditions as mathematical structures as
> > > maintaining and established "continuity", by definition.
> > > Referenced are ZF (Zermelo-Fraenkel, modern) set theory
> > > and usual terms from real analysis (standard), function
> > > theory, ordering theory, then for forms: usual modern,
> > > standard statements as above the combined representations
> > > for mathematical proving systems.
> > >
> > > A primary object in continuum analysis is a constant
> > > or object called "infinity" that in systems of numerical
> > > value and arithmetic evaluates as "greater than" than
> > > any named, finite, or bounded value. "Infinity" is
> > > written as "$\infty$".
> > >
> > > As a constant, definitions of establishment of
> > > relations of arithmetic forms of infinity, have
> > > that suitable organizations or structures,
> > > maintain the usual and exact representation
> > > of the "infinite value", in terms of the
> > > arithmetical constants $0$, $1$.
> > >
> > > In the quotient space as about the multiplicative identity and additive successor, to $0$, as a constant for ratio
> > > for value, the term "$\infty$" is not in the space of
> > > multiplicative results about 1, but, does maintain
> > > being its own multiplicative inverse, as if it were
> > > (in the space, or as that its product is from the quotient space).
> > >
> > > \[\frac{\infty}{\infty} = 1 \]
> > >
> > > Infinity is similarly "centralized" as about the origin.
> > >
> > > \[\infty-\infty = 0 \]
> > >
> > > The "value representations" of the systems of value
> > > can only write the constant "$\infty$" as maintains
> > > that in its expression, and that is an otherwise
> > > valueless constant, instead would most establish
> > > the reference of form of term, for "not equals
> > > infinity" or for "less-than" ($'<'$) then always writing
> > > infinity in terms of "greater-than" ($'<'$) (or for example
> > > in systems "less-than").
> > >
> > > This way the definition of arithmetic as from fundamentals,
> > > sees that the most usual or direct maintenance of relations
> > > of value in the value space, as the necessarily continuous
> > > space of relations is so maintained, the continuous or
> > > real value space, has that "$\infty$", the constant,
> > > maintains a valid expression, for its expression of
> > > constant, not necessarily empty, value relations in types.
> > >
> > > The continuous value relation in the terms looks as:
> > >
> > > \[ \frac{1}{\infty} = 0 \]
> > >
> > > that clearly the resulting use of the constant, is
> > > invalidated where a) $\infty$ doesn't exist in the
> > > value space, via any necessarily direct (or mutual) inference. Otherwise it's maintained as valid, the
> > > valid $1$ in its expression and as a constant and
> > > as an invariant, and also here where direct establishment
> > > via or under otherwise constant terms, sees that
> > > "$\infty$" maintains as if it were either potentially,
> > > or actually infinite, as about that in the terms, it's actual and constant.
> > >
> > > This is where otherwise that only "$>$" in an ordering of
> > > the numbers, not exhausting the ordering, where "$>$" is
> > > the only evaluation and "$\infty$" is outside the space
> > > (or otherwise "valid"), the only fact is that as the
> > > ordering is unbounded, that for any value that is not
> > > infinity (and none are), there exists an inverse
> > > that is less-than the inverse of the value. That
> > > it's also bounded below on 0.0 the additive identity
> > > (and multiplicative annihilator, besides), establishes
> > > zero as a critical point and also the only critical
> > > point of multiplicative inverses of positive integers.
> > >
> > > \[
> > > \forall n \in N,
> > > \exists m > n
> > > \implies
> > > \forall n \exists
> > > \text {"m-many m such that 1/m is closer to zero than 1/n"}
> > > \]
> > >
> > > A central fixture in continuum analysis that in results
> > > maintained directly by continuum analysis or space concerns,
> > > that exhaustion is incomplete from enumeration but complete
> > > from attenuation, here follows the simple establishment above, of that it's the only fact available to mutual
> > > (and deductive) inference, the existence of quantity (in the value space).
> > >
> > > The existence of "so many" larger, the "at least so many
> > > larger" instead of "all the rest (after, in the ordering) larger" establishes results in symmetries,
> > > under potential in usual potential spaces as for example
> > > quadratic in area. The central property of locality, in
> > > the value space, results in perfect equilibrium as usually
> > > constant under terms.
> > >
> > > This maintains that for the "actual infinity" in the
> > > value space, extreme in the value space, that there
> > > doesn't exist any other object in the value space,
> > > because infinity is the only non-finite and non-zero
> > > value, that "$\frac{1}{\infty} = 0$" and "$\lim_{n < \infty} \frac{1}{n} = 0$", that those equating the same zero in the value space
> > > is the establishment of the value semantics of infinity, for and about $\text{measure} 1.0$. Thus, either stipulation of potential or actual infinity has the possibility of mutual inference, constant in and under terms.
> > >
> > > \end{document}
> > what
> Mathematical continuity was Einstein's central continuum...
> Eternal continuity is real. It is mathematical gravity.
> God creates gravity.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

In other words you describe an emergent property of monism.

If, massy bodies make for a fall gravity with occluding the
everpresent flux of the field gravity, or here the "gravific" field,
then, they're not always working all the time as would use energy,
with instead that usual thermokinetics are as well a natural property
of the inherent energy of the system. Also it's a convenient or direct
route to a unified field theory.