https://sanet.st/blogs/bonnytuts/masterclass_terence_tao_teaches_mathematical_thinking.4016570.html

On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 4:57:36 PM UTC-8, sobriquet wrote:
> https://sanet.st/blogs/bonnytuts/masterclass_terence_tao_teaches_mathematical_thinking.4016570.html

Yeah I noticed this mentioned on math.reddit the other day.
(Which is, pretty tame, though, it did have a thread about what
is "pure mathematics" the other day, which most researchers
in foundations would already know.)

Dr. Tao explained that it had good production values, but some of the readers said
it didn't have much in the way of technical content, that like other productions there
it's more like a glossy fan shtick.

Of course for Dr. Tao's technical content you can read his blog or a ton of his published papers.

Two things I read off Dr. Tao are "hard and soft analysis", and, "standard and nonstandard analysis".

Of course I build nonstandard analysis myself via much simpler means but that's because I have it
in the foundation instead of having to paste it over the top.

Which is where it goes....

On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 7:20:35 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 4:57:36 PM UTC-8, sobriquet wrote:
> > https://sanet.st/blogs/bonnytuts/masterclass_terence_tao_teaches_mathematical_thinking.4016570.html
>
>
> Yeah I noticed this mentioned on math.reddit the other day.
> (Which is, pretty tame, though, it did have a thread about what
> is "pure mathematics" the other day, which most researchers
> in foundations would already know.)
>
> Dr. Tao explained that it had good production values, but some of the readers said
> it didn't have much in the way of technical content, that like other productions there
> it's more like a glossy fan shtick.
>
> Of course for Dr. Tao's technical content you can read his blog or a ton of his published papers.
>
> Two things I read off Dr. Tao are "hard and soft analysis", and, "standard and nonstandard analysis".
>
> Of course I build nonstandard analysis myself via much simpler means but that's because I have it
> in the foundation instead of having to paste it over the top.
>
> Which is where it goes....

Terence Tao himself is good enough, n'est-ce pas?

On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 7:53:42 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 7:20:35 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 4:57:36 PM UTC-8, sobriquet wrote:
> > > https://sanet.st/blogs/bonnytuts/masterclass_terence_tao_teaches_mathematical_thinking.4016570.html
> >
> >
> > Yeah I noticed this mentioned on math.reddit the other day.
> > (Which is, pretty tame, though, it did have a thread about what
> > is "pure mathematics" the other day, which most researchers
> > in foundations would already know.)
> >
> > Dr. Tao explained that it had good production values, but some of the readers said
> > it didn't have much in the way of technical content, that like other productions there
> > it's more like a glossy fan shtick.
> >
> > Of course for Dr. Tao's technical content you can read his blog or a ton of his published papers.
> >
> > Two things I read off Dr. Tao are "hard and soft analysis", and, "standard and nonstandard analysis".
> >
> > Of course I build nonstandard analysis myself via much simpler means but that's because I have it
> > in the foundation instead of having to paste it over the top.
> >
> > Which is where it goes....
> Terence Tao himself is good enough, n'est-ce pas?

Nope, though it's great the usual ultrafilter construction to acknowledge
countable additivity, it's a conceit to instead having one first.
(A definition of continuity, before the complete ordred field.)

I.e. Dedekind alone (Eudoxus/Cauchy/Dedekind) isn't good enough,
because it's not complete, and there are theories with simple continuous
domains defined [0,1], much more simply.

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 7:25:18 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 7:53:42 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 7:20:35 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 4:57:36 PM UTC-8, sobriquet wrote:
> > > > https://sanet.st/blogs/bonnytuts/masterclass_terence_tao_teaches_mathematical_thinking.4016570.html
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah I noticed this mentioned on math.reddit the other day.
> > > (Which is, pretty tame, though, it did have a thread about what
> > > is "pure mathematics" the other day, which most researchers
> > > in foundations would already know.)
> > >
> > > Dr. Tao explained that it had good production values, but some of the readers said
> > > it didn't have much in the way of technical content, that like other productions there
> > > it's more like a glossy fan shtick.
> > >
> > > Of course for Dr. Tao's technical content you can read his blog or a ton of his published papers.
> > >
> > > Two things I read off Dr. Tao are "hard and soft analysis", and, "standard and nonstandard analysis".
> > >
> > > Of course I build nonstandard analysis myself via much simpler means but that's because I have it
> > > in the foundation instead of having to paste it over the top.
> > >
> > > Which is where it goes....
> > Terence Tao himself is good enough, n'est-ce pas?
> Nope, though it's great the usual ultrafilter construction to acknowledge
> countable additivity, it's a conceit to instead having one first.
> (A definition of continuity, before the complete ordred field.)
>
> I.e. Dedekind alone (Eudoxus/Cauchy/Dedekind) isn't good enough,
> because it's not complete, and there are theories with simple continuous
> domains defined [0,1], much more simply.

Aww, somehow maybe not, huh?

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 12:22:47 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 7:25:18 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 7:53:42 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 7:20:35 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 4:57:36 PM UTC-8, sobriquet wrote:
> > > > > https://sanet.st/blogs/bonnytuts/masterclass_terence_tao_teaches_mathematical_thinking.4016570.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yeah I noticed this mentioned on math.reddit the other day.
> > > > (Which is, pretty tame, though, it did have a thread about what
> > > > is "pure mathematics" the other day, which most researchers
> > > > in foundations would already know.)
> > > >
> > > > Dr. Tao explained that it had good production values, but some of the readers said
> > > > it didn't have much in the way of technical content, that like other productions there
> > > > it's more like a glossy fan shtick.
> > > >
> > > > Of course for Dr. Tao's technical content you can read his blog or a ton of his published papers.
> > > >
> > > > Two things I read off Dr. Tao are "hard and soft analysis", and, "standard and nonstandard analysis".
> > > >
> > > > Of course I build nonstandard analysis myself via much simpler means but that's because I have it
> > > > in the foundation instead of having to paste it over the top.
> > > >
> > > > Which is where it goes....
> > > Terence Tao himself is good enough, n'est-ce pas?
> > Nope, though it's great the usual ultrafilter construction to acknowledge
> > countable additivity, it's a conceit to instead having one first.
> > (A definition of continuity, before the complete ordred field.)
> >
> > I.e. Dedekind alone (Eudoxus/Cauchy/Dedekind) isn't good enough,
> > because it's not complete, and there are theories with simple continuous
> > domains defined [0,1], much more simply.
> Aww, somehow maybe not, huh?

Ever hear of Leibniz?

Peano, well-known for "0 then ... is numbers", also was for "standard infinitesimals".

It's a usual higher level concept to define delta-epsilonics
because everybody starts pre-calculus with intuitive standard
infinitesimals, then delta-epsilonics.

Then, to get that all formalized and make it work with modern mathematics
and "ZF set theory, plus LUB defined and 1.0 defined", you can read off my
slates, which basically put mathematics on a more proper footing.

On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 4:57:36 PM UTC-8, sobriquet wrote:
> https://sanet.st/blogs/bonnytuts/masterclass_terence_tao_teaches_mathematical_thinking.4016570.html

Authorities don't belong.

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 9:18:24 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 12:22:47 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 7:25:18 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 7:53:42 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 7:20:35 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 4:57:36 PM UTC-8, sobriquet wrote:
> > > > > > https://sanet.st/blogs/bonnytuts/masterclass_terence_tao_teaches_mathematical_thinking.4016570.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah I noticed this mentioned on math.reddit the other day.
> > > > > (Which is, pretty tame, though, it did have a thread about what
> > > > > is "pure mathematics" the other day, which most researchers
> > > > > in foundations would already know.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Dr. Tao explained that it had good production values, but some of the readers said
> > > > > it didn't have much in the way of technical content, that like other productions there
> > > > > it's more like a glossy fan shtick.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course for Dr. Tao's technical content you can read his blog or a ton of his published papers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Two things I read off Dr. Tao are "hard and soft analysis", and, "standard and nonstandard analysis".
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course I build nonstandard analysis myself via much simpler means but that's because I have it
> > > > > in the foundation instead of having to paste it over the top.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which is where it goes....
> > > > Terence Tao himself is good enough, n'est-ce pas?
> > > Nope, though it's great the usual ultrafilter construction to acknowledge
> > > countable additivity, it's a conceit to instead having one first.
> > > (A definition of continuity, before the complete ordred field.)
> > >
> > > I.e. Dedekind alone (Eudoxus/Cauchy/Dedekind) isn't good enough,
> > > because it's not complete, and there are theories with simple continuous
> > > domains defined [0,1], much more simply.
> > Aww, somehow maybe not, huh?
> Ever hear of Leibniz?
>
> Peano, well-known for "0 then ... is numbers", also was for "standard infinitesimals".
>
> It's a usual higher level concept to define delta-epsilonics
> because everybody starts pre-calculus with intuitive standard
> infinitesimals, then delta-epsilonics.
>
> Then, to get that all formalized and make it work with modern mathematics
> and "ZF set theory, plus LUB defined and 1.0 defined", you can read off my
> slates, which basically put mathematics on a more proper footing.

This is "crank" shit. Somehow I think you don't even believe it, but that doesn't
totally help matters.

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 5:22:44 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 9:18:24 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 12:22:47 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 7:25:18 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 7:53:42 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 7:20:35 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 4:57:36 PM UTC-8, sobriquet wrote:
> > > > > > > https://sanet.st/blogs/bonnytuts/masterclass_terence_tao_teaches_mathematical_thinking.4016570.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah I noticed this mentioned on math.reddit the other day.
> > > > > > (Which is, pretty tame, though, it did have a thread about what
> > > > > > is "pure mathematics" the other day, which most researchers
> > > > > > in foundations would already know.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dr. Tao explained that it had good production values, but some of the readers said
> > > > > > it didn't have much in the way of technical content, that like other productions there
> > > > > > it's more like a glossy fan shtick.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course for Dr. Tao's technical content you can read his blog or a ton of his published papers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Two things I read off Dr. Tao are "hard and soft analysis", and, "standard and nonstandard analysis".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course I build nonstandard analysis myself via much simpler means but that's because I have it
> > > > > > in the foundation instead of having to paste it over the top.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which is where it goes....
> > > > > Terence Tao himself is good enough, n'est-ce pas?
> > > > Nope, though it's great the usual ultrafilter construction to acknowledge
> > > > countable additivity, it's a conceit to instead having one first.
> > > > (A definition of continuity, before the complete ordred field.)
> > > >
> > > > I.e. Dedekind alone (Eudoxus/Cauchy/Dedekind) isn't good enough,
> > > > because it's not complete, and there are theories with simple continuous
> > > > domains defined [0,1], much more simply.
> > > Aww, somehow maybe not, huh?
> > Ever hear of Leibniz?
> >
> > Peano, well-known for "0 then ... is numbers", also was for "standard infinitesimals".
> >
> > It's a usual higher level concept to define delta-epsilonics
> > because everybody starts pre-calculus with intuitive standard
> > infinitesimals, then delta-epsilonics.
> >
> > Then, to get that all formalized and make it work with modern mathematics
> > and "ZF set theory, plus LUB defined and 1.0 defined", you can read off my
> > slates, which basically put mathematics on a more proper footing.
> This is "crank" shit. Somehow I think you don't even believe it, but that doesn't
> totally help matters.

What is?

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 5:52:53 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 5:22:44 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 9:18:24 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 12:22:47 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 7:25:18 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 7:53:42 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 7:20:35 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 4:57:36 PM UTC-8, sobriquet wrote:
> > > > > > > > https://sanet.st/blogs/bonnytuts/masterclass_terence_tao_teaches_mathematical_thinking.4016570.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeah I noticed this mentioned on math.reddit the other day.
> > > > > > > (Which is, pretty tame, though, it did have a thread about what
> > > > > > > is "pure mathematics" the other day, which most researchers
> > > > > > > in foundations would already know.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dr. Tao explained that it had good production values, but some of the readers said
> > > > > > > it didn't have much in the way of technical content, that like other productions there
> > > > > > > it's more like a glossy fan shtick.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course for Dr. Tao's technical content you can read his blog or a ton of his published papers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Two things I read off Dr. Tao are "hard and soft analysis", and, "standard and nonstandard analysis".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course I build nonstandard analysis myself via much simpler means but that's because I have it
> > > > > > > in the foundation instead of having to paste it over the top.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which is where it goes....
> > > > > > Terence Tao himself is good enough, n'est-ce pas?
> > > > > Nope, though it's great the usual ultrafilter construction to acknowledge
> > > > > countable additivity, it's a conceit to instead having one first.
> > > > > (A definition of continuity, before the complete ordred field.)
> > > > >
> > > > > I.e. Dedekind alone (Eudoxus/Cauchy/Dedekind) isn't good enough,
> > > > > because it's not complete, and there are theories with simple continuous
> > > > > domains defined [0,1], much more simply.
> > > > Aww, somehow maybe not, huh?
> > > Ever hear of Leibniz?
> > >
> > > Peano, well-known for "0 then ... is numbers", also was for "standard infinitesimals".
> > >
> > > It's a usual higher level concept to define delta-epsilonics
> > > because everybody starts pre-calculus with intuitive standard
> > > infinitesimals, then delta-epsilonics.
> > >
> > > Then, to get that all formalized and make it work with modern mathematics
> > > and "ZF set theory, plus LUB defined and 1.0 defined", you can read off my
> > > slates, which basically put mathematics on a more proper footing.
> > This is "crank" shit. Somehow I think you don't even believe it, but that doesn't
> > totally help matters.
> What is?

Fake math talk that isn't integrated into a rational, axiom-lemma whole.

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 8:22:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 5:52:53 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 5:22:44 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 9:18:24 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 12:22:47 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 7:25:18 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 7:53:42 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 7:20:35 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 4:57:36 PM UTC-8, sobriquet wrote:
> > > > > > > > > https://sanet.st/blogs/bonnytuts/masterclass_terence_tao_teaches_mathematical_thinking.4016570.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yeah I noticed this mentioned on math.reddit the other day.
> > > > > > > > (Which is, pretty tame, though, it did have a thread about what
> > > > > > > > is "pure mathematics" the other day, which most researchers
> > > > > > > > in foundations would already know.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dr. Tao explained that it had good production values, but some of the readers said
> > > > > > > > it didn't have much in the way of technical content, that like other productions there
> > > > > > > > it's more like a glossy fan shtick.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Of course for Dr. Tao's technical content you can read his blog or a ton of his published papers.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Two things I read off Dr. Tao are "hard and soft analysis", and, "standard and nonstandard analysis".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Of course I build nonstandard analysis myself via much simpler means but that's because I have it
> > > > > > > > in the foundation instead of having to paste it over the top.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Which is where it goes....
> > > > > > > Terence Tao himself is good enough, n'est-ce pas?
> > > > > > Nope, though it's great the usual ultrafilter construction to acknowledge
> > > > > > countable additivity, it's a conceit to instead having one first.
> > > > > > (A definition of continuity, before the complete ordred field.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I.e. Dedekind alone (Eudoxus/Cauchy/Dedekind) isn't good enough,
> > > > > > because it's not complete, and there are theories with simple continuous
> > > > > > domains defined [0,1], much more simply.
> > > > > Aww, somehow maybe not, huh?
> > > > Ever hear of Leibniz?
> > > >
> > > > Peano, well-known for "0 then ... is numbers", also was for "standard infinitesimals".
> > > >
> > > > It's a usual higher level concept to define delta-epsilonics
> > > > because everybody starts pre-calculus with intuitive standard
> > > > infinitesimals, then delta-epsilonics.
> > > >
> > > > Then, to get that all formalized and make it work with modern mathematics
> > > > and "ZF set theory, plus LUB defined and 1.0 defined", you can read off my
> > > > slates, which basically put mathematics on a more proper footing.
> > > This is "crank" shit. Somehow I think you don't even believe it, but that doesn't
> > > totally help matters.
> > What is?
> Fake math talk that isn't integrated into a rational, axiom-lemma whole.

"Oh, but I mean it like that. It's like a joke."

Kind of doesn't really matter, it's garbage either way.

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 8:22:54 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 8:22:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 5:52:53 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 5:22:44 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 9:18:24 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 12:22:47 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 7:25:18 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 7:53:42 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 7:20:35 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 4:57:36 PM UTC-8, sobriquet wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > https://sanet.st/blogs/bonnytuts/masterclass_terence_tao_teaches_mathematical_thinking.4016570.html
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yeah I noticed this mentioned on math.reddit the other day.
> > > > > > > > > (Which is, pretty tame, though, it did have a thread about what
> > > > > > > > > is "pure mathematics" the other day, which most researchers
> > > > > > > > > in foundations would already know.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dr. Tao explained that it had good production values, but some of the readers said
> > > > > > > > > it didn't have much in the way of technical content, that like other productions there
> > > > > > > > > it's more like a glossy fan shtick.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Of course for Dr. Tao's technical content you can read his blog or a ton of his published papers.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Two things I read off Dr. Tao are "hard and soft analysis", and, "standard and nonstandard analysis".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Of course I build nonstandard analysis myself via much simpler means but that's because I have it
> > > > > > > > > in the foundation instead of having to paste it over the top.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Which is where it goes....
> > > > > > > > Terence Tao himself is good enough, n'est-ce pas?
> > > > > > > Nope, though it's great the usual ultrafilter construction to acknowledge
> > > > > > > countable additivity, it's a conceit to instead having one first.
> > > > > > > (A definition of continuity, before the complete ordred field.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I.e. Dedekind alone (Eudoxus/Cauchy/Dedekind) isn't good enough,
> > > > > > > because it's not complete, and there are theories with simple continuous
> > > > > > > domains defined [0,1], much more simply.
> > > > > > Aww, somehow maybe not, huh?
> > > > > Ever hear of Leibniz?
> > > > >
> > > > > Peano, well-known for "0 then ... is numbers", also was for "standard infinitesimals".
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a usual higher level concept to define delta-epsilonics
> > > > > because everybody starts pre-calculus with intuitive standard
> > > > > infinitesimals, then delta-epsilonics.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then, to get that all formalized and make it work with modern mathematics
> > > > > and "ZF set theory, plus LUB defined and 1.0 defined", you can read off my
> > > > > slates, which basically put mathematics on a more proper footing.
> > > > This is "crank" shit. Somehow I think you don't even believe it, but that doesn't
> > > > totally help matters.
> > > What is?
> > Fake math talk that isn't integrated into a rational, axiom-lemma whole.
> "Oh, but I mean it like that. It's like a joke."
>
> Kind of doesn't really matter, it's garbage either way.

Do you know what a _limit of a family of functions_ is?

I.e., have you heard of "standardly modeling a function as
a limit of real functions"?

I'm sure you must be familiar with the usual notion of dimension x dx
and derivative by it d/dx.

And all the derivations of delta-epsilonics what arrive at pre-calculus thus
fundamental theorems of calculus after IVT thus that calculus proceeds
with a sound footing?

Then if that there was a simple form of n/d as n->d and d->oo, limit,
that its range ranges [0,1], and, if other concomitant properties arrive
at "LUB in this range is trivial" and "measure of this range is extent 1.0"?

I'm not sure if you have but by now I've browbeaten everyone else here
into not having much other comment about it.

Yeah, that wasn't a joke, and, it's not funny.

Now, read off what you said, as if it was anonymous, and in no other context,
and, read off what I said, as if it was anonymous and in no other context.

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 1:16:46 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 8:22:54 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 8:22:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 5:52:53 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 5:22:44 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 9:18:24 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 12:22:47 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 7:25:18 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 7:53:42 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 7:20:35 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 4:57:36 PM UTC-8, sobriquet wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > https://sanet.st/blogs/bonnytuts/masterclass_terence_tao_teaches_mathematical_thinking.4016570.html
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yeah I noticed this mentioned on math.reddit the other day.
> > > > > > > > > > (Which is, pretty tame, though, it did have a thread about what
> > > > > > > > > > is "pure mathematics" the other day, which most researchers
> > > > > > > > > > in foundations would already know.)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dr. Tao explained that it had good production values, but some of the readers said
> > > > > > > > > > it didn't have much in the way of technical content, that like other productions there
> > > > > > > > > > it's more like a glossy fan shtick.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Of course for Dr. Tao's technical content you can read his blog or a ton of his published papers.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Two things I read off Dr. Tao are "hard and soft analysis", and, "standard and nonstandard analysis".
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Of course I build nonstandard analysis myself via much simpler means but that's because I have it
> > > > > > > > > > in the foundation instead of having to paste it over the top.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Which is where it goes....
> > > > > > > > > Terence Tao himself is good enough, n'est-ce pas?
> > > > > > > > Nope, though it's great the usual ultrafilter construction to acknowledge
> > > > > > > > countable additivity, it's a conceit to instead having one first.
> > > > > > > > (A definition of continuity, before the complete ordred field.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I.e. Dedekind alone (Eudoxus/Cauchy/Dedekind) isn't good enough,
> > > > > > > > because it's not complete, and there are theories with simple continuous
> > > > > > > > domains defined [0,1], much more simply.
> > > > > > > Aww, somehow maybe not, huh?
> > > > > > Ever hear of Leibniz?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Peano, well-known for "0 then ... is numbers", also was for "standard infinitesimals".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's a usual higher level concept to define delta-epsilonics
> > > > > > because everybody starts pre-calculus with intuitive standard
> > > > > > infinitesimals, then delta-epsilonics.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then, to get that all formalized and make it work with modern mathematics
> > > > > > and "ZF set theory, plus LUB defined and 1.0 defined", you can read off my
> > > > > > slates, which basically put mathematics on a more proper footing.
> > > > > This is "crank" shit. Somehow I think you don't even believe it, but that doesn't
> > > > > totally help matters.
> > > > What is?
> > > Fake math talk that isn't integrated into a rational, axiom-lemma whole.
> > "Oh, but I mean it like that. It's like a joke."
> >
> > Kind of doesn't really matter, it's garbage either way.
> Do you know what a _limit of a family of functions_ is?
>
> I.e., have you heard of "standardly modeling a function as
> a limit of real functions"?
>
> I'm sure you must be familiar with the usual notion of dimension x dx
> and derivative by it d/dx.
>
> And all the derivations of delta-epsilonics what arrive at pre-calculus thus
> fundamental theorems of calculus after IVT thus that calculus proceeds
> with a sound footing?
>
> Then if that there was a simple form of n/d as n->d and d->oo, limit,
> that its range ranges [0,1], and, if other concomitant properties arrive
> at "LUB in this range is trivial" and "measure of this range is extent 1.0"?
>
> I'm not sure if you have but by now I've browbeaten everyone else here
> into not having much other comment about it.
>
> Yeah, that wasn't a joke, and, it's not funny.
>
> Now, read off what you said, as if it was anonymous, and in no other context,
> and, read off what I said, as if it was anonymous and in no other context.

OK, then forget what you said.

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 1:23:02 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 1:16:46 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 8:22:54 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 8:22:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 5:52:53 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 5:22:44 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 9:18:24 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 12:22:47 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 7:25:18 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 7:53:42 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 7:20:35 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 4:57:36 PM UTC-8, sobriquet wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://sanet.st/blogs/bonnytuts/masterclass_terence_tao_teaches_mathematical_thinking.4016570.html
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yeah I noticed this mentioned on math.reddit the other day.
> > > > > > > > > > > (Which is, pretty tame, though, it did have a thread about what
> > > > > > > > > > > is "pure mathematics" the other day, which most researchers
> > > > > > > > > > > in foundations would already know.)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dr. Tao explained that it had good production values, but some of the readers said
> > > > > > > > > > > it didn't have much in the way of technical content, that like other productions there
> > > > > > > > > > > it's more like a glossy fan shtick.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Of course for Dr. Tao's technical content you can read his blog or a ton of his published papers.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Two things I read off Dr. Tao are "hard and soft analysis", and, "standard and nonstandard analysis".
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Of course I build nonstandard analysis myself via much simpler means but that's because I have it
> > > > > > > > > > > in the foundation instead of having to paste it over the top.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Which is where it goes....
> > > > > > > > > > Terence Tao himself is good enough, n'est-ce pas?
> > > > > > > > > Nope, though it's great the usual ultrafilter construction to acknowledge
> > > > > > > > > countable additivity, it's a conceit to instead having one first.
> > > > > > > > > (A definition of continuity, before the complete ordred field.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I.e. Dedekind alone (Eudoxus/Cauchy/Dedekind) isn't good enough,
> > > > > > > > > because it's not complete, and there are theories with simple continuous
> > > > > > > > > domains defined [0,1], much more simply.
> > > > > > > > Aww, somehow maybe not, huh?
> > > > > > > Ever hear of Leibniz?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Peano, well-known for "0 then ... is numbers", also was for "standard infinitesimals".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's a usual higher level concept to define delta-epsilonics
> > > > > > > because everybody starts pre-calculus with intuitive standard
> > > > > > > infinitesimals, then delta-epsilonics.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then, to get that all formalized and make it work with modern mathematics
> > > > > > > and "ZF set theory, plus LUB defined and 1.0 defined", you can read off my
> > > > > > > slates, which basically put mathematics on a more proper footing.
> > > > > > This is "crank" shit. Somehow I think you don't even believe it, but that doesn't
> > > > > > totally help matters.
> > > > > What is?
> > > > Fake math talk that isn't integrated into a rational, axiom-lemma whole.
> > > "Oh, but I mean it like that. It's like a joke."
> > >
> > > Kind of doesn't really matter, it's garbage either way.
> > Do you know what a _limit of a family of functions_ is?
> >
> > I.e., have you heard of "standardly modeling a function as
> > a limit of real functions"?
> >
> > I'm sure you must be familiar with the usual notion of dimension x dx
> > and derivative by it d/dx.
> >
> > And all the derivations of delta-epsilonics what arrive at pre-calculus thus
> > fundamental theorems of calculus after IVT thus that calculus proceeds
> > with a sound footing?
> >
> > Then if that there was a simple form of n/d as n->d and d->oo, limit,
> > that its range ranges [0,1], and, if other concomitant properties arrive
> > at "LUB in this range is trivial" and "measure of this range is extent 1.0"?
> >
> > I'm not sure if you have but by now I've browbeaten everyone else here
> > into not having much other comment about it.
> >
> > Yeah, that wasn't a joke, and, it's not funny.
> >
> > Now, read off what you said, as if it was anonymous, and in no other context,
> > and, read off what I said, as if it was anonymous and in no other context.
> OK, then forget what you said.

Maybe "Jedi mind tricks" weren't... oh, never mind.