tisdag 22 mars 2022 kl. 09:14:57 UTC+1 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 21 March 2022 at 22:54:56 UTC+2, WM wrote:
> > Dan Christensen schrieb am Montag, 21. März 2022 um 18:08:16 UTC+1:
> > > On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 12:35:13 PM UTC-4, WM wrote:
> > > > There is no permutation of the Xs in
> > > >
> > > > XOOO...
> > > > XOOO...
> > > > XOOO...
> > > > XOOO...
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > such that all positions are covered by Xs.
> > > >
> > > > If it were, it would imply, that in the sequence
> > > >
> > > > XOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...
> > > >
> > > > all Os could be covered by the X.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore Cantor's notion of countability is trash.
> > > >
> > > Huh??? Just curious... How would YOU then classify a set X on which there exists an injective (1-1) function f: X --> N?
> > A dream of matheologians.
> > >
> > > Finite Example 1: If X = {3, 9, 27}, then f could be such that f(3)=0, f(9)=1 and f(27)=2.
> > >
> > > Infinite Example 2: If X = {1, 3, 5, 7, ... }, i.e. the odd numbers, then f could be such that f(1)=0, f(3)=1 f(5)=2, f(7)=3, and so on.
> > There is no permutation of the Xs in
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > ...
> > such that all positions are covered by Xs. Can you understand that?
> You're asking an oaf who doesn't know shit about anything if he understands?
>
> Bravo! that makes a lot of sense. Chuckle.
>
> >
> > Regards, WM

Well, you're certainly one of the grandest oafs on here :)

måndag 21 mars 2022 kl. 21:54:56 UTC+1 skrev WM:
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Montag, 21. März 2022 um 18:08:16 UTC+1:
> > On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 12:35:13 PM UTC-4, WM wrote:
> > > There is no permutation of the Xs in
> > >
> > > XOOO...
> > > XOOO...
> > > XOOO...
> > > XOOO...
> > > ...
> > >
> > > such that all positions are covered by Xs.
> > >
> > > If it were, it would imply, that in the sequence
> > >
> > > XOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...
> > >
> > > all Os could be covered by the X.
> > >
> > > Therefore Cantor's notion of countability is trash.
> > >
> > Huh??? Just curious... How would YOU then classify a set X on which there exists an injective (1-1) function f: X --> N?
> A dream of matheologians.

Why? We can make functions that are injective and bijective to/with N.

> >
> > Finite Example 1: If X = {3, 9, 27}, then f could be such that f(3)=0, f(9)=1 and f(27)=2.
> >
> > Infinite Example 2: If X = {1, 3, 5, 7, ... }, i.e. the odd numbers, then f could be such that f(1)=0, f(3)=1 f(5)=2, f(7)=3, and so on.
> There is no permutation of the Xs in
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> ...
> such that all positions are covered by Xs. Can you understand that?
>
> Regards, WM

On Saturday, 19 March 2022 at 18:35:13 UTC+2, WM wrote:
> There is no permutation of the Xs in
>
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> ...
>
> such that all positions are covered by Xs.

You've already gone far beyond what is necessary to dismiss Georg Cranktor's bullshit.

**There is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion**

To claim otherwise, is equivalent to claiming an *infinite task* is possible.

No need to proceed past this point. End of discussion.

>
> If it were, it would imply, that in the sequence
>
> XOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...
>
> all Os could be covered by the X.
>
> Therefore Cantor's notion of countability is trash.
>
> Regards, WM

tisdag 22 mars 2022 kl. 09:18:18 UTC+1 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Saturday, 19 March 2022 at 18:35:13 UTC+2, WM wrote:
> > There is no permutation of the Xs in
> >
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > ...
> >
> > such that all positions are covered by Xs.
> You've already gone far beyond what is necessary to dismiss Georg Cranktor's bullshit.

The crank is you and WM here.

>
> **There is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion**

Says you, I can build it mathematically :)

>
> To claim otherwise, is equivalent to claiming an *infinite task* is possible.

There is nothing in mathematics that says we cannot do it. We are not bound by computers.

>
> No need to proceed past this point. End of discussion.

You have made assertions but no justification other than you want it so.

> >
> > If it were, it would imply, that in the sequence
> >
> > XOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...
> >
> > all Os could be covered by the X.
> >
> > Therefore Cantor's notion of countability is trash.
> >
> > Regards, WM

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of JG's fake math

On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 4:14:57 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel (JG), Troll Boy) wrote:
> You're asking an oaf who doesn't know shit about anything if he understands?
>

Speaking of which...

When will YOU learn, Troll Boy?

JG here claims to have a discovered a shortcut to mastering calculus without using limits. Unfortunately for him, this means he has no workable a definition of the derivative of a function. It blows up for functions as simple f(x)=|x|. Or even f(x)=0. As a result, he has had to ban 0, negative numbers and instantaneous rates of change rendering his goofy little system quite useless.

Forget calculus. JG has also banned all axioms because he cannot even derive the most elementary results of basic arithmetic, e.g. 2+2=4. Such results require the use of axioms, so he must figure he's now off the hook.

Even at his advanced age (60+?), John Gabriel is STILL struggling with basic, elementary-school arithmetic. As he has repeatedly posted here:

"There are no points on a line."
--April 12, 2021

"Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
--July 10, 2020

"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017

“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015

"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
--October 28, 2017

"Zero is not a number."
-- Dec. 2, 2019

"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017

“There is no such thing as an empty set.”
--Oct. 4, 2019

“3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
--Oct. 22, 2019

No math genius our JG, though he actually lists his job title as “mathematician” at Linkedin.com. Apparently, they do not verify your credentials.

Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated March 10, 2020) at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog a http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 09:14:57 UTC+1:
> On Monday, 21 March 2022 at 22:54:56 UTC+2, WM wrote:

> > There is no permutation of the Xs in
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > ...
> > such that all positions are covered by Xs. Can you understand that?
> You're asking an oaf who doesn't know shit about anything if he understands?
>
> Bravo! that makes a lot of sense. Chuckle.

I know that he cannot think. But sometimes I forget it. By the way this question also has been asked about 10 times in MathOverflow and MathStackExchange. Nobody could answer, but they were eager to delete the question. Why? Hard to answer.

Regards, WM

Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 09:18:18 UTC+1:

> **There is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion**
>
> To claim otherwise, is equivalent to claiming an *infinite task* is possible.
>
> No need to proceed past this point. End of discussion.

Completely correct.

Regards, WM

WM laid this down on his screen :
> Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 09:14:57 UTC+1:
>> On Monday, 21 March 2022 at 22:54:56 UTC+2, WM wrote:
>
>>> There is no permutation of the Xs in
>>> XOOO...
>>> XOOO...
>>> XOOO...
>>> XOOO...
>>> ...
>>> such that all positions are covered by Xs. Can you understand that?
>> You're asking an oaf who doesn't know shit about anything if he understands?
>>
>> Bravo! that makes a lot of sense. Chuckle.
>
> I know that he cannot think. But sometimes I forget it. By the way this
> question also has been asked about 10 times in MathOverflow and
> MathStackExchange. Nobody could answer, but they were eager to delete the
> question. Why?

Because they can smell a crank a mile away.

It happens that WM formulated :
> Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 09:18:18 UTC+1:
>
>> **There is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion**
>>
>> To claim otherwise, is equivalent to claiming an *infinite task* is
>> possible.
>>
>> No need to proceed past this point. End of discussion.
>
> Completely correct.

But there *is* such a thing as an infinite decimal expansion
*representation* of each real number.

On 3/22/2022 9:55 AM, WM wrote:
> Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 09:14:57 UTC+1:
>> On Monday, 21 March 2022 at 22:54:56 UTC+2, WM wrote:
>
>>> There is no permutation of the Xs in
>>> XOOO...
>>> XOOO...
>>> XOOO...
>>> XOOO...
>>> ...
>>> such that all positions are covered by Xs. Can you understand that?
>> You're asking an oaf who doesn't know shit about anything if he understands?
>>
>> Bravo! that makes a lot of sense. Chuckle.
>
> I know that he cannot think. But sometimes I forget it. By the way this question also has been asked about 10 times in MathOverflow and MathStackExchange. Nobody could answer, but they were eager to delete the question. Why? Hard to answer.
>
> Regards, WM

No, it's obviously a fool's game.

You f cking ritaard, if you reject Cantors' argument, then you are making paradoxes an accepted reasoning principle. No constructivist in his/her right mind ventures in that realm. You fu king piece of sh t!

On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 4:18:18 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Saturday, 19 March 2022 at 18:35:13 UTC+2, WM wrote:
> > There is no permutation of the Xs in
> >
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > ...
> >
> > such that all positions are covered by Xs.
> You've already gone far beyond what is necessary to dismiss Georg Cranktor's bullshit.
>
> **There is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion**
>
> To claim otherwise, is equivalent to claiming an *infinite task* is possible.
>
> No need to proceed past this point. End of discussion.
> >
> > If it were, it would imply, that in the sequence
> >
> > XOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...
> >
> > all Os could be covered by the X.
> >
> > Therefore Cantor's notion of countability is trash.
> >
> > Regards, WM

On Tuesday, 22 March 2022 at 16:55:55 UTC+2, WM wrote:
> Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 09:14:57 UTC+1:
> > On Monday, 21 March 2022 at 22:54:56 UTC+2, WM wrote:
>
> > > There is no permutation of the Xs in
> > > XOOO...
> > > XOOO...
> > > XOOO...
> > > XOOO...
> > > ...
> > > such that all positions are covered by Xs. Can you understand that?
> > You're asking an oaf who doesn't know shit about anything if he understands?
> >
> > Bravo! that makes a lot of sense. Chuckle.
> I know that he cannot think. But sometimes I forget it. By the way this question also has been asked about 10 times in MathOverflow and MathStackExchange. Nobody could answer, but they were eager to delete the question. Why? Hard to answer.

Not only hard for them to answer. They can't answer because they don't know..

Both those sites are administered by mainstream idiots and generally they delete your questions because they are Nazis whose agenda has nothing to do with hearing and understanding an argument that is questioning or contrary to their statement of beliefs.

Their worth is even less than that of Reddit - a prize trash heap.

>
> Regards, WM

tisdag 22 mars 2022 kl. 15:55:55 UTC+1 skrev WM:
> Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 09:14:57 UTC+1:
> > On Monday, 21 March 2022 at 22:54:56 UTC+2, WM wrote:
>
> > > There is no permutation of the Xs in
> > > XOOO...
> > > XOOO...
> > > XOOO...
> > > XOOO...
> > > ...
> > > such that all positions are covered by Xs. Can you understand that?
> > You're asking an oaf who doesn't know shit about anything if he understands?
> >
> > Bravo! that makes a lot of sense. Chuckle.
> I know that he cannot think. But sometimes I forget it. By the way this question also has been asked about 10 times in MathOverflow and MathStackExchange. Nobody could answer, but they were eager to delete the question. Why? Hard to answer.
>
> Regards, WM
Nope, they remove it because your questions are garbage quality.

tisdag 22 mars 2022 kl. 16:03:03 UTC+1 skrev WM:
> Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 09:18:18 UTC+1:
>
> > **There is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion**
> >
> > To claim otherwise, is equivalent to claiming an *infinite task* is possible.
> >
> > No need to proceed past this point. End of discussion.
> Completely correct.
>
> Regards, WM
He is however entirely wrong

On Saturday, 19 March 2022 at 18:35:13 UTC+2, WM wrote:
> There is no permutation of the Xs in
>
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> ...
>
> such that all positions are covered by Xs.
>
> If it were, it would imply, that in the sequence
>
> XOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...
>
> all Os could be covered by the X.
> Therefore Cantor's notion of countability is trash.
>

The thing about such simple, clear arguments is that they are too complex for mainstream mathematics baboons.
If you threw in a lot of bullshit and perhaps several pages of hand waving, you would probably stand a better chance.

So fine, you're telling them there is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion, but it's not complex enough. You have to give them something that uses their bullshit beliefs and turn it into a theatre of nonsense - then and only then, will they be dumbfounded beyond their usual inability to comprehend all the layers of excrement so as to "ooh and aah" incredulously at your revelations.

True story:
I watched a video where a professor purposely gave a speech that was full of garbage and although no one understood, all of them clapped in earnest. After the speech, one of the audience approached and informed him that he couldn't understand anything and that nothing made sense. The professor then informed him that he purposely spoke garbage to see if any of the other faculty members would notice as he was of the opinion that most of them never listen in any case.

> Regards, WM

FromTheRafters schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 16:46:10 UTC+1:
> It happens that WM formulated :
> > Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 09:18:18 UTC+1:
> >
> >> **There is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion**
> >>
> >> To claim otherwise, is equivalent to claiming an *infinite task* is
> >> possible.
> >>
> >> No need to proceed past this point. End of discussion.
> >
> > Completely correct.
> But there *is* such a thing as an infinite decimal expansion
> *representation* of each real number.

Where? You may be confusing the formula creating every desired digit and the sequence where the digits are written.

Regards, WM

Eram semper recta schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 11:45:22 UTC+1:

> True story:
> I watched a video where a professor purposely gave a speech that was full of garbage and although no one understood, all of them clapped in earnest. After the speech, one of the audience approached and informed him that he couldn't understand anything and that nothing made sense. The professor then informed him that he purposely spoke garbage to see if any of the other faculty members would notice as he was of the opinion that most of them never listen in any case.

I experienced the same with MathOverflow Cranks:
https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/Transfinity/Material/big%20picture%20-%20Checking%20the%20intelligence%20of%20MO-users%20-%20MathOverflow.html

Regards, WM

on 3/23/2022, WM supposed :
> FromTheRafters schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 16:46:10 UTC+1:
>> It happens that WM formulated :
>>> Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 09:18:18 UTC+1:
>>>
>>>> **There is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion**
>>>>
>>>> To claim otherwise, is equivalent to claiming an *infinite task* is
>>>> possible.
>>>>
>>>> No need to proceed past this point. End of discussion.
>>>
>>> Completely correct.
>> But there *is* such a thing as an infinite decimal expansion
>> *representation* of each real number.
>
> Where? You may be confusing the formula creating every desired digit and the
> sequence where the digits are written.

No, the value, the number, is in the formula. An associated sequence is
used to make the representation. You can also make a continued
fractional expansion representation for a number which, itself, may be
an infinite or a finite sequential representation.

I think you are confused about the three dots which indicate a
continuation of a pattern. The value or number itself has no pattern to
continue, but representations may.

FromTheRafters schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 12:34:28 UTC+1:
> on 3/23/2022, WM supposed :
> > FromTheRafters schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 16:46:10 UTC+1:
> >> It happens that WM formulated :
> >>> Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 09:18:18 UTC+1:
> >>>
> >>>> **There is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion**
> >>>>
> >>>> To claim otherwise, is equivalent to claiming an *infinite task* is
> >>>> possible.
> >>>>
> >>>> No need to proceed past this point. End of discussion.
> >>>
> >>> Completely correct.
> >> But there *is* such a thing as an infinite decimal expansion
> >> *representation* of each real number.
> >
> > Where? You may be confusing the formula creating every desired digit and the
> > sequence where the digits are written.
> No, the value, the number, is in the formula.

So it is.

> An associated sequence is
> used to make the representation.

But not completely, because there is no last digit. A completely representing sequence has an end signal.

> You can also make a continued
> fractional expansion representation for a number which,

which is also given by a finite formula.

> itself, may be
> an infinite or a finite sequential representation.

Every finite sequence is a formula.
>
> I think you are confused about the three dots which indicate a
> continuation of a pattern

which is not existing without the formula.

Regards, WM

zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 06:44:19 UTC+1:
> tisdag 22 mars 2022 kl. 15:55:55 UTC+1 skrev WM:
> > Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 09:14:57 UTC+1:
> > > On Monday, 21 March 2022 at 22:54:56 UTC+2, WM wrote:
> >
> > > > There is no permutation of the Xs in
> > > > XOOO...
> > > > XOOO...
> > > > XOOO...
> > > > XOOO...
> > > > ...
> > > > such that all positions are covered by Xs. Can you understand that?
> > > You're asking an oaf who doesn't know shit about anything if he understands?
> > >
> > > Bravo! that makes a lot of sense. Chuckle.
> > I know that he cannot think. But sometimes I forget it. By the way this question also has been asked about 10 times in MathOverflow and MathStackExchange. Nobody could answer, but they were eager to delete the question. Why? Hard to answer.
> >
> Nope, they remove it because

they are cranks. A reak garbage question is this one: https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/Transfinity/Material/big%20picture%20-%20Checking%20the%20intelligence%20of%20MO-users%20-%20MathOverflow.html

Like you they are unable to understand that the X will never cover all O let alone all matrixplaces although every step than can be checked leaves the nunbers of X and O absolutely constant. They are unable, like you, to understand that every column has precisely the same number of places and therefore Cantor's claim is much more foolish than what has put him to the madhouse. Under normal conditions everybody claiming that there are as many fractions as natnumnbers (which is the true meaning of bijection: precisely as many) should be comitted to a madhouse.

Regards, WM

WM wrote :
> zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 06:44:19 UTC+1:
>> tisdag 22 mars 2022 kl. 15:55:55 UTC+1 skrev WM:
>>> Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 09:14:57 UTC+1:
>>>> On Monday, 21 March 2022 at 22:54:56 UTC+2, WM wrote:
>>>>> There is no permutation of the Xs in
>>>>> XOOO...
>>>>> XOOO...
>>>>> XOOO...
>>>>> XOOO...
>>>>> ...
>>>>> such that all positions are covered by Xs. Can you understand that?
>>>> You're asking an oaf who doesn't know shit about anything if he
>>>> understands?
>>>>
>>>> Bravo! that makes a lot of sense. Chuckle.
>>> I know that he cannot think. But sometimes I forget it. By the way this
>>> question also has been asked about 10 times in MathOverflow and
>>> MathStackExchange. Nobody could answer, but they were eager to delete the
>>> question. Why? Hard to answer.
>>>
>> Nope, they remove it because
>
> they are cranks. A reak garbage question is this one:
> https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/Transfinity/Material/big%20picture%20-%20Checking%20the%20intelligence%20of%20MO-users%20-%20MathOverflow.html
>
> Like you they are unable to understand that the X will never cover all O let
> alone all matrixplaces although every step than can be checked leaves the
> nunbers of X and O absolutely constant. They are unable, like you, to
> understand that every column has precisely the same number of places and
> therefore Cantor's claim is much more foolish than what has put him to the
> madhouse. Under normal conditions everybody claiming that there are as many
> fractions as natnumnbers (which is the true meaning of bijection: precisely
> as many) should be comitted to a madhouse.

Will you still have internet access?

On 3/23/2022 7:14 AM, WM wrote:
> FromTheRafters schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 12:34:28 UTC+1:
>> on 3/23/2022, WM supposed :
>>> FromTheRafters schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 16:46:10 UTC+1:
>>>> It happens that WM formulated :
>>>>> Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 09:18:18 UTC+1:
>>>>>
>>>>>> **There is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion**
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To claim otherwise, is equivalent to claiming an *infinite task* is
>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No need to proceed past this point. End of discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Completely correct.
>>>> But there *is* such a thing as an infinite decimal expansion
>>>> *representation* of each real number.
>>>
>>> Where? You may be confusing the formula creating every desired digit and the
>>> sequence where the digits are written.
>> No, the value, the number, is in the formula.
>
> So it is.
>
>
>> An associated sequence is
>> used to make the representation.
>
> But not completely, because there is no last digit. A completely representing sequence has an end signal.

Wrong. All fractions have repeating decimal patterns. Fail.
More diversions and red herring from WM the Deceiver.

>
>> You can also make a continued
>> fractional expansion representation for a number which,
>
> which is also given by a finite formula.

wrong topic.

>
>> itself, may be
>> an infinite or a finite sequential representation.
>
> Every finite sequence is a formula.

Wrong. {1,2} is a finite sequence. you fail on common nomenclature or representations for numbers, WM the Deciever.

>>
>> I think you are confused about the three dots which indicate a
>> continuation of a pattern
>
> which is not existing without the formula.

Wrong again. study this hard => ...

>
> Regards, WM

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 7:13:57 AM UTC-7, sergio wrote:
> On 3/23/2022 7:14 AM, WM wrote:
> > FromTheRafters schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 12:34:28 UTC+1:
> >> on 3/23/2022, WM supposed :
> >>> FromTheRafters schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 16:46:10 UTC+1:
> >>>> It happens that WM formulated :
> >>>>> Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 09:18:18 UTC+1:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> **There is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion**
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> To claim otherwise, is equivalent to claiming an *infinite task* is
> >>>>>> possible.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No need to proceed past this point. End of discussion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Completely correct.
> >>>> But there *is* such a thing as an infinite decimal expansion
> >>>> *representation* of each real number.
> >>>
> >>> Where? You may be confusing the formula creating every desired digit and the
> >>> sequence where the digits are written.
> >> No, the value, the number, is in the formula.
> >
> > So it is.
> >
> >
> >> An associated sequence is
> >> used to make the representation.
> >
> > But not completely, because there is no last digit. A completely representing sequence has an end signal.
> Wrong. All fractions have repeating decimal patterns. Fail.
> More diversions and red herring from WM the Deceiver.
> >
> >> You can also make a continued
> >> fractional expansion representation for a number which,
> >
> > which is also given by a finite formula.
> wrong topic.
> >
> >> itself, may be
> >> an infinite or a finite sequential representation.
> >
> > Every finite sequence is a formula.
> Wrong. {1,2} is a finite sequence. you fail on common nomenclature or representations for numbers, WM the Deciever.
> >>
> >> I think you are confused about the three dots which indicate a
> >> continuation of a pattern
> >
> > which is not existing without the formula.
> Wrong again. study this hard => ...
>
>
> >
> > Regards, WM

I have a much bigger hammer.

On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 14:14:28 UTC+2, WM wrote:
> FromTheRafters schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 12:34:28 UTC+1:
> > on 3/23/2022, WM supposed :
> > > FromTheRafters schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 16:46:10 UTC+1:
> > >> It happens that WM formulated :
> > >>> Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 09:18:18 UTC+1:
> > >>>
> > >>>> **There is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion**
> > >>>>
> > >>>> To claim otherwise, is equivalent to claiming an *infinite task* is
> > >>>> possible.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> No need to proceed past this point. End of discussion.
> > >>>
> > >>> Completely correct.
> > >> But there *is* such a thing as an infinite decimal expansion
> > >> *representation* of each real number.
> > >
> > > Where? You may be confusing the formula creating every desired digit and the
> > > sequence where the digits are written.
> > No, the value, the number, is in the formula.
> So it is.

It's not even in the formula because a formula is not a number and a number is not a formula.

number =/= formula

I suppose if one bothers to ask why they have different names, the meaning might become clearer.

A number is a name given to a measure that describes (not partially, not approximately, not with "3 dots") a magnitude or size.

> > An associated sequence is
> > used to make the representation.
> But not completely, because there is no last digit. A completely representing sequence has an end signal.
> > You can also make a continued
> > fractional expansion representation for a number which,
> which is also given by a finite formula.
> > itself, may be
> > an infinite or a finite sequential representation.
> Every finite sequence is a formula.
> >
> > I think you are confused about the three dots which indicate a
> > continuation of a pattern
> which is not existing without the formula.
>
> Regards, WM

On 3/23/2022 8:14 AM, WM wrote:
> FromTheRafters schrieb
> am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 12:34:28 UTC+1:

>> An associated sequence is
>> used to make the representation.
>
> But not completely, because there is no last digit.
> A completely representing sequence has an end signal.

Finite digit sequences and infinite digit sequences
represent in different ways.

----
For *finite digit sequences* it's enough that,
for the operations "add one" and "divide by ten",
each input has one and only one output.

For each finite digit sequence,
there is a finite sequence of those operations.
For example, ".12" has
|add one|add one|divide by ten|add one|divide by ten|

There is no step of the operation-sequence which
does not have one and only one output. Including
the last operation-step.

We define that one and only one output of the last
operation to be what the finite digit sequence represents.

Having a last operation and having a last digit is a
necessary part of representing _for finite digit sequences_

----
That's not how an *infinite digit sequence* represents.

Where a finite digit sequence has a finite sequence of
operations and a last operation,
an infinite digit sequence has an infinite sequence of
finite initial digit-segments.

For each finite initial digit-segment, there is a finite
sequence of operations, as before, and an interval
output from the finite sequence's last operation.

So, for an infinite digit sequence, there is
an infinite sequence of finite initial digit-sequences
and an infinite sequence of intervals.

We know that there is _one and only one_ point which is
in each interval in that infinite sequence.
We define that one and only one point to be what
the infinite digit sequence represents.

----
Finite digit sequences and infinite digit sequences
are different in whether there is a last digit and
a last operation outputting what is represented.

Finite digit sequences and infinite digit sequences
are the same in representing one and only one point.

It's "one and only one point" which we need
for representing. We don't need "last operation".