You two crackpots should meet, get a room, and blow each other.

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 7:20:44 AM UTC-4, WM wrote:
> 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 7:25 AM, 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:

>
> 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

You are unable to understand Cantors Enumeration, which is by using simple indexing, one can convert a matrix into a sequence.

Each photo you look at today has been serialized into a sequence and then back into a matrix at least once.

Cantor is just a lot smarter than you are.

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 10:59:32 AM UTC-7, Jim Burns wrote:
> 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".

I think there is a difference between the sequences in
binary, and, sequences in trinary or higher radix.

Not just a difference in the labels, actually there are
differences in the spaces.

It's a matter of deduction that from the properties of the
space, and that basically, reading down a column of
the rows in the space, a fixed portion of the rows have
the given portion of the values by the uniform values.

Then of course besides Eudoxus/Dedkind/Cauchy I point
to usual notions of line-drawing as also modeling continuity,
when then for Hardy per geometry, that these numbers
relate to the points variously "in" or "on" the line, Euclid's.

Also recently I was thinking about the correlation coefficient
as another way to define the theorems of a probability theory,
with respect to pdf, CDF, MGF, ..., if you are familiar with probability
theory and its usual formalisms, with respect to such notions as
"the naturals at uniform random".

When thinking about infinity these are usual enough considerations.

Of course I wouldn't point out line-drawing and your mention
of the use of the limit without pointing out that the equivalency
function or here sweep is the limit of usual uniform partitions
of unity by integers (naturals).

The limit of course is the fundamental tool for statements about
exhaustion, since Cauchy/Weierstrass of course. (From whom the
formalisms of real analysis are today as about the complete ordered
field, and of course real numbers in set theory from the complete ordered
field are exactly equivalence classes of sequences that are Cauchy, and
not Dedekind cuts or some such thing that is simply an assignment
like initial ordinals to cardinalities.)

Then of course your brick-batting of WM is easy enough that for
a challenge I encourage you to take a few shots at this.

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 2:37:38 PM UTC-7, sergio wrote:
> On 3/23/2022 7:25 AM, 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:
>
> >
> > 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
> You are unable to understand Cantors Enumeration, which is by using simple indexing, one can convert a matrix into a sequence.
>
> Each photo you look at today has been serialized into a sequence and then back into a matrix at least once.
>
> Cantor is just a lot smarter than you are.

Those are "raster graphics", there are also, "vector graphics".

I.e. in the old days there were even vector/plotter monitors, that basically instead of
interlacing at a constant rate basically were driven by analog and vector paths.

So, don't confuse today's ubiquitous with what else could be.

If you'd like to know more about television and 6 MHz bandwifth, and YCbCr, and
today's usual algorithms like the DCT and DWT, after RGB, and variously the
tristimulus colorspaces and even for that matter the entire construction of
LCD and LED displays, there's quite plenty to it, then also you might be interested
in vector graphics or for that matter, round monitors.

You can learn a lot from information and signal theory.

Because, each photo you look at today, with your eyeball,
was projected on your retina, and rolled up to the nerve in the middle.

On 3/23/2022 9:58 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 2:37:38 PM UTC-7, sergio wrote:
>> On 3/23/2022 7:25 AM, 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:
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>> You are unable to understand Cantors Enumeration, which is by using simple indexing, one can convert a matrix into a sequence.
>>
>> Each photo you look at today has been serialized into a sequence and then back into a matrix at least once.
>>
>> Cantor is just a lot smarter than you are.
>
> Those are "raster graphics", there are also, "vector graphics".

and today they send transforms of the pictures instead, like an FFT of the picture, they send the FFT, but I think they use the descrete cosign
transform, DCT, notice how when you have low signal it pixulates into smaller squares with odd bar patterns ?

(but all these ways take a picture, a matrix of values, and puts it into a linear sequence to be transmitted)

(ALSO, if you listen to shortwave, checkout the hundreds of advanced modulations used today! (you can get an SDRplay radio for $100, hook it up to your
PC, cool stuff))

>
> I.e. in the old days there were even vector/plotter monitors, that basically instead of
> interlacing at a constant rate basically were driven by analog and vector paths.

air traffic control in the 90s had the big round tubes

>
> So, don't confuse today's ubiquitous with what else could be.
>
> If you'd like to know more about television and 6 MHz bandwifth, and YCbCr, and
> today's usual algorithms like the DCT and DWT, after RGB, and variously the
> tristimulus colorspaces and even for that matter the entire construction of
> LCD and LED displays, there's quite plenty to it, then also you might be interested
> in vector graphics or for that matter, round monitors.
>
> You can learn a lot from information and signal theory.
>
> Because, each photo you look at today, with your eyeball,
> was projected on your retina, and rolled up to the nerve in the middle.
>

then your brain has to figure it out, I dont think anyone has figured that out yet, closest thing is neural networks, which is used bigtime for image
recognition, but you have to train it... (you can do it with a raspberry pie and some open source software and read license plates)

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 8:32:22 PM UTC-7, sergio wrote:
> On 3/23/2022 9:58 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 2:37:38 PM UTC-7, sergio wrote:
> >> On 3/23/2022 7:25 AM, 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:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >> You are unable to understand Cantors Enumeration, which is by using simple indexing, one can convert a matrix into a sequence.
> >>
> >> Each photo you look at today has been serialized into a sequence and then back into a matrix at least once.
> >>
> >> Cantor is just a lot smarter than you are.
> >
> > Those are "raster graphics", there are also, "vector graphics".
> and today they send transforms of the pictures instead, like an FFT of the picture, they send the FFT, but I think they use the descrete cosign
> transform, DCT, notice how when you have low signal it pixulates into smaller squares with odd bar patterns ?
>
> (but all these ways take a picture, a matrix of values, and puts it into a linear sequence to be transmitted)
>
> (ALSO, if you listen to shortwave, checkout the hundreds of advanced modulations used today! (you can get an SDRplay radio for $100, hook it up to your
> PC, cool stuff))
> >
> > I.e. in the old days there were even vector/plotter monitors, that basically instead of
> > interlacing at a constant rate basically were driven by analog and vector paths.
> air traffic control in the 90s had the big round tubes
> >
> > So, don't confuse today's ubiquitous with what else could be.
> >
> > If you'd like to know more about television and 6 MHz bandwifth, and YCbCr, and
> > today's usual algorithms like the DCT and DWT, after RGB, and variously the
> > tristimulus colorspaces and even for that matter the entire construction of
> > LCD and LED displays, there's quite plenty to it, then also you might be interested
> > in vector graphics or for that matter, round monitors.
> >
> > You can learn a lot from information and signal theory.
> >
> > Because, each photo you look at today, with your eyeball,
> > was projected on your retina, and rolled up to the nerve in the middle.
> >
> then your brain has to figure it out, I dont think anyone has figured that out yet, closest thing is neural networks, which is used bigtime for image
> recognition, but you have to train it... (you can do it with a raspberry pie and some open source software and read license plates)

As long as the image that is basically a spiral sweep
or conical in a sense (not in the rods and cone sense
but all pulled into the largest nerve its bundle) is basically
as sufficient to return the signal as the raster, OK.

The software defined radio you mention is indeed quite
interesting, also for software defined antennae. (Or signals,
engineering.)

When you hear about neural nets, then you should know that "AI" was
invented since the 50's, and it's always been cheaper to have a
conceptual system known as "expert systems", then that, there
is the very powerful in "statistical inference", and, "neural nets"
are quite simple in form and operation and work on whatever sets
of data as a stimulus/reponse machine. I.e. "neural nets" don't
know "knowledge inference". It's it's much more efficient to
have a context and knowledge inference, but, it's much more
expert and demanding than "train on any old set of data".

The ontology and philogeny and cladistics for ... information
and information retrieval, related to something like knowledge
inference format or basically an encyclopedia, is basically
orthogonal to something like resource definition format, or
data points.

Statistical inference is its own matter, basically for a wide spectrum
as it were of model-matching besides all sorts usual simple test on
various distributions of data. Spectral analysis as you mention or
component analysis for example is again another example of where
gradient descent is very efficient, but not protection from worst case.

Cantor is a famous mathematician and for the uncountable, but this
is the 21st century and after Goedel and Cohen there's again for a
both renewal of the retro-classical that preceded it, and, for more real
mathematics of infinitesimals and infinities, that physics needs, that
starts with simple facts about Cantor space the binary case, sweep()
the counterexample a countable continuous domain, and all what follows
from my slates.

onsdag 23 mars 2022 kl. 12:20:44 UTC+1 skrev 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
You're the crank mate

onsdag 23 mars 2022 kl. 13:14:28 UTC+1 skrev WM:
> 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.

Incorrect, this is not true in mathematics.

> > 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 Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 17:23:59 UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> 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.

Measure means *EXACT*. It does not mean a failed measure such as 0.333... or 3.14159... or any representation followed by "3 dots".

Dictionary definition of measure: ascertain the size, amount, or degree of (something) by using an instrument or device marked in standard units (****).

Notice it says nothing about formula or 3 dots. Chuckle. This is why it is important for children to learn the language of instruction well because it affects their understanding negatively in every respect. This dismal incompetence and stupidity of the Church of Math Academia has resulted in delusions such as 1 = 0.999... or 1/3 = 0.333... or pi = 3.14159... when in fact NEITHER the magnitude NOR the measure known as pi actually exist. Pi is not a number but a rational approximation in a FAILED measure of ANY circle's periphery using its diameter as UNIT (****).

> > > 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 Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 10:02:53 UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 17:23:59 UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > 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.
> Measure means *EXACT*. It does not mean a failed measure such as 0.333... or 3.14159... or any representation followed by "3 dots".
>
>
> Dictionary definition of measure: ascertain the size, amount, or degree of (something) by using an instrument or device marked in standard units (****).
>
> Notice it says nothing about formula or 3 dots. Chuckle. This is why it is important for children to learn the language of instruction well because it affects their understanding negatively in every respect. This dismal incompetence and stupidity of the Church of Math Academia has resulted in delusions such as 1 = 0.999... or 1/3 = 0.333... or pi = 3.14159... when in fact NEITHER the magnitude NOR the measure known as pi actually exist. Pi is not a number but a rational approximation in a FAILED measure of ANY circle's periphery using its diameter as UNIT (****).

....and since there is no UNIT that measures the ratio circumference : diameter, it follows that pi as understood by mainstream math baboons cannot be number.

> > > > 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 Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 10:05:38 UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 10:02:53 UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 17:23:59 UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > 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.
> > Measure means *EXACT*. It does not mean a failed measure such as 0.333.... or 3.14159... or any representation followed by "3 dots".
> >
> >
> > Dictionary definition of measure: ascertain the size, amount, or degree of (something) by using an instrument or device marked in standard units (****).
> >
> > Notice it says nothing about formula or 3 dots. Chuckle. This is why it is important for children to learn the language of instruction well because it affects their understanding negatively in every respect. This dismal incompetence and stupidity of the Church of Math Academia has resulted in delusions such as 1 = 0.999... or 1/3 = 0.333... or pi = 3.14159... when in fact NEITHER the magnitude NOR the measure known as pi actually exist. Pi is not a number but a rational approximation in a FAILED measure of ANY circle's periphery using its diameter as UNIT (****).
> ...and since there is no UNIT that measures the ratio circumference : diameter, it follows that pi as understood by mainstream math baboons cannot be number.

Indeed!

A *number* is a *name* given to a *measure* of a *magnitude* or size.

The magnitude in the case of the *realisation* of the failed measure of the CONSTANT pi which is the antecedent of the ratio circumference : diameter, that is circumference. If what my intellectual inferiors in the mainstream imagine to be true, then every circle circumference is Pi! Chuckle.

Historical Note: By convention of the Ancient Greeks (my brilliant ancestors), the antecedent is measured by the consequent IFF "quotientness" (πηλικότητα) is present.

Ο έχων νουν νοείν, νοείτω.

> > > > > 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 Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 10:13:22 UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 10:05:38 UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 10:02:53 UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 17:23:59 UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > Measure means *EXACT*. It does not mean a failed measure such as 0.333... or 3.14159... or any representation followed by "3 dots".
> > >
> > >
> > > Dictionary definition of measure: ascertain the size, amount, or degree of (something) by using an instrument or device marked in standard units (****).
> > >
> > > Notice it says nothing about formula or 3 dots. Chuckle. This is why it is important for children to learn the language of instruction well because it affects their understanding negatively in every respect. This dismal incompetence and stupidity of the Church of Math Academia has resulted in delusions such as 1 = 0.999... or 1/3 = 0.333... or pi = 3.14159... when in fact NEITHER the magnitude NOR the measure known as pi actually exist. Pi is not a number but a rational approximation in a FAILED measure of ANY circle's periphery using its diameter as UNIT (****).
> > ...and since there is no UNIT that measures the ratio circumference : diameter, it follows that pi as understood by mainstream math baboons cannot be number.
> Indeed!
>
> A *number* is a *name* given to a *measure* of a *magnitude* or size.
>
> The magnitude in the case of the *realisation* of the failed measure of the CONSTANT pi which is the antecedent of the ratio circumference : diameter, that is circumference. If what my intellectual inferiors in the mainstream imagine to be true, then every circle circumference is Pi! Chuckle.
>
> Historical Note: By convention of the Ancient Greeks (my brilliant ancestors), the antecedent is measured by the consequent IFF "quotientness" (πηλικότητα) is present.
>
> Ο έχων νουν νοείν, νοείτω.

Ο νοών, νοείτω.

> > > > > > 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

onsdag 23 mars 2022 kl. 11:45:22 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.
> >
> > 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.

That is how logical systems work, they are valid until you show an internal contradiction. That is why you cannot say "There is nothing infinite" in mathematics because it is INDEPENDENT of reality so we can add that as an axiom and it works :)

>
> 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

onsdag 23 mars 2022 kl. 16:23:59 UTC+1 skrev Eram semper recta:
> 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.

That is your opinion and that is all it is, an opinion.

> > > 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

torsdag 24 mars 2022 kl. 09:02:53 UTC+1 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 17:23:59 UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > 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.
> Measure means *EXACT*.

Your "measure" is entirely meaningless mathematically

>it does not mean a failed measure such as 0.333... or 3.14159... or any representation followed by "3 dots".

Given there is no meaning to your "measure" mathematically, it cannot be determined it is failed or not.

>
>
> Dictionary definition of measure: ascertain the size, amount, or degree of (something) by using an instrument or device marked in standard units

A dictionary is descriptive of common usage, it does not define what things means, especially not in professional fields.

>
> Notice it says nothing about formula or 3 dots. Chuckle.

And? Again, it is not a mathematics book so what it says a word means is irrelevant. And no, your garbage is not mathematics.

>This is why it is important for children to learn the language of instruction well because it affects their understanding negatively in every respect..

You need to learn that there are different meanings in different contexts and what the common usage of somethign is is not the same as the professional in a field.

>This dismal incompetence and stupidity of the Church of Math Academia has resulted in delusions such as 1 = 0.999... or 1/3 = 0.333...
or pi = 3.14159...

All of which are provable so those are not "delusions", but you are delusional.

>when in fact NEITHER the magnitude NOR the measure known as pi actually exist.

Which means little to nothing given you cannot define it mathematically.

>Pi is not a number but a rational approximation in a FAILED measure of ANY circle's periphery using its diameter as UNIT (****).

So you claim but that is all it is, a claim by you.

> > > > 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

sergio schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 15:13:57 UTC+1:
> All fractions have repeating decimal patterns.

How would you know that without a formula?
What is the next digit following upon 0.322322322322322322322?

Regards, WM

Jim Burns schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 18:59:32 UTC+1:
> 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.

Without an end signal and without a formula you don't know the number.
What is the next digit in 0.448448448448?

> 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.

But that output is unknown without a prescription.
>
> 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|

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

That is a formula! It describes a number or is a number. My claim is that without a formula you don't have a number.

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

Infinite digit sequences without a formula defining them are not describing numbers because they are not exsting. See my above example.

Regards, WM

On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 07:54:37 UTC-3, WM wrote:
> sergio schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 15:13:57 UTC+1:
> > All fractions have repeating decimal patterns.
> How would you know that without a formula?

Because there is a frigging *THEOREM* for that, you fucking lunatic. (The case of repeating zeroes --- or nines --- at the end is included so as not to distinguish between terminating and non-terminating expansions.)

> What is the next digit following upon 0.322322322322322322322?

That is a completely different question, and you know it. So please fuck off.

On 3/24/2022 5:54 AM, WM wrote:
> sergio schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 15:13:57 UTC+1:
>> All fractions have repeating decimal patterns.
>
> How would you know that without a formula?

try using google.

> What is the next digit following upon 0.322322322322322322322?

You have not specified if your number is a fraction or not.

Also, the way it is written means it is truncated at the ? mark.

which is this number 0.322322322322322322322000000000000....

Instead you name a fraction, and we'll give you the decimal representation.
[you can find online calculators that will do this for you]

>
> Regards, WM

On 3/24/2022 6:01 AM, WM wrote:
> Jim Burns schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 18:59:32 UTC+1:
>> 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.

what "end signal" ? (End Signal Ants)

>> Finite digit sequences and infinite digit sequences
>> represent in different ways.
>
> Without an end signal and without a formula you don't know the number.
> What is the next digit in 0.448448448448?

? is not a digit. please fix your mistake

torsdag 24 mars 2022 kl. 11:54:37 UTC+1 skrev WM:
> sergio schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 15:13:57 UTC+1:
> > All fractions have repeating decimal patterns.
> How would you know that without a formula?
> What is the next digit following upon 0.322322322322322322322?
>
> Regards, WM

None, it ended there you retard :)

sergio expressed precisely :
> On 3/24/2022 5:54 AM, WM wrote:
>> sergio schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 15:13:57 UTC+1:
>>> All fractions have repeating decimal patterns.
>>
>> How would you know that without a formula?
>
> try using google.
>
>> What is the next digit following upon 0.322322322322322322322?
>
> You have not specified if your number is a fraction or not.

Its integer part is zero, so the rest is the fractional part. Is it
rational or not is a separate question. Since he doesn't include the
dots, it probably tails off with repeating zeroes which makes it
rational.

> Also, the way it is written means it is truncated at the ? mark.
>
> which is this number 0.322322322322322322322000000000000....

Yes, he abuses notation yet again but it makes no difference since
endlessly repeated sequences which aren't zeroes or nines also indicate
rationals in CDE.

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 7:23:26 AM UTC-7, FromTheRafters wrote:
> sergio expressed precisely :
> > On 3/24/2022 5:54 AM, WM wrote:
> >> sergio schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 15:13:57 UTC+1:
> >>> All fractions have repeating decimal patterns.
> >>
> >> How would you know that without a formula?
> >
> > try using google.
> >
> >> What is the next digit following upon 0.322322322322322322322?
> >
> > You have not specified if your number is a fraction or not.
> Its integer part is zero, so the rest is the fractional part. Is it
> rational or not is a separate question. Since he doesn't include the
> dots, it probably tails off with repeating zeroes which makes it
> rational.
> > Also, the way it is written means it is truncated at the ? mark.
> >
> > which is this number 0.322322322322322322322000000000000....
> Yes, he abuses notation yet again but it makes no difference since
> endlessly repeated sequences which aren't zeroes or nines also indicate
> rationals in CDE.

Would you instead just please tell us more about the p-adic integers?

I know at least it's something interesting that in the past you talked
about, where this "mental pathologies of troll-cranks in the mathematical"
is already too well explored and even trite. And distasteful.

Who was that again who coined the term? What are these "infinite" "numbers"?

Thanks FTR -

On 3/24/2022 9:22 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> sergio expressed precisely :
>> On 3/24/2022 5:54 AM, WM wrote:
>>> sergio schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 15:13:57 UTC+1:
>>>> All fractions have repeating decimal patterns.
>>>
>>> How would you know that without a formula?
>>
>> try using google.
>>
>>> What is the next digit following upon 0.322322322322322322322?
>>
>> You have not specified if your number is a fraction or not.
>
> Its integer part is zero, so the rest is the fractional part. Is it rational or not is a separate question. Since he doesn't include the dots, it
> probably tails off with repeating zeroes which makes it rational.
>
>> Also, the way it is written means it is truncated at the ? mark.
>>
>> which is this number 0.322322322322322322322000000000000....
>
> Yes, he abuses notation yet again but it makes no difference since endlessly repeated sequences which aren't zeroes or nines also indicate rationals in
> CDE.

Agree

Ross A. Finlayson presented the following explanation :
> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 7:23:26 AM UTC-7, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> sergio expressed precisely :
>>> On 3/24/2022 5:54 AM, WM wrote:
>>>> sergio schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 15:13:57 UTC+1:
>>>>> All fractions have repeating decimal patterns.
>>>>
>>>> How would you know that without a formula?
>>>
>>> try using google.
>>>
>>>> What is the next digit following upon 0.322322322322322322322?
>>>
>>> You have not specified if your number is a fraction or not.
>> Its integer part is zero, so the rest is the fractional part. Is it
>> rational or not is a separate question. Since he doesn't include the
>> dots, it probably tails off with repeating zeroes which makes it
>> rational.
>>> Also, the way it is written means it is truncated at the ? mark.
>>>
>>> which is this number 0.322322322322322322322000000000000....
>> Yes, he abuses notation yet again but it makes no difference since
>> endlessly repeated sequences which aren't zeroes or nines also indicate
>> rationals in CDE.
>
> Would you instead just please tell us more about the p-adic integers?
>
> I know at least it's something interesting that in the past you talked
> about, where this "mental pathologies of troll-cranks in the mathematical"
> is already too well explored and even trite. And distasteful.
>
> Who was that again who coined the term? What are these "infinite" "numbers"?
>
> Thanks FTR -

IIRC it was Chris Thomasson refering to 'non-terminating' sequences of
fractional part digits as 'infinite numbers' since there is no end to
their CDE. As you know, there is actually no end to the others either
-- we just call them terminating when they tail off to all nines or all
zeroes.