On 3/24/2022 9:52 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> 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.

(the all nines all 0s are still repeating decimals, a 9 or a 0)

following WMs math we are required to write down all 0's

1.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000(add on infinite # of 0's here)

to arrive at his "defined" number requirement. (how do you flash, beep, or tap out a 0?)

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 9:21:24 AM UTC-7, sergio wrote:
> On 3/24/2022 9:52 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:

> > 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.
> (the all nines all 0s are still repeating decimals, a 9 or a 0)
>
>
> following WMs math we are required to write down all 0's
>
> 1.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000(add on infinite # of 0's here)
>
> to arrive at his "defined" number requirement. (how do you flash, beep, or tap out a 0?)

You must remember that in our Professor's kingdom, zero is NOT an natural number. (Neither is the empty set a set)

Therefore, strings like 47.32870643 are NOT valid representations of real numbers.

Which leads us to the result that ten (10) must be the first dark (Drahk) natural number.

On 3/24/2022 11:41 AM, FredJeffries wrote:
> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 9:21:24 AM UTC-7, sergio wrote:
>> On 3/24/2022 9:52 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>> (the all nines all 0s are still repeating decimals, a 9 or a 0)
>>
>>
>> following WMs math we are required to write down all 0's
>>
>> 1.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000(add on infinite # of 0's here)
>>
>> to arrive at his "defined" number requirement. (how do you flash, beep, or tap out a 0?)
>
> You must remember that in our Professor's kingdom, zero is NOT an natural number. (Neither is the empty set a set)
>
> Therefore, strings like 47.32870643 are NOT valid representations of real numbers.

WM must therefore purge the natural numbers of its infestation of 0's thusly

10 => 1x
20 => 2x

300 => 3xx

4050290 => 4x5x29x

I will let him continue on the naturals at his own natural speed

47.32870643 => 47.3287x643

>
> Which leads us to the result that ten (10) must be the first dark (Drahk) natural number.

Obviously, It is said, "He who sayith no zero, is not Drahk-ish"

WM wrote:

>> 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?

Garbage Fake News Website *‘The Hill’* Continues to Push Trump-Russia Lie
— Defends Biden Crime Family on Millions Made in Ukrainian Pay-for-Play
Schemes
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/03/garbage-fake-news-website-hill-
continues-push-trump-russia-lie-defends-biden-crime-family-millions-made-
ukrainian-pay-play-schemes/

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> 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 is. Will Russia Backstop The Ruble With Gold?
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/russia-will-backstop-ruble-gold

The backstopping of the Ruble with gold can come in many forms and doesn’t
have to be a direct peg from the Ruble to gold - it can include accepting
payment for oil in gold. So "western" capitalist *fake_money* getting gas
and oil *for_free* finally is stopped.

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 7:53:19 AM UTC-7, FromTheRafters wrote:
> 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.

Stevin, then, circa 1600. Cf. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Ultrametric.html

Metrizing countable ultrafilters are a lot like sweep()
bolted way on top of topology instead of right centrally
where it belongs: i.e. it still doesn't exactly agree up there
what all it says it builds form. (Or modern mathematics
and set theory.)

zelos...@gmail.com wrote:

>> or pi = 3.14159...
>
> All of which are provable so those are not "delusions", but you are
> delusional.

quote less, you fucking moron. They want to "stop" the war. Nato countries sending heavy military crap to a naze shithole country not member of, hence not alleged to the capitalist *fake_money* doctrine.

Germany to send 2000 anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, UK to supply 6000 missiles
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2022/03/24/679064/Ukraine-Germany-anti-tank-weapon-

On 3/24/2022 12:33 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 7:53:19 AM UTC-7, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Stevin, then, circa 1600. Cf. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Ultrametric.html
>
> Metrizing countable ultrafilters are a lot like sweep()
> bolted way on top of topology instead of right centrally
> where it belongs: i.e. it still doesn't exactly agree up there
> what all it says it builds form. (Or modern mathematics
> and set theory.)
>
>

interesting link!

On 3/24/2022 7:01 AM, WM wrote:
> Jim Burns schrieb
> am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 18:59:32 UTC+1:

>> 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.

How to describe an infinite digit sequence,
and then take reliable steps claim-to-claim
from the description.

⟨ ⟨1,d[1]⟩, ⟨2,d[2]⟩, ⟨3,d[3]⟩, ... ⟩
is a collection of ordered pairs ⟨j,d[j]⟩ such that,

for each second end j of a collection ⟨1,...,j⟩ with
a counting-order which begins at 1,
one and only one pair ⟨j,d[j]⟩ is in
⟨ ⟨1,d[1]⟩, ⟨2,d[2]⟩, ⟨3,d[3]⟩, ... ⟩

and,
for each pair ⟨j,d[j]⟩ in
⟨ ⟨1,d[1]⟩, ⟨2,d[2]⟩, ⟨3,d[3]⟩, ... ⟩
its first component j is the second end of
a collection ⟨1,...,j⟩ with a counting-ordered which
begins at 1, and
its second component d[j] is in {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9},

We know that's true of an infinite digit sequence
without needing to choose which infinite digit sequence
it refers to.

We know enough, there, that we know that there is
one and only one point in all the intervals represented
by all the finite initial segments of that infinite
digit sequence.

We define that point to be the one and only one point
which that infinite digit sequence represents.
Still without choosing which infinite digit sequence
the description refers to.

> See my above example.

I guess you mean this:

> What is the next digit in 0.448448448448?

0.448448448448 isn't an infinite digit sequence.

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

sergio wrote:

> 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.

Greg Reese: The Nazification of the West
https://www.bitchute.com/video/MgJVp4w122tw/

*_"the deadly power of organized crime"_*

On 3/23/2022 6:20 AM, 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

WM is only looking for views. typical troll.
on mathoverflow

WM:
"Inspired by this question I made an experiment.

I have often participated here with serious concerns about set theory. All my questions and answers have been downvote and deleted. But when I posted
the following text, I got 5 upvotes, and the text remained over two months until today and gathered 300 views."

On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 13:01:13 UTC+2, 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.
> > 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.

While you are correct in saying that one can only realise a repeated pattern from a process (formula or method), you are wrong to say that without it you don't have a number.

Repeating radix representations are *unremarkable* (as they are a property of numbers whose MEASURE is not possible in certain radix or positional systems) but they most definitely are a result of ATTEMPTING to measure a NUMBER that cannot be measured in certain radix systems. 1/3 is a very well-formed number. However, there is no formula here. 1/3 is a measure of a ratio.. Here are just a few UNEQUAL ratios whose measure is 1/3:

_ : _ _ _
_ _ : _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
etc.

If you try to measure 1/3 in radix 10, then you fail because the NUMBER 1/3 cannot be measured using the decimal position system.

The term "rational" should never appear before "number" because rationality is implied by number and vice-versa.

So to summarise, number =/= formula. It is _very important_ to use correct words and definitions. Number and Formula are NOT synonyms, not ever!

> > 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.

Your example proves nothing. It only states the obvious, that is, that an infinite measure is not possible. Of course to the fools in the mainstream, this is ignored in favour of their delusional beliefs that are provably contradictory in so many ways even as you yourself have discovered.

The proof that there is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion is a result of the fact that a measure by definition is "complete", not approximate, not partial, not followed by 3 dots, but COMPLETE.

The CONSTANT known as Pi is an attempt to measure a ratio whose antecedent is a circle's circumference and whose consequent is its diameter. Any attempt to measure c:d results in a NUMBER which is an approximation, in other words, Pi as a number does NOT exist. It does not exist as a magnitude either because every unique circle has a circumference of different length. It's the attempted measure in every case that reveals the CONSTANT known as Pi..

Yes, I do know better! You would do well to study what I tell you because I am much smarter than you or anyone else.

>
> Regards, WM

torsdag 24 mars 2022 kl. 18:35:42 UTC+1 skrev Takabe Matsumura:
> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> or pi = 3.14159...
> >
> > All of which are provable so those are not "delusions", but you are
> > delusional.
> quote less, you fucking moron. They want to "stop" the war. Nato countries sending heavy military crap to a naze shithole country not member of, hence not alleged to the capitalist *fake_money* doctrine.
>
> Germany to send 2000 anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, UK to supply 6000 missiles
> https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2022/03/24/679064/Ukraine-Germany-anti-tank-weapon-
get away from here you Russian idiot.

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 7:58:00 AM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 13:01:13 UTC+2, 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.
> > > 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.
> While you are correct in saying that one can only realise a repeated pattern from a process (formula or method), you are wrong to say that without it you don't have a number.
>
> Repeating radix representations are *unremarkable* (as they are a property of numbers whose MEASURE is not possible in certain radix or positional systems) but they most definitely are a result of ATTEMPTING to measure a NUMBER that cannot be measured in certain radix systems. 1/3 is a very well-formed number. However, there is no formula here. 1/3 is a measure of a ratio. Here are just a few UNEQUAL ratios whose measure is 1/3:
>
> _ : _ _ _
> _ _ : _ _ _ _ _ _
> _ _ _ : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> etc.

In geometry, the above ratios are in proportion but not equal. In algebra, we are concerned only with their measure, that is, the abstract unit which assumes ALL the properties of the consequent from geometry, but disregards the size of the consequent and that is why it is called an "abstract unit".

>
> If you try to measure 1/3 in radix 10, then you fail because the NUMBER 1/3 cannot be measured using the decimal position system.
>
> The term "rational" should never appear before "number" because rationality is implied by number and vice-versa.
>
> So to summarise, number =/= formula. It is _very important_ to use correct words and definitions. Number and Formula are NOT synonyms, not ever!
> > > 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.
> Your example proves nothing. It only states the obvious, that is, that an infinite measure is not possible. Of course to the fools in the mainstream, this is ignored in favour of their delusional beliefs that are provably contradictory in so many ways even as you yourself have discovered.
>
> The proof that there is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion is a result of the fact that a measure by definition is "complete", not approximate, not partial, not followed by 3 dots, but COMPLETE.
>
> The CONSTANT known as Pi is an attempt to measure a ratio whose antecedent is a circle's circumference and whose consequent is its diameter. Any attempt to measure c:d results in a NUMBER which is an approximation, in other words, Pi as a number does NOT exist. It does not exist as a magnitude either because every unique circle has a circumference of different length. It's the attempted measure in every case that reveals the CONSTANT known as Pi.
>
> Yes, I do know better! You would do well to study what I tell you because I am much smarter than you or anyone else.
>
> >
> > Regards, WM

fredag 25 mars 2022 kl. 06:58:00 UTC+1 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 13:01:13 UTC+2, 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.
> > > 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.
> While you are correct in saying that one can only realise a repeated pattern from a process (formula or method), you are wrong to say that without it you don't have a number.
>
> Repeating radix representations are *unremarkable* (as they are a property of numbers whose MEASURE is not possible in certain radix or positional systems) but they most definitely are a result of ATTEMPTING to measure a NUMBER that cannot be measured in certain radix systems. 1/3 is a very well-formed number. However, there is no formula here. 1/3 is a measure of a ratio. Here are just a few UNEQUAL ratios whose measure is 1/3:
>
> _ : _ _ _
> _ _ : _ _ _ _ _ _
> _ _ _ : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> etc.

All irrelevant to mathematics. Are you really so primitive like a neanderthal that you think you have to do physical measurements?

>
> If you try to measure 1/3 in radix 10, then you fail because the NUMBER 1/3 cannot be measured using the decimal position system.
>
> The term "rational" should never appear before "number" because rationality is implied by number and vice-versa.
>
> So to summarise, number =/= formula. It is _very important_ to use correct words and definitions. Number and Formula are NOT synonyms, not ever!
> > > 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.
> Your example proves nothing. It only states the obvious, that is, that an infinite measure is not possible. Of course to the fools in the mainstream, this is ignored in favour of their delusional beliefs that are provably contradictory in so many ways even as you yourself have discovered.
>
> The proof that there is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion is a result of the fact that a measure by definition is "complete", not approximate, not partial, not followed by 3 dots, but COMPLETE.

Here you make the claim that complete = finite, that has not been established but is assumed by you.

>
> The CONSTANT known as Pi is an attempt to measure a ratio whose antecedent is a circle's circumference and whose consequent is its diameter. Any attempt to measure c:d results in a NUMBER which is an approximation, in other words, Pi as a number does NOT exist. It does not exist as a magnitude either because every unique circle has a circumference of different length. It's the attempted measure in every case that reveals the CONSTANT known as Pi.
>
> Yes, I do know better! You would do well to study what I tell you because I am much smarter than you or anyone else.

You really do not know better, you are one hell of a stupid boy :)

>
> >
> > Regards, WM

Eram semper recta schrieb am Freitag, 25. März 2022 um 06:58:00 UTC+1:

> While you are correct in saying that one can only realise a repeated pattern from a process (formula or method), you are wrong to say that without it you don't have a number.

No. A decimal representation that cannot be described does not bring a number to your mind. But that is the task of a decimal representation. As you know there is no infinite decimal representation without a formula prescribing every digit.

Regards, WM

horand....@gmail.com schrieb am Donnerstag, 24. März 2022 um 13:59:56 UTC+1:
> 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*

I did not ask for that. I asked: How could you know that my example is continued by 322?

> > What is the next digit following upon 0.322322322322322322322?
> That is a completely different question,

That is a question to be answered by those who believe in infinite decimal representations without generating formulae.

Regards, WM

zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Donnerstag, 24. März 2022 um 14:49:21 UTC+1:
> 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?

> None, it ended

Every written sequence necessarily ends somewhere. But those who believe that infinite sequences could exist without generating formula should know how to continue. What is the next digit following upon 0.322322322322322322322 in an infinite sequence?

Regards, WM

Jim Burns schrieb am Donnerstag, 24. März 2022 um 21:20:48 UTC+1:

> We know enough, there, that we know that there is
> one and only one point in all the intervals represented
> by all the finite initial segments of that infinite
> digit sequence.

Again you forget the dark realm. At definable step number n there is always an interval described. The limit would be a point. But you cannot know the limit from the sequence alone.

> > See my above example.
>
> I guess you mean this:
> > What is the next digit in 0.448448448448?
> 0.448448448448 isn't an infinite digit sequence.

It is, but I could not write all its digits. So I ceased, hoping you could continue without formula (or you would understand that this is impossible).

Regards, WM

On Friday, 25 March 2022 at 08:12:02 UTC-3, WM wrote:
> horand....@gmail.com schrieb am Donnerstag, 24. März 2022 um 13:59:56 UTC+1:
> > 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*
> I did not ask for that. I asked: How could you know that my example is continued by 322?

Fucking liar. You asked two questions that are independent of each other and now pretend they are related. *FUCK YOU*!

> > > What is the next digit following upon 0.322322322322322322322?
> > That is a completely different question,
> That is a question to be answered by those who believe in infinite decimal representations without generating formulae.

It is *NOT*, you lying, fucking piece of shit! You asked how one knows that fractions have an eventually repeating decimal expansion. The answer is "Yes", and it relies on a simple *THEOREM*. That you pretend you don't know that marks you as a lying prick and an asshole. But *THEN*, you miserable son of a bitch, you changed the subject by asking for the continuation of a digit string without telling the reader whether the number was even supposed to be rational or not. Of *COURSE* the reader cannot answer. That is a classic "bait-and-switch". You deliberately cheated, and I was calling you out on that. I also asked you to *FUCK OFF*, and I repeat that request.

It happens that WM formulated :
> zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Donnerstag, 24. März 2022 um 14:49:21 UTC+1:
>> 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?
>
>> None, it ended
>
> Every written sequence necessarily ends somewhere. But those who believe that
> infinite sequences could exist without generating formula should know how to
> continue. What is the next digit following upon 0.322322322322322322322 in an
> infinite sequence?

0.322322322322322322321(9)...

or

0.322322322322322322322(0)...

You probably meant

0.(322)...

but it is hard to tell what you are 'thinking'.

On 3/25/2022 6:11 AM, WM wrote:
> horand....@gmail.com schrieb am Donnerstag, 24. März 2022 um 13:59:56 UTC+1:
>> 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*
>
> I did not ask for that. I asked: How could you know that my example is continued by 322?

you did NOT asked that.

>
>>> What is the next digit following upon 0.322322322322322322322?
>> That is a completely different question,
>
> That is a question to be answered by bla bla....

Wrong. You can not answer it anyway.

>
> Regards, WM

FACT. All fractions have repeating decimal patterns.

On 3/25/2022 6:14 AM, WM wrote:
> zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Donnerstag, 24. März 2022 um 14:49:21 UTC+1:
>> 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?
>
>> None, it ended
>
> Every written sequence necessarily ends somewhere. But those who believe that infinite sequences could exist without generating formula should know how to continue. What is the next digit following upon 0.322322322322322322322 in an infinite sequence?

1. that is not an infinite sequence.

2. the next number in above is 0, since you did not specify other criteria

3. if you add the three dots ... then it would be 322 repeating (as mitch would say)

4. You are unfamiliar with common math nomenclature too.

>
> Regards, WM

4 mistakes in one post, you troll, + only concerned about the # of views, and not the math.

On 3/25/2022 6:19 AM, WM wrote:
> Jim Burns schrieb am Donnerstag, 24. März 2022 um 21:20:48 UTC+1:
>
>> We know enough, there, that we know that there is
>> one and only one point in all the intervals represented
>> by all the finite initial segments of that infinite
>> digit sequence.
>
> Again you forget the dark realm.

the dark realm exists only in your mind.

bla bla...

>
>>> See my above example.
>>
>> I guess you mean this:
>>> What is the next digit in 0.448448448448?
>> 0.448448448448 isn't an infinite digit sequence.
>
> It is,

Liar, it is not.

> but I could not write all its digits.

you FAILED to write it using common math nomenclature to indicate it is an infinite series, a fatal mistake, which shows you 100% troll.

> So I ceased,

You must cease all math, you are no good at it.

> hoping you could continue without formula (or you would understand that this is impossible).

you waste time.

>
> Regards, WM

On 3/25/2022 6:08 AM, WM wrote:
> Eram semper recta schrieb am Freitag, 25. März 2022 um 06:58:00 UTC+1:
>
>> While you are correct in saying that one can only realise a repeated pattern from a process (formula or method), you are wrong to say that without it you don't have a number.
>
> No. A decimal representation that cannot be described does not bring a number to your mind. But that is the task of a decimal representation. As you know there is no infinite decimal representation without a formula prescribing every digit.

Wrong, you're out of math.

>
> Regards, WM