Jim Pennino wrote:

>> that's exactly the point, fucking stupid. There are many levels of
>> errors in Numerical_Analysis. The limitation of the register in a
>> computer is just a one. But the proof is valid. The comparison is done
>> on integers, not on decimal numbers, the later being inexact. The
>> former being exact. That why 1/3 IS exact, 0.(3) is not. What an idiot.
>
> The representation of the quantity of 1/3 is exact but the value of 1/3
> is not no matter how you represent it.
>
> BTW, does Numerical_Analysis (sic) have anything to do with numerical
> analysis?

that's a large *domain*, my friend. And it has in equations, for reduction
etc, and going on with large decimal separated numbers is completely
nonsense. That's the first you learn in kindergarten mathematics. A lot of
morons around here, I have to admit.

On 11/4/2022 5:39 AM, Stefan Russo wrote:
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>>>> We simply set v/c=[1+c²/2ax]^-0.5
>>>
>>> Hopeless. PointedEars
>>
>> Don't like my equation?
>
> never mix decimal point numbers in lemmas and theories. Use 1/2, not 0.5

I second that.

In sci.physics Stefan Russo <ftfr@urstsoto.ee> wrote:
> Jim Pennino wrote:
>
>>> that's exactly the point, fucking stupid. There are many levels of
>>> errors in Numerical_Analysis. The limitation of the register in a
>>> computer is just a one. But the proof is valid. The comparison is done
>>> on integers, not on decimal numbers, the later being inexact. The
>>> former being exact. That why 1/3 IS exact, 0.(3) is not. What an idiot.
>>
>> The representation of the quantity of 1/3 is exact but the value of 1/3
>> is not no matter how you represent it.
>>
>> BTW, does Numerical_Analysis (sic) have anything to do with numerical
>> analysis?
>
> that's a large *domain*,

What is a "large *domain*"?

> my friend. And it has in equations, for reduction
> etc, and going on with large decimal separated numbers is completely
> nonsense.

Nonsensical.

Try again in English.

> That's the first you learn in kindergarten mathematics.

Actually, this is what you learn in kindergarten mathematics:

https://www.education.com/common-core/kindergarten/math/

> A lot of morons around here, I have to admit.

And the number increased by one when you started posting though a big
part of the problem could be the fact that you are functionally
illiterate in English.

Jim Pennino wrote:

>>> BTW, does Numerical_Analysis (sic) have anything to do with numerical
>>> analysis?
>>
>> that's a large *domain*,
>
> What is a "large *domain*"?

that you suck large dicks, macro scale.

In sci.physics Stefan Russo <ftfr@urstsoto.ee> wrote:
> Jim Pennino wrote:
>
>> In sci.physics Stefan Russo <ftfr@urstsoto.ee> wrote:
>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> So, you are saying that a value can be exact in one base but inexact
>>>>>> in another?
>>>>>
>>>>> amazing the numbers of imbecile around here.
>>>>
>>>> ITYM number of imbeciles.
>>>>
>>>>> Compare the decimal, for instance, in a compiler, then you get a huge
>>>>> error.
>>>>
>>>> Who cares, the numbers' values aren't dependent upon compilers.
>>>
>>> the compilers are *physics* direct related to the hardware. Hence, the
>>> *physics* is saying you are an idiot. This was the idea, given by the
>>> above proof example.
>>
>> Utter nonsense.
>> In a digital computer, anything other than an integer is generally an
>> approximation.
>> That means that while some numbers can be exact, i.e. 0.375 = 0.011,
>> most are not, i.e. 0.435 = 0.011011111....
>
> that's exactly the point, fucking stupid. There are many levels of errors
> in Numerical_Analysis. The limitation of the register in a computer is just
> a one. But the proof is valid. The comparison is done on integers, not on
> decimal numbers, the later being inexact. The former being exact. That why
> 1/3 IS exact, 0.(3) is not. What an idiot.

Gibberish, try again in English.

What is "Numerical_Analysis" (sic)? Does it have something to do with
numerical analysis?

In sci.physics FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> Stefan Russo wrote :
>> Jim Pennino wrote:
>>
>>> In sci.physics Stefan Russo <ftfr@urstsoto.ee> wrote:
>>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you are saying that a value can be exact in one base but inexact
>>>>>>> in another?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> amazing the numbers of imbecile around here.
>>>>>
>>>>> ITYM number of imbeciles.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Compare the decimal, for instance, in a compiler, then you get a huge
>>>>>> error.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who cares, the numbers' values aren't dependent upon compilers.
>>>>
>>>> the compilers are *physics* direct related to the hardware. Hence, the
>>>> *physics* is saying you are an idiot. This was the idea, given by the
>>>> above proof example.
>>>
>>> Utter nonsense.
>>> In a digital computer, anything other than an integer is generally an
>>> approximation.
>>> That means that while some numbers can be exact, i.e. 0.375 = 0.011,
>>> most are not, i.e. 0.435 = 0.011011111....
>>
>> that's exactly the point, fucking stupid. There are many levels of errors
>> in Numerical_Analysis. The limitation of the register in a computer is just
>> a one. But the proof is valid. The comparison is done on integers, not on
>> decimal numbers, the later being inexact. The former being exact. That why
>> 1/3 IS exact, 0.(3) is not. What an idiot.
>
> So, you're saying that integers are not decimal numbers now? Last I
> knew there were ten symbols used in decimal.

That depends on what you mean by "decimal".

If you mean a number that has a fractional part, which requires a
decimal point, there are N+1 symbols where N=the number base.

Jim Pennino wrote:
>> that's exactly the point, fucking stupid. There are many levels of
>> errors in Numerical_Analysis. The limitation of the register in a
>> computer is just a one. But the proof is valid. The comparison is done
>> on integers, not on decimal numbers, the later being inexact. The
>> former being exact. That why 1/3 IS exact, 0.(3) is not. What an idiot.
>
> Gibberish, try again in English.

which one, fucking stoopid. You don't undrestand shit anyway, you
uneducated and unskilled pile of shit. Engilsh is for pigs. It's Biblical.
You don't know you are a pig?? I have a planet saying that you ARE a pig.
Lol.

In sci.physics Stefan Russo <ftfr@urstsoto.ee> wrote:
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>>> that's exactly the point, fucking stupid. There are many levels of
>>> errors in Numerical_Analysis. The limitation of the register in a
>>> computer is just a one. But the proof is valid. The comparison is done
>>> on integers, not on decimal numbers, the later being inexact. The
>>> former being exact. That why 1/3 IS exact, 0.(3) is not. What an idiot.
>>
>> So, you're saying that integers are not decimal numbers now? Last I knew
>> there were ten symbols used in decimal.
>
> coma separated decimal, with an arbitrary number of decimals, are decimal
> numbers. Float or double, etc. You are sticking you fingers in the shit,
> instead of catching the point in context of the discussion. You are
> useless.

Gibberish, try again in English.

In sci.physics Stefan Russo <ftfr@urstsoto.ee> wrote:
> Jim Pennino wrote:
>
>>>> BTW, does Numerical_Analysis (sic) have anything to do with numerical
>>>> analysis?
>>>
>>> that's a large *domain*,
>>
>> What is a "large *domain*"?
>
> that you suck large dicks, macro scale.

I think it means you haven't the foggiest idea what the hell you are
talking about and are functionally illiterate in English.

Jim Pennino wrote:

>> that's exactly the point, fucking stupid. There are many levels of
>> errors in Numerical_Analysis. The limitation of the register in a
>> computer is just a one. But the proof is valid. The comparison is done
>> on integers, not on decimal numbers, the later being inexact. The
>> former being exact. That why 1/3 IS exact, 0.(3) is not. What an idiot.
>
> Gibberish, try again in English.

this uneducated troll, losing the argument, is now attacking "the engilsh"
abusing its syntax. You inbreed cretin. At your age, being a cretin.

Jim Pennino wrote:

> In sci.physics Stefan Russo <ftfr@urstsoto.ee> wrote:
>> Jim Pennino wrote:
>>
>>>>> BTW, does Numerical_Analysis (sic) have anything to do with
>>>>> numerical analysis?
>>>>
>>>> that's a large *domain*,
>>>
>>> What is a "large *domain*"?
>>
>> that you suck large dicks, macro scale.
>
> I think it means you haven't the foggiest idea what the hell you are

which one, you fucking imbecile. You disgusting stupid troll. Not knowing
the vast domain of *Numerical_Analysis*, required in Math Modeling and
Scientific Computation. *I_fart_you* big time, you inbreed troll of
mazafaka. You had three (3) prime_ministers in one month, lol.

Jim Pennino wrote:

>> coma separated decimal, with an arbitrary number of decimals, are
>> decimal numbers. Float or double, etc. You are sticking you fingers in
>> the shit, instead of catching the point in context of the discussion.
>> You are useless.
>
> Gibberish, try again in English.

you suck dicks in many languages, I can see. Which part you fucking stupid
can't undrestand? We are here to help.

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 6:16:06 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:
> In sci.physics Stefan Russo <ft...@urstsoto.ee> wrote:

DO NOT STROKE THE TROLLS

You got got.

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 2:42:27 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> For the trajectory defined by t = sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a), the elapsed coordinate
> time between t=3 and t=3.1 is not 0.10295 but 0.1075 .

You are mistaken. At x=3.0 the time coordinate is t=3.834504, and at x=3.1 the time coordinate is t=3.937453, so we have Δx = 0.1 and Δt = 0.102949.

To isolate your mistake, please tell me the value of t at x=3.0 on the trajectory t = sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a). Assume a=1.052.

In sci.physics Stefan Russo <ftfr@urstsoto.ee> wrote:
> Jim Pennino wrote:
>
>>> coma separated decimal, with an arbitrary number of decimals, are
>>> decimal numbers. Float or double, etc. You are sticking you fingers in
>>> the shit, instead of catching the point in context of the discussion.
>>> You are useless.
>>
>> Gibberish, try again in English.
>
> you suck dicks in many languages, I can see. Which part you fucking stupid
> can't undrestand? We are here to help.

We?

Maybe you all should get together and attend an English class or two.

In sci.physics Stefan Russo <ftfr@urstsoto.ee> wrote:
> Jim Pennino wrote:
>
>> In sci.physics Stefan Russo <ftfr@urstsoto.ee> wrote:
>>> Jim Pennino wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> BTW, does Numerical_Analysis (sic) have anything to do with
>>>>>> numerical analysis?
>>>>>
>>>>> that's a large *domain*,
>>>>
>>>> What is a "large *domain*"?
>>>
>>> that you suck large dicks, macro scale.
>>
>> I think it means you haven't the foggiest idea what the hell you are
>
> which one, you fucking imbecile. You disgusting stupid troll. Not knowing
> the vast domain of *Numerical_Analysis*, required in Math Modeling and
> Scientific Computation. *I_fart_you* big time, you inbreed troll of
> mazafaka. You had three (3) prime_ministers in one month, lol.

What is "*Numerical_Analysis*" (sic), is it anything like numerical
analysis?

"I_fart_you" is childish, both intellectually grammatically.

"mazafaka"??

I have never had a prime minister, or "prime_ministers" (sic).

Why is you English so pathetic and full of absurd phraseology?

In sci.physics Stefan Russo <ftfr@urstsoto.ee> wrote:
> Jim Pennino wrote:
>
>>> that's exactly the point, fucking stupid. There are many levels of
>>> errors in Numerical_Analysis. The limitation of the register in a
>>> computer is just a one. But the proof is valid. The comparison is done
>>> on integers, not on decimal numbers, the later being inexact. The
>>> former being exact. That why 1/3 IS exact, 0.(3) is not. What an idiot.
>>
>> Gibberish, try again in English.
>
> this uneducated troll, losing the argument, is now attacking "the engilsh"
> abusing its syntax. You inbreed cretin. At your age, being a cretin.

Since you can not write coherent English, there is no point in reading
any more of your babbling tripe.

In sci.physics Stefan Russo <ftfr@urstsoto.ee> wrote:
> Jim Pennino wrote:
>>> that's exactly the point, fucking stupid. There are many levels of
>>> errors in Numerical_Analysis. The limitation of the register in a
>>> computer is just a one. But the proof is valid. The comparison is done
>>> on integers, not on decimal numbers, the later being inexact. The
>>> former being exact. That why 1/3 IS exact, 0.(3) is not. What an idiot.
>>
>> Gibberish, try again in English.
>
> which one, fucking stoopid. You don't undrestand shit anyway, you
> uneducated and unskilled pile of shit. Engilsh is for pigs. It's Biblical.
> You don't know you are a pig?? I have a planet saying that you ARE a pig.
> Lol.
>

What a childish, illiterate moron.

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 8:46:08 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:
> In sci.physics Stefan Russo <ft...@urstsoto.ee> wrote:

> Why is you English so pathetic and full of absurd phraseology?

So as to sucker you into stroking him.
It worked. This well known troll got you!

on 11/4/2022, Stefan Russo supposed :
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>>>> So, you're saying that integers are not decimal numbers now? Last I
>>>> knew there were ten symbols used in decimal.
>>>
>>> coma separated decimal, with an arbitrary number of decimals
>>
>> Shouldn't there be ten?
>
> *I_fuck_your_ass*, fool!
>
> https://www.mathsisfun.com/decimals.html
> https://www.splashlearn.com/math-vocabulary/decimals/decimal

Yep, ten, just as I said. You are confused about the decimal system and
the fact that a decimal radix point is often called a decimal point.

A decimal point is not a necessary part of a decimal number unless you
need to represent a fractional part of the whole.

404 is a decimal number unless I show a different base like 404_16 in
which case it is 194_10

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/radix_point

Jim Pennino expressed precisely :
> In sci.physics FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> Stefan Russo wrote :
>>> Jim Pennino wrote:
>>>
>>>> In sci.physics Stefan Russo <ftfr@urstsoto.ee> wrote:
>>>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, you are saying that a value can be exact in one base but inexact
>>>>>>>> in another?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> amazing the numbers of imbecile around here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ITYM number of imbeciles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Compare the decimal, for instance, in a compiler, then you get a huge
>>>>>>> error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who cares, the numbers' values aren't dependent upon compilers.
>>>>>
>>>>> the compilers are *physics* direct related to the hardware. Hence, the
>>>>> *physics* is saying you are an idiot. This was the idea, given by the
>>>>> above proof example.
>>>>
>>>> Utter nonsense.
>>>> In a digital computer, anything other than an integer is generally an
>>>> approximation.
>>>> That means that while some numbers can be exact, i.e. 0.375 = 0.011,
>>>> most are not, i.e. 0.435 = 0.011011111....
>>>
>>> that's exactly the point, fucking stupid. There are many levels of errors
>>> in Numerical_Analysis. The limitation of the register in a computer is just
>>> a one. But the proof is valid. The comparison is done on integers, not on
>>> decimal numbers, the later being inexact. The former being exact. That why
>>> 1/3 IS exact, 0.(3) is not. What an idiot.
>>
>> So, you're saying that integers are not decimal numbers now? Last I
>> knew there were ten symbols used in decimal.
>
> That depends on what you mean by "decimal".

https://byjus.com/maths/decimal-number-system/

> If you mean a number that has a fractional part, which requires a
> decimal point, there are N+1 symbols where N=the number base.

Wrong, base ten has ten symbols (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) and base sixteen
has sixteen symbols (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,a,b,c,d,e,f) not your N+1
crap. The radix point makes it a radix system, not necessarily a
decimal system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix

You *can* have a radix point followed by a fractional part for
whichever system you want to use. In the naturals, which have no
fractional part, we still have a base ten *decimal* system without the
radix point.

FromTheRafters wrote:

> Jim Pennino expressed precisely :
>> If you mean a number that has a fractional part, which requires a
>> decimal point, there are N+1 symbols where N=the number base.
>
> Wrong, base ten has ten symbols (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) and base sixteen
> has sixteen symbols (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,a,b,c,d,e,f) not your N+1 crap.
> The radix point makes it a radix system, not necessarily a decimal
> system.

you repulsive ignorants, was about decimal numbers, not *base_ten*. lol

FromTheRafters wrote:

> on 11/4/2022, Stefan Russo supposed :
>> *I_fuck_your_ass*, fool!
>>
>> https://www.mathsisfun.com/decimals.html
>> https://www.splashlearn.com/math-vocabulary/decimals/decimal
>
> Yep, ten, just as I said. You are confused about the decimal system and
> the fact that a decimal radix point is often called a decimal point.

no, he is right. Read the fucking papers. It's about *decimals* or
*decimal_numbers*, kindergarten stuff. And NOT *base_ten*, as you write,
you fucking idiot.

Jim Pennino wrote:

> In sci.physics Stefan Russo <ftfr@urstsoto.ee> wrote:
>> Jim Pennino wrote:
>>
>>>> that's exactly the point, fucking stupid. There are many levels of
>>>> errors in Numerical_Analysis. The limitation of the register in a
>>>> computer is just a one. But the proof is valid. The comparison is
>>>> done on integers, not on decimal numbers, the later being inexact.
>>>> The former being exact. That why 1/3 IS exact, 0.(3) is not. What an
>>>> idiot.
>>>
>>> Gibberish, try again in English.
>>
>> this uneducated troll, losing the argument, is now attacking "the
>> engilsh"
>> abusing its syntax. You inbreed cretin. At your age, being a cretin.
>
> Since you can not write coherent English, there is no point in reading
> any more of your babbling tripe.

you may always suck his dick. For you benefit, of course. You uneducated
shit. Another one, detected.

Jim Pennino wrote:

>>> I think it means you haven't the foggiest idea what the hell you are
>>
>> which one, you fucking imbecile. You disgusting stupid troll. Not
>> knowing the vast domain of *Numerical_Analysis*, required in Math
>> Modeling and Scientific Computation. *I_fart_you* big time, you inbreed
>> troll of mazafaka. You had three (3) prime_ministers in one month, lol.
>
> What is "*Numerical_Analysis*" (sic), is it anything like numerical
> analysis?

this illiterate asshole can't even read. I bet he is not faking it.