On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 4:24:40 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 10/23/2020 2:33 PM, konyberg wrote:
> > fredag 23. oktober 2020 22.15.04 UTC+2 skrev Chris M. Thomasson følgende:
> >> On 10/22/2020 5:43 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 5:09:30 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>> On 10/22/2020 4:04 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 3:50:31 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/22/2020 3:42 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 3:07:30 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 10/21/2020 6:16 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 4:23:27 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2020 3:37 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 2:23:19 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2020 1:23 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 12:24:26 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2020 9:17 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 2:30:55 PM UTC-7, Chris M.. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2020 10:48 AM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 2:26:50 AM UTC-7, zelos....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tisdag 20 oktober 2020 kl. 08:23:41 UTC+2 skrev mitchr....@gmail.com:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 10:47:22 PM UTC-7, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tisdag 20 oktober 2020 kl. 05:04:18 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 2:21:36 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/16/2020 10:34 AM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why math named it their imaginary.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Negative quantities are only the subtraction
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operation where at zero there is nothing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> left to take...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow. The imaginary axis is the y axis! Have you never used the y axis
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are off your axis you moron...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The moron is you whom do not understand basic mathematics
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I must have done something right zelos the moron...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zero math is my win. Show me where I am wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zero is the no quantity limit on subtraction.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're wrong everywhere
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are negatives
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those are only subtraction math
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtraction is defiend as the addition of negative numbers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no limit in integers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never said there was...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no next element to zero in real numbers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What is unreal about the Calculus first quantity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> first after no quantity math?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What comes after zero then you moron?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any positive number greater than zero? ;^)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is directly after zero you moron?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What scale are you using? S
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The quantity scale.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Show where first after zero is not fundamental you moron...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0 + 1 = 1
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, the next unit after zero is one.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No. If units are fractions or ratios there is always quantity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> below your 1 unit...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The quantity after the no quantity zero
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is where calclulus started and is also a fundamental unit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calculus started there did it not?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are literally wrong everywhere in mathematics
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Infinitesimals are real units no matter what catagory you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> want to put them in...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> lol. Okay, so:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 0 + (1 - .999...) = first_quantity?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes. That is initial after the no quantity zero.
> >>>>>>>>>> Perfect! It is fractal.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What is a fractal? I don't think so. You have
> >>>>>>>>> gone nuts. There is first after zero you moron...
> >>>>>>>>> Show your fractal.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Here is an interesting one:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> http://paulbourke.net/fractals/logspiral
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You can define"i" but you can not prove it...
> >>>>>>> Why does your fractal mean anything?
> >>>>>> fractals are very useful in the real world.
> >>>>>>> Is it because I won?
> >>>>>> I am not sure what you mean? Were we fighting?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You bet we are. You are a moron for pretending.
> >>>> Why are you so strange?
> >>>>>>> Closest quanitities are like fractal math similarity.
> >>>>>>> What is your fractal math proof?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Fractal math proof? Not sure what you mean. Its obvious that they have
> >>>>>> infinite precision.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No There is no calculating to an infinite fractal.
> >>>> Fractals have infinite precision regardless.
> >>>
> >>> Then make an infinite calculation and get back to me.
> >>
> >> The infinite calculation is contained in a simple formula. Say:
> >>
> >> z = z^n+c
> >>
> >> It depends how deep you want to go.
> >>
> >>
> >>> For your precision what is the size
> >>> of your fractal's elements?
> >>
> >> They are so small that you can zoom in on them forever. Ahhh, whatever..
> >> Never mind. You are very bot'ish. Over and out.
> > r
> > Or better: z(n+1) = z(n)^m + c
> Indeed. The recursive form. It is better.
>
> Fwiw, the Mandelbrot mode for each iteration starts at zero, so:
>
> c = the current point under consideration
>
> z(0) = 0
> z(n+1) = z(n)^m+c
>
>
> Okay. Now a Julia is a little different. Say:
>
> p = the current point under consideration
> c = a constant, say (-.75+.1i)
>
> So:
>
> z(0) = p
> z(n+1) = z(n)^m+c
>
>
> Therefore the Mandelbrot is a map of all Julia sets. ;^)

Immaginary numbers had been refuted long ago ..
BKK