
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. 
30th April 2015, 04:40 AM  #361 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,943

What I wrote is much more rigorous than your fantasy of "the series for an infinite sequence [that] is, by definition the limit of the sequence of partial sums".
Your definition is a fantasy (relatively or absolutely) exactly because so your call for definition does not hold water. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

30th April 2015, 04:55 AM  #362 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,457

Curious you think the word you inserted belongs there. It is further evidence you don't understand the meaning of 'limit' nor 'sequence'. And, no, you didn't provide anything to discredit what I have written. You merely complained about something that did not even appear in the proof.
Nevertheless, you may use your own doronlimit if you wish. You just need to define it. Why has defining things proven so difficult for you? 
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

30th April 2015, 04:59 AM  #363 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,943


__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

30th April 2015, 05:10 AM  #364 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,943

Please support your argument about me (that I "don't understand the meaning of 'limit' nor 'sequence'" because I'v added the word [that]) in details.
Only if you do that rigorously, then and only then you can start to talk about the validity of your, so called, definition. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

30th April 2015, 05:40 AM  #365 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,457

Not 'because'. The curious word addition you made was additional evidence. My statement was correct without the addition, and becomes a nonsentence with the addition.
Quote:

__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

30th April 2015, 05:43 AM  #366 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,943


__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

30th April 2015, 05:47 AM  #367 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,943

EDIT:
Exactly, since infinity is not involved in your definition of limits. As a result it is no more than your fantasy, simply because no sum of any given sequence is identical to a given limit if infinity is not involved. Once again your dogmatic philosophical (and I would even add religious) approach about definitions, is exposed. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

30th April 2015, 05:48 AM  #368 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,457


__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

30th April 2015, 06:00 AM  #369 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,943

Your definition of limits is incorrect exactly because infinity is not involved in it.
Its validity it is no more than your fantasy, exactly because no sum of any given sequence is identical to a given limit if infinity (in its relative or absolute forms) is not involved in the definition. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

30th April 2015, 06:07 AM  #370 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,943

Originally Posted by jsfisher

__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

30th April 2015, 06:24 AM  #371 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,457

Still, despite your protestations, the definition stands unphased.
Now, it may be its utility you challenge. Challenge away, but the best way to do what would be to define for us your new and improved version of doronlimit. Who knows what great insight your alternate might provide. You need only define doronlimit so we can proceed to the next step. 
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

30th April 2015, 06:26 AM  #372 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,457


__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

30th April 2015, 07:04 AM  #373 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,943

Your statement is consistent with the current agreement about the meaning of 'limit', which is wrong exactly because infinity is not involved.
As a result 0 < a_{n}  L is perfectly acceptable and so is 0.999..._{10} < 1, simply because they are inseparable of each other. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

30th April 2015, 10:07 AM  #374 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,457

Current? Well, I suppose. These things don't tend to change, though, especially when they are as useful as this one is.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
On the other hand, if you'd prefer something besides 'limit' to explore, all you need do is define that something first. 
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

30th April 2015, 12:58 PM  #375 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,943

Usefulness in not fixed, it can be developed beyond its current state, for example the usefulness of the difference between 0.999..._{10} and 1, if infinity is involved in its relative or absolute forms, exactly as explained in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=358.
The current definition is one of those things that is restricted only to finitism. As a result it can't distinguish, for example, between the sum over (0.9_{10}, 0.09_{10}, 0.009_{10}, 0.001_{10}) = 1 and the sum over (0.9_{10}, 0.09_{10}, 0.009_{10}, ...) < 1 The current definition of limit is inconsistent exactly because 0 < a_{n}  L and, for example, 0.999..._{10} < 1 are wrongly defined as separable of each other (and as a result 0 < a_{n}  L AND 0.999..._{10} = 1). It is a perfectly clear and valid statement that gets rid of the separability (as described above) that is at the heart of your currently accepted definition, which is wrong because of this separability. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

30th April 2015, 03:15 PM  #376 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,457

We all anxiously await your definition of 'doronlimit' to facilitate this great development.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

30th April 2015, 08:42 PM  #377 
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,004


__________________
I'm an "intellectual giant, with access to wilkipedia [sic]" "I believe in some ways; communicating with afterlife is easier than communicating with me." Tim4848 who said he would no longer post here, twice in fact, but he did. 

30th April 2015, 11:23 PM  #378 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,943


__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

30th April 2015, 11:36 PM  #379 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,943

Your failure to understand the fallacy of 0 < a_{n}  L AND 0.999..._{10} = 1, is indeed disdain for Mathematics.
It is not 'doronlimit' but simply 'limit'. Let X be a placeholder for that is summed. If X  L = 0 then L is called the limit of X. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

1st May 2015, 12:03 AM  #380 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,943


__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

1st May 2015, 12:14 AM  #381 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,943

You indeed have no idea, exactly because
Some example: determining the limit of (0.9_{10}, 0.99_{10}, 0.999_{10}, ...) actually prevents the understanding that the sum over N terms in (0.9_{10}, 0.09_{10}, 0.009_{10}, ...) < 1 without 0.000...1_{10} (which is rigorously explained in terms of the relativity between different transfinite cardinals in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=347). 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

1st May 2015, 02:40 AM  #382 
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 43,176


__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20 

1st May 2015, 06:44 AM  #383 
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,004


__________________
I'm an "intellectual giant, with access to wilkipedia [sic]" "I believe in some ways; communicating with afterlife is easier than communicating with me." Tim4848 who said he would no longer post here, twice in fact, but he did. 

1st May 2015, 06:45 AM  #384 
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,004


__________________
I'm an "intellectual giant, with access to wilkipedia [sic]" "I believe in some ways; communicating with afterlife is easier than communicating with me." Tim4848 who said he would no longer post here, twice in fact, but he did. 

1st May 2015, 07:36 AM  #385 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,943

Already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=379.

__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

1st May 2015, 07:40 AM  #386 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,943

Why do you think that is important?
Again, http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=363 is very simple and can be understood by any one. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

1st May 2015, 10:41 AM  #387 
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,004


__________________
I'm an "intellectual giant, with access to wilkipedia [sic]" "I believe in some ways; communicating with afterlife is easier than communicating with me." Tim4848 who said he would no longer post here, twice in fact, but he did. 

1st May 2015, 10:45 AM  #388 
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,004

It's important because you like to make your own definitions of existing words. In addition, your post does not make it clear. I can say that 1 is on a higher level than 10 because it's closer to 0.
9 is a higher level than 8 because 8 < 9. Please define doronlimit. 
__________________
I'm an "intellectual giant, with access to wilkipedia [sic]" "I believe in some ways; communicating with afterlife is easier than communicating with me." Tim4848 who said he would no longer post here, twice in fact, but he did. 

1st May 2015, 02:13 PM  #389 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,943

That post uses a definition that gets rid of the failure of the standard definition that according to it 0 < a_{n}  L AND (0.999..._{10} = 1 OR 0.333..._{10} = 1/3).
The needed details are provided in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=358. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

1st May 2015, 02:20 PM  #390 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,943

My post is vary clear because it uses only absolute values of the place value method, such that 0 is the lowest level that does not contribute anything to a given sum.
Please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=348. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

1st May 2015, 03:56 PM  #391 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,457


__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

1st May 2015, 08:18 PM  #392 
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,004

A post that refers to other posts. Typical. Are you denying that 1/3 = .333... ?
Please tell me what is the result of: ____ 3)1.0 Show your work. Edit : Sorry, I don't know how to show the long division sign. I'm trying to figure it out in LaTeX. Edit2: It seems I can't see LaTeX. 
__________________
I'm an "intellectual giant, with access to wilkipedia [sic]" "I believe in some ways; communicating with afterlife is easier than communicating with me." Tim4848 who said he would no longer post here, twice in fact, but he did. 

1st May 2015, 09:05 PM  #393 
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,004

"It uses only absolute values of the place value method, such that 0 is the lowest level that does not contribute anything to a given sum."
That still does not make any sense. What sum? You still have not defined doronlevel. Please try to define it. Don't give examples. 
__________________
I'm an "intellectual giant, with access to wilkipedia [sic]" "I believe in some ways; communicating with afterlife is easier than communicating with me." Tim4848 who said he would no longer post here, twice in fact, but he did. 

2nd May 2015, 12:00 AM  #394 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,943

I ma glad that you are amused.
After that, all you need is to open your mind to http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=379. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

2nd May 2015, 12:06 AM  #395 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,943

Please try to understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=363 by keeping in mind that 0 is the smallest sum.

__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

2nd May 2015, 05:10 AM  #396 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,457

Yeah, Little 10 Toes, it is all your fault for not understanding doronshadmi's gibberish...just like everyone else.

__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

2nd May 2015, 07:25 AM  #397 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,943

Yeah, jsfisher, now you ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=379.

__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

2nd May 2015, 07:36 AM  #398 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,457

It was not ignored. It was discounted. You posting disjoint thoughts with no logical connection among them does not obligate anyone else to respond to your individual posts.
Why not simply tell us what you'd like your own private definition for limit (we'll call it 'doronlimit') to be? Surely at some point in your lifelong quest to overturn Mathematics you will be able to define something. Why not this for a start? 
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

2nd May 2015, 04:28 PM  #399 
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,004

So, by the following two posts and the lack of response to my questions, it appears that you don't know how to do long division, and cannot or will not define "doronlevel" (meaning they way that you use the word limit). And why do we care about why you think that 0 is the smallest sum? You still believe that 0.00...1 is still a number.

__________________
I'm an "intellectual giant, with access to wilkipedia [sic]" "I believe in some ways; communicating with afterlife is easier than communicating with me." Tim4848 who said he would no longer post here, twice in fact, but he did. 

3rd May 2015, 04:46 AM  #400 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,943

Please support your argument in details, according to http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=379 content.

__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

Bookmarks 
Thread Tools  

