Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Continuation Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

 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 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by jsfisher [Highlighted text added.] Great. So now all that is left for you to provide is an actual definition. 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 Originally Posted by jsfisher ...determining the limit of the sequence of partial sums does not involve infinity at any step. 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 30th April 2015 at 04:53 AM.
 30th April 2015, 04:55 AM #362 jsfisher ETcorngods survivorModerator     Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 22,457 Originally Posted by doronshadmi 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" exactly because your definition, by your own words, 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 doron-limit 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 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes define Doron-level please. There is no doron-level, but only the different levels of place value method, for example: 1 in 0.00110 is in higher level than 9 in 0.000910 __________________ 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 30th April 2015 at 05:01 AM.
 30th April 2015, 05:10 AM #364 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by jsfisher Curious you think the word you inserted belongs there. It is further evidence you don't understand the meaning of 'limit' nor 'sequence'. 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 30th April 2015 at 05:35 AM.
 30th April 2015, 05:43 AM #366 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by jsfisher you didn't provide anything to discredit what I have written. Since infinity is not involved in your definition of limits, no sum of any given sequence is identical to a given limit, accept in your fantasy. __________________ 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 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 EDIT: Originally Posted by jsfisher Validity of a definition? 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 30th April 2015 at 05:53 AM.
 30th April 2015, 05:48 AM #368 jsfisher ETcorngods survivorModerator     Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 22,457 Originally Posted by doronshadmi Since infinity is not involved in your definition of limits, no sum of any given sequence is identical to a given limit, accept in your fantasy. The definition of series makes your statement incorrect. Please stop trying to disprove definitions. They are not subject to that sort of thing. __________________ 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 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by jsfisher The definition of series makes your statement incorrect. Please stop trying to disprove definitions. They are not subject to that sort of thing. 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 30th April 2015 at 06:01 AM.
 30th April 2015, 06:07 AM #370 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by jsfisher It is perfectly acceptable for 0 < |an - L| In that case it is perfectly acceptable that, for example, 0.999...10 < 1 __________________ 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 jsfisher ETcorngods survivorModerator     Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 22,457 Originally Posted by doronshadmi Your definition of limits is incorrect exactly because infinity is not involved in it. 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 doron-limit. Who knows what great insight your alternate might provide. You need only define doron-limit 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 jsfisher ETcorngods survivorModerator     Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 22,457 Originally Posted by doronshadmi Originally Posted by jsfisher It is perfectly acceptable for 0 < |an - L| In that case it is perfectly acceptable that, for example, 0.999...10 < 1 My statement is consistent with the meaning of 'limit'. Your statement is not. __________________ 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 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by jsfisher My statement is consistent with the meaning of 'limit'. 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 < |an - 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 30th April 2015 at 07:12 AM.
 30th April 2015, 10:07 AM #374 jsfisher ETcorngods survivorModerator     Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 22,457 Originally Posted by doronshadmi Your statement is consistent with the current agreement about the meaning of 'limit' Current? Well, I suppose. These things don't tend to change, though, especially when they are as useful as this one is. Quote: ...which is wrong exactly because infinity is not involved. That doesn't make it wrong. It is one of those things that makes it useful, though. Quote: As a result 0 < |an - L| is perfectly acceptable Not just acceptable. It is entirely consistent with the definition of 'limit'. (That is not to say it cannot be zero, but that 'limit' allows it to be positive.) Quote: ...and so is 0.999...10 < 1, simply because they are inseparable of each other. Repeating a bogus statement makes it no less bogus. You'd need to provide, you know, one of those proof things to show how your conclusion follows. 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 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by jsfisher Current? Well, I suppose. These things don't tend to change, though, especially when they are as useful as this one is. 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. Originally Posted by jsfisher That doesn't make it wrong. It is one of those things that makes it useful, though. 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 (0.910, 0.0910, 0.00910, 0.00110) = 1 and the sum over (0.910, 0.0910, 0.00910, ...) < 1 Originally Posted by jsfisher Not just acceptable. It is entirely consistent with the definition of 'limit'. (That is not to say it cannot be zero, but that 'limit' allows it to be positive.) The current definition of limit is inconsistent exactly because 0 < |an - L| and, for example, 0.999...10 < 1 are wrongly defined as separable of each other (and as a result 0 < |an - L| AND 0.999...10 = 1). Originally Posted by jsfisher Repeating a bogus statement makes it no less bogus. 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 30th April 2015 at 01:02 PM.
 30th April 2015, 03:15 PM #376 jsfisher ETcorngods survivorModerator     Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 22,457 Originally Posted by doronshadmi Usefulness in not fixed, it can be developed beyond its current state We all anxiously await your definition of 'doron-limit' to facilitate this great development. Quote: ...The current definition is one of those things that is restricted only to finitism. I have no idea what you mean. It handles, for example, infinite series quite well. Quote: As a result it can't distinguish, for example, between the sum over (0.910, 0.0910, 0.00910, 0.00110) = 1 and the sum over (0.910, 0.0910, 0.00910, ...) < 1 I find it comforting that Mathematics provides the result, 0.999... = 1. Quote: The current definition of limit is inconsistent exactly because 0 < |an - L| In what way is it inconsistent? You have show no contradiction. Moreover, the greater than 0 is not a requirement of the definition of 'limit'. Quote: ...and, for example, 0.999...10 < 1 are wrongly defined as separable of each other No where in Mathematics is 0.999... defined to be less than 1. Quote: (and as a result 0 < |an - 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. Your disdain for some definitions in Mathematics is irrelevant. __________________ 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 Last edited by jsfisher; 30th April 2015 at 03:17 PM.
 30th April 2015, 08:42 PM #377 Little 10 Toes Master Poster     Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,004 Originally Posted by doronshadmi There is no doron-level, but only the different levels of place value method, for example: 1 in 0.00110 is in higher level than 9 in 0.000910 Please show someone else's work that mentions "levels" in the place value method. Edit: here's more proof for you that 0.999999... = 1.0 Let x=1.0 1/3 x = .33333333... 1/3x + 1/3x = 2/3x = .6666666... 2/3x + 1/3x = x = .999999999999... __________________ 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. Last edited by Little 10 Toes; 30th April 2015 at 08:45 PM.
 30th April 2015, 11:23 PM #378 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes Please show someone else's work that mentions "levels" in the place value method. Edit: here's more proof for you that 0.999999... = 1.0 Let x=1.0 1/3 x = .33333333... 1/3x + 1/3x = 2/3x = .6666666... 2/3x + 1/3x = x = .999999999999... 0.333... < 1/3 x, so your example does not work. __________________ 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 30th April 2015 at 11:56 PM.
 30th April 2015, 11:36 PM #379 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by jsfisher Your disdain for some definitions in Mathematics is irrelevant. Your failure to understand the fallacy of 0 < |an - L| AND 0.999...10 = 1, is indeed disdain for Mathematics. Originally Posted by jsfisher We all anxiously await your definition of 'doron-limit' to facilitate this great development. It is not 'doron-limit' 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 30th April 2015 at 11:53 PM.
 1st May 2015, 12:03 AM #380 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes Please show someone else's work that mentions "levels" in the place value method. The validity of notions is independent of the amount of those who understand them. __________________ 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 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by jsfisher I have no idea what you mean. It handles, for example, infinite series quite well. You indeed have no idea, exactly because Originally Posted by jsfisher ...determining the limit of the sequence of partial sums does not involve infinity at any step. Some example: determining the limit of (0.910, 0.9910, 0.99910, ...) actually prevents the understanding that the sum over |N| terms in (0.910, 0.0910, 0.00910, ...) < 1 without 0.000...110 (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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 1st May 2015 at 01:08 AM.
 1st May 2015, 02:40 AM #382 zooterkin Nitpicking dilettanteDeputy Admin     Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 43,176 Originally Posted by doronshadmi 0.333... < 1/3 x __________________ 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 Little 10 Toes Master Poster     Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,004 Originally Posted by doronshadmi 0.333... < 1/3 x, so your example does not work. Please provide proof that .333333... < 1/3. Please answer the first request as well. __________________ 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 Little 10 Toes Master Poster     Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,004 Originally Posted by doronshadmi The validity of notions is independent of the amount of those who understand them. That was not the request. Please try again. __________________ 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 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes Please provide proof that .333333... < 1/3. 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 1st May 2015 at 07:37 AM.
 1st May 2015, 07:40 AM #386 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes Please show someone else's work that mentions "levels" in the place value method. 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 1st May 2015 at 07:42 AM.
 1st May 2015, 10:41 AM #387 Little 10 Toes Master Poster     Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,004 Originally Posted by doronshadmi Already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=379. No it doesn't. That post does not show anything about 1/3 or 0.333... __________________ 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 Little 10 Toes Master Poster     Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,004 Originally Posted by doronshadmi Why do you think that is important? Again, http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=363 is very simple and can be understood by any one. 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 doron-limit. __________________ 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 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes No it doesn't. That post does not show anything about 1/3 or 0.333... That post uses a definition that gets rid of the failure of the standard definition that according to it 0 < |an - 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 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes I can say that 1 is on a higher level than 10 because it's closer to 0. 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 1st May 2015 at 02:32 PM.
 1st May 2015, 03:56 PM #391 jsfisher ETcorngods survivorModerator     Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 22,457 Originally Posted by doronshadmi 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. Some typographic errors are more amusing than others. __________________ 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 Little 10 Toes Master Poster     Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,004 Originally Posted by doronshadmi That post uses a definition that gets rid of the failure of the standard definition that according to it 0 < |an - L| AND (0.999...10 = 1 OR 0.333...10 = 1/3). The needed details are provided in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=358. 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. Last edited by Little 10 Toes; 1st May 2015 at 10:06 PM.
 1st May 2015, 09:05 PM #393 Little 10 Toes Master Poster     Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,004 Originally Posted by doronshadmi 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. "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 doron-level. 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 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by jsfisher Some typographic errors are more amusing than others. 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 2nd May 2015 at 12:02 AM.
 2nd May 2015, 12:06 AM #395 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes Please try to define it. 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 jsfisher ETcorngods survivorModerator     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 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by jsfisher Yeah, Little 10 Toes, it is all your fault for not understanding doronshadmi's gibberish...just like everyone else. 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 jsfisher ETcorngods survivorModerator     Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 22,457 Originally Posted by doronshadmi Yeah, jsfisher, now you ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=379. 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 'doron-limit') to be? Surely at some point in your life-long 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 Little 10 Toes Master Poster     Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,004 Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes 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. Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes "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 doron-level. Please try to define it. Don't give examples. Originally Posted by doronshadmi Please try to understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=363 by keeping in mind that 0 is the smallest sum. 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 "doron-level" (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. Last edited by Little 10 Toes; 2nd May 2015 at 04:29 PM.
 3rd May 2015, 04:46 AM #400 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by jsfisher You posting disjoint thoughts with no logical connection among them 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.

International Skeptics Forum