Discussion:
What is the maximum or best approximation ?
(too old to reply)
bassam king karzeddin
2016-10-31 17:12:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
Yuri Kreaton
2016-11-01 17:35:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
MAX[n/n+1] where n is positive real integer
Peter Percival
2016-11-01 17:38:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yuri Kreaton
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive
positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
MAX[n/n+1] where n is positive real integer
which doesn't exist
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
a***@gmail.com
2016-11-01 23:31:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
it's a g00d problem, though, iff
you consider both the superparticular and the subparticular ratios,
like 31/32 and 32/31
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Yuri Kreaton
MAX[n/n+1] where n is positive real integer
which doesn't exist
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
bassam king karzeddin
2016-11-02 13:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@gmail.com
it's a g00d problem, though, iff
you consider both the superparticular and the subparticular ratios,
like 31/32 and 32/31
The (max or best approximation) ratio, can be visualized in number sense as in binary would seem an endless repeated digits of one as this (0.111...),

which also impossible to exist and therefore can not be exactly as one, but a mind illusion, fake number and distorted picture of one, one is nothing but truly one, and one is really very very angry from all who keep distorting him deliberately to endless pieces

Note that this proof is based only on "common sense" that top professional mathematicians must acquire!,

And this is indeed required urgently from clever students to convince the world's top Journals and Universities that two successive integers are impossible to be equal

Students have the full right now to say to mathematics teachers:

We do not need now education, ...

Regards

Bassam King Karzeddin
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Yuri Kreaton
MAX[n/n+1] where n is positive real integer
which doesn't exist
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
John Gabriel
2016-11-02 14:07:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by a***@gmail.com
it's a g00d problem, though, iff
you consider both the superparticular and the subparticular ratios,
like 31/32 and 32/31
The (max or best approximation) ratio, can be visualized in number sense as in binary would seem an endless repeated digits of one as this (0.111...),
which also impossible to exist and therefore can not be exactly as one, but a mind illusion, fake number and distorted picture of one, one is nothing but truly one, and one is really very very angry from all who keep distorting him deliberately to endless pieces
Note that this proof is based only on "common sense" that top professional mathematicians must acquire!,
And this is indeed required urgently from clever students to convince the world's top Journals and Universities that two successive integers are impossible to be equal
Don't hold your breath. The top journals are run by the same idiots who propagate these dumb ideas. I made the same argument on Space Time and the Universe forum and those idiots just brushed it off. The fact is that no n exists such that 1 = n/(n+1) and as you've pointed out, no n exists either such that 0.999... = n/(n+1).
Post by bassam king karzeddin
We do not need now education, ...
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Yuri Kreaton
MAX[n/n+1] where n is positive real integer
which doesn't exist
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
bassam king karzeddin
2016-11-02 15:28:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by a***@gmail.com
it's a g00d problem, though, iff
you consider both the superparticular and the subparticular ratios,
like 31/32 and 32/31
The (max or best approximation) ratio, can be visualized in number sense as in binary would seem an endless repeated digits of one as this (0.111...),
which also impossible to exist and therefore can not be exactly as one, but a mind illusion, fake number and distorted picture of one, one is nothing but truly one, and one is really very very angry from all who keep distorting him deliberately to endless pieces
Note that this proof is based only on "common sense" that top professional mathematicians must acquire!,
And this is indeed required urgently from clever students to convince the world's top Journals and Universities that two successive integers are impossible to be equal
Don't hold your breath. The top journals are run by the same idiots who propagate these dumb ideas. I made the same argument on Space Time and the Universe forum and those idiots just brushed it off. The fact is that no n exists such that 1 = n/(n+1) and as you've pointed out, no n exists either such that 0.999... = n/(n+1).
Post by bassam king karzeddin
We do not need now education, ...
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Yuri Kreaton
MAX[n/n+1] where n is positive real integer
which doesn't exist
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Don't hold your breath. The top journals are run by the same idiots who propagate these dumb ideas. I made the same argument on Space Time and the Universe forum and those idiots just brushed it off. The fact is that no n exists such that 1 = n/(n+1) and as you've pointed out, no n exists either such that 0.999... = n/(n+1).
****************************************************************************
But I believe that truth would win in the end if we assume that mankind is an intelligent being, otherwise not at all, and the whole problem is far beyond this little particular example,

It is the huge consequences waiting behind this fake protection high infinite wall which is standing as mind barrier block in the professional mathematician’s heads, especially the right side of the brain that seems completely damaged, it was well planted in their skulls due to the phobia of being too big or too small, even though it is not their deeds, but a bad inherited thoughts that would not be thrown away completely from mathematics, but can simply reconsidered and redefined more suitably

In simple words “No number exists with endless terms (with or without) a decimal notation in any defined constructible number base system” (excluding zeros case), but can be visualized as (John Gabriel) does explain it repeatedly as magnitudes (being impossible to measure exactly) in any well defined units.

I know it is too hard and very difficult for the vast majority to believe that (Pi), (e), cubrt(2), and infinitely many more as real algebraic and transcendental numbers are all fake non existing numbers on the number line,

of course everything seems as kind of madness, but unfortunately “this is the truth”
And can be proved with very little common sense

Some would prefer to dismiss the number line being the main criteria for testing what is true or what is fake, being as physical dimension, or geometry and thinking that mathematics is only mind obstruction, but I see no valid reason for this, since mathematics sense started by numbering or courting, from the observable countable physical existing objects around us, so yes physics was the origin of (our mathematics)

Once this huge fiction in mathematics is announced clearly by the many who got it, then, there is more fiction stories in mathematics would find their way to be eliminated completely from mathematician’s minds

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
John Gabriel
2016-11-02 18:37:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by John Gabriel
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by a***@gmail.com
it's a g00d problem, though, iff
you consider both the superparticular and the subparticular ratios,
like 31/32 and 32/31
The (max or best approximation) ratio, can be visualized in number sense as in binary would seem an endless repeated digits of one as this (0.111...),
which also impossible to exist and therefore can not be exactly as one, but a mind illusion, fake number and distorted picture of one, one is nothing but truly one, and one is really very very angry from all who keep distorting him deliberately to endless pieces
Note that this proof is based only on "common sense" that top professional mathematicians must acquire!,
And this is indeed required urgently from clever students to convince the world's top Journals and Universities that two successive integers are impossible to be equal
Don't hold your breath. The top journals are run by the same idiots who propagate these dumb ideas. I made the same argument on Space Time and the Universe forum and those idiots just brushed it off. The fact is that no n exists such that 1 = n/(n+1) and as you've pointed out, no n exists either such that 0.999... = n/(n+1).
Post by bassam king karzeddin
We do not need now education, ...
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Yuri Kreaton
MAX[n/n+1] where n is positive real integer
which doesn't exist
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Don't hold your breath. The top journals are run by the same idiots who propagate these dumb ideas. I made the same argument on Space Time and the Universe forum and those idiots just brushed it off. The fact is that no n exists such that 1 = n/(n+1) and as you've pointed out, no n exists either such that 0.999... = n/(n+1).
****************************************************************************
But I believe that truth would win in the end if we assume that mankind is an intelligent being, otherwise not at all, and the whole problem is far beyond this little particular example,
You are the eternal optimist. :-)
Post by bassam king karzeddin
It is the huge consequences waiting behind this fake protection high infinite wall which is standing as mind barrier block in the professional mathematician’s heads, especially the right side of the brain that seems completely damaged, it was well planted in their skulls due to the phobia of being too big or too small, even though it is not their deeds, but a bad inherited thoughts that would not be thrown away completely from mathematics, but can simply reconsidered and redefined more suitably
In simple words “No number exists with endless terms (with or without) a decimal notation in any defined constructible number base system” (excluding zeros case), but can be visualized as (John Gabriel) does explain it repeatedly as magnitudes (being impossible to measure exactly) in any well defined units.
I know it is too hard and very difficult for the vast majority to believe that (Pi), (e), cubrt(2), and infinitely many more as real algebraic and transcendental numbers are all fake non existing numbers on the number line,
of course everything seems as kind of madness, but unfortunately “this is the truth”
And can be proved with very little common sense
Some would prefer to dismiss the number line being the main criteria for testing what is true or what is fake, being as physical dimension, or geometry and thinking that mathematics is only mind obstruction, but I see no valid reason for this, since mathematics sense started by numbering or courting, from the observable countable physical existing objects around us, so yes physics was the origin of (our mathematics)
Once this huge fiction in mathematics is announced clearly by the many who got it, then, there is more fiction stories in mathematics would find their way to be eliminated completely from mathematician’s minds
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Virgil
2016-11-02 17:27:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
We do not need now education, ...
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Very few if any, certainly only the very best of genius mathematicians,
can discover/invent all of the mathemtics that has already been
discovered/invented entirely on their own, and you clearly are not one
of them.
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
bassam king karzeddin
2016-11-02 13:16:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Yuri Kreaton
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive
positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
MAX[n/n+1] where n is positive real integer
which doesn't exist
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Post by Yuri Kreaton
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive
positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
MAX[n/n+1] where n is positive real integer
which doesn't exist
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Of course, yes it doesn't exist after noting it is finally of this form (0.999...), infinite repeated digits of 9's (in 10base number system)

Regards
Bassam king Karzeddin

But don't come back with your words and play with them again after it is been proved beyond doubt that (1 =/= 0.999...)
Virgil
2016-11-02 17:36:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But don't come back with your words and play with them again after it is
been proved beyond doubt that (1 =/= 0.999...)
Until such time, if ever, that someone has bee able to find a positive
real (thus not an infinitesimal) number epsilon such that
| 1 - 0.999...| >= epsilon
the truth remains that for all practical, or other, purposes,
1 - 0.999... = 0
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
John Gabriel
2016-11-02 18:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Virgil
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But don't come back with your words and play with them again after it is
been proved beyond doubt that (1 =/= 0.999...)
Until such time, if ever, that someone has bee able to find a positive
real (thus not an infinitesimal) number epsilon such that
| 1 - 0.999...| >= epsilon
If I thought you mattered, I would respond. I have only one response for you courtesy of Julio De Idioto:

*****PLONK*****

Doing what I can to preserve my good eye. Chuckle.
Post by Virgil
the truth remains that for all practical, or other, purposes,
1 - 0.999... = 0
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
Markus Klyver
2017-07-27 21:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Yuri Kreaton
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive
positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
MAX[n/n+1] where n is positive real integer
which doesn't exist
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Post by Yuri Kreaton
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive
positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
MAX[n/n+1] where n is positive real integer
which doesn't exist
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Of course, yes it doesn't exist after noting it is finally of this form (0.999...), infinite repeated digits of 9's (in 10base number system)
Regards
Bassam king Karzeddin
But don't come back with your words and play with them again after it is been proved beyond doubt that (1 =/= 0.999...)
But n/(n + 1) will never be equal to 1, and no one claims that. I have repeatedly told you how this works, but you refuse to listen. 0.9999999 is not 1, and neither is 0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999. But 0.999... is, indeed, 1 by the definitions we have.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-07-29 09:13:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Markus Klyver
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Yuri Kreaton
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive
positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
MAX[n/n+1] where n is positive real integer
which doesn't exist
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Post by Yuri Kreaton
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive
positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
MAX[n/n+1] where n is positive real integer
which doesn't exist
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Of course, yes it doesn't exist after noting it is finally of this form (0.999...), infinite repeated digits of 9's (in 10base number system)
Regards
Bassam king Karzeddin
But don't come back with your words and play with them again after it is been proved beyond doubt that (1 =/= 0.999...)
But n/(n + 1) will never be equal to 1, and no one claims that. I have repeatedly told you how this works, but you refuse to listen. 0.9999999 is not 1, and neither is 0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999. But 0.999... is, indeed, 1 by the definitions we have.
Yes, you said it correctly this time but never realized the Garbage in your hand

You said, "But 0.999... is, indeed, 1 by the definitions we have."


By what? say it again and again and so loudly such that everyone on the top of a tree can hear it so clearly and very slowly

"But 0.999... is, indeed, 1 by the definitions we have."

Yes by DEFINITION, by Design, by prior decision (in advance) for sure

So, yes decision can solve miracles in mathematics, it is exactly the same dirty play of a polynomial solution (x^2 + 1 = 0)

"Let There Be an imaginary unit (in mind), such that if multiplied by itself, would give you back a mirror image of a real unity, (finished)"

Or the other never proven game as a solution of a polynomial (x^3 - 2 = 0),

"Let there be a real number (in mind) such that once it is multiplied by itself thrice would give you back the two (Finished)"

But there was, of course, an older unsolved polynomial (x + 1 = 0), and the decision was to make the real unit mirror image as a real too, so Funny" sure

Actually, if they didn't make those decisions, then guess what?

It is the time to go back to the safe Pythagorean age and start again from there, for sure


BKK
Markus Klyver
2017-08-02 22:18:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Yuri Kreaton
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive
positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
MAX[n/n+1] where n is positive real integer
which doesn't exist
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Post by Yuri Kreaton
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive
positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
MAX[n/n+1] where n is positive real integer
which doesn't exist
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Of course, yes it doesn't exist after noting it is finally of this form (0.999...), infinite repeated digits of 9's (in 10base number system)
Regards
Bassam king Karzeddin
But don't come back with your words and play with them again after it is been proved beyond doubt that (1 =/= 0.999...)
But n/(n + 1) will never be equal to 1, and no one claims that. I have repeatedly told you how this works, but you refuse to listen. 0.9999999 is not 1, and neither is 0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999. But 0.999... is, indeed, 1 by the definitions we have.
Yes, you said it correctly this time but never realized the Garbage in your hand
You said, "But 0.999... is, indeed, 1 by the definitions we have."
By what? say it again and again and so loudly such that everyone on the top of a tree can hear it so clearly and very slowly
"But 0.999... is, indeed, 1 by the definitions we have."
Yes by DEFINITION, by Design, by prior decision (in advance) for sure
So, yes decision can solve miracles in mathematics, it is exactly the same dirty play of a polynomial solution (x^2 + 1 = 0)
"Let There Be an imaginary unit (in mind), such that if multiplied by itself, would give you back a mirror image of a real unity, (finished)"
Or the other never proven game as a solution of a polynomial (x^3 - 2 = 0),
"Let there be a real number (in mind) such that once it is multiplied by itself thrice would give you back the two (Finished)"
But there was, of course, an older unsolved polynomial (x + 1 = 0), and the decision was to make the real unit mirror image as a real too, so Funny" sure
Actually, if they didn't make those decisions, then guess what?
It is the time to go back to the safe Pythagorean age and start again from there, for sure
BKK
Do you understand infinite decimal representations are limits? We *define* them as such. With that definition, 0.999... = 1 is a theorem and easily proven.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-08-03 19:03:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Markus Klyver
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Yuri Kreaton
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive
positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
MAX[n/n+1] where n is positive real integer
which doesn't exist
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Post by Yuri Kreaton
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive
positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
MAX[n/n+1] where n is positive real integer
which doesn't exist
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Of course, yes it doesn't exist after noting it is finally of this form (0.999...), infinite repeated digits of 9's (in 10base number system)
Regards
Bassam king Karzeddin
But don't come back with your words and play with them again after it is been proved beyond doubt that (1 =/= 0.999...)
But n/(n + 1) will never be equal to 1, and no one claims that. I have repeatedly told you how this works, but you refuse to listen. 0.9999999 is not 1, and neither is 0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999. But 0.999... is, indeed, 1 by the definitions we have.
Yes, you said it correctly this time but never realized the Garbage in your hand
You said, "But 0.999... is, indeed, 1 by the definitions we have."
By what? say it again and again and so loudly such that everyone on the top of a tree can hear it so clearly and very slowly
"But 0.999... is, indeed, 1 by the definitions we have."
Yes by DEFINITION, by Design, by prior decision (in advance) for sure
So, yes decision can solve miracles in mathematics, it is exactly the same dirty play of a polynomial solution (x^2 + 1 = 0)
"Let There Be an imaginary unit (in mind), such that if multiplied by itself, would give you back a mirror image of a real unity, (finished)"
Or the other never proven game as a solution of a polynomial (x^3 - 2 = 0),
"Let there be a real number (in mind) such that once it is multiplied by itself thrice would give you back the two (Finished)"
But there was, of course, an older unsolved polynomial (x + 1 = 0), and the decision was to make the real unit mirror image as a real too, so Funny" sure
Actually, if they didn't make those decisions, then guess what?
It is the time to go back to the safe Pythagorean age and start again from there, for sure
BKK
Do you understand infinite decimal representations are limits? We *define* them as such. With that definition, 0.999... = 1 is a theorem and easily proven.
This is the longest fake wall that blocks the minds of the fools and had been collapsed quite many times by so many mathematicians beside myself

And it is good to list how many people refuted that from the beginning by date
for the historical sources that are not moderated by any moron
This is a theorem of the biggest ignorants on the planet, where a little skill of a shepherd can simply sense and recognize immediately but of course not any alleged top genius mathematician for very well known and well exposed silly matters, for sure

All that fake mind barrier long wall was made just to justify the illegal real numbers described with infinite terms especially those fiction real numbers described as real (algebraic and transcendental numbers), and the infinite representations of constructible numbers

Bassam King Karzeddin
08/03/2017
bassam king karzeddin
2016-11-02 18:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by bassam king karzeddin
,
But don't come back with your words and play with
them again after it is
Post by bassam king karzeddin
been proved beyond doubt that (1 =/= 0.999...)
Until such time, if ever, that someone has bee able
to find a positive
real (thus not an infinitesimal) number epsilon such
that
| 1 - 0.999...| >= epsilon
the truth remains that for all practical, or other,
purposes,
1 - 0.999... = 0
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens."
(Schiller)
Yes practical and OTHER PURPOSES is the whole issue and nothing else, and of course if you are shopping and asked for one kilo of sugar, then you would get nearly close enough to one kilo of sugar, but certainly not an exact kilo of sugar?

Where is the exactness "=" sense of mathematicians?

Same thing you do when you pretend that you really get the cubrt(2), with enough RATIONAL digits, *(would be satisfactory, practical), to equate that IRRATIONAL number as the same another RATIONAL number, but believe it (even you go forever after it, the later would be always be called rational), which can never be called irrationals.

In short, neither the mind number (cubrt(2), nor its infinite decimal representation actually exist on the real line number), they are both fake numbers

About the epsilon, do it in another base number system,

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Virgil
2016-11-02 23:57:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
,
But don't come back with your words and play with
them again after it is
Post by bassam king karzeddin
been proved beyond doubt that (1 =/= 0.999...)
Until such time, if ever, that someone has bee able to find a
positive real (thus not an infinitesimal) number epsilon such that
| 1 - 0.999...| >= epsilon
the truth remains that for all practical, or other, purposes,
1 - 0.999... = 0
-- Virgil "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens."
(Schiller)
Yes practical and OTHER PURPOSES is the whole issue and nothing else,
and of course if you are shopping and asked for one kilo of sugar,
then you would get nearly close enough to one kilo of sugar, but
certainly not an exact kilo of sugar?
Because all physical measurements have a built in uncertainty, one
cannot ever tell whether one has excatly one kilo of sugar or not.

Note that not! While it might be that one has exactly a kilo, one would
never be able to tell whether one did or not!
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Where is the exactness "=" sense of mathematicians?
Not in any physical measurements!
But it is both possible and desireable in calculations.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
In short, neither the mind number (cubrt(2), nor its infinite
decimal representation actually exist on the real line number), they
are both fake numbers
On a real line all real numbers exist as points, but the location or
point corresponding to a particular real may be only approximately
determinable.

Note that specifying on a line the location of any two real numbers and
specifying a linear scale determines, at least in theory, the exact
location on that line of all other real numbers.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
About the epsilon, do it in another base number system,
The value of any epsilon is independent of the base used to express it,
since any non-integer real necessarily has different numeric
representions in different bases.
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
John Gabriel
2016-11-03 01:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Virgil
On a real line all real numbers exist as points,
Bullshit.

* PLONK *
Post by Virgil
but the location or point corresponding to a particular real may be only approximately
determinable.
bassam king karzeddin
2016-11-03 09:04:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
,
But don't come back with your words and play with
them again after it is
Post by bassam king karzeddin
been proved beyond doubt that (1 =/= 0.999...)
Until such time, if ever, that someone has bee able to find a
positive real (thus not an infinitesimal) number epsilon such that
| 1 - 0.999...| >= epsilon
the truth remains that for all practical, or other, purposes,
1 - 0.999... = 0
-- Virgil "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens."
(Schiller)
Yes practical and OTHER PURPOSES is the whole issue and nothing else,
and of course if you are shopping and asked for one kilo of sugar,
then you would get nearly close enough to one kilo of sugar, but
certainly not an exact kilo of sugar?
Because all physical measurements have a built in uncertainty, one
cannot ever tell whether one has excatly one kilo of sugar or not.
Note that not! While it might be that one has exactly a kilo, one would
never be able to tell whether one did or not!
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Where is the exactness "=" sense of mathematicians?
Not in any physical measurements!
But it is both possible and desireable in calculations.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
In short, neither the mind number (cubrt(2), nor its infinite
decimal representation actually exist on the real line number), they
are both fake numbers
On a real line all real numbers exist as points, but the location or
point corresponding to a particular real may be only approximately
determinable.
Note that specifying on a line the location of any two real numbers and
specifying a linear scale determines, at least in theory, the exact
location on that line of all other real numbers.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
About the epsilon, do it in another base number system,
The value of any epsilon is independent of the base used to express it,
since any non-integer real necessarily has different numeric
representions in different bases.
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
In article
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
,
But don't come back with your words and play with
them again after it is
Post by bassam king karzeddin
been proved beyond doubt that (1 =/= 0.999...)
Until such time, if ever, that someone has bee able to find a
positive real (thus not an infinitesimal) number epsilon such that
| 1 - 0.999...| >= epsilon
the truth remains that for all practical, or other, purposes,
1 - 0.999... = 0
-- Virgil "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens."
(Schiller)
Yes practical and OTHER PURPOSES is the whole issue and nothing else,
and of course if you are shopping and asked for one kilo of sugar,
then you would get nearly close enough to one kilo of sugar, but
certainly not an exact kilo of sugar?
Because all physical measurements have a built in uncertainty, one
cannot ever tell whether one has excatly one kilo of sugar or not.
Note that not! While it might be that one has exactly a kilo, one would
never be able to tell whether one did or not!
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Where is the exactness "=" sense of mathematicians?
Not in any physical measurements!
But it is both possible and desireable in calculations.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
In short, neither the mind number (cubrt(2), nor its infinite
decimal representation actually exist on the real line number), they
are both fake numbers
On a real line all real numbers exist as points, but the location or
point corresponding to a particular real may be only approximately
determinable.
Approximately is the issue (great explanation, innocent and frank), approximation, not so different story for buying one kilo sugar),

Then this must be announced frankly and honestly to the students and the whole world and immediately, but approximation to what?, rationals, constructibles (say the truth if you do have the guts),
Note that specifying on a line the location of any two real numbers and
specifying a linear scale determines, at least in theory, the exact
location on that line of all other real numbers.
Every given constructible number can be exactly located on the real line number, with finite number of steps, without taking you an endless trip to the paradise of fools (infinity)

But every given other irrational number (non constructible), are impossible to locate exactly (not necessarily by straightedge and a compass, but by any means with finite number of steps)

And you would still never know why, unless you believe and get convinced that they are fake non existing numbers on the real line number (fiction numbers) for sure.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
About the epsilon, do it in another base number system,
The value of any epsilon is independent of the base used to express it,
since any non-integer real necessarily has different numeric
representions in different bases.
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
So, wake up and join the leaders

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Virgil
2016-11-03 17:57:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Every given constructible number can be exactly located on the real
line number, with finite number of steps, without taking you an
endless trip to the paradise of fools (infinity)
If you mean on the real number line, only two points can be perfectly
associated with real numbers, all other points must then be located by
various forms of construction, which, outside of a perfect world, can
only be done approximately. So it is your world that incorporates a
paradise of fools
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
bassam king karzeddin
2016-11-05 13:40:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Virgil
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Every given constructible number can be exactly located on the real
line number, with finite number of steps, without taking you an
endless trip to the paradise of fools (infinity)
Virgil writes new theorems in mathematics! so great!
Post by Virgil
If you mean on the real number line, only two points can be perfectly
associated with real numbers, all other points must then be located by
various forms of construction, which, outside of a perfect world, can
only be done approximately. So it is your world that incorporates a
paradise of fools
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
Virgil new theorem in real numbers
***********************************
"Real numbers are only two numbers, whereas the rest of real numbers are outside of a perfect word"

Did you mean the shortest distance between them is arbitrary unity? and
Did you mean that one of them is male and the other is female?

But, I am afraid that one day you would reduce it to only one real number, that is mainly would be only you"

Which implies that the paradise of fools is either going to be closed, or becoming so infinite to include all without exceptions

So perfection of the ideas is the issue, and not approximation of the ideas.

Practice is something completely different

Congratulations and all the success in your endeavor

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Virgil
2016-11-07 01:21:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Virgil
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Every given constructible number can be exactly located on the real
line number, with finite number of steps, without taking you an
endless trip to the paradise of fools (infinity)
Virgil writes new theorems in mathematics! so great!
Post by Virgil
If you mean on the real number line, only two points can be perfectly
associated with real numbers, all other points must then be located by
various forms of construction, which, outside of a perfect world, can
only be done approximately. So it is your world that incorporates a
paradise of fools
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
Virgil new theorem in real numbers
***********************************
"Real numbers are only two numbers, whereas the rest of real numbers are
outside of a perfect word"
That may be what you misread into what I said,
but it is not what I said.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Did you mean the shortest distance between them is arbitrary unity? and
Did you mean that one of them is male and the other is female?
Given a line with no number scale attached, constructing a standard
linear number system on that line requires first the assigning of two
different numbers to two different points.

All other points then get their numbers by various geometric
constructions. wHile some of these contructions are theoretically
exact, in practice they are necessarily only approximations.

One can imagine a perfect number line, but never actually produce one.
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
bassam king karzeddin
2016-11-02 16:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 5:07:38 PM UTC+3,
On Wednesday, 2 November 2016 06:44:13 UTC-7,
On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 2:32:07 AM
Post by a***@gmail.com
it's a g00d problem, though, iff
you consider both the superparticular and the
subparticular ratios,
Post by a***@gmail.com
like 31/32 and 32/31
The (max or best approximation) ratio, can be
visualized in number sense as in binary would seem
an endless repeated digits of one as this (0.111...),
which also impossible to exist and therefore can
not be exactly as one, but a mind illusion, fake
number and distorted picture of one, one is nothing
but truly one, and one is really very very angry from
all who keep distorting him deliberately to endless
pieces
Note that this proof is based only on "common
sense" that top professional mathematicians must
acquire!,
And this is indeed required urgently from clever
students to convince the world's top Journals and
Universities that two successive integers are
impossible to be equal
Don't hold your breath. The top journals are run by
the same idiots who propagate these dumb ideas. I
made the same argument on Space Time and the Universe
forum and those idiots just brushed it off. The fact
is that no n exists such that 1 = n/(n+1) and as
you've pointed out, no n exists either such that
0.999... = n/(n+1).
Students have the full right now to say to
We do not need now education, ...
Teachers, leave those kids away, ...
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Yuri Kreaton
MAX[n/n+1] where n is positive real
integer
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Percival
which doesn't exist
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord
Darlington, just explain
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Percival
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays
to be intelligible is
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Percival
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady
Windermere's Fan
Don't hold your breath. The top journals are run by
the same idiots who propagate these dumb ideas. I
made the same argument on Space Time and the Universe
forum and those idiots just brushed it off. The fact
is that no n exists such that 1 = n/(n+1) and as
you've pointed out, no n exists either such that
0.999... = n/(n+1).
******************************************************
**********************
But I believe that truth would win in the end if we
e assume that mankind is an intelligent being,
otherwise not at all, and the whole problem is far
beyond this little particular example,
It is the huge consequences waiting behind this fake
e protection high infinite wall which is standing as
mind barrier block in the professional
mathematician’s heads, especially the right side of
the brain that seems completely damaged, it was well
planted in their skulls due to the phobia of being
too big or too small, even though it is not their
deeds, but a bad inherited thoughts that would not be
thrown away completely from mathematics, but can
simply reconsidered and redefined more suitably
In simple words “No number exists with endless terms
(with or without) a decimal notation in any defined
constructible number base system” (excluding zeros
case), but can be visualized as (John Gabriel) does
explain it repeatedly as magnitudes (being impossible
to measure exactly) in any well defined units.
I know it is too hard and very difficult for the
e vast majority to believe that (Pi), (e), cubrt(2),
and infinitely many more as real algebraic and
transcendental numbers are all fake non existing
numbers on the number line,
of course everything seems as kind of madness, but
t unfortunately “this is the truth”
And can be proved with very little common sense
Some would prefer to dismiss the number line being
the main criteria for testing what is true or what is
fake, being as physical dimension, or geometry and
thinking that mathematics is only mind obstruction,
but I see no valid reason for this, since mathematics
sense started by numbering or courting, from the
observable countable physical existing objects around
us, so yes physics was the origin of (our
mathematics)
Once this huge fiction in mathematics is announced
d clearly by the many who got it, then, there is more
fiction stories in mathematics would find their way
to be eliminated completely from mathematician’s
minds
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
John Gabriel
2016-11-03 01:06:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 5:07:38 PM UTC+3,
On Wednesday, 2 November 2016 06:44:13 UTC-7,
On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 2:32:07 AM
Post by a***@gmail.com
it's a g00d problem, though, iff
you consider both the superparticular and the
subparticular ratios,
Post by a***@gmail.com
like 31/32 and 32/31
The (max or best approximation) ratio, can be
visualized in number sense as in binary would seem
an endless repeated digits of one as this (0.111...),
which also impossible to exist and therefore can
not be exactly as one, but a mind illusion, fake
number and distorted picture of one, one is nothing
but truly one, and one is really very very angry from
all who keep distorting him deliberately to endless
pieces
Note that this proof is based only on "common
sense" that top professional mathematicians must
acquire!,
And this is indeed required urgently from clever
students to convince the world's top Journals and
Universities that two successive integers are
impossible to be equal
Don't hold your breath. The top journals are run by
the same idiots who propagate these dumb ideas. I
made the same argument on Space Time and the Universe
forum and those idiots just brushed it off. The fact
is that no n exists such that 1 = n/(n+1) and as
you've pointed out, no n exists either such that
0.999... = n/(n+1).
Students have the full right now to say to
We do not need now education, ...
Teachers, leave those kids away, ...
"Hey teacher, leave those kids alone!" - Pink Floyd

:-)
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Yuri Kreaton
MAX[n/n+1] where n is positive real
integer
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Percival
which doesn't exist
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord
Darlington, just explain
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Percival
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays
to be intelligible is
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Percival
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady
Windermere's Fan
Don't hold your breath. The top journals are run by
the same idiots who propagate these dumb ideas. I
made the same argument on Space Time and the Universe
forum and those idiots just brushed it off. The fact
is that no n exists such that 1 = n/(n+1) and as
you've pointed out, no n exists either such that
0.999... = n/(n+1).
******************************************************
**********************
But I believe that truth would win in the end if we
e assume that mankind is an intelligent being,
otherwise not at all, and the whole problem is far
beyond this little particular example,
It is the huge consequences waiting behind this fake
e protection high infinite wall which is standing as
mind barrier block in the professional
mathematician’s heads, especially the right side of
the brain that seems completely damaged, it was well
planted in their skulls due to the phobia of being
too big or too small, even though it is not their
deeds, but a bad inherited thoughts that would not be
thrown away completely from mathematics, but can
simply reconsidered and redefined more suitably
In simple words “No number exists with endless terms
(with or without) a decimal notation in any defined
constructible number base system” (excluding zeros
case), but can be visualized as (John Gabriel) does
explain it repeatedly as magnitudes (being impossible
to measure exactly) in any well defined units.
I know it is too hard and very difficult for the
e vast majority to believe that (Pi), (e), cubrt(2),
and infinitely many more as real algebraic and
transcendental numbers are all fake non existing
numbers on the number line,
of course everything seems as kind of madness, but
t unfortunately “this is the truth”
And can be proved with very little common sense
Some would prefer to dismiss the number line being
the main criteria for testing what is true or what is
fake, being as physical dimension, or geometry and
thinking that mathematics is only mind obstruction,
but I see no valid reason for this, since mathematics
sense started by numbering or courting, from the
observable countable physical existing objects around
us, so yes physics was the origin of (our
mathematics)
Once this huge fiction in mathematics is announced
d clearly by the many who got it, then, there is more
fiction stories in mathematics would find their way
to be eliminated completely from mathematician’s
minds
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
bassam king karzeddin
2016-11-02 18:02:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by bassam king karzeddin
,
Students have the full right now to say to
We do not need now education, ...
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Very few if any, certainly only the very best of
genius mathematicians,
can discover/invent all of the mathemtics that has
already been
discovered/invented entirely on their own, and you
clearly are not one
of them.
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens."
(Schiller)
Not true, and for sure (even by ultra genius)

I was talking only about the fake mathematics that can be altered by a layperson only (not necessarily a genious)

But rigorous mathematics are impossible to invert as you do assert (even by top genius)

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
bassam king karzeddin
2016-11-05 09:51:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by bassam king karzeddin
,
But don't come back with your words and play with
them again after it is
Post by bassam king karzeddin
been proved beyond doubt that (1 =/= 0.999...)
Until such time, if ever, that someone has bee able
to find a positive
real (thus not an infinitesimal) number epsilon such
that
| 1 - 0.999...| >= epsilon
the truth remains that for all practical, or other,
purposes,
1 - 0.999... = 0
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens."
(Schiller)
Did not I reply this message before!

Never mind, how do I explain it to you? Even you never commented on my written proofs for this obvious fiction,

So, after proving it as a meaningless, non existing number, or a better word a mind illusion that does not exists except in the skulls of professional mathematicians,

And still you do insist to see the difference between one and an illusion

Proof: Call it the shepherd’s rigorous proof!

One = meaningful … eqn.(1)
(0.999…..) = meaningless … eqn.(2)

Hence: (meaning) is the common factor between (1) and (2), thus we must have the following wonderful conclusion:

(1 – 0.999…. ) = meaning*(full – less)

But since by elementary means we have
(Full – less) = twice* less

So the proof therefore is completed and thus we must have this obvious fact:

(1 – 0.999……) = double meaning less

There are also so many proofs, the oldest I wrote here around 10 years ago, so go and search for it.

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
5th, Nov., 2016
Virgil
2016-11-07 01:25:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by bassam king karzeddin
In article
Post by bassam king karzeddin
,
But don't come back with your words and play with
them again after it is
Post by bassam king karzeddin
been proved beyond doubt that (1 =/= 0.999...)
Until such time, if ever, that someone has bee able
to find a positive
real (thus not an infinitesimal) number epsilon such
that
| 1 - 0.999...| >= epsilon
the truth remains that for all practical, or other,
purposes,
1 - 0.999... = 0
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens."
(Schiller)
Did not I reply this message before!
Never mind, how do I explain it to you? Even you never commented on my
written proofs for this obvious fiction,
So, after proving it as a meaningless, non existing number, or a better
word a mind illusion that does not exists except in the skulls of
professional mathematicians
Those professional mathematicians are the ones who determine ultimately
what is and what is not mathematics. And your stuff is not!
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
bassam king karzeddin
2016-11-07 08:06:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
mathforum.org>,
Post by bassam king karzeddin
In article
Post by bassam king karzeddin
,
But don't come back with your words and play
with
Post by bassam king karzeddin
them again after it is
Post by bassam king karzeddin
been proved beyond doubt that (1 =/= 0.999...)
Until such time, if ever, that someone has bee
able
Post by bassam king karzeddin
to find a positive
real (thus not an infinitesimal) number epsilon
such
Post by bassam king karzeddin
that
| 1 - 0.999...| >= epsilon
the truth remains that for all practical, or
other,
Post by bassam king karzeddin
purposes,
1 - 0.999... = 0
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst
vergebens."
Post by bassam king karzeddin
(Schiller)
Did not I reply this message before!
Never mind, how do I explain it to you? Even you
never commented on my
Post by bassam king karzeddin
written proofs for this obvious fiction,
So, after proving it as a meaningless, non
existing number, or a better
Post by bassam king karzeddin
word a mind illusion that does not exists except
in the skulls of
Post by bassam king karzeddin
professional mathematicians
Those professional mathematicians are the ones who
determine ultimately
what is and what is not mathematics. And your stuff
is not!
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens."
(Schiller)
It is a good signal that you do confess that something must be done here

On the contrary, top professional mathematicians are urgently needing to be cured from those well defined inherited diseases and phobias, and we are the people who are going to help them freely till they get completely healed
For them alone it is quite difficult since they are infected badly and also captured "in box"

It is indeed quite difficult for them to get healed and on the contrary they are still going in those wrong directions producing more fictitious stories that had infected physics so badly, to the limit that physics is already drawn by so many legendary stories that hollywood can not produce

I am afraid the infection would become global soon

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
7th, Nov., 2016
Virgil
2016-11-07 22:03:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by bassam king karzeddin
In article
mathforum.org>,
Post by bassam king karzeddin
In article
Post by bassam king karzeddin
,
But don't come back with your words and play
with
Post by bassam king karzeddin
them again after it is
Post by bassam king karzeddin
been proved beyond doubt that (1 =/= 0.999...)
Until such time, if ever, that someone has bee
able
Post by bassam king karzeddin
to find a positive
real (thus not an infinitesimal) number epsilon
such
Post by bassam king karzeddin
that
| 1 - 0.999...| >= epsilon
the truth remains that for all practical, or
other,
Post by bassam king karzeddin
purposes,
1 - 0.999... = 0
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst
vergebens."
Post by bassam king karzeddin
(Schiller)
Did not I reply this message before!
Never mind, how do I explain it to you? Even you
never commented on my
Post by bassam king karzeddin
written proofs for this obvious fiction,
So, after proving it as a meaningless, non
existing number, or a better
Post by bassam king karzeddin
word a mind illusion that does not exists except
in the skulls of
Post by bassam king karzeddin
professional mathematicians
Those professional mathematicians are the ones who
determine ultimately
what is and what is not mathematics. And your stuff
is not!
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens."
(Schiller)
It is a good signal that you do confess that something must be done here
On the contrary, top professional mathematicians are urgently needing to be
cured from those well defined inherited diseases and phobias, and we are the
people who are going to help them freely till they get completely healed
For them alone it is quite difficult since they are infected badly and also
captured "in box"
It is indeed quite difficult for them to get healed and on the contrary they
are still going in those wrong directions producing more fictitious stories
that had infected physics so badly, to the limit that physics is already
drawn by so many legendary stories that hollywood can not produce
I am afraid the infection would become global soon
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
7th, Nov., 2016
That Bassam King Karzeddin does not understand either modern
mathematics or modern physics, and why they are the way they are, does
not make those modern mathemticians and physicists wrong, If anything it
just proves Bassam King Karzeddin to be ignorant.
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
bassam king karzeddin
2016-11-07 08:18:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
mathforum.org>,
Post by bassam king karzeddin
In article
Post by bassam king karzeddin
,
But don't come back with your words and play
with
Post by bassam king karzeddin
them again after it is
Post by bassam king karzeddin
been proved beyond doubt that (1 =/= 0.999...)
Until such time, if ever, that someone has bee
able
Post by bassam king karzeddin
to find a positive
real (thus not an infinitesimal) number epsilon
such
Post by bassam king karzeddin
that
| 1 - 0.999...| >= epsilon
the truth remains that for all practical, or
other,
Post by bassam king karzeddin
purposes,
1 - 0.999... = 0
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst
vergebens."
Post by bassam king karzeddin
(Schiller)
Did not I reply this message before!
Never mind, how do I explain it to you? Even you
never commented on my
Post by bassam king karzeddin
written proofs for this obvious fiction,
So, after proving it as a meaningless, non
existing number, or a better
Post by bassam king karzeddin
word a mind illusion that does not exists except
in the skulls of
Post by bassam king karzeddin
professional mathematicians
Those professional mathematicians are the ones who
determine ultimately
what is and what is not mathematics. And your stuff
is not!
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens."
(Schiller)
Once the world decides to make two types of theorems,
First: theoretical theorems
Second: practical theorems

Then, you would be a leader in this field, so do not withdrew your theorem, it might be true and useful one day
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
a***@gmail.com
2016-11-07 21:30:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
your English is not that great, but
there is only one simple criterion, and it is that
you must answer the question of neccessicty or\amd sufficiency,
preferably both, but one at a time
Post by bassam king karzeddin
First: theoretical theorems
Second: practical theorems
Then, you would be a leader in this field, so do not withdrew your theorem, it might be true and useful one day
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Virgil
2016-11-07 22:07:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
mathforum.org>,
Post by bassam king karzeddin
In article
Post by bassam king karzeddin
,
But don't come back with your words and play
with
Post by bassam king karzeddin
them again after it is
Post by bassam king karzeddin
been proved beyond doubt that (1 =/= 0.999...)
Until such time, if ever, that someone has bee
able
Post by bassam king karzeddin
to find a positive real (thus not an infinitesimal) number
epsilon
such
Post by bassam king karzeddin
that
| 1 - 0.999...| >= epsilon
the truth remains that for all practical, or
other,
Post by bassam king karzeddin
purposes,
1 - 0.999... = 0
-- Virgil "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst
vergebens."
Post by bassam king karzeddin
(Schiller)
Did not I reply this message before!
Never mind, how do I explain it to you? Even you
never commented on my
Post by bassam king karzeddin
written proofs for this obvious fiction,
So, after proving it as a meaningless, non
existing number, or a better
Post by bassam king karzeddin
word a mind illusion that does not exists except
in the skulls of
Post by bassam king karzeddin
professional mathematicians
Those professional mathematicians are the ones who determine
ultimately what is and what is not mathematics. And your stuff is
not! -- Virgil "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens."
(Schiller)
theoretical theorems Second: practical theorems
Every theorem which helps to prove another theorem is a practical
theorem, only the ones never used remain only theoretical.
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
bassam king karzeddin
2016-11-08 18:12:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
mathforum.org>,
Post by bassam king karzeddin
In article
Post by bassam king karzeddin
,
But don't come back with your words and play
with
Post by bassam king karzeddin
them again after it is
Post by bassam king karzeddin
been proved beyond doubt that (1 =/= 0.999...)
Until such time, if ever, that someone has bee
able
Post by bassam king karzeddin
to find a positive
real (thus not an infinitesimal) number epsilon
such
Post by bassam king karzeddin
that
| 1 - 0.999...| >= epsilon
the truth remains that for all practical, or
other,
Post by bassam king karzeddin
purposes,
1 - 0.999... = 0
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst
vergebens."
Post by bassam king karzeddin
(Schiller)
Did not I reply this message before!
Never mind, how do I explain it to you? Even you
never commented on my
Post by bassam king karzeddin
written proofs for this obvious fiction,
So, after proving it as a meaningless, non
existing number, or a better
Post by bassam king karzeddin
word a mind illusion that does not exists except
in the skulls of
Post by bassam king karzeddin
professional mathematicians
Those professional mathematicians are the ones who
determine ultimately
what is and what is not mathematics. And your stuff
is not!
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens."
(Schiller)
Here is the main point again and again; it is a psychology problem with the vast majority of the professional mathematicians, since there are few exceptions for every rules

Observe and analyze the words carefully, this response by Virgil, which generally represents the type of response that any common professional mathematician would do (no wonder)!

I choose this case to study despite so many cases are there, (it is indeed a common case), just to convey the simplest fact about the vast majority of this category

He says > Those professional mathematicians are the ones who determine ultimately what is and what is not mathematics, and your stuff is not

So, where were they sleeping all those centuries?

And suddenly they just started waking up, wonder! How?

So, he got the problem now, or a little part of it, he even cannot recognize how huge is the size of the problem yet, maybe he thinks that it is too tiny problem that anyone can repair, also he does not recognize how many statues of many sleeping peacefully in the history would be damaged.

Also neglecting that after years of arguing, and he hints that something that should be determined ultimately and of course by his alkies (most likely he means himself first), and not by outsiders, (the real pointers of the huge problem, that would reduce the mathematics to one forth at the best)

He of course would never confess that somebody else had already taught him those lessons with so much pain during arguing or discussions tolerating their abuse, stubbornness and criticism, etc,

(not John Gabriel, not WM, not me of course, not even anyone alive), but may be someone said something tangible few centuries back (asking himself), so search for him, and hurry up to your secretive research or Wikipedia page if you do write there, and write it immediately before others, as if the whole mathematics is better than a football match now a days for general people!

And naturally, original revolutionary ideas by others as John Gabriel or WM or even by AP or anybody else would be a rich source and a large issues for a political professional mathematicians in the near future, they do have indeed that talent of documenting things according to the well established rules, beside they have very long tongues and more deeper throats that a real talented mathematicians may not have, they simply can teach better the originators of all those issues once they get it clearly from public

Remember that, soon or later you would witness actually what I do say here

So for real talented, follow the advice and stay away (sad situation)

But, certainly the real talented mathematicians would never listen to your advice, they would keep teaching you freely until you are completely liberated from all those temporally and fake rules

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
8th, Nov., 2016
John Gabriel
2016-11-08 19:36:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
In article
mathforum.org>,
Post by bassam king karzeddin
In article
Post by bassam king karzeddin
,
But don't come back with your words and play
with
Post by bassam king karzeddin
them again after it is
Post by bassam king karzeddin
been proved beyond doubt that (1 =/= 0.999...)
Until such time, if ever, that someone has bee
able
Post by bassam king karzeddin
to find a positive
real (thus not an infinitesimal) number epsilon
such
Post by bassam king karzeddin
that
| 1 - 0.999...| >= epsilon
the truth remains that for all practical, or
other,
Post by bassam king karzeddin
purposes,
1 - 0.999... = 0
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst
vergebens."
Post by bassam king karzeddin
(Schiller)
Did not I reply this message before!
Never mind, how do I explain it to you? Even you
never commented on my
Post by bassam king karzeddin
written proofs for this obvious fiction,
So, after proving it as a meaningless, non
existing number, or a better
Post by bassam king karzeddin
word a mind illusion that does not exists except
in the skulls of
Post by bassam king karzeddin
professional mathematicians
Those professional mathematicians are the ones who
determine ultimately
what is and what is not mathematics. And your stuff
is not!
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens."
(Schiller)
Here is the main point again and again; it is a psychology problem with the vast majority of the professional mathematicians, since there are few exceptions for every rules
Observe and analyze the words carefully, this response by Virgil, which generally represents the type of response that any common professional mathematician would do (no wonder)!
I choose this case to study despite so many cases are there, (it is indeed a common case), just to convey the simplest fact about the vast majority of this category
He says > Those professional mathematicians are the ones who determine ultimately what is and what is not mathematics, and your stuff is not
So, where were they sleeping all those centuries?
And suddenly they just started waking up, wonder! How?
So, he got the problem now, or a little part of it, he even cannot recognize how huge is the size of the problem yet, maybe he thinks that it is too tiny problem that anyone can repair, also he does not recognize how many statues of many sleeping peacefully in the history would be damaged.
Also neglecting that after years of arguing, and he hints that something that should be determined ultimately and of course by his alkies (most likely he means himself first), and not by outsiders, (the real pointers of the huge problem, that would reduce the mathematics to one forth at the best)
He of course would never confess that somebody else had already taught him those lessons with so much pain during arguing or discussions tolerating their abuse, stubbornness and criticism, etc,
(not John Gabriel, not WM, not me of course, not even anyone alive), but may be someone said something tangible few centuries back (asking himself), so search for him, and hurry up to your secretive research or Wikipedia page if you do write there, and write it immediately before others, as if the whole mathematics is better than a football match now a days for general people!
And naturally, original revolutionary ideas by others as John Gabriel or WM or even by AP or anybody else would be a rich source and a large issues for a political professional mathematicians in the near future, they do have indeed that talent of documenting things according to the well established rules, beside they have very long tongues and more deeper throats that a real talented mathematicians may not have, they simply can teach better the originators of all those issues once they get it clearly from public
Remember that, soon or later you would witness actually what I do say here
So for real talented, follow the advice and stay away (sad situation)
But, certainly the real talented mathematicians would never listen to your advice, they would keep teaching you freely until you are completely liberated from all those temporally and fake rules
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
8th, Nov., 2016
Virgil (Hancher) is no professional mathematician. He is not even a mathematician by any stretch of the word. But he is a qualified fool. :-)

Professional mathematicians are not afraid to comment using their real names.
John Gabriel
2016-11-08 19:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And naturally, original revolutionary ideas by others as John Gabriel or WM or even by AP or anybody else would be a rich source and a large issues for a political professional mathematicians in the near future, they do have indeed that talent of documenting things according to the well established rules, beside they have very long tongues and more deeper throats that a real talented mathematicians may not have, they simply can teach better the originators of all those issues once they get it clearly from public
Oops. I missed this. Please Bassam, AP is a complete idiot. I ask you never to mention his name in the same sentence as mine or WM's. Thank you.
Virgil
2016-11-08 18:58:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And naturally, original revolutionary ideas by others as John Gabriel or WM
or even by AP or anybody else would be a rich source and a large issues for
a political professional mathematicians in the near future, they do have
indeed that talent of documenting things according to the well established
rules, beside they have very long tongues and more deeper throats that a
real talented mathematicians may not have, they simply can teach better the
originators of all those issues once they get it clearly from public
Anyone like bASSam king karzeddin, who takes as his models those like
AP, WM and JG, is backing the wrongest of the wrong.
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
John Gabriel
2016-11-08 20:01:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And naturally, original revolutionary ideas by others as John Gabriel or WM
or even by AP or anybody else would be a rich source and a large issues for
a political professional mathematicians in the near future, they do have
indeed that talent of documenting things according to the well established
rules, beside they have very long tongues and more deeper throats that a
real talented mathematicians may not have, they simply can teach better the
originators of all those issues once they get it clearly from public
Anyone like bASSam king karzeddin, who takes as his models those like
AP, WM and JG, is backing the wrongest of the wrong.
** PLONK **
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
bassam king karzeddin
2017-07-19 18:25:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
And, if mathematicians can't truly understand this simplest puzzle, then so alas upon the mathematics and the mathematicians too, sure

BKK
mathman1
2017-07-20 01:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
An infinite sequence may have a sup, which may or may not be a max. So what?
bassam king karzeddin
2017-07-20 08:51:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mathman1
An infinite sequence may have a sup, which may or may not be a max. So what?
So what?

Isn't (0.111...) in binary (2base)number system would be the maximum? OR:
Isn't (0.999...) in decimal (10base) number system would be the maximum?

Doesn't this really a VERY clear fiction? wonder!

BKK
Markus Klyver
2017-07-27 21:15:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mathman1
An infinite sequence may have a sup, which may or may not be a max. So what?
Every bounded sequence of real numbers will have a sup, and I agree. So what? A sequence or function don't have to obtain its supremum. I don't understand how Gabriel & co. can have a so hard time with something every math undergraduate understands perfectly fine.
Markus Klyver
2017-07-27 21:10:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
What do you mean by "maximum approximation"? n/(n + 1) will approach 1 as n approaches ∞, but that value will never be obtained. So no maximum of n/(n + 1) over the positive integers exists.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-09-13 16:19:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
So, the issue is not more than approximations to any desired degree of accuracy

That was all, not any real truth or any interesting puzzle, for sure

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-09-20 18:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
Of course, it doesn't exist exactly like the non-existing alleged real endless number (0.999...), for sure

However many proofs of this nonsense puzzle in my posts, the oldest is around 10 yrs back
BKK
Markus Klyver
2017-09-21 22:12:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Yuri Kreaton
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive
positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
MAX[n/n+1] where n is positive real integer
which doesn't exist
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Post by Yuri Kreaton
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive
positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
MAX[n/n+1] where n is positive real integer
which doesn't exist
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Of course, yes it doesn't exist after noting it is finally of this form (0.999...), infinite repeated digits of 9's (in 10base number system)
Regards
Bassam king Karzeddin
But don't come back with your words and play with them again after it is been proved beyond doubt that (1 =/= 0.999...)
But n/(n + 1) will never be equal to 1, and no one claims that. I have repeatedly told you how this works, but you refuse to listen. 0.9999999 is not 1, and neither is 0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999. But 0.999... is, indeed, 1 by the definitions we have.
Yes, you said it correctly this time but never realized the Garbage in your hand
You said, "But 0.999... is, indeed, 1 by the definitions we have."
By what? say it again and again and so loudly such that everyone on the top of a tree can hear it so clearly and very slowly
"But 0.999... is, indeed, 1 by the definitions we have."
Yes by DEFINITION, by Design, by prior decision (in advance) for sure
So, yes decision can solve miracles in mathematics, it is exactly the same dirty play of a polynomial solution (x^2 + 1 = 0)
"Let There Be an imaginary unit (in mind), such that if multiplied by itself, would give you back a mirror image of a real unity, (finished)"
Or the other never proven game as a solution of a polynomial (x^3 - 2 = 0),
"Let there be a real number (in mind) such that once it is multiplied by itself thrice would give you back the two (Finished)"
But there was, of course, an older unsolved polynomial (x + 1 = 0), and the decision was to make the real unit mirror image as a real too, so Funny" sure
Actually, if they didn't make those decisions, then guess what?
It is the time to go back to the safe Pythagorean age and start again from there, for sure
BKK
Do you understand infinite decimal representations are limits? We *define* them as such. With that definition, 0.999... = 1 is a theorem and easily proven.
This is the longest fake wall that blocks the minds of the fools and had been collapsed quite many times by so many mathematicians beside myself
And it is good to list how many people refuted that from the beginning by date
for the historical sources that are not moderated by any moron
This is a theorem of the biggest ignorants on the planet, where a little skill of a shepherd can simply sense and recognize immediately but of course not any alleged top genius mathematician for very well known and well exposed silly matters, for sure
All that fake mind barrier long wall was made just to justify the illegal real numbers described with infinite terms especially those fiction real numbers described as real (algebraic and transcendental numbers), and the infinite representations of constructible numbers
Bassam King Karzeddin
08/03/2017
Tell me how mathematics not being concerned about reality is a problem.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-09-24 12:40:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Markus Klyver
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Yuri Kreaton
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive
positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
MAX[n/n+1] where n is positive real integer
which doesn't exist
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Post by Yuri Kreaton
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive
positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
MAX[n/n+1] where n is positive real integer
which doesn't exist
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Of course, yes it doesn't exist after noting it is finally of this form (0.999...), infinite repeated digits of 9's (in 10base number system)
Regards
Bassam king Karzeddin
But don't come back with your words and play with them again after it is been proved beyond doubt that (1 =/= 0.999...)
But n/(n + 1) will never be equal to 1, and no one claims that. I have repeatedly told you how this works, but you refuse to listen. 0.9999999 is not 1, and neither is 0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999. But 0.999... is, indeed, 1 by the definitions we have.
Yes, you said it correctly this time but never realized the Garbage in your hand
You said, "But 0.999... is, indeed, 1 by the definitions we have."
By what? say it again and again and so loudly such that everyone on the top of a tree can hear it so clearly and very slowly
"But 0.999... is, indeed, 1 by the definitions we have."
Yes by DEFINITION, by Design, by prior decision (in advance) for sure
So, yes decision can solve miracles in mathematics, it is exactly the same dirty play of a polynomial solution (x^2 + 1 = 0)
"Let There Be an imaginary unit (in mind), such that if multiplied by itself, would give you back a mirror image of a real unity, (finished)"
Or the other never proven game as a solution of a polynomial (x^3 - 2 = 0),
"Let there be a real number (in mind) such that once it is multiplied by itself thrice would give you back the two (Finished)"
But there was, of course, an older unsolved polynomial (x + 1 = 0), and the decision was to make the real unit mirror image as a real too, so Funny" sure
Actually, if they didn't make those decisions, then guess what?
It is the time to go back to the safe Pythagorean age and start again from there, for sure
BKK
Do you understand infinite decimal representations are limits? We *define* them as such. With that definition, 0.999... = 1 is a theorem and easily proven.
This is the longest fake wall that blocks the minds of the fools and had been collapsed quite many times by so many mathematicians beside myself
And it is good to list how many people refuted that from the beginning by date
for the historical sources that are not moderated by any moron
This is a theorem of the biggest ignorants on the planet, where a little skill of a shepherd can simply sense and recognize immediately but of course not any alleged top genius mathematician for very well known and well exposed silly matters, for sure
All that fake mind barrier long wall was made just to justify the illegal real numbers described with infinite terms especially those fiction real numbers described as real (algebraic and transcendental numbers), and the infinite representations of constructible numbers
Bassam King Karzeddin
08/03/2017
Tell me how mathematics not being concerned about reality is a problem.
I usually try to reply good questions immediately, and generally, delay or ignore meaningless questions, but isn't it so strange that you haven't learnt anything from this lecture? wonder!

How can two successive integers be equals? wonder

Of course, not in physics or science or even sports, but only in mathematics for sure

Don't worry, I would provide you with a magical tool that can make all say here non-zero integers are equal, and it is ever the best tool that mathematicians feel so proud and great with it (of course alone)

It is called Infinity, denoted by (oo)

OK, Let us start:

OO = OO + 1 = OO + 2 = OO + 3 = ... = OO + OO, (THOSE ARE the holy grail rules of infinity), then subtract (OO) FROM all terms, the you would get the following:

0 = 1 = 2 = 3 = ... = OO, (SEE how wonderful and so useful infinity is in MATHEMATICS

It is indeed the ultimate justice with all integers, no one is greater or better than anyone else, all are equals even with their well-known least or greatest

So, very happy infinity for all mathematickers on earth

And you would never learn anything, for sure

I also forget to tell that they by using (OO), they could manage to make the sum of all positive integers equals to (-1/12)

You must try your luck with it, it has infinitely so many opportunities for every mathematician, so happy infinity only for the mathematicians

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-12-17 09:12:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Yuri Kreaton
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive
positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
MAX[n/n+1] where n is positive real integer
which doesn't exist
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Post by Yuri Kreaton
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive
positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
MAX[n/n+1] where n is positive real integer
which doesn't exist
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Of course, yes it doesn't exist after noting it is finally of this form (0.999...), infinite repeated digits of 9's (in 10base number system)
Regards
Bassam king Karzeddin
But don't come back with your words and play with them again after it is been proved beyond doubt that (1 =/= 0.999...)
But n/(n + 1) will never be equal to 1, and no one claims that. I have repeatedly told you how this works, but you refuse to listen. 0.9999999 is not 1, and neither is 0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999. But 0.999... is, indeed, 1 by the definitions we have.
Yes, you said it correctly this time but never realized the Garbage in your hand
You said, "But 0.999... is, indeed, 1 by the definitions we have."
By what? say it again and again and so loudly such that everyone on the top of a tree can hear it so clearly and very slowly
"But 0.999... is, indeed, 1 by the definitions we have."
Yes by DEFINITION, by Design, by prior decision (in advance) for sure
So, yes decision can solve miracles in mathematics, it is exactly the same dirty play of a polynomial solution (x^2 + 1 = 0)
"Let There Be an imaginary unit (in mind), such that if multiplied by itself, would give you back a mirror image of a real unity, (finished)"
Or the other never proven game as a solution of a polynomial (x^3 - 2 = 0),
"Let there be a real number (in mind) such that once it is multiplied by itself thrice would give you back the two (Finished)"
But there was, of course, an older unsolved polynomial (x + 1 = 0), and the decision was to make the real unit mirror image as a real too, so Funny" sure
Actually, if they didn't make those decisions, then guess what?
It is the time to go back to the safe Pythagorean age and start again from there, for sure
BKK
Do you understand infinite decimal representations are limits? We *define* them as such. With that definition, 0.999... = 1 is a theorem and easily proven.
This is the longest fake wall that blocks the minds of the fools and had been collapsed quite many times by so many mathematicians beside myself
And it is good to list how many people refuted that from the beginning by date
for the historical sources that are not moderated by any moron
This is a theorem of the biggest ignorants on the planet, where a little skill of a shepherd can simply sense and recognize immediately but of course not any alleged top genius mathematician for very well known and well exposed silly matters, for sure
All that fake mind barrier long wall was made just to justify the illegal real numbers described with infinite terms especially those fiction real numbers described as real (algebraic and transcendental numbers), and the infinite representations of constructible numbers
Bassam King Karzeddin
08/03/2017
Tell me how mathematics not being concerned about reality is a problem.
I usually try to reply good questions immediately, and generally, delay or ignore meaningless questions, but isn't it so strange that you haven't learnt anything from this lecture? wonder!
How can two successive integers be equals? wonder
Of course, not in physics or science or even sports, but only in mathematics for sure
Don't worry, I would provide you with a magical tool that can make all say here non-zero integers are equal, and it is ever the best tool that mathematicians feel so proud and great with it (of course alone)
It is called Infinity, denoted by (oo)
0 = 1 = 2 = 3 = ... = OO, (SEE how wonderful and so useful infinity is in MATHEMATICS
It is indeed the ultimate justice with all integers, no one is greater or better than anyone else, all are equals even with their well-known least or greatest
So, very happy infinity for all mathematickers on earth
And you would never learn anything, for sure
I also forget to tell that they by using (OO), they could manage to make the sum of all positive integers equals to (-1/12)
You must try your luck with it, it has infinitely so many opportunities for every mathematician, so happy infinity only for the mathematicians
BKK
So, anyone can see how many foolish results you can simply obtain once you allow yourself to perform the well-known valid mathematical operations on a fictional non-existing numbers as (Infinity, zero, i = sqrt(-1), negative numbers, ...etc)
and this must be described as the art of human brain fart mathematics, for sure
BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-12-19 19:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
Are you truly getting stuck to answer this so silly question but independently and without mimicking those professional mathematicians true empty heads parrots, for sure

Or most likely you know secretly every details that you would prefer to keep it as a secret for yourself? no wonder and for sure
BKK
Serg io
2017-12-19 21:22:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
Are you truly getting stuck to answer this so silly question but independently and without mimicking those professional mathematicians true empty heads parrots, for sure
Or most likely you know secretly every details that you would prefer to keep it as a secret for yourself? no wonder and for sure
BKK
I corrected your year old question;

What is the maximum of the ratio of two successive positive integers,
n /(n + 1) ?
Python
2017-12-20 01:49:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
Are you truly getting stuck to answer this so silly question
So you admit this is a silly question. Well. Why would people would want
to answer to a silly question?
bassam king karzeddin
2018-01-06 14:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
Very simple question of mine with very definite answer about ratio, and of course the answer is non-existence of such ratio in any number system you may adopt, but did you even understand my question? I doubt it for sure

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2018-01-09 12:07:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
Let us ask the question in another style hoping this would make a little hole in the professional mathematicians skulls, where then it becomes so easy to pour the correct ideas and extract all that dirts and rust mixed with dust accumulated over many long centuries in their heads, so the question:

What would it be like the maximum ratio of two successive integers as

(n/(n + 1)), say only first to 999 digits of accuracy in 10base decimal number system? Wonder!

then to 999999 digits of accuracy, then to endless (999...) digits of accuracy?
Good luck genius mathematicians, for sure
BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2018-01-16 12:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
What would it be like the maximum ratio of two successive integers as
(n/(n + 1)), say only first to 999 digits of accuracy in 10base decimal number system? Wonder!
then to 999999 digits of accuracy, then to endless (999...) digits of accuracy?
Good luck genius mathematicians, for sure
BKK
Then what? wonder!
BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2018-02-13 09:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the maximum approximation of the ratio of two successive positive real integers (n /(n + 1) ?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
31st., Oct., 2016
***

Loading...