Visual demonstration of infentisimals

[Skepdick]

There are two possible interpretations of this:
1. 1 = 0 (Mathematics is inconsistent)
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal_number

infinitisemals.png (19.07 KiB) Viewed 1880 times

[wtf]

Troll grade D-. Not even stoopid.

[Skepdick]

Troll grade D-. Not even stoopid.

Great then! You should have no trouble educating the D- "troll" and the audience. Educate us on which of the following two statements is a theorem in contemporary Mathematics:

A: x∈ ℝ, lim x->∞: x = x + 1
B: x∈ ℝ, lim x->∞: x < x + 1

Informatiion. You don't grok it.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. You have 1 line.

2. This line is divided by a 0d point.

3. The resulting line is 2 lines in one.

4. You have 1 line.

5. The line is divided by 2 0d points.

6. The resulting line is 3 lines in one.

7. Division by a 0d point (0) is equal to x+1 with x equaling the number of points. Considering x equals a number points each 0d point (0) is equal to one.

[alan1000]

"Grok" is a mathematical term I haven't come across before. How is it defined?

[Skepdick]

"Grok" is a mathematical term I haven't come across before. How is it defined?

How is the term "mathematical" defined?
How is the term "define" defined?

Definition is a verb you don't seem to understand. Nor does most of Western Philosophy which thinks "definition" as a noun, not a verb.

A fundamental misconception. A broken paradigm.

[alan1000]

How is the term "mathematical" defined?
How is the term "define" defined?

Definition is a verb you don't seem to understand. Nor does most of Western Philosophy which thinks "definition" as a noun, not a verb.

A fundamental misconception. A broken paradigm.

Actually, "definition" IS a noun. The verb is "define". Why are you speaking in tongues? The fact that you are writing in English implies that you are willing to accept the normal usages of the English language. Are you deliberately trying NOT to be understood because your basic position is unintelligible? And I'm still waiting for that definition of "grok".

[Skepdick]

Actually, "definition" IS a noun. The verb is "define". Why are you speaking in tongues? The fact that you are writing in English implies that you are willing to accept the normal usages of the English language.

No it doesn't. The fact that I am writing means that I am willing to use language, not that I am willing to accept your normative use of language.

Are you deliberately trying NOT to be understood because your basic position is unintelligible?

I am deliberately trying to be understood. Just because my basic position is unintelligible from your perspective it doesn't mean my position is unintelligible. Which is why I told you I am using "definition" as a verb - a gerund if you will. Definition is what humans DO.

Now, even after I told you how I am using it, you've defaulted to the normative use.

It's as if you are deliberately trying to misunderstand me.

And I'm still waiting for that definition of "grok".

I am using the standard English definition of "grok".

grok verb understand (something) intuitively or by empathy.

Here's an example of how I would use it in a sentence... I grok that you don't understand my position.

[RCSaunders]

How is the term "mathematical" defined?
How is the term "define" defined?

Definition is a verb you don't seem to understand. Nor does most of Western Philosophy which thinks "definition" as a noun, not a verb.

A fundamental misconception. A broken paradigm.

Actually, "definition" IS a noun. The verb is "define". Why are you speaking in tongues? The fact that you are writing in English implies that you are willing to accept the normal usages of the English language. Are you deliberately trying NOT to be understood because your basic position is unintelligible? And I'm still waiting for that definition of "grok".

"Grok," is a word coined by Robert Heinlein in the science fiction novel, Stranger in a Strange Land. He used the word to mean, "understand."

It is unlikely Skepdick knows either where "Grok," came from or what it actually means since Skep obviously doesn't even know the difference between and noun and a verb. Good luck!

[RCSaunders]

Troll grade D-. Not even stoopid.

Great then! You should have no trouble educating the D- "troll" and the audience. Educate us on which of the following two statements is a theorem in contemporary Mathematics:

A: x∈ ℝ, lim x->∞: x = x + 1
B: x∈ ℝ, lim x->∞: x < x + 1

Informatiion. You don't grok it.

Since you don't even know the difference between a noun and a verb, you probably don't know lim x->∞ means the value of x as the function approaches infinity, not an actual value at infinity, which the calculus assumes can never be reached. so treats the value, "as if," infinity was reached. I'm sure this will be too much for you to grok.

[Skepdick]

Since you don't even know the difference between a noun and a verb, you probably don't know lim x->∞ means the value of x as the function approaches infinity, not an actual value at infinity, which the calculus assumes can never be reached. so treats the value, "as if," infinity was reached. I'm sure this will be too much for you to grok.

Why did you feel the need to explain things I already understand?

Spare me your lecture and tell me which one is true as x approaches infnity. A or B?

[RCSaunders]

Since you don't even know the difference between a noun and a verb, you probably don't know lim x->∞ means the value of x as the function approaches infinity, not an actual value at infinity, which the calculus assumes can never be reached. so treats the value, "as if," infinity was reached. I'm sure this will be too much for you to grok.

Why did you feel the need to explain things I already understand?

Spare me your lecture and tell me which one is true as x approaches infnity. A or B?

Since mathematical propositions are entirely arbitrary, there is no actual fact against which the validity of any such propositions can be tested. A and B are only metrics which have no meaning separate from some real thing with a measureable attribute.

[Skepdick]

Since mathematical propositions are entirely arbitrary, there is no actual fact against which the validity of any such propositions can be tested. A and B are only metrics which have no meaning separate from some real thing with a measureable attribute.

Spare me the bullshit.

Equality and inequality relations return Booleans.

(1=1) = True
(1<2) = True
(1=2) = False
(1>2) = False

True OR False is your metric.

[RCSaunders]

Since mathematical propositions are entirely arbitrary, there is no actual fact against which the validity of any such propositions can be tested. A and B are only metrics which have no meaning separate from some real thing with a measureable attribute.

Spare me the bullshit.

Equality and inequality relations return Booleans.

(1=1) = True
(1<2) = True
(1=2) = False
(1>2) = False

True OR False is your metric.

1 "what?"

Once you get by first grade, you realize numbers are only symbols that identify quantities, and a statement like 1=1 or 2+2=4, is not, "true," but, "correct," notation. Not until actual existents are designated by the number symbols can there be truth. 1=1 is correct, but 1=1 can only be true if you know what there is 1 of, and both, 1's, pertain to the same existent or existents. 1 apple = 1 pear is not true. It is unlikely that 1 apple = 1 apple is true either, unless you know which attribute of the apples are being compared (weight, size, shape) and they happen to have equal weight, size, or shape.

In all of mathematics alone, as Bertrand Russell observed, you never know what you are talking about or whether what you are saying is true. Mathematics is only a method and can arrive at no truth until it is applied to actual existents.

[Skepdick]

1 "what?"

1 unit. Of whatever.

Once you get by first grade, you realize numbers are only symbols that identify quantities, and a statement like 1=1 or 2+2=4, is not, "true," but, "correct," notation. Not until actual existents are designated by the number symbols can there be truth. 1=1 is correct, but 1=1 can only be true if you know what there is 1 of, and both, 1's, pertain to the same existent or existents. 1 apple = 1 pear is not true. It is unlikely that 1 apple = 1 apple is true either, unless you know which attribute of the apples are being compared (weight, size, shape) and they happen to have equal weight, size, or shape.

Idiot. Does everything need to be made explicit for you?

(1.unit = 1.unit) = True
(1.unit < 2.unit) = True
(1.unit = 2.unit) = False
(1.unit >2.unit) = False

Unit of what? OF WHATEVER.