/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11925225
>vixra
if you linked a keylogger I'd be more inclined to click it

He invents his own type of infinity and then pretends that he can use it to make a valid complex number. He tries to address this in 1.10, but he's just making up his own number system. Putting a hat on infinity doesn't change how it works

>>11925260
I didn't invent a type of infinity. I proposed a set of arithmetic rules for the symbol [math]\infty[/math] other than the ones proposed not so many years ago by someone else as their own contrived framework of arithmetic, and then I introduced the hat as a way to distinguish whose contrived framework of arithmetic should be used.

30 Tooker Papers
https://gofile.io/d/IOOaMw

>>11925253
This viXra argument is moderately complex. As long as the my mortal enemies among the USA keep sending national security letters ordering "do not publish" to every journal I send my papers to, then my papers will never appear anywhere besides viXra, and they will continue to intimate to the know-nothings that my papers appear only on viXra because they suck but not because of the natsec letters forbidding publication.

>>11925284
>my mortal enemies among the USA
As soon as I typed this, some heathen started making noise in the hallway outside my hotel room. It's 2:30am and has been totally silent for hours.

>>11925276
>I didn't invent a type of infinity

You invented new rules so you can pretend that infinity is a real number. 1.10 is nonsense

>>11925287
I specifically say that infinity is not a real number, and that goes without saying in any case by the most common definition [math]\mathbb{R}=(-\infty,\infty)[/math]. If you would have read the paper without going on to lie about what you saw when you read it, you would not have said something so disdainfully evil. That's the eternal Word of God you are lying about there.

>>11925292

When I say infinity, I mean your infinity with a hat. It ain't real bud

Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237

>>11925294
Did your ancestors really spawn such an ignorant nigger as yourself, or do you just think it's cute to pretend to be more of nigger than you already are, which is probably as much as your ancestors were? I ask because I make many statements explicitly noting that infinity is not a real number, and the arithmetic scheme one uses for infinity can't change the fact that it's not real. Furthermore, it is nothing more than your niggerliness which leads you to believe that infinity and infinity hat are two different numbers. Maybe if you ancestors weren't such a feeble minded gaggle of baboons you would know that the identity of a number is determined by its magnitude and not its operations. Since you are nothing but a feeb spawned by a long line of feebs, or else a troll spawned by a long line of feebs, you assign your own meaning to the symbols that appear in my papers, meaning different that what I assign, and then you criticize my work based on the meaning that you assign, as if you are not able o comprehend that Latex has a limited number of characters and I only use the symbols in reference to my own definitions which are other than the ones you claim, you filthy nigger.

>>11925225
>he
We know it's you schizo, no sense trying to hide it.

>>11925333
This is some genius level trolling right here

>>11925307
Maybe if you didn't call people nigger all the time instead of making actual arguments, you wouldn't have ended up being chastised on twitter. Maybe you'd still have your job, and maybe you wouldn't have been homeless, you stupid cunt.

>>11925225
If one invents arithmetic rules that depart from common convention one can be technically correct, yet still show absolutely nothing of meaning.

For example, let's say that I define a rule through which the Riemann zeta function has its zeros in places other than the negative even integers and complex numbers with real part 1/2. Then, by prior definition, the Riemann hypothesis is false. I may then jump through various hoops to show that indeed under these rules the Riemann hypothesis is false. But this in and of itself has absolutely no implications whatsoever, and I won't be collecting the Fields medal any time soon. I may then also rant and foam at the mouth when being called out for it.

This is what Tooker is doing.

>>11925225
Dividing by infinity is a trivial 0 and nothing novel

>>11925225
>looks like an obvious open and shut case.
I think we all agree on that one.

>>11925333
hahahahah, this is what brap smells like in mathematics

>>11925715
is he gonna respond?

>>11925897
he's probably asleep

>>11925286
Dude take your meds.

>>11925333
The argument here seems to be that sum of two finite numbers can be infinite?

>>11925333
World class shitpost

>>11925987
Yes, Brian, that's one way to say it though I would probably like to introduce new jargon to differentiate finite numbers having "0% fractional distance with respect to infinity" from other finite numbers in the neighborhood of infinity which have "greater than 0% fractional distance with respect to infinity."

Sometimes I hope the people who rebel against me kill themselves to avoid succumbing to my wrath, but I do hope you remain alive for me to pour it out on you. I hate you with passion and zeal, Brian, and not in a general way at all, but you specifically are a person that I hate, and I desire to see you humbled and to hear your lamentations.

>>11925897
>>11925715
> let's say that I define a rule
If he does go ahead and define that rule instead of simply proposing that he might, then I will check it for contradictions so as to evaluate whether or not the rule is mathematical, which is to say that it is "mathematically valid."

>one invents arithmetic rules that depart from common convention
It was the arithmetic rules for number fields which departed from the common convention many years ago. The arithmetic rules I introduced support the convention that existed for thousands of years before the community erred in adopting the algebraic number field definition of R at the expense of its geometric definition. The geometric definition was in use from the time before Euclid until decades after Riemann published his hypothesis in 1859, and your criticism of my arithmetic scheme is rightly levied against the scheme given by the field axioms.

Also, I call you an asshole for suggesting in a roundabout way that Riemann's hypothesis from 1859 can only be analyzed in a framework of arithmetic (the complete ordered field axioms) which were a generalization of something Hilbert put together 1899. Since 1859 minus 1899 is a negative number, it is quite stupid to propose that RH depends on the field axioms.

>>11925333
[math]\widehat7 - 3[/math] is a real number between 1 and 5. What is its decimal expansion? Similarly, [math]\widehat\infty -10[/math] as you claim is a real number. What is its decimal expansion?

>>11926108
How can a finite number be in the neighborhood of infinity?

>>11925715
>If one invents arithmetic rules that depart from common convention one can be technically correct, yet still show absolutely nothing of meaning.
Pic related, Ignoranus over here basically suggests that new techniques are invalid because they depart from the common convention by virtue of their newness.

>>11926136
You misunderstood. Perhaps because you are stupid? I never claimed this at all. I only claimed that departure from convention can in principle be used to prove any point one desires. This does not mean that departure from convention in and of itself is invalid.

>>11926126
give me the decimal expansion of tree(graham's number^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^graham's number^graham's number^graham's number^graham's number) faggot

Why are you trying to push your agenda here? Stick to academia.

>>11926131
Since you don't know the definition of the neighborhood, I am drawn to the conclusion that you didn't read my paper.

>>11926126
It seems like you are suggesting that Stevin's invention of decimal fractions in the 16th century somehow overwrote the geometric concept of a number which had already existed for more than 1000 years by the time the 16th century got here. As an example of how your question is both stupid and retarded, what is the decimal expansion of the square root of 2? There is no decimal expansion, and yet we still call this number a real number. Same thing for pi and e. Decimal expansion has never been a requirement for what a number is. Even the infinite decimal definition of R does not require that all real numbers can be decimal expanded.

>>11926147
2000 character limit here, newfag

Why don't you stop this bullshit already. Upload yourself here as some random person and start publishing everything you know. What are you so afraid of?

>>11926142
>I only claimed that departure from convention can in principle be used to prove any point one desires.
No it can't. Proofs must be free of contradictions. What you mean but failed to state (likely because you're stupid) is that one can always claim whatever one wants, and one can always support a claim with a rule, especially new and contrived rules. Claiming and proving are different.

>>11926164
It's not in the paper you posted. You refer the reader to two other papers [18,19] which aren't posted.

>>11926179
One can define a rule and then use that rule to prove a point just fine. A proof can be correct within the bounds of the axioms that underlie it. This was my initial position and you have failed to refute it. Again, it may be because you are stupid, but perhaps it is more likely that the situation is worse and you are in fact retarded.

>>11926188
I didn't make this thread. I did post the other papers. My posting them on viXra is what going pic meme going, if you recall.

>>11926200
>A proof can be correct within the bounds of the axioms that underlie it.
It can be correct only if it is free from contradictions in that axiomatic framework. You think it's an easy thing to do, to just propose random stuff and have it work out, but it is not easy and you only think it might be because you've never tried. Among the people like myself who have tried, we notice that literally everything you can propose and have remain free off contradictions is called "mainstream mathematics" and it is VERY hard to add something new to it. There is not even one such thing which forms a valid and sound proof and yet remains "schizo math" apart from the complete of body of formal mathematics. The reason you keep saying, "Anyone can do it," but you never actually give an example of that to which you derisively refer is because not anyone can do it and you are know-nothing retard who only thinks it can be done because it supports your wrong ideation that mathematicians are not your intellectual superiors.

>>11926250
>My posting them on viXra is what going pic meme going, if you recall.
My posting them on viXra is what *got* pic meme going, if you recall.

>>11926250
I would advise you to focus on what I have said instead of what you believe I do and do not believe, or what you believe I have and have not tried. It would be a far more efficient way to move forward in this conversation. Because quite frankly, it is becoming boring. We can start from the beginning if you'd like, and you can try to demonstrate how my position is wrong. My position is that a proof can be correct but useless if it's axioms are designed with the proof in mind. My position is furthermore that this is how you have constructed your proof.

>>11926250
>>11926179
>>11926164
>>11926136
>>11926108
>>11925307
>>11925298
>>11925292
>>11925286
>>11925284
>>11925276

Your paper is mathematically akin to undergraduate freshman garbage and lacks any sense of cohesion, but somehow makes room for an incredible amount of pride and academic snobbery which is displayed in your attitude. Denial is the first stage of grief, so I understand that you are upset, but you don't have a right to complain about being booted off of the archive if you didn't get your work peer reviewed first, which you obviously didn't. Your notation is trash and the hand waving "Some people, stupid ones, can't see X" - no shit it got taken off of arkiv you idiot. Have fun coping.

>>11926250
Seething 'mathematician' in pic rel

genius mathematician who solved century long problem doesnt know that R\R is the empty set
AND cant even give a proper definition of the real numbers
i define f(x) such that -inf < f(x) < inf, now ive got a function as a real number
also, post the "non contradiction property" of inf hat so i can shit on you more

>>11926540
>needed swat teams to take him down
p based desu.

Wow, so it turns out that the harmonic series actually converges! The sequence of partial sums is increasing and is bounded above by [math]\widehat{\infty}\in\mathbb{R}[/math] and so must converge to some limit. Amazing!

>>11927745
>the harmonic series actually converges
I actually agree with this, but can you explain how you think the chapeau infinity relates?

>>11927899

Because of the Monotone Convergence Theorem. Pic is from http://mathonline.wikidot.com/the-monotone-convergence-theorem

>>11927945
i know mct i’m asking if you can explain how it relates to the hat ∞

You know the funniest thing about Tooker threads to me is that despite his infinity-hat construction being the target of 99% of shitflinging for the past years, infinity-hat actually has literally zero relevance to the proof at all.
The abuse of the proof that lets it work is not infinity, it's claiming that evaluating the Euler product at numbers with negative real part means something. The Euler product converges to zero for ANY s with negative real part. [math]\prod \frac{1}{1-p^{-.00000000000001+ki}} = 0[/math] . Infinity-hat is completely extraneous, you don't need any new definitions at all to do this.

I mean you could obviously easily write a different proof that really relies on numbers with infinite magnitude, but this one doesn't at all.

>>11926276
>focus on what I have said
posting under the name "Anonymous coward" makes it hard for me know to which posts you're talking about.

>My position is that a proof can be correct but useless if it's axioms are designed with the proof in mind.
If by "correct" you mean "not contradictory," then I agree.

>My position is furthermore that this is how you have constructed your proof.
Definitely, this is exactly what I did. Can you think of any proof that was ever constructed in some other way? None occur to me.

>>11926568
f(x) isn't a function, smart person. f is a function. f(x) is a value of a function.

>>11928002
Actually, I pretty much proved that the Euler product does absolutely converge to the RZF in the left half-plane. I used other proofs not dependent on the Euler product after I noticed the famous non-convergence problem, but then even after that I think I can use pic related to formally prove that the Euler product converges to the RZF on the left. This is a corollary of my proof that [math]e^{i\widehat\infty}=1[/math].

>Proof of the Limits of Sine and Cosine at Infinity
>https://vixra.org/abs/1809.0234

>>11928036
>pic related

>>11928036
>I pretty much proved that the Euler product does absolutely converge to the RZF in the left half-plane.
That's fine, but that's not the point of my post. If you say that the Euler product is equal to zeta on the left half-plane, then zeta is already identically zero on the _entire left half-plane_. That's a lot of zeroes to pick from, you don't need to go through the whole infinity-hat construction to build another one. The proof doesn't actually rely on infinity-hat to work at all, despite infinity-hat being all anyone ever yells about in these threads.

>>11927995

Oh right didn't quite understand what you were asking. 1.8 says that [math]\widehat{\infty}-b[/math] is greater than any real number (actual real numbers, not infinity hat ones) and 1.10 "proves" that [math]\widehat{\infty}-b[/math] is a real number; thus providing a bound for the partial sums of the harmonic series.

>>11925225
lol there's so much trash and a pill bottle below this graffiti like someone was living there :(

>>11928017
>f(x) isn't a function, smart person. f is a function. f(x) is a value of a function.

>>11928049
>If you say that the Euler product is equal to zeta on the left half-plane, then zeta is already identically zero on the _entire left half-plane_.
I notice one of the big difference between you and I is that if I think you are wrong about something, I will carefully show why I think so. With you, however, you just make claims and say, "zeta is already identically zero on the _entire left half-plane." I don't know why you think that so it's not easy for me to respond to it.

>>11928017
>f(x) isn't a function, smart person. f is a function. f(x) is a value of a function.

Here's some of the things that will be the best practical uses for arithmetic in the neighborhood of infinity.

(1) Right now, every quantum wave packet has non-zero tails that extend to infinity. With my axioms, it should be possible to construct wave packets whose tails go to zero outside the local neighborhood of fractional distance. Since each local neighborhood of fractional distance covers exactly 0% fractional distance with respect to infinity, this will make the wavepacket much more like a particle than it is when the tails are non-zero forever. You see how a "particle" is supposed to have no lenght scale, and this is given by the fracional distance part while the quantum phase of the particle can be encoded on the little part? Indeed, one sees that the group velocity of a wave packet might be related more to the big part of a wavefunction, and the phase velocity more closely tied to the small part.

Before my axioms, there was no way to have localized wavepackets because the exponential function, which it the form of basically every wavefunction, never had zeros on the real line. Now it does have zeros on the real line. Even if you dispute that the zeros are on the real line, and you raise a point of semantics, we can still call the domain I constructed a transfinitely continued line and then do physics with non-real transfinite analysis in the same way we do physics with non-real complex analysis. For math, it matters if you call it the real line and this is the main criticism I'm seeing here: what I did isn't real analysis. For physics, it doesn't matter what you call it. It only matters that you can have zeros of the exponential function on scales that can be normalized.

>>11928771
>>11928502
Well, it seems perfectly reasonable to write
-inf < f(x) < inf
if f is a real-valued function. If f(x) is a real number, that looks like a perfectly valid thing he wrote. If I missed a point you wanted me to get, you might try explaining it with a few more words.

(2) Field line breaking in electromagnetism. There is no known solution to a differential equation (Maxwell's equations) which shows how packets of electromagnetic flux can disconnect from their sources to become propagating EM waves. For the field lines to cross, the solutions of the differential equations whose solutions are the field lines must become singular. Without singularity, there is no way for field lines to acquire a kink as would be observed if two were to cross. Even though there is no solution the Maxwell's equations which show that field llines can break, the entire history of radiotransmission shows that they do break, and our theory fails to predict it. I would like to use arithmetic in the neighborhood of infinity to try to find solutions that allow field lines to break. You can see how maybe a little part approaches a limit of going to the next neighborhood of fractional distance without the magnitude of the entire solution becoming infinite such that all the information is lost in the way that singularities in ODEs and PDEs are known to "blow up physics."

>>11928693
>you just make claims and say, "zeta is already identically zero on the _entire left half-plane."
That's not exactly what I said, you cut off part of the sentence. What I said precisely was, IF zeta equals the Euler product everywhere, THEN zeta is zero on the left half plane. The reason for this is that the Euler product is zero on the entire left half plane.
The Euler product goes to zero if Re(s) < 0 because the terms of the product converge to zero. Suppose s = -a+bi, with Re(s) < 0. i.e. means a > 0. Then [math]\frac{1}{1-p^{-(-a+bi)}} = \frac{1}{1-p^{a-bi}}[/math] . The thing here is that since a > 0, p^(a-bi) will get arbitrarily large in magnitude as p gets bigger. Since the denominator of your fraction has very big magnitude and 1 (the numerator) has very small magnitude, your fractions are going to 0 in size. When you multiply together infinitely many arbitrarily small fractions, you just get 0.

(3) One of the main features of my MCM unit cell was that the Aleph, H, and Omega branes have to be so far apart that they have zero mutual gravitational interaction. It used to be, this could only true if the distance between them was infinite. Now it can be any distance in the neighborhood of infinity, and that distance can be normalized as any thing, like the Hubble scale, or the distance to the CMB, or even the Planck length if you wanted to study strange behaviors.

(4) I think the question about whether Navier-Stokes blows up in finite time
https://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/navierstokes.pdf
can be answered by making distinctions between something that goes to zero at infinity, or at the neighborhood of infinity. The question about the blowup follows from the inverse of a quantity which goes to zero at infinity or possibly separate behavior for it in the finite neighborhood of infinity.

(5) So, to the guy who says my thing is useless: no, it is useful. I haven't shown a use related to the prime number theorem but neither do I understand the prime number theorem. I have never worked though its derivation and don't see the connection to RZF at all. However, the Riemann hypothesis comes into physics in the form of Hermitian Hamiltonian operators having the form of the Riemann zeta function, and aside from the question about the abstract prime number theorem, I expect that my solutions to the Riemann hypothesis will be manifested as observable states in these exotic systems whose energy functions are proportional to zeta.

I guess you guys spend months trying to come up with better detractions because most of the stuff I saw y'all write here was new. Seems like the, "Ok, you did prove it, we concede that now even though we used to deny it, but what you proved is USELESS HAHAHAHAH," was the strongest criticism. I don't think it's useless. I think maybe you were able to convince yall's selves that the useless comment wasa good one because you don't know shit and did not understand the context when someone told you, "We only care about RZF due to the prime number theorem." Those people who say that aren't physicists. If you were more than know-nothings, you would have already known that.

>Ok, you did prove it, we concede that now even though we used to deny it
Just like your wrong about that, you're wrong about it being useless. Even if you call it special analysis instead of real analysis, the utility remains because physics does not live within the realm of real analysis.

>>11928805
>The reason for this is that the Euler product is zero on the entire left half plane.
I see. What I meant was that I demonstrated it is convergent in the neighborhood of infinity on the left side. With this pic argument
>>11928040
, even if the argument can be formalized as a proof, I did not prove the convergence in the neighborhood of the origin on the left side.

I wish I could have some peaceful place to work quietly but everywhere I go, there's rapists raping me and gangstalkers gangstalking me, and people electroshocking my penis, anus, butt crack, perineum, feet, and testicles with their short range EM transmitters in the rooms adjacent to my potential workplace. I have hardly a moment to think peacefully.

'Member how productive I was in summer 2018 when I had a small moment of relative peace? That's really all I need and it is for that exact reason why they go to such lenghts to prevent me from having it. I really do need a peaceful environment to work. Without it, I cannot concentrate well enough.

>>11928903
>be me
>dumb 18 year old touring on /sci/
>in presence of a literal physics god
lmao fuck you tooker

The set of all is

1/Infinity, <1=1=1< infinity/1

You don't need zero or any negatives and they only serve to confound and confuse.

As soon as you have something rather than nothing, everything must exist.

This is what God was trying to tell us I think 1 is both the smallest and largest. The beginning and end, everything is derived from 1 or rather everything that is, is from God and made by God, except for the lies of Satan 0 and all the negatives.

..1/3, 1/2, 1/1, 1/1, 1/1, 2/1, 3/1..

The trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Which guide all back home to God.

>>11928781
ok cool, so now f(x) the function is an element of the real numbers
since your definition includes it
thats the point i was making, your definition of the reals is a joke

>>11928891
This is why people call you a schizo

>>11929287
What definition do you use? Is it one that's less than a hundred years old even though the reals have existed for thousands?

Overall, it's easy to tell who is insincere in their criticisms because they say, "This is wrong," but never say, "I think you wrong because X, and actually the right thing is Y."

>>11929637
It may be in part that some of you call people with sexual torture implants that, but I think the main reason is because of the fraud conspiracy launched against me by Pompeo and Haspel in April 2014.

>>11930385
>even though the reals have existed for thousands?
no they havent

>Overall, it's easy to tell who is insincere in their criticisms because they say, "This is wrong," but never say, "I think you wrong because X, and actually the right thing is Y."
thats because for everyone else, its obvious what the right thing to do it
define your terms properly you utter retard
you cant define a set with an operation over itself [math]\{x| -\inf < x < \inf\}[/math] is not even a set to begin with
[math]\{x\in B| -\inf <_B x <_B \inf\}[/math] is a set

>>11930709
>no they havent
Do you think the reals got invented some time after Riemann invented the Reimann hypothesis. If not, please say when you think the real numbers got invented.

Why do all of you niggers always say, "You're wrong," but never say (1) why you think I'm wrong, and (2) an alternative which you think is correct? It's because you have nothing to offer in that regard. You don't know what the right thing is, or you do know that I'm right, and you can't see any further than your burning desire to detract from my good work because it would hurt you to think you were wrong about me all along.

>you cant define a set with an operation over itself {x|−inf<x<inf} is not even a set to begin with {x∈B|−inf<Bx<Binf} is a set
I'm not familiar with the "less than sub B" relation. The relation I use to define my set, the "less than" relation, is defined as in pic related so the set of all x between minus and plus infinity certainly is a set. Once again, you display the weakness of your argument by saying that my thing is not a set but not saying why you believe it fails to conform to the definition of a set, and then you say some other thing with exotic notation is what a set really looks like but do not define your exotic notation.

Do you see how it makes you look stupid compared to me when I go to some length to clarify the "less than" relation even when everyone already knows what it means, and you introduce the "less than sub B" relation which most people, myself included, have never seen, and also don't define the relation?

>>11931252
>the "less than" relation, is defined as in pic related

>>11925929
I second this notion. I don't want you to end up like Terry Davis, Tooker. Look him up.

>>11931301
Did Terry get killed because someone was using his person to mock me?

Responding to people with obvious personality disorders is a waste of time.

>>11931252
>I define the reals by an operation on the reals, even though I need to define the reals before the operation so this is just a total sham of a definition

>Why do all of you niggers always say, "You're wrong," but never say (1) why you think I'm wrong, and (2) an alternative which you think is correct?
Youre wrong
(1) You're definitions are circular, nonsensical and not coherent
(2) Just use the actual fucking definition of the real numbers, like we've been telling you to do FOR YEARS
CAUCHY SEQUENCES, DEDEKIND CUTS, SOMETHING ACTUALLY DEFINED

>Once again, you display the weakness of your argument by saying that my thing is not a set but not saying why you believe it fails to conform to the definition of a set, and then you say some other thing with exotic notation is what a set really looks like but do not define your exotic notation.
Once again, you display the weakness of your argument by saying that your thing is a set but not even using proper setbuilder notation. You cant universally quantify shit in a set
You cant have a set defined by {x | P(x) }, thats only a Proper Class, you must have a set defined by {x in B | P(x) }, unrestricted comprehension isnt allowable in sets.
But even before that, you define the reals, with an ordering on the reals, that doesnt work for myriads of reasons you dumb nigger

less than sub B is just a generic name for an order, ON A SET B, you cant define an order without a set to define it on, which is why you cant use less than, in the definition of the reals

>Do you see how it makes you look stupid compared to me when I go to some length to clarify the "less than" relation even when everyone already knows what it means
you still need to actually define it you retard
>everyone knows what it means, thats why my version differs from the actual one

>and you introduce the "less than sub B" relation which most people, myself included, have never seen, and also don't define the relation?
>never seen generic names

>>11931516
nuh uh

>>11931429
No, he died because he didn't acknowledge his condition and stopped taking his meds. You show all the same signs, but early stages. It's not too late.

>>11925284
>As long as the my mortal enemies among the USA keep sending national security letters ordering "do not publish" to every journal I send my papers to, then my papers will never appear anywhere besides viXra

>>11926540
backstory? and why do people think saying nigger at publix got him canned from GA Tech? Dude was taken down by SWAT teams previously in some altercation or another. THAT musta got him canned. Though, in this day and age, saying nigger is arguably 100x worse for your life and career than having a criminal history involving SWAT teams on your record.

>>11926164
>Even the infinite decimal definition of R does not require that all real numbers can be decimal expanded.
Yes it does.
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/409658/can-every-real-number-be-represented-by-a-possibly-infinite-decimal

>>11931516
>You cant have a set defined by {x | P(x) }, thats only a Proper Class
It could be a set, though. For example, if P(x) says x is a element of X and satisfies Q(x), that is you can turn { x in X | Q(x) } into { x | x in X and Q(x) }.
Of course, it might not even be a proper class if P isn't of the correct form, for example if P(x) is "x is a proper class", or "x is the smallest natural number that cannot be defined unambiguously in less than 60 words of English".

I think Tucker's set fails to be a set more for this latter reason. I regret posting this because I know he'll take what I've said and try to twist it in such a way that it supports his claim, saying that "my set actually is actually defined by a 'valid formula' " without explaining what he means, thereby adding another impenetrable layer of nonsense to his work, making him feel more confident because he's managed to stack his house of cards even higher, not realising the foundations are as shaky as ever.

>>11933375
>THAT musta got him canned.
it was pic related

>>11933416
You are quite the stupid idiot. The post says that it could be done in theory if one could string an infinite number of digits together. You asked me to actually go ahead to string together the digits, and I said that not even the infinite decimal representation of R requires that that that can be done. You stupid foolish moronic imbecile. In
>>11926126
you wrote
>What is its decimal expansion?

>>11933443
Even conceding the notion of a "proper class" is something required for formal and rigorous mathematics is too far, IMO. You are right that it could be a "proper class" in principle, but let's be careful not to concede that things need to be described in terms of proper noun, upper case "Proper Classes." There are one million variants of all the common notations and more than 990,000 of them are perfectly rigorous. These kind of criticisms appear when know-nothings hire mathematicians to tell them ways to criticize me, and then because they are know-nothings they don't see the obvious criticisms against the issues raised by their hired critics.

>>11933375
Let's also not fail to note that I called a white person that mean word. It is getting glossed over in all of this that the person I had the sandwich interaction with was a white person in blackface.
https://www.gofundme [doot] com/f/22bmwnhx1c

samefag. Owolabby Azeez means "Uwu! le /b/ a mutant alien."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwP_mU-iOsk

You talk like Terry. Please, take your meds.

>>11935043
Why though? Why would the world be a better place if everyone spouted the same platitudes as if we were all acting out some dreary, neopuritanical catechism.

>>11935057
>some dreary, neopuritanical catechism
nice

>>11925225

>>11935057
That's your perception playing tricks in you. It's just not true, and nobody implied that it would be a good state.

>>11935143

>>11935325
Then explain why someone should “take meds” if they “talk like Terry”

You know, I mentioned in the other thread that my paper is in pre-review with some obscure journal in another country, and that their website suddenly went offline for "upgrades" the other day. Now it is back online and my article no longer has a status. So surprising.

>>11935344
Because it's a sign of mental unwellness. Meds help keep the process in check that finally leads to complete mental decay. Irreversible at that. Tooker is still at an early stage.
If you seriously believe everyone on meds is brought into line, you may be one of them.

>>11935341
Looking good Tooker.
Btw why did you delete your response video?

believing in meds is like believing in god
meds harmed me and made my mental state decay, my memories from being on SSRI's are in the third person

>>11925225
>we

>>11926540
This is the Chad embrace meme.
I think Tooker is probably a bit schiz, but he does rock that look.

>>11936671
>a bit

When you say that, do you mean I have UAP (unidentified anal phenomena) or do you mean that I have a psychiatric disease?

Learn coq and then suck my coq

>>11935455
Took, i think you're based. Not perfect, but based.

If we're being honest, id give up that nigger shit you've been on about recently ASAP (i.e. your recent YouTube video). Most blacks would see your throat cut simply because the color of your skin, let alone your newfound infamy via the Publix deli. Stop pandering to them. You know they're inferior. Also cut out your commie shit. You wanna go grovel in the sewers with the niggers and the Antifa commies? Be my guest. But I think you're better than that.

Why don't you take a break a break from continuous math? It seems to have put you in a corner. Come to the dark side. Begin anew with some set theory, number theory, or some algebra. It could help you. I swear just a few recent semesters of real analysis has made me blow a few fuses.

If you ever go south of that nigger shithole you're in down to the Gainesville area, hmu. I might be willing to have a drink with ya. Otherwise bro, consider learning a foreign language - the lefties and niggers you're trying so hard to mesh with will make sure you never work in the US again. Stay healthy /b/ro.

>>11938665
Link his yt

>>11935455
>yet another rejection
>still no noteworthy revisions
You realize anyone with the thinnest filter will screen out your bullshit for good reason?

>>11935341
Still the face of a racist

>>11938665
>>11939553
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i14au8WP5Ek

>>11939797
dangerously based

>>11931516
imagine getting this angry arguing with someone who's clearly completely insane
you may as well be screaming at your cat because it can't do integrals

>>11925225
Sum n=1 to inf (1/(prime sub n))^ie(-n)

>>11925225
That not even a proof, nothing is demonstrated. How does lim 1/x went x -> 0 verified the propiety of infinit without the additive absorption ?

>>11940359
excuse me, is this your fist time in a tooker thread ?

>>11940715
What's a tooker? Trans Prostitution?

>>11940800
Proζtitution.

>>11940845
Well executed anon.

>>11940800
>whats a tooker?
see>>11939797

>>11925225
>https://vixra.org/pdf/1906.0236v4.pdf
>The real number line is a 1D space...
the definition of a 1D space is that it's a topological space locally homeomorphic to R. this sentence literally reads "the real number line is a space locally homeomorphic to the real number line..."

>>11929004
cringe midwit

>>11939553
This
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q18hXaE-FpU
is the video that spurred the 9/11 Benghazi attack and the subsequent fracas about who changed the fucking talking points.

>>11939599
If you think that calling someone a nigger, a white person in this case but if you think it any case (yes, that was a white holding that camera), means that someone is a "racist," whatever the fuck that is, then you should draw the logical flow chart showing how choosing to use a certain leads is only possible for those of certain outlook. For me, it's just the most offensive word in English. You're not going to find any black people who will call me a racist. Everyone doing it is white, and the motivator behind it is the whites who hate me for not being a racist. It's ironic, really, because I may be the #1 most outspoken USA anti-racist, taking up the cause of the poor as a superset of the cause of blacks, and I have invited severe hardship upon myself by not agreeing with the "kill all the blacks" people who hate me for wanting to kill them instead. The irony is really very ironic. Furthermore, this is like the fifth time I've gotten in trouble for saying the N-word. Everyone knows it's a word I say. If it's a big deal with all these far-reaching connotations for you, then so be it. It's not the way for me. It's just an offensive word I like because it is very offensive.

>>11925225
Is this the latest Banksy? He's losing his touch.

>>11941409
>choosing to use a certain **WORD** leads is only possible for those of certain outlook.

>>11940845
YES! In all of this, no one is giving due credit to the fact that the person I called that mean word was a white person dressed up in black face to act like a baboon in public so as to stir up racial animus. Pic related. IMO, people would be surprised at the size of the program which dresses whites in blackface to act like idiots in public on purpose so as to increase the racism which has decreased from the last generation to the present one.

>>11941415
No. The latest one is on the NY side of the GWB bridge upper deck.

>>11940800
I'm Tooker. Because I have the divine rights of the Governor of Jerusalem, who is called El Arcon in Hebrew, a lot of people don't like me and the nobody threads on /x/ are about me. My DOB and SSN were the numbers at the end of the first Cicada puzzle, as well as the viXra ID numbers of my earlier papers.
>https://vixra.org/author/jonathan_w_tooker
Hi, I am Jon Tooker: the inventor of the time circuit...
>https://pastebin.com/uHZrB238
>Mundane events related to time travel.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1240030/pg1
>John Titor, the Montauk Project, the e-Cat and Geometric Unity
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread966329/pg1
>I am the anonymous physicist featured in the black hole article yesterday.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ukbz6/i_am_the_anonymous_physicist_featured_in_the/
>30 Tooker Papers
https://gofile.io/d/IOOaMw
>LOG (from the log meme, HTML only)
https://gofile.io/d/2z4MXm
>Exide Docs
https://gofile.io/d/I1TCfU

>>11940899
>the definition of a 1D space is that it's a topological space locally homeomorphic to R
So you think the definition of R is a prerequisite for the definition of a 1D space? Please go ahead and give the underlying definition of R. Also, if you do that, I will also accuse you of wrongly claiming that every space is a topological space which is not true. A "topological space" is a specific thing in topology, pic related. Lastly, if you want to get nitpicky about the umpteenth level of jargon, which is not an improper thing to do, please use this longer paper
>https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237
The paper entitled "Quick pisproof..." emphasizes the brevity, i.e.: the quickness, over the nitpicky rigor.

why did k=1 become k=0 near the bottom of page 4?

>>11941496
Oh my, you know what a topological space is. Great, so R is topological space. Now define what does "1D" and "extending infinitely far in both directions" mean for a topological space.

>>11942087
Since you have given a definition of a 1D space which references R, I have called you out on not giving the underlying definition of R. You have not given it, but you then proceeded to demand that I satisfy your demand for more technical information without first satisfying my request which would demonstrate the shortcomings of the criticism with which you proceed.. You fart empty wind.

>>11941977
pic.

>>11942805
R = complete ordered field
your turn, define "1D space"

>>11942826
A complete ordered number field is a set [math] \mathcal{R} = \big\{ \mathbb{R},+,\times,\leq \big\} [/math]. I criticized you earlier for giving definition of a 1D space depending on R, and now you define cursive R instead of bold R, and you still leave bold R undefined. You fart empty wind. Please give your definition of bold R before you demand that I make more and more basal definitions which will eventually lead to nothing but a difference of opinion between us regarding choice of axioms.

I would strongly prefer that you not nitpick the "quick" paper for the little details, but instead nitpick the long paper
>Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237
You can see that the definition in the long paper references a "Hausdorff" space which was already defined by Hausdorff.

>>11942826
>>11942896
For a 1D Hausdorff space to extend infinitely far in both directions means that any singe parameter, call it [math]x[/math], charting the single dimension can increase or decrease without bound inside the Hausdorff space.

30 Tooker Papers
https://gofile.io/d/IOOaMw

>>11942896
so my definition of R is wrong, I don't give a shit. show me how it's done then. define "1D space".

>>11942905
>For a 1D Hausdorff space to extend infinitely far in both directions means that any singe parameter, call it xx, charting the single dimension can increase or decrease without bound inside the Hausdorff space.
irrelevant until you say what "1D space" is

>>11942906
>>11942909
You demonstrate a lack of technical acumen in not recognizing that an N-dimensional Hausdorff space is a well-defined object, probably one with a wiki and a a wolfram. If you ask for a general definition of a 1D space in my own words, one which extends infinitely far in both directions, then I say the following. A 1D space extending infinitely far in both directions is a subset of the Cartesian plane specified uniquely by the equation [math]y(x) = mx + b[/math] for two scalar constants m and b.

>>11942959
wolfram doesn't give any precise definition. wiki mentions the following definitions:

>as a vector space
R is 1-dimensional only over R, circular
>as a manifold
uses R, circular
>as a variety
uses R, circular
>as a ring (Krull dimension)
Krull dimension of R is zero
>Hausdorff dimension
uses R, circular
>Lebesgue dimension
this one is okay

so is the last one what you have in mind?

>>11926164
Are you racist? Why did insult that lady? What happened?

fascinating.

>>11925225
>solves one of our century's hardest math problem
>wants the spotlight desperately
>loves attention
>boasts about his smartness
These are truly indeed traits of a great mathematician.
He is indeed one of the greatest mathematicians of our century.
Let's just give him the Field's medal.

>>11934978
>https://www.gofundme [doot] com/f/22bmwnhx1c
wow, she's actually asking for $5500

>>11936671
>the Chad embrace
sounds like a virgin cope lmao. Tooker is a great example - looks like a fucking crackpot

>>11943004
This reeks of narcissism.

>>11943045
Are blacks really this retarded?

>>11943065
but it is written in 3rd person so that must have been some of his peers and mentors that think so highly of him. well deserved.

>>11943085
>written peers
No one writes someone else's posts on linkedin.
Only a literal baby would be incapable of writing one.

JOHNATHAN TOOKER LOOKS LIKE A SERIAL KILLER/RAPIST. PERIOD.

>>11943094
Yes, and?

>>11943106
KILL HIM.

>>11943120
Why anon? He just called someone a nigger. Should we punish him just because that bitch was acting like a nigger, and he was the only one to call her out on it? Consequences exist.

>>11943134
>>11943106
>>11943085
All these posts seem to be written by you, Jonathan Tooker.

>>11943158
>Implying Took would ever, in the history of 4channel, ever take off his trip

>>11942959
Tooker, could you detail us what happened after you called that black woman the N-word? Did you get arrested or investigated? Are your anal implants acting up more than usual?

>>11943177
Oh he could very well do that. He's a tard after all.

>In the Bible, God promised David that his male heir would always be king. El Arcon is the title of that king. I am that king today. In Hebrew (not Spanish) it means "king" or "the king" and it is the historical title of the Governor of Jerusalem who has been David's male heir ever since pic related. Solomon, as in "the secret of the temple of Solomon," was David's first male heir, the first person to hold the title El Arcon after David, and today it is me.

>No, that was fake bullshit that got invented and publicized like three days after I posted my solution to RH on 4chan and it got ignored. People hate me for the above reason.

Does he really?

>>11943073
Yes. They think getting called a bad word and having their fee fees hurt means that they should get their rent paid by the public for the next few months.

>>11943198
nigger nigger chicken dinner

>>11943198
it could be they are just exploiting the gullible baizuo for gibs.

>>11943045
Wow, americans are seriously cucked to hell and back. You mean to tell me not onlt are there are actual legal repercussions for calling someone a bad word, but also to the extent that they call a swat team on him? Thats insane holy shit. Not only that but the monkey looking whore uses it as an opportunity to beg for money to help raise her kids that tyrone left her with, and dumbasses actually donate to her. Only in my dreams could someone call me le nigger word and whites come shower me with money for no reason.

>>11943262
>You mean to tell me not onlt are there are actual legal repercussions for calling someone a bad word, but also to the extent that they call a swat team on him?
completely unrelated, please read the thread

>>11942959
>A 1D space extending infinitely far in both directions is a subset of the Cartesian plane specified uniquely by the equation y(x)=mx+by(x)=mx+b for two scalar constants m and b.
>he doesnt know what the long line is
>he doesnt know theres differing sizes of infnities
>he doesnt know 1D spaces could be a circle and not a line
>he really just doesnt know math

>>11943305
My bad

>>11943262
where do you live that $35 is a shower to you

>>11943677
AUH international airport maybe?

>>11943045
>"YA'LL HERD DAT!?"

maybe she should spend dat money on grammar lessons and she can pull herself out of working at publix deli. Then again, if Biden wins, I'm pretty sure eBoNicS will become the new official language of the USA... and then west civ academia not long afterwards.

>>11943677
Europoors at it again

>>11925260
>Putting a hat on infinity doesn't change how it works
I haven’t browsed /sci/ in a year and I know exactly who you’re talking about lmfao glad to see he’s still dedicated at least

>>11942973
>https://mathworld.wolfram.com/T2-Space.html
A topological space fulfilling the T_2-axiom: i.e., any two points have disjoint neighborhoods. In the terminology of Alexandroff and Hopf (1972), a T_2-space is called a Hausdorff space. A T_2-space is sometimes said to "have Hausdorff topology" or "be Hausdorff." An Etale space provides an example of a space that is not T_2. "

>>11942987
I think that was a white man in a blackface disguise, not a lady at all, and certainly not a natural born black person. What happened was I approached the counter and asked for a sandwich. She asked me how I was. I told her I was terrible. She said, "OOOOOH WUS RONG?!?!," and it set off some red flags for me that she was so enthusiastic with her interest when she would not have given a fuck if I told her I was ok, great, fine, terrific, or blessed. I told her that I was having a lot of negative feeling about being held as a slave in a copy of Atlanta in Antarctica where I was surrounded by practitioners of falsehood, such as her. She said, "Me?" I said, "You heard me." Then she walked away and refused to make my sandwich. Another lady started making it and the the manager of the store came over and asked me if I was ok. I told him I was not. He asked why and I told him I wasn't going to talk about my feelings with him. He started badgering me and insisting that I tell him about my feelings but I refused to do it. I asked him to stop bothering me. He told me he was not bothering me and I assured him that he was definitely bothering me. Then he told the lady to stop making my sandwich. That's where the video started and it had nothing to do with masks.

I don't know what you mean by asking if I'm a racist. If you mean to ask whether I think you only need to treat other people the way you would like to be treated if they look more less like you do, then no, I am not a racist. I think the golden rule is a good guiding principle not hinged on outward appearance.

>>11943045
see: >>11940845
that's a mutant alien, not a black woman

>>11943065
One of my relatives hired an SEO company to try to get rid of that felony burglary post. I didn't write the blurb about myself.

>>11943073
that's a white in blackface

>>11943094
>JOHNATHAN TOOKER LOOKS LIKE
find Jesus Christ in pic related

>>11943134
thank you

>>11943158
No, I never use "Anonymous Coward" namefag.

>>11943191
Yes, and like in the Da Vinci Code with Opus Dei chasing after the Sangue Real, me and Opus Dei are as far from friends as can be and that rolls over into the general relationship between the catholic church and myself.

>>11943198
Mostly they think it means I should never be able to get a job again for the rest of my life if I ever had an intention to do that, and that 30% of any black employees I need to do something for me in the future should be cunts about it.

>>11943262
SWAT raided me in my legal residence, wrongly, about 18 moths earlier, and they also polluted the internet with deceptive pictures of the wrong they did me.

>>11943349
1D space extending infinitely far in both directions can't be a circle. It only extends its radius in either direction.

>>11944805
Oh he's more active than ever, and that's saying something compared to a year ago.

>>11944960
No I am asking about the N word. why did you use it? How is this long winded explanation related to your use of a racist slur if it wasn't even about race? And where is your El Arcon name? Are you Johnathan Tooker or you are impersonating him?

>>11945006
>1D space extending infinitely far in both directions can't be a circle.
great circles around the riemann sphere would like to disagree, as would all projective spaces

>>11945042
In a addition to being a racist slur, it is also just a curse word. It's like how you can call someone a motherfucker without implying that they fuck their mother, or you can call someone a faggot for something they do on Xbox. Unlike motherfucker, the N-word is actually offensive and that's my favorite thing about it.

I gave the long winded statement about racism because it is an important issue to me, and I agree with Morgan Freeman when he says the best thing is to just stop talking about. No one loves talking about racism more than racists, and that's why you've seen racism on TV every day for the last 30 years but never income inequality, war, tyranny, or other real problems. Anyhow, there are a lot of ways to define to racism. If you define a racist as someone who has racial prejudices, then everyone is a racist. I prefer the definition which gives racism a negative connotation and that's why I refer to the golden rule. IMO, a racist is someone who thinks they only need to treat another person the way they would like to be treated if that person looks more or less the same as they do, or at least not if they are quite different looking.

Furthermore, I went to college in downtown Atlanta right around the corner from MLK's church on Auburn Avenue. I honestly believe that people are wrong to think that blacks a horribly inferior trash race. That hasn't been my impression of them. I think it skews people's perceptions a lot that the dregs of the blacks congregate in the cities on display for everyone while their counterpart dregs among the whites are mostly hidden out in the rural areas. IMO, every complaint about "niggers" has a perfect parallel complaint about "white trash" and I use the N-word for both of them, especially more lately when I've given less of a fuck. If "cracker" was an offensive word, then I would use it. As it is, I like to swear offensively.

Based Morgan tells the truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNM4txmV0Lc

>>11945148
No they wouldn't. Great circles any sphere don't extend further than the radius of the sphere in any direction. Most of the projective spaces of a sphere are the Cartesian plane, and that circles back to the definition I used so you seem to support my definition of a 1D space by mentioning them.

>>11945245
good post. the only problem here is that morgan saying we should ignore racism and just go about our daily lives as if it didn't exist probably won't work. i wish it would work, but there are too many CRACKERS out there who unfortunately have the right to vote who perpetuate this shit

>t. white as milk

>>11945262
this. So much this! UPBOATS!!! It really is all C R A C K E R S to blame famalam1!1!! Have you seen the white-on-black crime stats!!???? Have you seen the RAPE STATS!!??? Fucking crackers are destroying this country!!!!!11!1!1! *le reddit face*

>>11945006
>No, I never use "Anonymous Coward" namefag.
kek. Using anonymous.

>>11945006
>find Jesus Christ in pic related
I find him no where.

>inb4 far right with orange shirt is Jezuz
That guy is definitely one of Satan's children.

>>11945262
>i wish it would work
Talking about it and not talking about are both going to fail to make racism go away. In the meantime, it's the racists who love it when everyone is talking about race, racism, and racists all the time. If racists didn't love it, it wouldn't be on TV all the time. That's how can you tell BLM is an anti-black cointelpro operation, btw: the absolute approval it gets on TV while the economic predicates of Occupy were uniformly mocked with derision. BLM is the government's anti-Occupy.

Talking about racism distracts from the golden rule. If you need to talk about an issue, talk about the golden rule. If that's too abstract, or whatever, and I think it is too "whatever" to debate whether or not one ought to practice the golden rule, then talk about capitalism which is a rock solid idea with policy positions and actionable remedies.

cont...


Capitalism fucks people a lot more than racism does. If the government stopped pouring gasoline on the capitalism inherent to the market, then, on a reasonable timescale, a lot of the problems labelled "racism" would go away pretty quickly. Those problems are more properly symptoms of cancerous capitalist policies than they are people hating the golden rule. It was the white's general respect for the golden rule which led the whites to make slavery illegal. Those black slaves' lives mattered enough to those abolitionist whites that slavery ended. The racism blacks encounter in the USA today is a minor footnote on the capitalism which fucks the poor blacks and the poor whites equally, and poor everyone. It is capitalism more so than racism which leads to the existence of the economic underclass in which the blacks are over-represented. It is better to protest against the capitalist system which deliberately maintains that underclass than to complain that blacks are over-represented in it. Do you so getting rid of that of that economic class altogether would solve the problem that it is disproportionately populated with blacks? That's why I say to complain about capitalism, not racism.

Overall, making protests about the problems of blacks makes sure there won't be any protests about the problems of the poor. Overall, the capitalists FUCKING LOVE it when poor people think racism is the thing that fucking them to death. Racism is literally not even 1% of the rape dick up the ass of the USA blacks. It's pretty close to 100% capitalist rape dick which is fucking them.

>>11945279
except when I clear my cookies...

>>11945302
But that's hypocrisy.
Also I don't care about your cookies.

>>11928049
>identically zero on the left plane
wouldn't that also imply that zeta is identically zero on its entire domain because it's holomorphic?

>>11944960
That's definition of a Hausdorff space. I want definition of a 1D space.

>>11925333
I think you're mistaking notational shorthand for legit set theory. You can't count to infinity-1 any more than you can count to infinity. If any finite offset from INF is finite, then it would imply infinity itself is finite.

>>11945309
i care about his cookies cause i want to know if thats him

>>11945296
What is better than capitalism? The alternatives seem much worse.

>>11945959
enlightened absolutism

>>11945959
We're at a point in society where capitalism has worked so well (abundant social welfare programs, higher standard of living than most places, every thirld worlder in the world wants to come here) that people get bored with it and talk emptily about other options just for the lulz. These people range of course from your regular garden variety commies, lunatic misfits like our boy Fucker up there, to bored suburb kids (see: antifa). Propaganda, in and out of the classroom, helps too. I swear the only classes I didn't learn about Marx/ communism in my time at uni were my STEM classes. Take a few easy underwater basket weaving credits? "Did you know Marx...?" Anyways there are no better options. If there were these faggots would've already left our big meanie weenie capitalst country and moved to Venezuela or China or whoever's making communism look fun right now.

>>11945439
It's a subset of the Cartesian plane whose points satisfy an equation of the form [math] y=mx+b [/math]

>>11945453
>If any finite offset from INF is finite, then it would imply infinity itself is finite.
If you think the implication follows, then instead of farting empty wind you should draw out the implication.

>>11945959
It is better for the government to have anti-capitalist policies which mitigates the worst aspects of the capitalism that is inherent to the market. As it is, the USA government uses policy to pour gasoline on the fire of the capitalism that is inherent to the market.

Socialism with an economic predicate of unlimited free money due to free energy technology.

>>11946586
When was the last time you drank alcohol?

>>11946586
>It's a subset of the Cartesian plane whose points satisfy an equation of the form
so how do you define the Cartesian plane without real numbers? what are y,m,x,b if not real numbers?

>>11945245
>I agree with Morgan Freeman when he says the best thing is to just stop talking about.
>calls people nigger when buying a sandwich
just how fucking delusional can you be?

And no, it wasn't a white person in blackface you schizo, take your fucking meds.

>>11946619
I drank a bottle of wine in July some time, and I probably drank nothing in May or April, and have not been much of a drinker in my life. I am not an alcoholic.

>>11946659
I don't define it. Descartes defined it. I think he used a straight edge and piece of paper but I'm not sure how he did it. "The Cartesian plane" is a famous thing and if you have a genuine interest in it's definition, you might try typing your question into google instead of 4chan.

>>11946909
>calls people nigger when buying a sandwich
That never happened. The time when I was trying to buy a sandwich was already over by the time that video started.

I don't know if the people who can see this current thread are aware, but I have made it known that I will not let anyone from the families of the people in the "take your meds, ISIS agent promoting their medical industry crowd" into my kingdom. When I examine the history logs and see you were one of Helene's helpers using her "take your meds" meme, or I see that you wrote it into your bots' lists of memes, that's going to be a death sentence for everyone in your family, and maybe worse than that too. So, please know my intention.

>>11947954
>>11947954
>I don't define it. Descartes defined it. I think he used a straight edge and piece of paper but I'm not sure how he did it. "The Cartesian plane" is a famous thing and if you have a genuine interest in it's definition, you might try typing your question into google instead of 4chan.
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/CartesianPlane.html
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/EuclideanPlane.html
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/EuclideanSpace.html
looks like the definition of the cartesian plane already uses real numbers.

>>11947996
You're not talking with the real Tooker you fucking retard. First clue in this post "Anonymous" until called out on it. Second clue in this post "it's definition" I've never seen a Tooker post with a meme grammar error like this.

>>11948011
No, it's definitely me. I buy a new computer and return it every few days now. Sometimes my divine title isn't saved in there when I post.

>>11947996
I mentioned defining it in the way Descartes defined it. You found some ways it is defined today: an unclever straw man/red herring type of strategem. If Descartes had a definition of R on hand in the 15th century, or whenever, I'll be glad if you post it, and then I'll give a workaround definition for an infinite 1D space like, "It's a line," or something. First though, if you want to show that my Cartesian plane definition fails, then you'd need to show how Descartes defined his own plane. None of those Wolframs you linked to have the Definition he used. Notably, I don't think blackboard bold R was in use in Descartes' day. If he referred to two Euclidean lines, then a 1D space is one Euclidean line. Overall, your insistence that my reference to "a 1D space" is too radical abstract for you to comprehend is not a convincing ruse, you pest.

>>11946659
Call them Cartesian numbers if it makes you feel better. I don't give it much thought because the criticism I responding to here is, "I don't know what a line is because you didn't tell me." I don't think I'm taking too many liberties assuming that my reader can understand what a 1D space it. Furthermore, in the long paper, I have a definition which does not reference the line we all know and love from Euclid, except all them asking me to explain it for whom I guess Euclid to was too radical in his taking of liberties when developing Euclidean geometry.

>>11948104
fuck off, reported for impersonation
>Notably, I don't think blackboard bold R was in use in Descartes' day.
not the Took, literally kys

>>11947954
>that's going to be a death sentence for everyone in your family,
This is why you need medication that you should take

>>11947954
>That never happened. The time when I was trying to buy a sandwich was already over by the time that video started.
You missed the point entirely you fucking retard

>>11948104
so what definition of Cartesian plane are you using, if not the one that's being used today?

>>11925225
assuming your reader was born in the last 100 years, he wil think that 1D space, even intuitively, means "you need one number to specify points in the space", therefore you cannot use it to define numbers in the first place.

>>11949143
I told you already: I use the same one Descartes used.

>>11949145
That's wrong. He will think, "A 1D space is a line." You're stupid.

>>11949152
Do you do drugs?

>>11949152
>I told you already: I use the same one Descartes used.
so state the definition

>>11949152
>That's wrong. He will think, "A 1D space is a line." You're stupid.
"line" is what you're trying to define in the first place LOL. also a circle or any other curve is not 1D?

>>11949172
It is sufficient that the definition exists.

>"line" is what you're trying to define in the first place LOL.
No, you asked for the definition of a 1D space.

>also a circle or any other curve is not 1D?
Are you deliberately leaving out the part about extending infinitely far in both directions, or do you really want me to think you don't whether or not a circle extends beyond its radius in any direction?

>>11949157
Sometimes.

>>11949190
>It is sufficient that the definition exists.
it's sufficient that the definition is not circular and stands up to today's standards of rigour. and mainly, I want to see that it doesn't use real numbers, because you're using it to define them.

>No, you asked for the definition of a 1D space.
Yes. Your definition starts with "a line is a 1D space..." and now you're saying that 1D space is a line.

>Are you deliberately leaving out the part about extending infinitely far in both directions
I am. I'm assuming that "1D" and "extending infinitely far in both directions" are two properties.

>>11938665
cope

we'll take your land, possessions, and money.

stay fragile till you collapse, wimpy white boy.

>>11943073
no she's actually smart for capitalizing the situation, moron. you're the retard.

>>11943198
lol whitoids are the most sensitive bunches out here. anyway that looks different oppresses you so much? boo hoo.

>>11949199
>"a line is a 1D space..."
In which article of which paper do you think I wrote that?

>>11949601
That's not a black person. That's some Los Zetas piece of trash wearing a costume, a white one, and probably a Mossad agent too. That person doesn't like it that I'm going to turn all the little white babies in the families of the people they loved while they were hating me in ground beef.

*into

>>11947954
Take your meds

>>11950139
or, you know, it could be that this is a zeta from the group that "Los Zetas" broke off from. I'm always wondering about those guys.

holy shit i left /sci/ for like 2 years and he is still making this thread