/sci/ - Science & Math

Tooker I don't think you've resolved the L, S contradiction yet.

>>12308722
The other person was unable to demonstrate a contradiction. You are employing a fallacious line reasoning to presume the existence of a contradiction whose existence has not been demonstrated.

>>12308971

>>12308712
Zetta...
Couldn't it be reduced to Integral of x(s-2)/e-10 of dx?

>>12309064
What point are you attempting to make by posting that?

>>12309118
I'm just telling you how theorem 2.3.23 gives L

>>12309286
As the author of that theorem, I am telling you that you that it does not give L. You have missed the main point of the paper or you are pretending to have missed it, more likely the latter.

>>12309385
what's wrong then

>>12309523
The words you wrote.

>>12309546
Definition 3.1.1 specifies there should be a point with fractional distance .5 in [0,S].... this is L by your own words.

>>12309592
It doesn't.

>>12309609
You define this distance function as a continuous bijective map from [0, S] -> [0,1], there must be some point L in [0,S] s.t. D([0, L]) = .5

>>12308712
You are wrong my arch nemesis. I intend to prove rh using a slide rule and 6 red bulls.

>>12309834
You are wrong. I'd tell you your error but I already told you and then I'd seem to entertain the notion that you aren't being wrong on purpose.

>>12309842
>arch nemesis
post face

I'm too lazy to read the whole paper, but is Tooker going to develop a topology without the intermediate value theorem?
Sounds pretty surreal ngl, even if in my laziness I see no reason to prefer this over descriptive set theory.

>>12310070
His error is in his motivation for the existence of L. I already conceded (pic: >>12308971) that L exists by Definition 3.2.1, and you can almost certainly arrive at its existence via IVT as well. His error is in his citation of Def 2.3.23 or 3.1.1 as the motivator for his conclusion.

>>12310093
IVT is a bit more than asserting the existence of a point though, its operational purpose is to make connectedness a topologically meaningful property (in this case: that the image of a continuous function on an interval is also an interval). I also mentioned it because the intuitionists working on constructive analysis have singled it out for critique, although I'm not familiar with their work myself.
Whether or not connectedness is relevant for your infinity-hat is something that falls to you to decide, though.

>>12310138
I think f(x)=x suffices to deduce L via IVT because I have granted connectedness. This other person is just being a deliberate retard acting like he doesn't know the distinction I made between intervals and line segments. He knows it well enough or he would not be able to dance around it so carefully.

>>12310154
Fair enough. I had actually suspected that you would somehow distinguish the topological intervals from geometric line segments in order to preserve IVT, which (coupled with my self-admitted laziness) is why I'm not objecting to your theory.
Still, the way I see it, connectedness (and path-connectedness) is meaningful both topologically and geometrically, and the distinction you're making would have to be very precisely explicated in order to retain IVT-connectedness but not >>12309834. Myself, I'd rather just go with a Wadge hierarchy, but I can see the appeal of more geometric approaches.

shitcunt

I'm still learning math so I'm wondering, what level of math do I need to learn to understand this proof?

>>12310173
>Wadge hierarchy
Interesting. For me, I'd probably just invent some symbols and give an ordering axiom for them with respect to the other numbers I already agave to ordering for.

>>12310278
You have to be able to plus and minus really good and you have to be at least passing at timesing and dividing.

>>12310173
>Wadge hierarchy
Interesting. For me, I'd probably just invent some symbols and give an ordering axiom for them with respect to the other numbers I already gave the ordering for.

>>12310278
You have to be able to plus and minus really good and you have to be at least passing at timesing and dividing.

>>12310154
>This other person is just being a deliberate retard acting like he doesn't know the distinction I made between intervals and line segments.
Definition 2.1.1 "The connected interval [math](-\infty,\infty)[/math] is an infinite line"
Axiom 2.1.7 [math]\mathbb{R} = (-\infty,\infty)[/math]
The way you've defined it, [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] is a number line.

>>12310416
>He knows it well enough or he would not be able to dance around it so carefully.

>>12311528
so? is >>12310416 true or not?

>>12312129
It is true.

>>12312176
[math]\mathbb{R}[/math] is a number line and [math]0,S \in \mathbb{R}, 0\neq S[/math]. by definition 2.3.1, the line [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] together with [math]0[/math] and [math]S[/math] is a line segment. you would probably denote it [math]0S[/math]. now apply 2.3.23 to this line segment, you get your point [math]L \in \mathbb{R}[/math].

Distribution by multiplication

>>12312218
You are using the symbols "0" and "S" as both points and cuts so you argument fails. A point cannot be a cut and a cut cannot be a point.

>you get your point L∈R.
I have already told you how to demonstrate the existence of L. I have also posted a picture of me telling you two or three times in this thread already and yet you keep stepping on every error that you can step on.
>He knows it well enough or he would not be able to dance around it so carefully.

>>12312807
yes, [math]0[/math] and [math]S[/math] are both points and cuts. every [math]x \in \mathbb{R}[/math] is both a point and a cut. it's a cut by Definition 2.1.5
and it's a point because it's an element of a number line.

>>12308712
HAHAHAHA! holy shit, thanks Tooker!

>Due to infinity, and some 'related' issues to infinity, x, y, z is now defunct.

>>12314010
you are wrong

>>12314073
how though

>>12314096
Because labelled thus labelled.

>>12314096
totally

>>12314034
Due to time travel, it was defunct all along.

>>12314129
do you have, like, arguments?

>>12314141
yes

>>12314152
are you going to present them?

>>12314157
https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237

>>12314157
Now that I have presented my arguments, are you going to not respond to them? Perhaps your goal was to see how many hundreds of words of my replies you could elicit per word of your stupid comments, and your goal was never understanding?

>>12315529
Educational elitism is expressive.

>>12315610
The alliterative asshole.

so uhh this is just schizo shit right? surely academia would have picked this up by now if it were correct.

>>12315741
The Fractional-Fencing Faggot

>Stare into my fractal butthole!

>>12315804
That's the funniest thing I've ever read. Why would that be the fucking case? How media-driven is most Anon's intelligence here?

>>12315804
What if this result is only on the internet in Antarctica and what you're calling academia can't see it for the most part? Also consider that CERN has been withholding results regarding the spin of the particle they found in 2012 for almost ten years now because if they release those results then that will confirm my prediction for spin-1 and "academia" sees confirming anything I do as a worst case possible outcome to be avoided at all costs including even the integrity of the general academic institution "academia."

>>12315841
>abstract
>some real numbers are larger than all natural numbers
yeah, sounds like schizo shit

>>12309385
>As the author of that theorem, I am telling you that you that it does not give L.
thats not how this works

>>12315859

>>12315865
>>12315859
schizo

>>12315864
Are you saying I'm not that the author or that I don't know what my own theorem means?

>>12315847
Of course some crazed American hobo would've won the ego war with me. Trump doesn't even compare to the blackhole that is Tooker's fucking ego trip.

I've been monitoring both Trump and Tooker this whole time. Tooker wins.

Like, seriously. Trump has a bank account and Tooker just has Tooker, and look at what Tooker's arrogance has achieved! Such a marvel of a man. I hope Trump doesn't take this news too poorly.

Autistic Arrogance: Your name is John Tooker.

I even went full God of Time Ego and everything. So proud of America to yield a champion with ego sufficient to defeat mine and claim mathematics as their own.

*salutes Tooker*

>>12315869
How sure are you about that though? How sure can you rightfully be about it?

>>12315879
>>12315870
You'll have to go on a word diet though there Tooker because obviously you're asking people to invest time in digesting an amount that would preclude their ability to live normal human lives.

>Tone down the word flood there, Moses.

>>12315879
the book of numbers has literally nothing to do with math besides some basic addition to count how many people are in each group. take your meds.

>>12315870
>or that I don't know what my own theorem means?
this
youre rejecting an implication of your theorem just because youre the author and not because its incorrect

>>12315886
Even my long paper doesn't have that many words in it. It's hardly a short novel.

>>12315895
You are wrong.

>>12315908
You are wrong.

>>12315895
Not only are you wrong, but your failure to demonstrate the implication you cite is inconclusive evidence which suggests that you know you are wrong.

>>12315529
I have legit no idea how [math]x\in\mathbb{R}[/math] is not a point in the line [math]\mathbb{R} = (-\infty,\infty)[/math]

>>12316078
Have you considered that you might not have the idea because you are avoiding reading the explanation?
>are you going to not respond to them?
>doesn't respond

>>12316104
I haven't found the explanation

>>12316226
Which pages did you look on?

>didn't find it
>unrelated, also did look for it

>>12316663
tooker, youre notorious for not giving sufficient explanation anywhere you fucking retard
if there is an explanation then you should be able to point him to it, youre the moron that wrote this piece of shit after all, and "communicating your work" is apparently what you do the most so be better at it, shitcunt

>>12316696
If one of you has an idea about what I wrote and you want to raise a point about it, then cite an article, e.g.: Axiom X.Y.Z, or GTFO.

>>12314133
That’s a kino image, Tooker.

>>12316797
thanks, fren

>>12316797
>>12316799

>>12315885
look at those 1 author citations lol

>>12316939
Maybe when you work in isolation long enough to publish a couple of dozen papers then you will be able to write some that have no relevant citations but to your own previous work.

>>12317035
How long has it been since you went outside?

>>12317037
About an hour.

>>12316313
section 3.3

>>12317787
maybe arrange the pages by order of increasing page number then read them like that starting with the least page number and working your way toward the greatest.

>>12318389
Maybe explain how an element of a number line isn't a point in this line?

>>12318737
Maybe if you cite the articles you have a question about I will address your faux concern.

>>12318930
just see >>12312218

should've learned to cood and built a portfolio to get hired instead of larping as a mathematician writing 200 page papers.

>>12318947
Just see my response to >>12312218

>>12319015

>>12319135
an income is better than being a failed austistic mathematicician who has no network and tries to engage with 4chan of all places. plus programming can be used to solve interesting problems or make interesting things, and if you are competent enough you can be the person who chooses what to build and how to build it instead of being the codemonkey at the bottom.

>>12319163
>income is better
Please tell me more about your opinions.

>>12319205
nah m8 he got you pretty good

Since it's going to get brought up in my next thread anyways, I will bump with it.

>>12318737
Shitcunt, what reason do you have to think a number is a point? Have I defined points that way? Have you cited any article which gives you reason to think that a point is a number? No, on both counts. A point is a element of a geometric representation, but numbers are elements of algebraic representations. You have no reason to identify a point as an element of an algebraic representation, and the reason you have never cited any article which gave you reason to think it might be is because you know as well as I do that there is none. Your entire ruse is nothing but an attempt to invoke semantic ambiguity between the general idea of what a point is and the very specific I have given to "geometric points" in the paper. You are completely retarded.

Since it's going to get brought up in my next thread anyways, I will bump with it.

>>12318737
Shitcunt, what reason do you have to think a number is a point? Have I defined points that way? Have you cited any article which gives you reason to think that a point is a number? No, on both counts. A point is a element of a geometric representation, but numbers are elements of algebraic representations. You have no reason to identify a point as an element of an algebraic representation, and the reason you have never cited any article which gave you reason to think it might be is because you know as well as I do that there is none. Your entire ruse is nothing but an attempt to invoke semantic ambiguity between the general idea of what a point is and the very specific treatment I have given to "geometric points" in the paper. You are completely retarded and your attempt to confuse "x" with "X" disgusts me.

But look: if you do not cite articles motivating the stupid things you say, then I may ignore your obvious troll posts. If you want an answer more than, "You are wrong," then you put more into your query than, "Nuh-uh, how come?" Let it be obvious to everyone that serious queries will query specific articles but unserious queries will look like
>>12316226
>>12316078
and also
>>12314010
where he cites an article for the cut but then introduces the notion of a point without citing an article, and then proceeds to build an entire house upon his failure to cite an article related to what he is calling a point.

If you want a reply, cite an article or at least convince me that you aren't being wrong on purpose.

>>12316789
thats what he did at the start of this chain you fucking pussy

>>12308712
t. schizo

>>12321128
>that's what she said

>>12309385
>nuh uh you're wrong
Authority means jack shit here lmao, but keep sniffing those farts jack, I'm sure they smell like roses to you

>>12321166
Darrell, keep not linking to the part where I explained to him the problem in his thinking at least twice before I stopped repeating myself, and talk about farts too. You're really onto something there.

>>12321128
The start of this "chain" (>>12308722) cites the previous thread where S and L were defined. You two shitcunts are commenting like you don't know what happened in that thread and yet you take no apparent issue with the lack of any present context for S and L. It's like you're choosing carefully which ignorance to feign.

>>12315870
Yes
Unfortunately, its not the only thing you don't understand

>>12321180
Try writing the proof on bathroom walls with your own feces, I'm sure it'll be more credible than that shit vixra paper lmao

>>12321215
Yes but if all zips have opinion A and all zoodles have opinion B, if all things are either zips or zoodles, and if all zoodles get truncated, then after the truncation operation there is 100% conformity regarding opinion A. Opinion B is completely gone after that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5QGkOGZubQ

>>12315879
infini tin hat

>>12321223
Have you considered truncating your brainstem? I'm sure that zip up some zoodling

>>12320835
>>12320923
Def 2.3.1 a line segment [math]AB[/math] is a line together with two different endpoints [math]A \neq B[/math]

are [math]A,B[/math] anything else than elements of this line? i.e. if the line is denoted [math]\mathcal{L}[/math], then points on this line are simply [math]A,B \in \mathcal{L}[/math]

>>12321242
10/10 quip! Nice!

>>12321253
See, theres the first thing you got right

>>12321251
>are A,B anything else than elements of this line?
no
>the line is denoted L, then points on this line are simply A,B∈L
I agree, now what? Let me guess: you are going to intermingle elements of the algebraic and geometric representations of "Cursive L" and then you're going to act like you didn't understand what I told you about that five times already, and also that you missed the 500 distinctions I made about that in the paper.

>>12321276
Man you seem to put more effort into fourchins than into your paper, kek

>>12321276
line segment [math]AB[/math] is a line [math]\mathcal{L}[/math] together with [math]A,B \in \mathcal{L}[/math] such that [math]A \neq B[/math].

now put [math]\mathcal{L} = \mathbb{R}[/math], [math]A = 0, B = S[/math]

[math]\mathbb{R}[/math] is a number line. [math]0,S \in \mathbb{R}[/math] and [math]0 \neq S[/math]. therefore [math]0S[/math] is a line segment on the line [math]\mathbb{R}[/math].

the triple:

line [math]\mathbb{R}[/math]
left endpoint [math]0 \in \mathbb{R}[/math]
right endpoint [math]S \in \mathbb{R}[/math]

absolutely satisfy the definition of a line segment Def 2.3.1

>>12321289
Man, I doubt you understand the complete profit motive of what I'm doing on this vile website. The work I'm doing here is going tom pay off big for me. You're not going to like payoff at all.

>>12321296
I don't think there's money in being stubbornly wrong on a mongolian basket weaving forum

>>12321294
>now put L=R, A=0,B=S
How did I know that you were going intermingle elements of the algebraic and geometric representations of "Cursive L" and then you're going to act like you didn't understand what I told you about that five times already, and also that you missed the 500 distinctions I made about that in the paper? Check out pic related. You are saying that an element of a geometric representation is equal to an element of an algebraic representation. You can't have both: they symbols are in one representation or the other, and if they are in different ones then they don't support the equivalence relation "=" between them.

I have answered your question many times now, telling you and over and over than you wrongly intermingle elements of the algebraic and geometric representations. Now you answer my questions: What do you think pic related means? Does it suggest to you that it is possible to set a point equal to a number?

>>12321300
I think you know the profits I refer to aren't monetary.

>>12321334
How would I know what your schizo shit means?

>>12321294
>now put L=R, A=0,B=S
This is what I'm talking about. As soon as this shitcunt doesn't cite an article for what he's writing, it's wrong. CITE THE ARTICLE SHITCUNT! Every time you don't cite an article you pull some random wrong BS out of your ass.

>>12321342
>thinking I care about how would know
>mfw

>>12321343
?? I'm talking about the same paper
[math]0[/math] is real number, is there any problem? [math]0 \in \mathbb{R}[/math]. the real number [math]S[/math] exists by theorem 7.5.11.

>>12321350
>thinking I care about how would know
The Archon of Grammar here, are we? Your time is short, I will be coming for you soon, child.

>>12321353
>Now you answer my questions: What do you think pic related means? Does it suggest to you that it is possible to set a point equal to a number?

>>12321354
And I will be coming for your relatives' children soon too

>>12321354
I did this to your ancestors.

>>12321330
If your line segments aren't subsets of the real line, then they don't actually mean anything

>>12321356
Yes, points on the real line are real numbers

>>12321369
Nice claim you have. Try proving it.

>>12321372
>Your entire ruse is nothing but an attempt to invoke semantic ambiguity between the general idea of what a point is and the very specific treatment I have given to "geometric points" in the paper. You are completely retarded and your attempt to confuse "x" with "X" disgusts me.

>>12321373
Its a definition dude, pick up a real math book sometime

>>12321375
You haven't given any treatment of what geometric points mean in your paper lmao

>>12321356
absolutely. for real line segments there's essentially no distinction between algebraic and geometric representation.
a real line segment is a line segment on the line [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] by Def 2.3.2. by Def 2.3.1, this just means the line [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] together with two distinct elements of [math]\mathbb{R}[/math].
algebraic representations are intervals. a closed interval consists of two distinct elements of [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] and all elements in between.

I'll show you on an example. [math]2,5[/math] are real numbers right? [math]2,5 \in \mathbb{R}[/math]. and they're not equal. therefore the triple

number line [math]\mathbb{R}[/math]
left endpoint [math]2[/math]
right endpoint [math]5[/math]

definitely satisfies definition 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 and [math]25[/math] is a real line segment.

at the same time, its algebraic representation is [math][2,5] = \{ x \in \mathbb{R} \mid 2 < x < 5\}[/math]

>>12321385
>at the same time, its algebraic representation is [2,5]={x∈R∣2<x<5}
should be lesser than or equal to

>>12321381
Cite the definition then.

>>12321383
I call that notation "Euclidean" because Euclid has already given a rigorous survey of its meaning. See Reference [1].

>>12321385
>for real line segments there's essentially no distinction between algebraic and geometric representation.
The entire paper is about the distinction, pic related. It appears to me that you have chosen to intermingle elements of the algebraic and geometric representations of "Cursive L" and then you're going to act like you didn't understand what I told you about that five times already, and also that you missed the 500 distinctions I made about that in the paper.

>this just means the line R together with two distinct elements of R.
You're interminglimg elements of the algebraic and geometric representations of "Cursive L" and you're acting like you didn't understand what I told you about that five times already, and also that you missed the 500 distinctions I made about that in the paper.

>definitely satisfies definition 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 and 25 is a real line segment.
If you set [math]2\equiv2[/math] then you need to be careful not intermingle the symbol "2" on the left with the symbol "2" on the right.

>at the same time, its algebraic representation is [2,5]={x∈R∣2<x<5}
Surprise! Here you have either conflated two different things stupidly named with them same symbol or else you're intermingling elements of the algebraic and geometric representations of "Cursive L" and you're acting like you didn't understand what I told you about that five times already, and also that you missed the 500 distinctions I made about that in the paper.

>>12321383
I call that notation "Euclidean" because Euclid has already given a rigorous survey of its meaning. See Reference [1].

>>12321385
>for real line segments there's essentially no distinction between algebraic and geometric representation.
The entire paper is about the distinction, pic related. It appears to me that you have chosen to intermingle elements of the algebraic and geometric representations of "Cursive L" and then you're going to act like you didn't understand what I told you about that five times already, and also that you missed the 500 distinctions I made about that in the paper.

>this just means the line R together with two distinct elements of R.
You're interminglimg elements of the algebraic and geometric representations of "Cursive L" and you're acting like you didn't understand what I told you about that five times already, and also that you missed the 500 distinctions I made about that in the paper.

>definitely satisfies definition 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 and 25 is a real line segment.
If you set 2≡2 then you need to be careful not intermingle the symbol "2" on the left with the symbol "2" on the right.

>at the same time, its algebraic representation is [2,5]={x∈R∣2<x <5}
Surprise! Here you have either conflated two different things stupidly named with them same symbol or else you're intermingling elements of the algebraic and geometric representations of "Cursive L" and you're acting like you didn't understand what I told you about that five times already, and also that you missed the 500 distinctions I made about that in the paper.

>>12321430
>I call that notation "Euclidean" because Euclid has already given a rigorous survey of its meaning. See Reference [1].

>>12321430
>If you set 2≡2 then you need to be careful not intermingle the symbol "2" on the left with the symbol "2" on the right.
but they're the same mathematical object. they're the same real number.

Know this: these people they put to make these stupid, obtuse mockeries of criticism are my enemies' best and brightest. This is the best they can muster.

>>12321447
>but they're the same mathematical object.
No, one is an element of a geometric representation and the other is an element of an algebraic representation. I think the problem in your reasoning is probably that you're intermingling elements of the algebraic and geometric representations of "Cursive L" and you're acting like you didn't understand what I told you about that more than a dozen times already, and also that you missed the 500 distinctions I made about that in the paper.

>>12321460
>No, one is an element of a geometric representation and the other is an element of an algebraic representation.
algebraic representation is the interval [math][2,5] = \{ x \in \mathbb{R} \mid 2 \leq x \leq 5 \}[/math]
geometric representation is the line segment [math]25[/math] defined as the triple [math]\mathbb{R}[/math], [math]2 \neq 5[/math]
this is the only distinction.

>>12321475
You're using the symbol "2" to describe a number and a geometric point, and then saying they are equal by avoiding specifying the point as "geometric." You're doing the same thing with the symbol "5." That's like saying that two different people named Shitcunt are the same person because they have the same name. You seem to think that because you have the same symbol for two different objects that the equivalence of the symbolic character implies 2=2 and 5=5 but Def 2.3.3 says the symbolic equality is denoted 2≡2 and 5≡5 when one symbol is algebraic and the other is geometric. Your entire ruse is nothing but an attempt to invoke semantic ambiguity between the general idea of what a point is and the very specific treatment I have given to "geometric points" in the paper. You are completely retarded and your attempt to confuse "x" with "X" disgusts me.

>>12321506
Def 2.3.4 clearly gives that for the interval notation/algebraic representation [math][a,b][/math], the lowercase symbols are real numbers, [math]a,b \in \mathbb{R}[/math]
Def 2.3.1 and Def 2.3.2 gives that for the geometric representation [math]AB[/math], the uppercase symbols [math]A,B[/math] are also real numbers, [math]A,B \in \mathbb{R}[/math].

>>12321514
>Def 2.3.4 clearly gives that for the interval notation/algebraic representation
excluding the case [math]a = \pm \infty, b = \pm \infty[/math] of course

>>12321514
>Def 2.3.1 and Def 2.3.2 gives that for the geometric representation AB, the uppercase symbols A,B are also real numbers, A,B∈R.
No it doesn't. Here's the picture of those two definitions. It doesn't say they are real numbers. Those words aren't in there.

>>12321532
well, they're elements of [math]\mathbb{R}[/math], i.e. [math]A,B \in \mathbb{R}[/math]. that doesn't mean they're real numbers?

>>12321514
Def 2.3.1 allows any line. It doesn't have to be the real line. They can be points on the spaghetti line which is a line together with the label "spaghetti." Suck my dick, faggot.

>>12321535
>they're elements of R, i.e. A,B∈R
It doesn't say that. Def 2.3.1 allows any line. It doesn't have to be the real line.

>whole paper is about how geometric stuff is not equal to algebraic stuff
>insist all stuff is the same
>get BTFOed

>>12321536
>>12321539
that's why I wrote "Def 2.3.1 and Def 2.3.2". they give this together.
Def 2.3.1 says that line segment AB is a line together with two distinct elements A,B of this line
Def 2.3.2 says that real line segment is a line segment of the real line
D 2.3.1 + Def 2.3.2 gives that real line segment is the line R together with two elements A,B of R

>>12321544
>>whole paper is about how geometric stuff is not equal to algebraic stuff
I know that's what you're trying to do. I'm showing you where you went wrong.

>>12321547
>together with two elements A,B of R
You're failing to properly distinguish between the algebraic and geometric representations of R. By Def 2.3.3, the elements of the two representations are not equal. Your error is that you insist on saying they are equal, but that is because you refuse to acknowledge Def 2.3.3 no matter how many times I point to that definition as the source of your error. Def 2.1.1 makes the algebraic interval representation separate from geometric Hausdorff representation, and Def 2.3.3 says that the equality relation between them is other than the identical equivalence relation "=", and yet you insist on failing to distinguish the representations specified by Def 2.1.1, and then you ignore Def 2.3.3.

>>12321559
>I'm showing you where you went wrong.
I see you trying to do that I'm BTFOing you because I didn't go wrong.

>>12321559
>I know that's what you're trying to do. I'm showing you where you went wrong.
It's literally a "definition" that they are not equal. It's Def 2.3.3. Definitions can't be wrong.

This BTFOs you again.

>>12321575
I'm not a priori saying that A = a and B = b.
I'm saying that, as long as AB is a *real* line segment, A and B are elements of R. at the same time, a and b are also elements of R.

>>12321585
Def 2.3.3 says that you're going to use "≡" to denote that the real line segment AB has interval notation [a,b].
but A,B are real numbers. a,b are also real numbers. they're all elements of R. they don't need to be equal, but they can be compared at least.

>>12321593
>but A,B are real numbers
No they aren't. They are Euclidean points. By Axiom 4.2.6, points can't be real numbers because points can contain intervals (Thm 3.2.2) but intervals are not numbers. Therefore, a point can't be a number. Numbers are algebraic representations of points (Ax 2.3.11.)

>>12321586
>A and B are elements of R. at the same time, a and b are also elements of R.
Elements of R are only real numbers in the algebraic representation. They are Euclidean points in the geometric representation.

>>12321615
[math]\mathbb{R} = [/math] the set of all real numbers
[math]x \in \mathbb{R} \implies x[/math] is a real number
is this not true? lol

>>12321626
If I tell you that it's true are going to fail to recognize that lower case "x" specifies the algebraic representation of R and then say that if x∈R is a real number then X∈R implies upper case "X" is also a real number without recognizing that upper case "X" implies the geometric representation of R? If you do do that, will you then proceed to ignore Axiom 2.3.11 to say that X=x even though it is an axiom that X cannot be equal to x?

>is this not true?
It is true.

>>12321626
>R= the set of all real numbers
X∈R can have more than just one number in it though, shitcunt. That's theorem 3.3.2.

>ignores all the 99% of definitions, all theorems, and all axioms
>says it's wrong

>>12321642
yes, [math]x,X \in \mathbb{R}[/math]. [math]X[/math] might be a geometric point, but it's still element of [math]\mathbb{R}[/math]. as such, it is also a real number. [math]x[/math] might be an algebraic representation of some geometric point, again that means [math]x \in \mathbb{R}[/math] and as such, it is a point on the number line [math]\mathbb{R}[/math]. this is very baisc reasoning, I'm sure you'll grasp it eventually.

>>12321650
>X∈R can have more than just one number in it though, shitcunt. That's theorem 3.3.2.
then [math]X[/math] is a subset of [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] and not element of [math]\mathbb{R}[/math]. [math]X \subseteq \mathbb{R}[/math], but [math]X \notin \mathbb{R}[/math]

Math PHD here. I can't find any flaws in OP's proof, but since I'm much more credible in academia I'm thinking of taking off his name and just putting mine on to win the million. Thoughts?

>>12321663
Since you have refused to distinguish between the algebraic and geometric representations, I will cease to entertain you notion that Def 2.3.2 require points to be elements of R, pic related. If you would accept Axiom 2.3.11, then I could prove you wrong even with this concession. However, if you refuse to acknowledge that Axiom, and also Theorem 3.2.2 which proves that X cannot conform to Axiom 4.2.6, then I must point out that X is not in necessarily in R at all, in either representation.

>X is a subset of R
this is wrong

>>12321684
It will help me if you do that and I encourage you to do it.

>>12321689
if [math]A,B[/math] are not in [math]\mathbb{R}[/math], then they don't bound a subset of [math]\mathbb{R}[/math].

>>12321694
they do bound it. are you blind and retarded, or are just pretending you didn't look at my picture?

>>12321700
A,B don't bound any subset of R. the orthogonal projections of A,B onto R bound a subset. not A,B.

>>12321700
maybe even lightly better: the subset of R in your picture is bounded by the orthogonal projections of the points A,B. not by the points A,B themselves.

>>12321706
you're looking at it wrong

>>12321723
so the projection is not orthogonal and depends on who's looking. doesn't change anything.
A,B don't bound any subset of R. the subset of R in your picture is bounded by certain projections of A,B onto R. not by A,B themselves.

Honestly I love Tooker. /sci/ would be nothing without him, I mea his posts on other boards are pretty sub par but in 20 years from now when he's famous any make a movie about him I'll let my future kids this
>I used to post on a chinese textile counting forum with that nigger.
and they will say BASED

>>12321727
A,B do bound it. B uniquely specifies one end of the line segment and A uniquely specified the other end. This means that A,B bound the line segment. What you mean, since you are a retard, is that A and B are not bounds, with "bounds" being a noun. Def 2.3.2 requires that A and B bound something, where "to bound" is a verb. Bounding is what A and B do. Bounding is different than being a bound. BTFO!

>>12321731
That movie will be a cartoon because cameras are going to be illegal.

>but but butt
>i can't tell the difference between a noun and a verb
>grammer is to compicat

>>12321740
lol okay. this doesn't change anything.
[math]0,S \in \mathbb{R}[/math]. they bound the subset [math][0,S][/math]. [math]0S[/math] is a line segment.

>>12321752
numbers aren't points

>>12321794
[math]x \in \mathbb{R} \implies x[/math] is a point on the number line [math]\mathbb{R}[/math]

>>12321829
By which article do you arrive at that conclusion, shitcunt?

>>12321834
this one >>12321276

>>12321834
also clearly
[math](-\infty,\infty) = (-\infty,0]\cup (0,\infty)[/math] and
[math](-\infty,\infty) = (-\infty,0)\cup \{0\} \cup (0,\infty)[/math]
so [math]0[/math] is a number and a point at the same time even by preliminary understanding

>>12309385
>As the author of that theorem, I am telling you that you that it does not give L.
Uh oh, poor Tooky's "proof' is dead. Here comes the schizo tantrum.

>>12321841
There's no article cited there.

>>12321843
You have failed to cite an article to justify your wrong claim because it is not justified by any article in the paper.

>>12321844
Your relatives aren't going to like what they get for being related to you!

>>12321848
I have asked you whether "point on a line" means something different than simply an element of the line as a set, here >>12321251. you've agreed here >>12321276

>>12321848
>>12321855
by the way, the response >>12321276 contradicts the fact that endpoints need not be elements of the line as you've tried to demonstrate here >>12321689
I'm getting the impression that you haven't thought this through

>>12321855
You have not cited an article supporting your claim that numbers are points.

>>12322037
that's why I literally asked you: is a point on a line anything different than simply an element of the line?

>>12322067
That's why I literally answered you and literally explained the problem in your stupid reasoning several times, such as here: >>12321650
>X∈"Cursive L" can have more than just one number in it though, shitcunt. That's theorem 3.3.2.
Can you get it through your retarded head?

>>12322112
if you agree that point on a line is simply an element of that line, how is it possible that [math]0 \in \mathbb{R}[/math] is not a point on the line [math]\mathbb{R}[/math]? it's an element of it.

>>12322126
It possible due to the fine nuance which you refuse to acknowledge no matter how many times I explain it to you.

>>12322138
the fine nuance is that sometimes you write in uppercase and sometimes in lowercase, lol
so now lines can contain elements which aren't points on that line. is this reasonable?

>>12322160
It's your insistence that the points are numbers which is unreasonable, shitcunt.

>>12322172
well, you have yet to explain how come 0 is not a point on R if it's an element of R

>>12322195
The algebraic elements of R are called cuts.

>>12322201
I know. So how come 0 is not a point? By preliminary understanding 0 is both a cut and a point

>>12322172
how does A or B bound a subset of R w/o being numbers

Is everyone in academia like this dickhead?

>>12322216
ok looking thru the thread i understand. so you are saying the set of points are subjectively related to R? whats the point of this idgi. also why cant a number be a point

>>12322212
>So how come 0 is not a point?
Semantics.

>>12322216
like this: >>12321740

>>12322241
>so you are saying the set of points are subjectively related to R?
Seems like if i said that you'd be able to copy paste my exact words.

>why cant a number be a point
It's because what Shitcunt, or you, insists on calling a point is what I have called a "geometric point" which has some specific properties that make it not equal to any real number. His, or your, entire ruse is nothing but an attempt to invoke semantic ambiguity between the general idea of what a point is and the very specific treatment I have given to "geometric points" in the paper. He is, or you are, completely retarded and the attempt to confuse "x" with "X" disgusts me.

>>12322286
>the attempt to confuse "x" with "X" disgusts me.
youre the one taking the same thing, then giving it 2 different names and then using the fact that there are 2 names to claim theyre different you fucking moron
you literally dont have any definition that agrees with you, since you always say "no thats not what the definition means, since i change its definition later in the paper" you arent fucking consistent, thats why you think something isnt equal to itself you pathetic waste of space

>>12322286
you never properly define number or point (or geometric point). literally the only distinction that you make is that points are in uppercase and numbers are in lowercase plus some axioms which says points are not numbers.

>>12322286
also I have a very interesting question. does [math]\mathbb{R_0}[/math] contain some geometric points, or numbers only?

Damn tooky is mad lol

>>12322471
>youre the one taking the same thing
You are wrong. I have taken two separate things and you insist on being stupid and writing stupid things.

>>12322771
>you never properly define number or point (or geometric point).
Euclid already defined the Euclidean notation. That's why i call it "Eculidean." See Reference [1].

>>12322790
Only numbers.

>>12323026
can you give an example of an element of [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] which is not a number, but a point?

>>12323050
no

>>12323067
can you give an actual example of a real line segment?

>>12323099
Let A be a geometric point such that 0 is the least number in its algebraic representation and let B be a geometric point such that 1 is the greatest number in its algebraic representation. Then the line segment AB is a real line segment.

>>12323142
how do you know that the points A,B with these properties exist?

>>12323175
I suppose the a line segment AB exists. The existence of "a line segment" is granted by Euclid, Hilbert, and many of my predecessors. Then I define an algebraic chart on AB such that 0 is the least real number in the algebraic representation of A and 1 is the greatest number in the algebraic representation of B.

Alternatively, the unit real interval is known to exist. By Euclid, we know that all intervals can be bounded by two points. Call these two points A and B.

There's two proofs that points with the given properties exist.

>>12323221
>Euclid, Hilbert, and many of my predecessors
>my predecessors

None of these mathematicians would consider you a follower of their tradition. Your predecessors are the schizos and nuts of the past.

>>12323903
So you claim to know the mind of people who died long before you were born, even thousands of years before you were born, and you think I'm the one following in the footsteps of psychotic delusion?

>>12324420
>>12324420
>>12324420


here are a bunch of (you)s tooky, hope this is the payoff you wanted for all your hard work.

>>12324420
I know them more than you at least. I actually studied mathematics and know about it. Tooker, I will tell you this again. You claim that with your methods you have found the existence of solutions to the Zeta function in the critical strip but outside the critical line. Beyond that, you also claim that your methods can yield information about the distribution of primes.

If you want your recognition then do this:
>Build on your proof of existence and find methods to approximate those solutions. Then you can give those as simple proof that your paper is correct.
>Actually yield significant new theorems about the distribution of primes. If you are able to prove some interesting inequality then this would also give you a lot of credibility.

Tooker, if you are right, then you are so close. So close to the money.

>>12326550
>So close to the money.
Money will be bring me little consolation as long as my enemies' children live.

>>12326598
Tooky you talk a lot of shit for someone threatening the rightful King of Britannia.

>>12328116
That right is mine, and many other rights as well.

>>12328234
All you've shown here is you have a slight resemblance to a dumb polak. You won't be able to challenge me at this rate.

>>12328657
What about your children and your servants and their children though?