Probably statements like "The LIMIT doesn't give a shit about infinity." by bird brain John Gabriel show somehow that he still doesn't understand
the definition of a limit of a sequence, of course does it need infinity, in the sense that it is a statement that involves the natural numbers
Such statements pretty much show the mathematical immaturity of JG. Further I guess this "Newsflash: Division is a finite process.
It does not carry on forever." probably hints to AP brain fartos infinity border?
Hey bird brain John Gabriel, they need you in the choose cake factory, they want you to make some pi.
j4n bur53 schrieb: > A lot of text understanding has to do with things > like "A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957), > Leon Festinger". Reading is making sense into texts. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance > > And you assume that the author, you assume this > for a math author, that he doesn't give you an > anyway false list of statememts. > > The much simpler example is this: > > 3 = 3/1 > > We compare a rational number and a natural > number. Strictly speaking the above statement > is false, if we see ./. as an abbrevation > > for the usual pair construction of rational > numbers, because N and N x N are usually disjoint, > also equaivalence class from P(N x N) are disjoint > > to N x N. So implicitly we all the time move > objects from one type to another. Otherwise we > would just read non-sense. > > > Jan Burse wrote: >> would always give the truth value false. Typically >> N -> R and R are disjoint, so if we have: >> >> f : N -> R and x : R >> >> Then a statement: >> >> f = x >> >> is automatically false. >