Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

[doronshadmi]

I have no idea what you mean. It handles, for example, infinite series quite well.

You indeed have no idea, exactly because

...determining the limit of the sequence of partial sums does not involve infinity at any step.

Some example: determining the limit of (0.9₁₀, 0.99₁₀, 0.999₁₀, ...) actually prevents the understanding that the sum over |N| terms in (0.9₁₀, 0.09₁₀, 0.009₁₀, ...) < 1 without 0.000...1₁₀ (which is rigorously explained in terms of the relativity between different transfinite cardinals in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10621388&postcount=347).

 

[zooterkin]

0.333... < 1/3 x

 

[Little 10 Toes]

0.333... < 1/3 x, so your example does not work.

Please provide proof that .333333... < 1/3.

Please answer the first request as well.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

The validity of notions is independent of the amount of those who understand them.

That was not the request. Please try again.

 

[doronshadmi]

Please provide proof that .333333... < 1/3.

Already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10625610&postcount=379.

 

[doronshadmi]

Please show someone else's work that mentions "levels" in the place value method.

Why do you think that is important?

Again, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10623772&postcount=363 is very simple and can be understood by any one.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10625610&postcount=379.

No it doesn't. That post does not show anything about 1/3 or 0.333...

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Why do you think that is important?

Again, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10623772&postcount=363 is very simple and can be understood by any one.

It's important because you like to make your own definitions of existing words. In addition, your post does not make it clear. I can say that 1 is on a higher level than 10 because it's closer to 0.

9 is a higher level than 8 because 8 < 9.

Please define doron-limit.

 

[doronshadmi]

No it doesn't. That post does not show anything about 1/3 or 0.333...

That post uses a definition that gets rid of the failure of the standard definition that according to it 0 < |a_n - L| AND (0.999...₁₀ = 1 OR 0.333...₁₀ = 1/3).

The needed details are provided in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10622312&postcount=358.

 

[doronshadmi]

I can say that 1 is on a higher level than 10 because it's closer to 0.

My post is vary clear because it uses only absolute values of the place value method, such that 0 is the lowest level that does not contribute anything to a given sum.

Please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10621469&postcount=348.

 

[jsfisher]

My post is vary clear because it uses only absolute values of the place value method, such that 0 is the lowest level that does not contribute anything to a given sum.

Some typographic errors are more amusing than others.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

That post uses a definition that gets rid of the failure of the standard definition that according to it 0 < |a_n - L| AND (0.999...₁₀ = 1 OR 0.333...₁₀ = 1/3).

The needed details are provided in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10622312&postcount=358.

A post that refers to other posts. Typical. Are you denying that 1/3 = .333... ?

Please tell me what is the result of:
____
3)1.0


Show your work.

Edit : Sorry, I don't know how to show the long division sign. I'm trying to figure it out in LaTeX.
Edit2: It seems I can't see LaTeX.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

My post is vary clear because it uses only absolute values of the place value method, such that 0 is the lowest level that does not contribute anything to a given sum.

Please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10621469&postcount=348.

"It uses only absolute values of the place value method, such that 0 is the lowest level that does not contribute anything to a given sum."

That still does not make any sense. What sum? You still have not defined doron-level. Please try to define it. Don't give examples.

 

[doronshadmi]

Some typographic errors are more amusing than others.

I ma glad that you are amused.

After that, all you need is to open your mind to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10625610&postcount=379.

 

[doronshadmi]

Please try to define it.

Please try to understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10623772&postcount=363 by keeping in mind that 0 is the smallest sum.

 

[jsfisher]

Yeah, Little 10 Toes, it is all your fault for not understanding doronshadmi's gibberish...just like everyone else.

 

[doronshadmi]

Yeah, Little 10 Toes, it is all your fault for not understanding doronshadmi's gibberish...just like everyone else.

Yeah, jsfisher, now you ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10625610&postcount=379.

 

[jsfisher]

Yeah, jsfisher, now you ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10625610&postcount=379.

It was not ignored. It was discounted. You posting disjoint thoughts with no logical connection among them does not obligate anyone else to respond to your individual posts.

Why not simply tell us what you'd like your own private definition for limit (we'll call it 'doron-limit') to be? Surely at some point in your life-long quest to overturn Mathematics you will be able to define something. Why not this for a start?

 

[Little 10 Toes]

A post that refers to other posts. Typical. Are you denying that 1/3 = .333... ?

Please tell me what is the result of:
____
3)1.0


Show your work.

Edit : Sorry, I don't know how to show the long division sign. I'm trying to figure it out in LaTeX.
Edit2: It seems I can't see LaTeX.

"It uses only absolute values of the place value method, such that 0 is the lowest level that does not contribute anything to a given sum."

That still does not make any sense. What sum? You still have not defined doron-level. Please try to define it. Don't give examples.

Please try to understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10623772&postcount=363 by keeping in mind that 0 is the smallest sum.

So, by the following two posts and the lack of response to my questions, it appears that you don't know how to do long division, and cannot or will not define "doron-level" (meaning they way that you use the word limit). And why do we care about why you think that 0 is the smallest sum? You still believe that 0.00...1 is still a number.

 

[doronshadmi]

You posting disjoint thoughts with no logical connection among them

Please support your argument in details, according to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10625610&postcount=379 content.