1 is 0.99(9) Administrative Thread.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tach

Banned
Banned
Like you said, mate, if the string never determines to a finite value, you are left with some 'limits' loophole for saying anything at all about the 'end' of such an infinite string. Yes?

And if you agree that ZERO is an 'infinitesimal and not 'nothing', then adding a last zero is merely reflecting whatever VALUE that last effective 'step' to resolution has in reality which transitions the string from unreal/unending abstraction to a real/determinable concrete value that brings it back from 'infinity' unknown state. Hence the valid hypothesis that 'nothing' does NOT exist in reality energy-space.

Zero as 'nothing' only exists as an abstraction of 'placeholder' in numeric system.....OR as a real BALANCE/TRANSITION/SUPERPOSITION state/location in REAL energy-space terms between one direction/system of dynamical phenomena sets and another.

Hence the hypothesis/axiom that '0' is an infinitesimal NON-nothing 'real value/point'.....and NOT '0' as currently treated axiomatically as the NOTHING which leads to all the undetermined/undefined etc absurdities and excuses. :)

More word salad from the master chef of word salads. Look, this is basic calculus, you either know it or you don't, your pretending that you know doesn't pass the mustard. Let the ones that have made the effort to learn these subjects discuss, you definitely never learned math and it shows.
 
Much shorter Undefined: I did not actually read Monimonika's posts and just replied to them because I imagined they had something to do with whatever word salad I am making at this time. Hopefully my extra-wordiness will miraculously make me look intelligent. Thank you, [insert various names here]! :)

Brave words; from someone who obviously doesn't bother to read the other person's pertinent posts and full context to avoid cross-purpose exchanges like these. :)


Keep calm. I already explained where I was coming from and my perspective on the essential matters. I don't want to digress further into irrelevant 'notation' format issues that are NOT the fundamental actions in all the string/number operations/behaviors. Thanks. Good luck with your other discussions with MD, Dinosaur or whomever! :)
 
Hi undefined:),

Your stance on the number zero seems to show that you have no math education and are a complete fool. Each post on the subject that you write seems to show a deeper level of ignorance than your previous post. I keep thinking that it could not get any more absurd but you keep surprising me, mate.;)

Hope you don't take this wrong!! No hard feelings just pointing out how much of a complete moron you look like by continuing to discuss zero. Keep having fun and don't worring that you are showing everyone how little you know.

No hard feelings this end. :) Cheers.
 
Hi undefined:),

Your stance on the number zero seems to show that you have no math education and are a complete fool. Each post on the subject that you write seems to show a deeper level of ignorance than your previous post. I keep thinking that it could not get any more absurd but you keep surprising me, mate.;)

Hope you don't take this wrong!! No hard feelings just pointing out how much of a complete moron you look like by continuing to discuss zero. Keep having fun and don't worring that you are showing everyone how little you know.

No hard feelings this end. :) Cheers.

You're lucky I have an Aussie type sense of humor, mate! I see the intent of jocular parody. Good one! (sincere :) )

On a serious note, origin, for someone like yourself, who often and clearly admitted to NOT reading others' posts fairly (if at all), you should be the last person whose opinion (on anything posted by me and others' on the question/nature of the '0' as infinitesimal, non-nothing etc) anyone with a serious approach to advance of status quo would accept....except AS a joke opinion.

Fair nuff, mate? The joke will be on you if you don't watch out, mate! (sincerely, :) ) ...and, of course, sincerely, no hard feelings at this end, fellow sciforums member!.

PS: Good luck in your 'static world' where maths and physics seem to be a 'frozen status quo' in your mind already. Maybe you should remind yourself that neither are yet complete and consistent in every way. Hence you might read/think more closely on what new perspectives/suggestions are actually being discussed/offered before you kneejerk and joke from a self-satisfied and preconclusionary state of mind/knowledge base (which latter is changing even as we speak; and will leave you behind if you don't take discussion in science and maths more seriously, and more diligently look out for what novel gems can be found amongst the internet dross). (sincere :) )
 
Last edited:
Lol. :)

In your joke allusions you have unwittingly alluded to a '0' state of real balanced state of all possible forces effecting a null line along which there is no net displacement normal to that line.

Nah, I was just serving one of your standard word salads. Funny thing, you don't even realize I was mocking you. Mate. (sincere :) ).
 
Nah, I was just serving one of your standard word salads. Funny thing, you don't even realize I was mocking you. Mate. (sincere :) ).

Can't you read, Tach? I specifically stated that I saw your post as jocular allusions. Don't you know what "jocular" means?

How desperate are you, to evade the maths/physics issues/points being made/discussed, that you will keep making such empty/insulting posts based on your own strawmen?

You have been reported.
 
It wasn't an allusion, I was just mocking your pretentious word salads. Mate. Sincere . :)



Riiiiight.

I acknowledged your joke (parody; just like the one I acknowledged from origin).

Your allusions were to Hamiltonian etc. as part of your joke/parody. Hence "jocular allusions".

Tach, if that is your best 'scientific' discussion/rebuttal comprehension/participation level, then what are you even doing here except TROLLING and baiting and insulting etc? Do better with your talents (whatever they are). :)

And yes, I note your "Riiiight!" ploy. It is a baiting ploy aimed at making it difficult for me to disengage while you keep TROLLING me and I have to defend against it by coming back and calling you out on your TROLLS.

That post is also being reported. Good luck, Tach.
 
I acknowledged your joke (parody; just like the one I acknowledged from origin).

Your allusions were to Hamiltonian etc. as part of your joke/parody. Hence "jocular allusions".

I thought that you were going into "read-only" mode, riiiight. Mate. Sincere :)
 
I thought that you were going into "read-only" mode, riiiight. Mate. Sincere :)

Why do you troll? Is that your compulsion?

My read-only state starts when I have fully disengaged. Because of your trolls, Tach, I have not fully disengaged yet. That is your obvious motivation for your trolling and empty posts. Do better with your "MS in Applied Mathematics", Tach. Bring honor, not dishonor to the institution which gave it to you.
 
Why do you troll? Is that your compulsion?

No , trolling and serving word salads with spam is your specialty . Mate. Sincerely.:)

My read-only state starts when I have fully disengaged. Because of your trolls, Tach, I have not fully disengaged yet.

But, you see, people are getting tired of your word salads, so why don't you take a break from serving them? Though this is "Alternative Theories", enough is enough.
Do better with your "MS in Applied Mathematics", Tach. Bring honor, not dishonor to the institution which gave it to you.

Well, I went to school , I studied and I graduated with an advanced degree. The same cannot be said about you.
 
Gotta go. Really! Cheers until we speak again, arfa, everyone! Thanks again for all the interesting contributions to the discourse, arfa, everyone! :)

Thank you for providing a comically inane position on something as mundane as the exsistence of zero.:D
 
Thank you for providing a comically inane position on something as mundane as the exsistence of zero.:D

So, the "cheap shot" at someone who had logged out was irresistible to you, troll. Typical.

If you had really read any of it, your opinions would be a lot better taken at face value. Since you haven't bothered to read/understand fairly/properly, then your post is just another demonstration of the non-scientific attitude you bring to the forum discussions where serious/subtle matters are involved. You and Tach seem determined to devalue both the forum and yourselves by this trolling and non-reading-in-context dismissive attitude. Good luck with that. :)
 
Nope, "to the right" is correct. Your guess is wrong.

Just what IS the matter with you?

You can't even resist injecting your VENOMOUS animus into an innocent exchange between me and arfa, even when I was just asking for HIS clarification so that I could read him correctly?

Seriously, what IS the matter with you, Troll?

Your post has been reported.
 
Just what IS the matter with you?

Nothing, I am pointing out your mistakes, as usual. You guessed wrong, arfa was right, this is a basic arithmetic problem, you guessed wrong.

You can't even resist injecting your VENOMOUS animus into an innocent exchange between me and arfa, even when I was just asking for HIS clarification so that I could read him correctly?

There is no venom, just a correction, <shrug>. Sincerely :)


Your post has been reported.

You mean, me correcting your mistake, mate?:)
 
Nothing, I am pointing out your mistakes, as usual. You guessed wrong, arfa was right, this is a basic arithmetic problem.



There is no venom, just a correction, <shrug>. Sincerely :)




You mean, me correcting your mistake, mate?:)

What "correction" is there needed by YOU, when arfa can speak for himself on the request for clarification pure and simple?

Your compulsion seems to have gone rampant again, Troll; such that you can't even resist bringing your fatuous/"corrections" into something that is not a subject for "correction" but clarification FROM arfa brane (and not you, the patently compulsive and MALIGNANT troll here).

Again, your post has been reported, Troll.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top