Recent content by Phil Scott

It's generally good advice on this forum, I think. This banter has been amusing, but I really do need to stop wasting my time.

Yes. Because you're not doing maths, and have no intention of doing any maths. Take this to the appropriate forum. IOW, GTFO. Fuck off. Nope. For starters, I haven't the foggiest clue what this means. I don't see any transformation. I see an informal idea of recurring decimals that is...

What are my true beliefs and my religion? You realise I lean towards this position, right? You recall me linking that paper by David Hilbert on finitism? You remember how I agreed with you that the negative integers start at -1?

Squawonderful! The power of formal logic. As Hilbert pointed out, the logic works just as well if you say "beer mugs", "tables" and "chairs" instead of "points", "lines" and "planes." That's how you do rigour, and how you do modern mathematics. You, an incompetent wibbler, on the other hand...

So what? I only care about the squequals anyway. Something that's good for squequalling. Or "squequivalent", if you prefer. I find it squilicious. Fine. I don't care about what notations mean. From here on, I only care about what notations squean. We all happy now?

Or for another strategy: what would make you happy? Do you want us to stop saying 0.999... equals 1.000...? Fine. I'll do that. Instead, how about I say this: 0.999... squeequals 1.000.... I'll agree to do all my calculus by squeequaling things instead of saying they're equals. Because sure, I...

I've examined it, formalised it, assigned it to an equivalence class along with all other decimals, forming a complete ordered field, and with 0.999... in the same class as 1.000.... That's a damn sight more than you've ever done. And if we don't disregard some supposed differences, what maths...

Look at what? Have you got any new maths to show us? Have you got a new foundation for calculus? Have you got anything apart from some whining about stuff about which you clearly have zero formal education? No. Then please, again, fuck off.

I don't really care what you think of it. Reduction to set theory has been the definition of mathematical rigour for the last century, and it's what mathematicians care about still today. Bourbaki stated it exactly, and independence results in set theory have been sufficient to get...

Where the hell did you get that definition from? "Formalise" means to render it in the rigorous language of set theory so that it can be used as part of rigorous proofs. At the most extreme, "formalise" means to render something into a symbolic form where it can be parsed and processed by a...

As I said in the other thread, the way you formalise an infinite decimal is the same way you formalise any infinite enumeration or ending list: you talk about a function whose domain is the naturals. In the case of decimals, the codomain is the integers between 0 and 9, and the value of the...

Everything I've said in this thread can be found in the maths textbooks, so these ideas are hardly my "idiosyncrasies". I guess you don't know what that word means. You don't know maths or basic English. Ah well.

Don't blame you. I wrote a few Arch definitions for personal use but hated the experience and generally don't like the philosophy behind most package managers. But you must know the open source retort whenever you have a problem: why haven't you fixed it? If Arch has packages missing that you...

Which isn't sufficient. Maths is a technical subject and at this level needs more that an English language qualification and experience with a calculator. If you want to play this game, you have to learn the correct maths terms, grok their usage and imbibe formal definitions. I have provided...

You realise you're supposed to play Solitaire on your own, right? Whenever you're done talking your own private language, let us know. Until then, GTFO.