[eqn]0 \in \mathbb{N}[/eqn]
>>7945161
One sided approximation in a given limit
>>7945161
but 0 is a natural number and [math]\mathbb{Z}^+[/math] is {1,2,3,...}
>>7945192
>but 0 is a natural number
0 is neither positive or negative mate, elaborate.
>>7945161
0.999... does not equal 1.
>>7945213
Only because people never work with symbolic infinity. symbol/symbol = 1. That's equating to never(x) which is about time. Math will teach you the symbol, science will approximate, but more importantly tell you the significance of such methods.
>>7945213
x/x is directly proportional to any identity. We're talking about ==. Not =.
>>7945232
You judge too fast.
>>7945161
I know the guy in that pic.
>>7945225
>symbol/symbol = 1.
except that has indeterminate form in any rigorous framework.
>>7945244
>muh rigour
>>7945249
did you not take calculus yet? i thought high school covers most of it.
>>7945244
I think I'm better at language then math. So for example, 1 Timothy 3:16 : "... he was manifested..."
Was implies pro past tense. Manifested is past tense. So to define that moment we take (not manifest) approximated to the limit of manifested in units of seconds. Then approximated that to the limit of was, which makes a past date. So ((not manifestation) = (was manifested)) = (was (not manifested)). x->was manifested = L. from x-> not manifestation or/and x-> was not manifested.
Am I making sense? This is my intuition; in contrast maybe you can direct me to some learning more about rigorous frameworks.
>>7945252
what's dee over dicks?
>>7945278
form is not binary but is binary via the OvR method. Either you are conscious and form exists, or you are unconscious and form exists. Form is static to emptyness.
>>7945194
this
>>7945278
Greek has a fourth tense (a state of timelessness/permanent being) and bible translations are always gonna be insufficient because of it.
>>7945161
Natural numbers should be the cardinalities of finite sets. The lengths of finite lists. That's a much more natural and useful set than the positive integers.
>>7945336
Pretty reasonable, anon.
I'm more of an algebraist so I like to include 0 to have a monoid.
>>7945336
>much more natural and useful
Agreed.
>>7945278
>I think I'm better at language then math.
>Then approximated that to the limit of was, which makes a past date.
>>7945453
>your post
What does it mean?
>>7945471
It means something.
>>7945278
10/10
>>7945517
the same thing lalala I'm not listening, only memeing
>>7945566
nice dubs
>>7945242
im gonna assume multiple people from this site know ills.
Sin^-1(x) = arcsin(x)
>>7945708
>using plaintext over [math]\LaTeX[/math]
>>7945713
>fedora greentexting
Can someone explain this "infinity= -1/12" bullshit already
>>7945955
You mean the divergent series? [eqn]1 + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{3} + \frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{5} + \frac{1}{6} + . . . = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n}[/eqn]
>>7945955
it's pretty much the intercept of the parabola of the asymptote of (n^2 + 1)/2
ramanujan also wrote a cute proof or at least provided another intuition for it
>>7945964
How would that summation become negative? Wouldn't you get to a point where you're adding zero?
>>7945979
Because the series doesn't converge.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/qg-winter2004/zeta.pdf
>>7945964
Wrong series m8. That's the harmonic series.
>>7946305
I know it's the harmonic series but it's still divergent.
