Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #167279 > unrolled thread

Modern Pythagorean

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  Modern Pythagorean wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-08-28 21:53 -0700
    Re: Modern Pythagorean Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-29 02:18 -0700
      Re: Modern Pythagorean Jan van den Broek <balglaas@dds.nl> - 2022-08-29 10:15 +0000
        Re: Modern Pythagorean gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2022-08-29 13:15 +0000
          Re: Modern Pythagorean Jan van den Broek <balglaas@dds.nl> - 2022-08-29 13:37 +0000
            Re: Modern Pythagorean gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2022-08-29 16:23 +0000
        Re: Modern Pythagorean Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2022-08-29 17:30 +0100
          Re: Modern Pythagorean Jan van den Broek <balglaas@dds.nl> - 2022-08-29 17:56 +0000
        Re: Modern Pythagorean Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-29 11:15 -0700
          Re: Modern Pythagorean Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2022-08-30 00:33 +0300
          Re: Modern Pythagorean Jan van den Broek <balglaas@dds.nl> - 2022-08-30 06:37 +0000
      Re: Modern Pythagorean wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-08-31 00:48 -0700

#167279 — Modern Pythagorean

Pythagorean: Any number can be infinitely approached by ratio p/q. There is
no REAL number (e.g. the diagonal of a square) that cannot be approached by
ratio number.

The limit theory perfectly says THE LIMIT of lim(x->c) f(x) is L, and
jumps to (logically invalid) conclusion f(c)=L (EQUAL).
lim(x->1) x= 1 ... yes x can be 1
lim(x->1) 1/(x-1)=? ... no x cannot be 1
lim(x->∞) n/x=0 ... whatever, the magic of infinity emerges. (no x in
ℝ can make 1/x=2/x=0, ∞ is also said not in ℝ)

PS. I believe TM (program,algorithm) should/would be the foundation of math.
These are for programmers.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#167290

wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> writes:
> Pythagorean: Any number can be infinitely approached by ratio p/q. There is
> no REAL number (e.g. the diagonal of a square) that cannot be approached by
> ratio number.
>
> The limit theory perfectly says THE LIMIT of lim(x->c) f(x) is L, and
> jumps to (logically invalid) conclusion f(c)=L (EQUAL).
> lim(x->1) x= 1 ... yes x can be 1
> lim(x->1) 1/(x-1)=? ... no x cannot be 1
> lim(x->∞) n/x=0 ... whatever, the magic of infinity emerges. (no x in
> ℝ can make 1/x=2/x=0, ∞ is also said not in ℝ)
>
> PS. I believe TM (program,algorithm) should/would be the foundation of math.
> These are for programmers.

I encourage anyone who wants to discuss this to do so in comp.theory,
where wij also posted.  (Note the complete lack of any content relevant
to C.)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167292

2022-08-29, Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> schrieb:

[Schnipp]

> I encourage anyone who wants to discuss this to do so in comp.theory,
> where wij also posted. 

I know Google hates Usenet, but is not possible to crosspost, instead
of multiposting, from the Google-interface?

-- 
Jan v/d Broek
balglaas@dds.nl

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167295

In article <tei3k9$1lpn$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
Jan van den Broek  <balglaas@dds.nl> wrote:
>2022-08-29, Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> schrieb:
>
>[Schnipp]
>
>> I encourage anyone who wants to discuss this to do so in comp.theory,
>> where wij also posted. 
>
>I know Google hates Usenet, but is not possible to crosspost, instead
>of multiposting, from the Google-interface?

Does this mean that we (and by "we", I don't mean me, but rather the
general run of NetCops) should stop harping on people who multi-post (if
they are posting from GG) ?

-- 
Elect a clown, expect a circus.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167296

2022-08-29, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> schrieb:
> In article <tei3k9$1lpn$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
> Jan van den Broek  <balglaas@dds.nl> wrote:
>>2022-08-29, Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>
>>[Schnipp]
>>
>>> I encourage anyone who wants to discuss this to do so in comp.theory,
>>> where wij also posted. 
>>
>>I know Google hates Usenet, but is not possible to crosspost, instead
>>of multiposting, from the Google-interface?

I see I forgot an "it", I meant "is it not possible".

> Does this mean that we (and by "we", I don't mean me, but rather the
> general run of NetCops) should stop harping on people who multi-post (if
> they are posting from GG) ?

No, discouraging them to use GG would be a better idea.

-- 
Jan v/d Broek
balglaas@dds.nl

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167301

In article <teife4$1898$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
Jan van den Broek  <balglaas@dds.nl> wrote:
>2022-08-29, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> schrieb:
>> In article <tei3k9$1lpn$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
>> Jan van den Broek  <balglaas@dds.nl> wrote:
>>>2022-08-29, Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>>
>>>[Schnipp]
>>>
>>>> I encourage anyone who wants to discuss this to do so in comp.theory,
>>>> where wij also posted. 
>>>
>>>I know Google hates Usenet, but is not possible to crosspost, instead
>>>of multiposting, from the Google-interface?
>
>I see I forgot an "it", I meant "is it not possible".

ITYM, "it is".

>> Does this mean that we (and by "we", I don't mean me, but rather the
>> general run of NetCops) should stop harping on people who multi-post (if
>> they are posting from GG) ?
>
>No, discouraging them to use GG would be a better idea.

I think that would be like "encouraging" poor people not to be poor.

-- 
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long.  As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs.  In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
	http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/Snicker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167302

On 29/08/2022 11:15, Jan van den Broek wrote:
> 2022-08-29, Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> schrieb:
>
> [Schnipp]
>
>> I encourage anyone who wants to discuss this to do so in comp.theory,
>> where wij also posted.
> I know Google hates Usenet, but is not possible to crosspost, instead
> of multiposting, from the Google-interface?
>

Nobody told you to cross-post anything. All you were asked is to discuss 
this crap on comp.theory.

There's a gang operating here to destroy this and c++ newsgroups so it 
is better not to respond to them and in-fact, kill-file them so that you 
don't respond to their posts by mistake.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167303

2022-08-29, Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> schrieb:
> On 29/08/2022 11:15, Jan van den Broek wrote:
>> 2022-08-29, Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>
>> [Schnipp]
>>
>>> I encourage anyone who wants to discuss this to do so in comp.theory,
>>> where wij also posted.
>> I know Google hates Usenet, but is not possible to crosspost, instead
>> of multiposting, from the Google-interface?
>>
>
> Nobody told you to cross-post anything. All you were asked is to discuss 
> this crap on comp.theory.

I'm not discussing anything. 
I'm seeing a lot of multiposting originating from Google Groups. Keiths
posting made me wonder if this was due to Googles stupidity, not the
posters. 
That's all (call it topic-drift).

[Schnipp]
-- 
Jan v/d Broek
balglaas@dds.nl

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167306

Jan van den Broek <balglaas@dds.nl> writes:
> 2022-08-29, Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> schrieb:
>
> [Schnipp]
>
>> I encourage anyone who wants to discuss this to do so in comp.theory,
>> where wij also posted. 
>
> I know Google hates Usenet, but is not possible to crosspost, instead
> of multiposting, from the Google-interface?

I believe Google Groups does allow cross-posting, but that's not
particularly relevant for an article that has nothing at all to do
with C.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167309

Keith Thompson:

> I believe Google Groups does allow cross-posting, but
> that's not particularly relevant for an article that has
> nothing at all to do with C.

No, GG's inability to cross-post is notorious. The only
obvious fault of GG posters is that they use GG at all:

   http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

I am worried by the general tendency of software to become
increasingly more accessible to clueless and lazy people
unwilling to learn anything new and incapable of disciplined
study. On the other side, developers of commercial software,
in search of wider audiences, are interested in makng their
products more and more stupid. Lamer-oriented is the new
user-friendly.

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167322

2022-08-29, Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> schrieb:
> Jan van den Broek <balglaas@dds.nl> writes:

[Schnipp]

>> I know Google hates Usenet, but is not possible to crosspost, instead
>> of multiposting, from the Google-interface?
>
> I believe Google Groups does allow cross-posting, but that's not
> particularly relevant for an article that has nothing at all to do
> with C.

I do agree regarding the relevance. It was more that my curiosity 
was triggered about the multi-/crosspostingpossibilities.

-- 
Jan v/d Broek
balglaas@dds.nl

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167358

On Monday, 29 August 2022 at 17:18:18 UTC+8, Keith Thompson wrote:
> wij <wyni...@gmail.com> writes: 
> > Pythagorean: Any number can be infinitely approached by ratio p/q. There is 
> > no REAL number (e.g. the diagonal of a square) that cannot be approached by 
> > ratio number. 
> > 
> > The limit theory perfectly says THE LIMIT of lim(x->c) f(x) is L, and 
> > jumps to (logically invalid) conclusion f(c)=L (EQUAL). 
> > lim(x->1) x= 1 ... yes x can be 1 
> > lim(x->1) 1/(x-1)=? ... no x cannot be 1 
> > lim(x->∞) n/x=0 ... whatever, the magic of infinity emerges. (no x in 
> > ℝ can make 1/x=2/x=0, ∞ is also said not in ℝ) 
> > 
> > PS. I believe TM (program,algorithm) should/would be the foundation of math. 
> > These are for programmers.
> I encourage anyone who wants to discuss this to do so in comp.theory, 
> where wij also posted. (Note the complete lack of any content relevant 
> to C.) 
> 
> -- 
> Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.T...@gmail.com 
> Working, but not speaking, for Philips 
> void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

The post may not be exactly in C. The point is that such knowledge affect the way you
 make 'standard', e.g. INFINITY.

If one cannot take advantages from such posts (I posted it like news, or porn ads,
penis-enhanecement, something better like that), leave it for people to decide.

Take olcott's post for another example, everybody responds to him gains something.
All depends on your response, not the post.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web