Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.logic > #210067 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-09-04 11:41 -0400 |
| Last post | 2019-09-10 04:22 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 632 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.logic
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-04 11:41 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-04 13:35 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-05 11:09 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-05 11:33 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-05 14:54 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-05 12:12 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-06 11:09 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-06 13:14 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-06 19:00 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-07 08:36 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-07 14:01 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-07 13:57 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-07 19:43 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2019-09-08 02:59 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) jvr <jrennenkampff@googlemail.com> - 2019-09-08 05:06 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-08 08:58 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) jvr <jrennenkampff@googlemail.com> - 2019-09-09 11:45 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-09 12:29 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-08 13:46 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-09 08:06 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-09 14:24 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-09 12:26 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-09 20:37 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-10 03:37 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-10 11:09 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-10 12:57 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-10 11:55 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-10 13:08 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-10 17:33 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-11 06:16 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-11 12:07 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-11 11:35 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-11 20:05 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-12 05:45 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-13 09:41 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-13 14:15 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-14 15:29 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-15 05:11 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-16 09:55 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-16 07:34 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@invalid> - 2019-09-16 17:08 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-16 11:49 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-16 10:18 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-17 00:37 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-17 00:43 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-17 08:37 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-17 16:52 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-18 08:23 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-19 01:52 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-19 05:08 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-20 01:34 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-20 08:09 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-20 14:03 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-21 13:32 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-21 13:44 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-23 12:09 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@invalid> - 2019-09-23 21:14 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-23 12:49 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-23 13:01 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-23 15:15 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-23 12:18 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-23 12:53 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-20 23:32 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-21 13:29 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-21 13:39 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-23 12:18 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-22 17:53 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-23 12:47 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-23 21:46 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-19 05:34 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-20 02:15 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-20 07:59 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-20 23:51 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-19 14:12 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-19 12:27 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-20 14:10 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-21 12:20 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-21 19:28 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-23 12:33 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-23 22:28 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-24 07:28 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-24 17:10 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-25 09:48 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@invalid> - 2019-09-25 18:53 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Transfinite Numbers <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2019-09-25 11:08 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-27 13:33 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Transfinite Numbers <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2019-09-27 14:32 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-25 16:09 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-27 13:37 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-27 13:52 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 12:32 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 12:38 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 12:57 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 13:03 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 13:31 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 13:37 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-27 23:17 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 12:47 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 13:00 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 13:28 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 13:35 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 13:44 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 13:51 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 05:59 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 08:05 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 10:57 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 12:12 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 13:41 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Transfinite Numbers <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 14:30 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-30 09:43 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Transfinite Numbers <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 12:57 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 13:41 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-29 13:55 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 11:28 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 12:17 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 13:46 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 13:51 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 14:08 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 14:14 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-30 09:39 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-30 10:17 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-01 01:08 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-01 07:41 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-01 11:20 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-01 13:20 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-02 02:37 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-02 10:15 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-02 14:03 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-10-02 23:11 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-02 15:08 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-04 14:03 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-04 16:47 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-05 14:24 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-05 15:24 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 03:51 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-06 16:47 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 14:07 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 06:31 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Transfinite Numbers <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 06:39 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Transfinite Numbers <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 06:40 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 09:04 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 09:30 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 11:31 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-10-07 11:34 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 14:26 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-08 08:27 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-08 13:55 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-09 02:00 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-09 10:42 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 03:51 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 06:03 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 04:02 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 07:27 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-10-10 07:50 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-10-10 17:00 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-10-10 11:19 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@invalid> - 2019-10-10 20:27 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-10-10 11:33 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 08:16 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-10 13:47 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-10-10 11:15 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-10 14:47 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 04:37 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 04:13 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 10:01 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 11:57 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 12:03 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 12:15 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 12:23 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 02:30 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 09:05 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 10:10 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 11:11 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-13 02:06 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-13 10:34 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 02:48 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 08:45 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-15 03:29 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-15 08:33 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 03:56 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 07:31 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 08:17 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 09:31 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 06:02 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 08:18 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 08:53 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 09:08 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 10:08 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 10:14 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) FredJeffries <fredjeffries@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 10:22 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 10:02 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 06:17 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 08:27 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 08:53 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 09:12 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-10-17 17:36 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) FredJeffries <fredjeffries@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 12:35 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) FredJeffries <fredjeffries@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 12:44 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Transfinite Numbers <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 16:11 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) FredJeffries <fredjeffries@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 12:43 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 14:11 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 08:23 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 09:34 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Transfinite Numbers <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 11:11 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) FredJeffries <fredjeffries@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 12:23 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 12:43 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) FredJeffries <fredjeffries@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 14:56 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 02:25 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) FredJeffries <fredjeffries@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 06:32 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 04:54 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 07:30 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-10-10 16:39 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 04:32 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-09 15:39 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 01:30 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 05:04 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2019-10-10 15:52 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 07:06 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-10-10 16:30 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 08:54 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-10-10 18:07 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-10-11 16:15 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 05:22 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 04:06 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-10 12:36 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 04:32 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-11 14:22 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 11:50 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 11:56 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-09-30 03:08 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-09-30 06:56 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-30 09:45 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-30 17:10 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-30 15:57 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-09-30 21:42 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-01 23:27 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-02 08:02 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-02 13:21 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-02 21:07 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-03 11:19 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-04 23:14 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-05 14:31 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-05 09:04 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-05 09:10 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-06 14:17 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 07:43 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-06 19:30 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 11:35 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-06 19:39 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 11:45 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-06 20:12 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 12:45 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-06 19:19 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 20:20 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-07 14:50 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-10-07 12:50 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-07 17:28 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-08 00:02 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-07 20:29 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 22:05 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-08 13:13 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-10-08 10:33 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 18:51 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-10 22:13 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 19:49 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-11 11:54 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-11 13:31 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 11:19 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-11 15:59 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 19:27 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 19:47 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-12 11:08 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 10:40 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 11:02 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-12 14:34 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 11:53 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-12 15:34 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 13:19 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-12 17:45 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 15:17 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-12 22:27 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 21:20 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 21:27 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-13 15:44 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-13 15:59 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 08:37 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-14 17:09 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 09:18 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-14 17:25 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 09:33 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-10-14 09:40 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-14 12:30 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 09:34 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-14 12:48 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 09:57 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 10:13 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 10:32 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-14 13:40 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 11:24 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 11:52 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-14 17:14 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 16:03 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-14 19:41 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 17:22 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-14 20:57 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 21:11 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-15 04:00 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-15 11:38 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-15 12:39 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-15 12:53 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-15 19:04 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-15 22:54 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-15 22:40 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-16 14:40 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2019-10-16 17:46 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-16 13:28 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2019-10-16 18:54 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 11:40 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-16 17:45 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 16:15 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-16 21:14 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 18:35 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 07:58 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-17 13:15 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 10:30 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-17 15:43 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-17 16:54 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 21:00 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-18 14:03 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-18 17:57 -0700
More help, please. Ping Mike Terry, George Greene, Rupert. TIA Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-18 22:31 -0400
Re: More help, please. Ping Mike Terry, George Greene, Rupert. TIA Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-18 20:26 -0700
Re: More help, please. Ping Mike Terry, George Greene, Rupert. TIA Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-18 21:01 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-16 19:41 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-21 22:14 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-22 14:20 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-22 07:05 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-22 16:07 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-22 07:56 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-22 16:11 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-22 09:16 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-22 18:10 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-22 10:32 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-22 10:24 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-22 13:47 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-22 20:33 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-22 21:17 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-22 21:55 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-23 08:02 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-23 18:00 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-23 08:59 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-23 12:45 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-23 10:05 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-23 15:34 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-23 14:17 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-23 22:23 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-23 14:39 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-24 17:18 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-24 10:00 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-24 10:38 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-23 18:54 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-23 18:46 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-23 16:20 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-23 20:54 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-23 18:46 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-23 20:21 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-23 22:16 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-24 13:42 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-24 12:46 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-24 20:49 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-24 13:24 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-24 19:01 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-24 16:29 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-24 20:51 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-24 21:35 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-24 23:01 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-25 07:40 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-25 11:50 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-25 11:00 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-25 18:06 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-25 18:57 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-26 09:07 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-26 12:00 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-26 20:59 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-26 13:14 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-26 13:27 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-26 13:43 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-26 17:41 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-26 15:16 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-26 15:21 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-26 20:39 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-26 19:17 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-27 02:47 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-27 09:44 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-27 11:52 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-27 12:11 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-27 17:46 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-27 16:31 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-27 20:04 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-28 13:47 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-28 11:23 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-28 11:50 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-28 15:17 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-28 13:36 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-28 15:23 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-28 19:36 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-28 18:33 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-28 22:45 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-28 20:08 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-29 13:51 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-29 20:05 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-29 20:36 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-30 12:36 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-30 10:04 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-30 14:11 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-30 12:05 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-30 15:45 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-30 15:55 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-30 23:00 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-30 16:07 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-31 08:36 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-31 07:39 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-01 14:15 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-31 07:38 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-31 14:07 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-31 17:12 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-31 22:04 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-31 20:48 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-01 11:08 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-01 23:22 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-01 23:40 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-02 13:24 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 13:19 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 13:24 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 09:35 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-02 14:15 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 13:04 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 13:23 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-02 22:21 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-02 18:44 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 16:28 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-02 20:58 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 21:10 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-04 11:42 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 23:25 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 23:37 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-03 10:25 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-03 10:42 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-03 10:51 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-03 11:38 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-03 12:11 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-04 14:48 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-04 12:32 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-04 21:05 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-04 13:49 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-04 23:44 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-04 16:55 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-04 14:19 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-04 23:54 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-04 16:36 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-04 20:48 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-04 20:49 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-04 21:35 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-05 07:53 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-05 14:35 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-05 20:45 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-05 23:41 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-06 12:40 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-06 11:28 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-06 13:22 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-06 20:36 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-06 18:09 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-06 19:53 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-07 10:34 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-07 23:59 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-08 00:26 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-08 01:00 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-08 09:59 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-08 13:30 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-08 12:17 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-08 18:09 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-08 15:21 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-08 18:41 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-08 16:00 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-08 21:39 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-08 19:27 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-09 00:05 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-08 22:10 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-09 09:47 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-10 15:24 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-09 14:56 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-09 12:08 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-09 16:10 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-09 23:02 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-10 01:44 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-10 08:49 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-10 07:28 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-11-09 10:24 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-09 11:54 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-10 15:32 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-10 09:51 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-10 09:53 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-10 10:07 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-10 10:15 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-10 20:11 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-11-11 07:48 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-11-11 17:05 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-11-11 09:21 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-11-11 20:04 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-11 10:10 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-11-09 21:03 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-09 12:09 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-08 19:20 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-08 16:44 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-11-07 02:00 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-06 10:35 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-06 07:44 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-06 16:18 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-06 10:51 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-05 13:18 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-05 22:30 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-06 11:22 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-05 10:56 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-06 10:30 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-06 07:43 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-06 15:49 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-06 15:49 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-04 19:54 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-04 21:00 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-05 11:38 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-06 10:27 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-06 07:43 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-06 15:48 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-04 12:55 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-02 22:38 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 20:58 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 21:33 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-04 10:24 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-04 07:41 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-01 11:42 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-01 11:58 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-01 12:20 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 00:07 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 15:50 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-02 23:19 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 16:31 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-02 23:33 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 16:37 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 21:47 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-03 15:01 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-03 10:04 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-04 23:41 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-04 15:46 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-30 14:06 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-10-29 00:00 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-23 16:10 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-23 18:23 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-23 10:44 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-23 19:21 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-23 11:33 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-23 11:36 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-10-15 23:57 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 07:27 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-16 14:40 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 07:19 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-14 20:10 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 12:36 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-14 20:48 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 13:35 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 13:37 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 13:45 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-14 22:29 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 15:31 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-15 15:38 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-15 07:47 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-15 16:54 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-15 09:28 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-15 18:27 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-15 11:56 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-15 21:45 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-14 22:26 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-20 20:09 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-20 19:15 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-20 19:18 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-20 20:44 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-21 13:08 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-10-21 01:48 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-11 21:08 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-12 00:10 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 19:41 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 19:48 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-13 00:44 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 19:02 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-08 15:03 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-01 01:18 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Transfinite Numbers <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2019-10-01 01:20 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-01 01:31 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Transfinite Numbers <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2019-10-01 03:55 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-01 04:11 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-01 20:00 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-02 02:47 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-02 13:21 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-02 13:47 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-10-02 22:55 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-02 23:00 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-04 14:14 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-04 23:14 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-05 14:22 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-06 14:52 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-10-07 01:39 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-06 22:51 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 07:41 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-07 13:48 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 11:16 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Transfinite Numbers <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2019-09-24 14:54 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-17 14:13 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-18 08:31 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@invalid> - 2019-09-18 18:41 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-18 13:35 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@invalid> - 2019-09-20 12:23 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-20 14:26 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-20 07:56 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-18 10:53 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-18 13:43 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-18 14:10 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-19 05:04 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-19 09:29 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-10 12:41 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-10 12:55 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-10 17:00 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-11 05:50 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-10 04:22 -0700
Page 4 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 32 Next page →
| From | Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-23 12:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ac2eea75-d2c9-4a68-af62-138abca474ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211167 |
Am Samstag, 21. September 2019 22:44:58 UTC+2 schrieb Exfalso Quodlibet: > On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 4:32:04 PM UTC-4, Ganzhinterseher wrote: > > Am Freitag, 20. September 2019 23:03:56 UTC+2 schrieb Exfalso Quodlibet: > > > On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 11:09:48 AM UTC-4, Ganzhinterseher wrote: > > > > Am Freitag, 20. September 2019 02:34:21 UTC+2 schrieb Ben Bacarisse: > > > > > Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then answer finally my question: What endsegment does not appear in > > > > > > (*)? > > > > > > > > > > E(n+1), among others. > > > > > > > > That is wrong because n+1 is a natural number too, covered by n ∈ ℕ. > > > > > > No, for each n, n+1 is not n. > > > > n is not a fixed number but a variable assuming all natnumbers. > > Each value of n is fixed, and for each value of n, E(n+1) is not part of (*). But we have ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) . Therefore there is no definable endsegmnent missing. > > You don't seem to understand how quantification works. In your (*), ∀n means "for each n, evaluate this static expression to get a single static result". It does not mean "mush up all the infinite ns There are only finite n's. ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) means the intersections of all finite initial segments of endsegments: E(1) ∩ E(2) E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ E(4) and so on with no upper bound. Now try to find a definable endsegment not in any intersection. REgards, WM REgards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-23 12:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cdbd629a-1fe2-49de-8570-4db203a1e0ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211199 |
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:18:44 PM UTC-4, Ganzhinterseher wrote: > Am Samstag, 21. September 2019 22:44:58 UTC+2 schrieb Exfalso Quodlibet: > > On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 4:32:04 PM UTC-4, Ganzhinterseher wrote: > > > Am Freitag, 20. September 2019 23:03:56 UTC+2 schrieb Exfalso Quodlibet: > > > > On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 11:09:48 AM UTC-4, Ganzhinterseher wrote: > > > > > Am Freitag, 20. September 2019 02:34:21 UTC+2 schrieb Ben Bacarisse: > > > > > > Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then answer finally my question: What endsegment does not appear in > > > > > > > (*)? > > > > > > > > > > > > E(n+1), among others. > > > > > > > > > > That is wrong because n+1 is a natural number too, covered by n ∈ ℕ. > > > > > > > > No, for each n, n+1 is not n. > > > > > > n is not a fixed number but a variable assuming all natnumbers. > > > > Each value of n is fixed, and for each value of n, E(n+1) is not part of (*). > > But we have ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) . That is not a complete expression. Try again. > > You don't seem to understand how quantification works. In your (*), ∀n means "for each n, evaluate this static expression to get a single static result". It does not mean "mush up all the infinite ns > > There are only finite n's. There are an infinite number of ns. The entire collection ns is infinitely large. > ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) means the intersections of all finite initial segments of endsegments: No, it doesn't mean anything, because it's not a well-formed expression. EFQ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-20 23:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87r24a38fc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #211123 |
Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> writes:
(AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
Unendlichen" at Hochschule Augsburg.)
>
> Am Freitag, 20. September 2019 02:34:21 UTC+2 schrieb Ben Bacarisse:
>> Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> > Then answer finally my question: What endsegment does not appear in
>> > (*)?
>>
>> E(n+1), among others.
>
> That is wrong because n+1 is a natural number too, covered by n ∈ ℕ.
No, it's the correct answer to your question. E(n+1) is one of
infinitely many end segments not in (*). E(n+1) occirs in other
formulas for bigger finite intersections, but they too will have end
segments not in the intersection.
> But it would not help either, because
>
> ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) ∩ E(n+1) =/= { } .
This is one of those different formulas. If you ask, E(n+2) is one of
infinitely many end segments missing from it.
The non-empty intersections are all of finite collections -- every one
missing infinitely many end segments. The empty intersection is from an
infinite collection that does not exclude any end segment.
Your surprise that an infinite intersection can be different from every
finite intersection is fake. You are perfectly aware that this happens
all the time. Your search for forms of words that will bamboozle your
students is dishonest.
>> >> (*) can be generalised so that it /does/ include the case of all end
>> >> segments:
>> >
>> > I do not wish to generalize it but to let it stay as it stands. Then
>> > some endsegmnets are missing, as you say. Can you say which?
>>
>> Infinitely many. You know this.
>
> I know that ...
It take you deflection to mean you /do/ know what accounts for the
difference that you are pretending to be surprised by.
> the set of endsegments is well-ordered and therefore every ne subset
> has a first element. What is the first element of the subset of
> endsegmnets appearing in
>
> E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ... = { } (*)
> but not in
> ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) =/= {} ? (**)
It's n+1.
>> > Or is it
>> > correct that you cannot define them?
>>
>> The sets not in (*) are defined in exactly the same way as those that
>> are in (*) -- by naming them.
>
> Then name one!
I did: E(n+1). The finite intersections include E(1) to E(n) and
exclude E(n+1) onwards.
>> I have no idea if that is what you mean
>> because "defined" is one of your magic words.
>
> In doubt, for instance give the decimal representation.
Don't be silly.
>> >> This situation is very common. For example
>> >
>> > Let me know your answer. That would be enough.
>>
>> Let R(n) = 1/n. If all definable unit fractions appear in
>>
>> ∀n ∈ ℕ: R(1) * R(2) * ... * R(n) =/= 0 (#),
>>
>> then they are not sufficient for
>>
>> R(1) * R(2) * R(3) * ... = 0 (##).
>
> That is obvious. 0 is only the limit.
Your word game works just as well, though: all unit fractions appear in
(#), yet (##) has a different answer! This example is only different
because you are prepared to explain it.
You don't want to explain the difference between your (*) and (**)
because you want the word play to confuse your students. The
explanation won't be the same of course (set sequence limit are defined
in terms of infinite intersections so you can't use them in this
example) but there is, none the less, an explanation. You just don't
want to provide it to your students.
> But all endsegments shall be sufficient to get the empty set.
Yes and it's easy to see why: members of the intersection must be in
every set in the intersection. It's just as easy to see why there are
elements in the intersection of only the first n end segments.
> Limits are not appropriate in this case because they would also enter
> the bijection (E(n), q_n) and would invalidate it.
Eh? Set sequence limits are not appropriate because the definition
would be circular. But other limits could be used to make the case.
That's why you fought so hard to deny simple facts about my convergent
sequence of functions e_n.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-21 13:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d23ea460-2c8b-438a-bc29-a3f55e904c55@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211151 |
Am Samstag, 21. September 2019 00:32:58 UTC+2 schrieb Ben Bacarisse:
> Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> writes:
> >> > Then answer finally my question: What endsegment does not appear in
> >> > (*)?
> >>
> >> E(n+1), among others.
> >
> > That is wrong because n+1 is a natural number too, covered by n ∈ ℕ.
>
> No, it's the correct answer to your question.
∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) =/= {} (*)
For all n includes all n. Your answer is silly.
> The non-empty intersections are all of finite collections -- every one
> missing infinitely many end segments.
Correct. But you cannot define any endsegment that is outside of (*).
> The empty intersection is from an
> infinite collection that does not exclude any end segment.
(*) does not exclude any definable endsegment.
> Your surprise that an infinite intersection can be different from every
> finite intersection is fake.
Your claim that an infinite intersection larger than all of (*) could exist is stupid.
> > the set of endsegments is well-ordered and therefore every ne subset
> > has a first element. What is the first element of the subset of
> > endsegmnets appearing in
> >
> > E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ... = { } (*)
> > but not in
> > ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) =/= {} ? (**)
>
> It's n+1.
EOD
Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-21 13:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96bec2fa-fcbb-4a5d-8995-0707da63716f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211164 |
On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 4:29:02 PM UTC-4, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
> Am Samstag, 21. September 2019 00:32:58 UTC+2 schrieb Ben Bacarisse:
> > Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > >> > Then answer finally my question: What endsegment does not appear in
> > >> > (*)?
> > >>
> > >> E(n+1), among others.
> > >
> > > That is wrong because n+1 is a natural number too, covered by n ∈ ℕ.
> >
> > No, it's the correct answer to your question.
>
> ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) =/= {} (*)
>
> For all n includes all n.
But the intersection only includes E(1) to E(n). You are asking about endsegments, not ns. There are only a finite number of endsegments specified by (*), but an infinite number of ns.
This is precisely why your imprecise English ("appearing in") is terrible: you've been trying to talk about infinity in (*) because there the quantifier scopes over an infinite set (N), but you talked about it in terms of the number of endsegments, of which there are only a finite number for any given n.
And then your "logic" is broken from that point forward. You keep trying to make (*) say something magical about (**), even though they are fundamentally different. (*) is only ever talking about a finite number of endsegments, while (**) is talking about an infinite number.
> > The non-empty intersections are all of finite collections -- every one
> > missing infinitely many end segments.
>
> Correct. But you cannot define any endsegment that is outside of (*).
Of course you can: E(n+1). It appears nowhere in the relevant intersection.
n+1 is somewhere inside N, but it is *not* inside the intersection in (*). You are confused.
> > The empty intersection is from an
> > infinite collection that does not exclude any end segment.
>
> (*) does not exclude any definable endsegment.
Sure it does. For each n, (*) excludes E(n+1), E(n+2), E(n+3), ..., E(n+i), ...
∀n ∈ ℕ: E(n+1), E(n+2), ... ∉ {E(1), E(2), ..., E(n)}
If you think this is false, tell us which value of n allows E(n+1) to be in {E(1), E(2), ..., E(n)}.
> EOD
Haha, right. The Krunning-Duggar effect won't let you tolerate "end of discussion". You'll keep blabbering on, making exactly the same mistakes over and over again. I'd be shocked if you didn't have another post in this discussion within the next hour.
EFQ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-23 12:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1da04ced-82df-4b88-b752-49d2d0892e29@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211166 |
Am Samstag, 21. September 2019 22:39:24 UTC+2 schrieb Exfalso Quodlibet: > > you cannot define any endsegment that is outside of (*). > > Of course you can: E(n+1). It appears nowhere in the relevant intersection. n (*) n is not a number but a variable assuming all definable natnumbers. > > n+1 is somewhere inside N, but it is *not* inside the intersection in (*). ∀n ∈ ℕ: n+1 appears as well as E(n+1) in (*). Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-22 17:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87y2yg1dcu.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #211164 |
Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> writes:
(AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
Unendlichen" at Hochschule Augsburg.)
> Am Samstag, 21. September 2019 00:32:58 UTC+2 schrieb Ben Bacarisse:
>> Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> >> > Then answer finally my question: What endsegment does not appear in
>> >> > (*)?
>> >>
>> >> E(n+1), among others.
>> >
>> > That is wrong because n+1 is a natural number too, covered by n ∈ ℕ.
>>
>> No, it's the correct answer to your question.
>
> ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) =/= {} (*)
>
> For all n includes all n.
It's a statement that is true for every n. The formula does not include
all end segments. You know this, yet you are hunting for some confusing
presentation that might just sneak past your students. It's shameful.
> Your answer is silly.
Your opinion is noted.
>> The non-empty intersections are all of finite collections -- every one
>> missing infinitely many end segments.
>
> Correct. But you cannot define any endsegment that is outside of (*).
Your rejection of my answer (E(n+1)) does not mean it is wrong, it just
means you still want to play word games. There are absolutely no
substantive disagreements in matters of fact. Both (*) and (**) are
correct and do not contradict each other. You agree that the
intersections in (*) are of a finite collections of sets, and you agree
that the intersection in (**) is not. You agree (since it forms the
fake "contradiction" you long for) that the formulas are correct.
>> The empty intersection is from an
>> infinite collection that does not exclude any end segment.
>
> (*) does not exclude any definable endsegment.
It excludes infinitely many. It is a claim about all finite
intersections of end segments, not one about the intersection of all end
segments. You know this. You students will know this. You hope your
wording will confuse some into agreeing with you (and those that don't
will know what to write in the exam).
>> Your surprise that an infinite intersection can be different from every
>> finite intersection is fake.
>
> Your claim that an infinite intersection larger than all of (*) could
> exist is stupid.
It is obvious. Every finite intersection is different from the infinite
one. You can quibble over "larger" if you like, but they are not the
same and the difference is not contradictory. If any is any doubt,
compare your word games answer with, say, Jim Burn's formal ones. You
have nothings but waffle that you hope with confuse.
>> > the set of endsegments is well-ordered and therefore every ne subset
>> > has a first element. What is the first element of the subset of
>> > endsegmnets appearing in
>> >
>> > E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ... = { } (*)
>> > but not in
>> > ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) =/= {} ? (**)
>>
>> It's n+1.
>
> EOD
I hope so. You end all discussions once they get too embarrassing. You
walked away from the set sequence limits given in your book; from the
point-wise limit of e_n(k) = [k >= n] being e(k) = 0; from your
inability to define set membership, difference and equality so that
anyone but you could conclude that E ∈ S and S \ {E} = S is possible...
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-23 12:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8289585f-0ec5-4407-9237-c4051bd0d9e2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211186 |
Am Sonntag, 22. September 2019 18:53:56 UTC+2 schrieb Ben Bacarisse:
> Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> writes:
> (AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
> Unendlichen" at Hochschule Augsburg.)
>
> > Am Samstag, 21. September 2019 00:32:58 UTC+2 schrieb Ben Bacarisse:
> >> Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> >> > Then answer finally my question: What endsegment does not appear in
> >> >> > (*)?
> >> >>
> >> >> E(n+1), among others.
> >> >
> >> > That is wrong because n+1 is a natural number too, covered by n ∈ ℕ.
> >>
> >> No, it's the correct answer to your question.
> >
> > ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) =/= {} (*)
> >
> > For all n includes all n.
>
> It's a statement that is true for every n. The formula does not include
> all end segments.
Fine, then determine whoich one is missing here:
E(1)
E(1) ∩ E(2)
E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3)
E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ E(4)
...
Briefly ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n).
> >
> > Correct. But you cannot define any endsegment that is outside of (*).
>
> Your rejection of my answer (E(n+1)) does not mean it is wrong, it just
> means you still want to play word games. There are absolutely no
> substantive disagreements in matters of fact. Both (*) and (**) are
> correct and do not contradict each other. You agree that the
> intersections in (*) are of a finite collections of sets
but what is more important, that you cannot determine an endsegmnet missing.
> > (*) does not exclude any definable endsegment.
>
> It excludes infinitely many.
Define only one.
REgards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-23 21:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <875zliu4ff.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #211204 |
Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> writes:
(AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
Unendlichen" at Hochschule Augsburg.)
> Am Sonntag, 22. September 2019 18:53:56 UTC+2 schrieb Ben Bacarisse:
>> Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > Am Samstag, 21. September 2019 00:32:58 UTC+2 schrieb Ben Bacarisse:
>> >> Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> >> > Then answer finally my question: What endsegment does not appear in
>> >> >> > (*)?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> E(n+1), among others.
>> >> >
>> >> > That is wrong because n+1 is a natural number too, covered by n ∈ ℕ.
>> >>
>> >> No, it's the correct answer to your question.
>> >
>> > ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) =/= {} (*)
>> >
>> > For all n includes all n.
>>
>> It's a statement that is true for every n. The formula does not include
>> all end segments.
>
> Fine,
This usually signifies agreement so I'll take it you do agree with my
last two sentences. If you don't, please say which you don't agree
with.
> then determine whoich one is missing here:
>
> E(1)
E(2)
> E(1) ∩ E(2)
E(3)
> E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3)
E(4)
> E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ E(4)
E(5)
> ...
>
> Briefly ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n).
Briefly, ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(n+1) is "missing" from E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n).
I'm sure you could have done that yourself.
>> > Correct. But you cannot define any endsegment that is outside of (*).
>>
>> Your rejection of my answer (E(n+1)) does not mean it is wrong, it just
>> means you still want to play word games. There are absolutely no
>> substantive disagreements in matters of fact. Both (*) and (**) are
>> correct and do not contradict each other. You agree that the
>> intersections in (*) are of a finite collections of sets
>
> but what is more important, that you cannot determine an endsegmnet
> missing.
Yes I can. I just did. Several times.
Again, I note no disagreement on the key issue: that (*) and (**) are
correct and do not contradict each other. If you think either is wrong,
or that that they lead to a contradiction, now would be a good time to
come clean about that.
>> > (*) does not exclude any definable endsegment.
>>
>> It excludes infinitely many.
>
> Define only one.
Done. In every case you asked about, I gave you a missing end segment.
I even gave you the rule to find a missing end segment in the general
case. But you know all this. You are just try trying out different
ways of phrasing it to see what might be the most confusing to your
students. That is not an honourable project.
What does "EOD" mean when you write it?
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-19 05:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7d5cb92c-ea36-4905-94d1-eb61fec328a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211057 |
Am Donnerstag, 19. September 2019 02:52:35 UTC+2 schrieb Ben Bacarisse:
This blatant mistake deserves its own correction!
> is false because of the one special case where Product_{i ∈ N} 1/i = 0.
> The infinite case is not the same as any finite case.
The infinite case is the infinite product of positive terms. It is not zero! The limit after all finite terms 1/i is zero. But the limit is not suitable for set theory, because set theory claims to be able to biject all finite terms and all rational numbers (1/i, q_i). That requires *not* taking the limit but infinitely many finite i with 1/i > 0 and prod 1/1*1/2*...*1/i > 0 for all infinitely many terms.
Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-20 02:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87tv974vl4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #211073 |
Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> writes:
> Am Donnerstag, 19. September 2019 02:52:35 UTC+2 schrieb Ben Bacarisse:
>
> This blatant mistake deserves its own correction!
>
>> is false because of the one special case where Product_{i ∈ N} 1/i = 0.
>> The infinite case is not the same as any finite case.
>
> The infinite case is the infinite product of positive terms. It is not
> zero!
If Product_{i ∈ N} 1/i is not zero, what is it?
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-20 07:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bc6607f2-2014-4949-aeeb-e7b87f6aecd6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211104 |
Am Freitag, 20. September 2019 03:15:09 UTC+2 schrieb Ben Bacarisse:
> Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Am Donnerstag, 19. September 2019 02:52:35 UTC+2 schrieb Ben Bacarisse:
> >
> > This blatant mistake deserves its own correction!
> >
> >> is false because of the one special case where Product_{i ∈ N} 1/i = 0.
> >> The infinite case is not the same as any finite case.
> >
> > The infinite case is the infinite product of positive terms. It is not
> > zero!
>
> If Product_{i ∈ N} 1/i is not zero, what is it?
In potential infinity it is a decreasing sequence, like 0.999... is a sequence.
In actual infinity I don't know. But I know that as long as terms 1/i are multiplied, the result is not 0.
Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-20 23:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87lfui37jq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #211120 |
Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> writes:
(AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
Unendlichen" at Hochschule Augsburg.)
> Am Freitag, 20. September 2019 03:15:09 UTC+2 schrieb Ben Bacarisse:
>> Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > Am Donnerstag, 19. September 2019 02:52:35 UTC+2 schrieb Ben Bacarisse:
>> >
>> > This blatant mistake deserves its own correction!
>> >
>> >> is false because of the one special case where Product_{i ∈ N} 1/i = 0.
>> >> The infinite case is not the same as any finite case.
>> >
>> > The infinite case is the infinite product of positive terms. It is not
>> > zero!
>>
>> If Product_{i ∈ N} 1/i is not zero, what is it?
>
> In potential infinity it is a decreasing sequence, like 0.999... is a sequence.
> In actual infinity I don't know.
Then you should not have been so dogmatic. In mathematics (what you
call "actual infinity") the product is 0. In mathematics, Product_{x∈S}
refers to the result of the multiplication. For example,
Product_{i∈{1,2,3}) = 1/6 -- a number, not a sequence.
> But I know that as long as terms 1/i are multiplied, the result is not
> 0.
You don't know how Product_{x∈S} ... is defined in mathematics (what you
call "actual infinity") so you can't really comment can you?
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-19 14:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ccd5e80a-f863-d335-997a-74170456b301@att.net> |
| In reply to | #211002 |
On 9/18/2019 11:23 AM, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 17. September 2019 22:52:45 UTC+2
> schrieb Jim Burns:
>> On 9/17/2019 11:37 AM, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
>>> Am Dienstag, 17. September 2019 06:37:21 UTC+2
>>> schrieb Jim Burns:
>>>> You think that
>>>> | All endsegments are not empty.
>>>> and
>>>> | The intersection of all endsegments is empty.
>>>> are contradictory. [...]
>>>
>>> And I can show why they are.
>>
>> What about the next pair of formulas in my post?
>> Can you also show that they're contradictory?
>
> It is obviousky irrelevant whether they are contradictory.
> If all definable endsegments appear in
> ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) =/= { } (*),
> then they are no sufficient for
> E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ... = { } (**).
>
>> Does it help that the two later formulas (*')
>> and (**') mean the same as the two earlier formulas
>> (*) and (**)?
>
> It does not because they do not mean the same.
This is why your "technique" of intuition pumps and
handwaving is ineffective. You think that, if it isn't
obvious to you, it can't be true.
I'll show you that they mean the same. Again.
----
Consider the first claim
∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) =/= { } (*),
This can be stated
| The intersection of finitely many endsegments
| is not empty. (IFENMT.1)
(IFENMT.2)
forall k e N, exists j e N:
j e Intersect{ E(i) sub N | i =< k }
By the definition of intersection,
( j e Intersect{ E(i) sub N | i =< k } ) <->
( forall i =< k, j e E(i) )
(IFENMT.3)
forall k e N, exists j e N: forall i =< k, j e E(i)
By the definition of endsegment,
( j e E(i) ) <-> ( j >= i )
(IFENMT.4)
forall k e N, exists j e N: forall i =< k, j >= i
Lemma:
( j >= k ) <-> ( forall i =< k, j >= i )
| i)
| Since '<' is transitive
| ( j >= k ) -> ( forall i e N: k >= i -> j >= i )
|
| ii)
| Assume ~( j >= k )
| Then, for i = k, k >= k & ~(j >= k), and we have a
| counter-example.
| ( forall i e N: k >= i -> j >= i ) is false.
| Thus, ~( j >= k ) -> ~( forall i e N: k >= i -> j >= i )
|
| By(i) and (ii),
| ( j >= k ) <-> ( forall i e N: k >= i -> j >= i )
(IFENMT.5)
forall k e N, exists j e N: j >= k
----
Consider the second claim
E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ... = { } (**).
This can be stated as
| The intersection of all endsegments is empty. (IAEMT.1)
(IAEMT.2)
~exists k e N: k e Intersect{ E(j) sub N | j e N }
By the definition of intersection,
( k e Intersect{ E(j) sub N | j e N } ) <->
forall j e N: k e E(j)
(IAEMT.3)
~exists k e N, forall j e N: k e E(j)
By the definition of endsegment
( k e E(j) ) <-> ( k >= j )
(IAEMT.4)
~exists k e N, forall j e N: k >= j)
Since '<' is linear, exactly one is true of
(k > j), (k = j), ( j > k )
( k >= j ) <-> ~( j > k )
(IAEMT.5)
~exists k e N, forall j e N: ~( j > k )
Let P(x) be a formula.
By our standard, definite semantics, exactly one of
(forall x: P(x)) and ~(forall x: P(x)) is true.
_We define_ (exists x: P(x)) as ~(forall x: ~P(x))
(~exists k e N: P(k)) <-> (forall k e N: ~P(x))
(IAEMT.6)
forall k e N, ~forall j e N: ~( j > k )
(~forall j e N: P(j)) <-> (exists j e N: ~P(j))
(IAEMT.7)
forall k e N, exists j e N: j > k
----
To review:
| The intersection of finitely many endsegments
| is not empty. (IFENMT.1)
(IFENMT.5)
forall k e N, exists j e N: j >= k
| The intersection of all endsegments is empty. (IAEMT.1)
(IAEMT.7)
forall k e N, exists j e N: j > k
In order to show that IFENMT.1 means IFENMT.5
and that IAEMT.1 means IAEMT.7, we use the common
meanings for "intersection", for "endsegment", for
"exists", and that '<' is linear.
By also using that '<' is unbounded above,
we can show that IFENMT.5 and IAEMT.7 are true.
Note that you're claiming you've found a contradiction
in "set theory". Are there any of those assumptions
that (according to you (WM)) "set theory" does not hold?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-19 12:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9f9f666d-ef12-4251-9301-695b1af4cbbb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211091 |
Am Donnerstag, 19. September 2019 20:12:41 UTC+2 schrieb Jim Burns:
> On 9/18/2019 11:23 AM, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 17. September 2019 22:52:45 UTC+2
> > schrieb Jim Burns:
> >> On 9/17/2019 11:37 AM, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
> >>> Am Dienstag, 17. September 2019 06:37:21 UTC+2
> >>> schrieb Jim Burns:
>
> >>>> You think that
> >>>> | All endsegments are not empty.
> >>>> and
> >>>> | The intersection of all endsegments is empty.
> >>>> are contradictory. [...]
> >>>
> >>> And I can show why they are.
> >>
> >> What about the next pair of formulas in my post?
> >> Can you also show that they're contradictory?
> >
> > It is obviousky irrelevant whether they are contradictory.
> > If all definable endsegments appear in
> > ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) =/= { } (*),
> > then they are no sufficient for
> > E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ... = { } (**).
> >
> >> Does it help that the two later formulas (*')
> >> and (**') mean the same as the two earlier formulas
> >> (*) and (**)?
> >
> > It does not because they do not mean the same.
>
> This is why your "technique" of intuition pumps and
> handwaving is ineffective. You think that, if it isn't
> obvious to you, it can't be true.
>
> I'll show you that they mean the same. Again.
>
> ----
> Consider the first claim
> ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) =/= { } (*),
>
> This can be stated
> | The intersection of finitely many endsegments
> | is not empty. (IFENMT.1)
Yes. And further:
(1) The infinite set has more elements than every finite set.
(2) There is no further element definable.
>
> (IFENMT.2)
> forall k e N, exists j e N:
> j e Intersect{ E(i) sub N | i =< k }
>
> By the definition of intersection,
> ( j e Intersect{ E(i) sub N | i =< k } ) <->
> ( forall i =< k, j e E(i) )
>
> (IFENMT.3)
> forall k e N, exists j e N: forall i =< k, j e E(i)
>
> By the definition of endsegment,
> ( j e E(i) ) <-> ( j >= i )
>
> (IFENMT.4)
> forall k e N, exists j e N: forall i =< k, j >= i
>
> Lemma:
> ( j >= k ) <-> ( forall i =< k, j >= i )
>
> | i)
> | Since '<' is transitive
> | ( j >= k ) -> ( forall i e N: k >= i -> j >= i )
> |
> | ii)
> | Assume ~( j >= k )
> | Then, for i = k, k >= k & ~(j >= k), and we have a
> | counter-example.
> | ( forall i e N: k >= i -> j >= i ) is false.
> | Thus, ~( j >= k ) -> ~( forall i e N: k >= i -> j >= i )
> |
> | By(i) and (ii),
> | ( j >= k ) <-> ( forall i e N: k >= i -> j >= i )
>
> (IFENMT.5)
> forall k e N, exists j e N: j >= k
>
> ----
> Consider the second claim
> E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ... = { } (**).
>
> This can be stated as
> | The intersection of all endsegments is empty. (IAEMT.1)
>
> (IAEMT.2)
> ~exists k e N: k e Intersect{ E(j) sub N | j e N }
>
> By the definition of intersection,
> ( k e Intersect{ E(j) sub N | j e N } ) <->
> forall j e N: k e E(j)
>
> (IAEMT.3)
> ~exists k e N, forall j e N: k e E(j)
>
> By the definition of endsegment
> ( k e E(j) ) <-> ( k >= j )
>
> (IAEMT.4)
> ~exists k e N, forall j e N: k >= j)
>
> Since '<' is linear, exactly one is true of
> (k > j), (k = j), ( j > k )
>
> ( k >= j ) <-> ~( j > k )
>
> (IAEMT.5)
> ~exists k e N, forall j e N: ~( j > k )
>
> Let P(x) be a formula.
> By our standard, definite semantics, exactly one of
> (forall x: P(x)) and ~(forall x: P(x)) is true.
That is true in a consistent theory only.
>
> _We define_ (exists x: P(x)) as ~(forall x: ~P(x))
>
> (~exists k e N: P(k)) <-> (forall k e N: ~P(x))
Again an invalid assumption for an endsegment that does not belong to a finite initial segment and does not contribute to a non-empty intersection.
>
> (IAEMT.6)
> forall k e N, ~forall j e N: ~( j > k )
>
> (~forall j e N: P(j)) <-> (exists j e N: ~P(j))
>
> (IAEMT.7)
> forall k e N, exists j e N: j > k
>
> ----
> To review:
>
> | The intersection of finitely many endsegments
> | is not empty. (IFENMT.1)
>
> (IFENMT.5)
> forall k e N, exists j e N: j >= k
>
> | The intersection of all endsegments is empty. (IAEMT.1)
>
> (IAEMT.7)
> forall k e N, exists j e N: j > k
>
> In order to show that IFENMT.1 means IFENMT.5
> and that IAEMT.1 means IAEMT.7, we use the common
> meanings for "intersection", for "endsegment", for
> "exists", and that '<' is linear.
>
> By also using that '<' is unbounded above,
> we can show that IFENMT.5 and IAEMT.7 are true.
>
> Note that you're claiming you've found a contradiction
> in "set theory". Are there any of those assumptions
> that (according to you (WM)) "set theory" does not hold?
All definable endsegments belong to finite initial segments and yield non-empty intersections. For undefinable endsegments we cannot assume that they are definable. For all definable endsegments we get non-empty intersections.
Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-20 14:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <35c61e4c-1514-d971-ed15-9f1b9d8f16b7@att.net> |
| In reply to | #211093 |
On 9/19/2019 3:27 PM, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 19. September 2019 20:12:41 UTC+2
> schrieb Jim Burns:
>> _We define_ (exists x: P(x)) as ~(forall x: ~P(x))
>>
>> (~exists k e N: P(k)) <-> (forall k e N: ~P(x))
>
> Again an invalid assumption for an endsegment that
> does not belong to a finite initial segment and does
> not contribute to a non-empty intersection.
That's not true.
The assumption behind
| (~exists k e N: P(k)) <-> (forall k e N: ~P(x))
is *MUCH MORE WIDELY APPLICABLE* than anything you might
mean by "an endsegment that DOES belong to a finite initial
segment and DOES contribute to a non-empty intersection".
The assumption that you would need to call invalid is that
_there is a fact of the matter_ , that there _are_ definite
truth values for the basic predicates with respect to each
member of the domain. This is _not_ an assumption that we
_know_ all of these truth values or that it's even _possible_
to know all the truth values, only that these truth values
_exist_ .
Obviously, nothing about endsegments, or finiteness, or
sequences has yet been said when we make that
assumption. Whatever you're denying about endsegments,
and finiteness, and sequences is just not part of
the conversation about
| (~exists k e N: P(k)) <-> (forall k e N: ~P(x))
----
Consider a claim P(x) with a free variable x ranging over
a domain to be a template P(x) with a separate claim when
x refers to each separate member in the domain.
_We assume_ that there are truth values (either T or F)
for each of these separate claims. This is what you would
need to deny, if you were serious.
Let's collect all of the counter-examples y in the domain,
all of those members y for which P(y) is false. By the
definiteness of P(y), everything in the domain either
is definitely IN the collection of counter-examples or
is definitely NOT IN the collection of counter-examples.
For convenience, I will steal the familiar set-builder
notation to describe this collection CX, "steal" because
we haven't introduced sets yet.
CX = { y | ~P(y) }
Is CX empty?
We must have either CX definitely empty or CX definitely
not empty.
If CX is empty, there are no y in the domain for which
~P(y) is true. By the definiteness of P(y), P(y)
is true for every y. We write this "forall y, P(y)".
If CX is not empty, then there is some y for which
~P(y) is true. Which y? We don't have that information.
But, when we reason from "exists y, ~P(y)" we don't
use any specific knowledge about _which_ y is a
counter-example. We don't know, but we don't claim
that we know.
This is the justification for claiming
| ( forall y, P(y) ) XOR ( exists y, ~P(y) )
The justification is rooted in definiteness,
not in any claims about endsegments.
----
There's not much more that we need to deal with, in order
to use 'forall' and 'exists' correctly. And endsegments
are nowhere to be found -- yet. They are built using the
tools we examine here.
We've seen this already:
| ( forall y, P(y) ) XOR ( exists y, ~P(y) )
This is essentially what we mean by "all":
| ( forall y, P(y) ) -> P(b)
This rule
| P(y)
| ---------------
| forall y, P(y)
|
supposes that the separate claims represented by P(y),
one for each member, can only be jointly definitely-true
if each separate claim is true. Which is to say,
for all y, P(y).
Where y does not occur free in Q,
| forall y:( Q \/ P(y) ) -> ( Q \/ forall y:P(y) )
|
We show that that is valid by showing that this
| forall y:( Q \/ P(y) ) & ~Q & exists y:~P(y)
|
is contradictory.
Done. Still nothing about endsegments or sequences.
----
One way to introduce an endless sequence in order to
reason about it is to suppose the existence of a
collection that includes _at least_ the entries in
the sequence and rule out whatever is not in the
sequence.
My preference for now is ICP+: Individuals, Collections,
ordered Pairs + one non-pair thing. It has an axiom
of Comprehension that permits us to claim an infinite
collection exists, after which things proceed in a
familiar fashion.
Let a collection X be pre-inductive iff
0 in X and, if y in X, then Sy in X.
Define N as the intersection of all pre-inductive
collections in the domain of collections.
It is a theorem that the only pre-inductive sub-collection
of N is N itself.
We can prove that N contains all the entries of the
sequence 0, 1, 2, 3, ... and that N contains only the
entries in that sequence.
We can prove that each element of N is finitely
connected to 0. We can prove that no element of N
is a maximum. We can prove that every non-empty
sub-collection of N contains a minimum element.
But we don't "prove" anything by imagining how things
are "out at infinity". We reason about the _complete_
collection -- which we supposed to exist, with all the
other collections, when we began.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-21 12:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2951d05e-d2af-4c51-bad4-0eb51a4aa5c1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211136 |
Am Freitag, 20. September 2019 20:10:10 UTC+2 schrieb Jim Burns:
> But we don't "prove" anything by imagining how things
> are "out at infinity". We reason about the _complete_
> collection -- which we supposed to exist, with all the
> other collections, when we began.
We need not imagine. We know that
∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) =/= {} .
That means all endsegments belong to finite initial segmnents.
You claim that
E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ... = { }
but you do not say how you can collect more endsegments thatn are in all finite initial segments. My statement is simple: You cannot define any endsegment required for the infinite set that is missing in all finiti initial segments. But the finiti initial segments obviously do not supply sufficiently many. Hence there must be undefinable endsegmnets.
Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-21 19:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d2242a06-55b7-3cac-13f2-55aa4ee559a1@att.net> |
| In reply to | #211161 |
On 9/21/2019 3:20 PM, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
> Am Freitag, 20. September 2019 20:10:10 UTC+2
> schrieb Jim Burns:
>> But we don't "prove" anything by imagining how things
>> are "out at infinity". We reason about the _complete_
>> collection -- which we supposed to exist, with all the
>> other collections, when we began.
>
> We need not imagine. We know that
You don't say _how_ you know that.
You present one thing not empty and another thing empty,
and you call it a contradiction.
I'd say "Show us", but it would only be rhetorical.
You can't show us, they're not contradictions.
> We need not imagine. We know that
> ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) =/= {} .
In other words,
for all k, there exists j such that j >= k.
> That means all endsegments belong to finite initial
> segmnents.
That's pointless twaddle. All endsegments also belong
to singletons. That's irrelevant to what set of
endsegments the intersection is of.
In (*), each set (of infinitely many sets) of endsegments
is finite; each intersection is an infinite set of natnums.
In (**), the one set of endsegments is infinite; its
intersection is empty.
In (*) and (**) cases, all endsegments belong to both
finite sets and infinite sets which are nearly all
irrelevant to the intersections being discussed.
> You claim that
> E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ... = { }
In other words
there exists no k such that, for all j, k >= j.
And, because, for every claim P(x), there either *IS* a
counter-example (thus Ex:~P(x) ), xor there *ISN'T* a
counterexample (thus Ax:P(x) ), that's also:
for all k, there exists j such that j > k.
| For all k, there exists j such that j >= k
does not contradict
| For all k, there exists j such that j > k
| ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) =/= {}
does not contradict
| E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ ... = { }
> but you do not say how you can collect more endsegments
> thatn are in all finite initial segments.
> My statement is simple: You cannot define any endsegment
> required for the infinite set that is missing in all
> finiti initial segments.
Once upon a time, there were FISONs, Finite Initial
Sequences Of Naturals.
Then, there were endsegments of naturals.
Followed by intersections of endsegments of naturals.
And, save us all, intersections of finite initial sequences
of endsegments of naturals.
I don't doubt that intersections of finite initial
sequences of endsegments of naturals will be followed by
further Rococo embellishments of the question:
"Is the set of naturals infinite?"
You would like the infiniteness of the set of naturals to
seem unnatural -- as part of your anti-infinitarian project.
But, when the embellishments are removed, you recognize
that the question is too easily answered, and not in the
way you want it answered, of course.
Confusion about whatever the hell you are asking is
your hope for producing some doubt about whether there
is no substance at all hiding behind your Rococo
embellishments.
Here: I will answer all your questions, the past, present,
and future versions of questions about intersections of
finite initial sequences of endsegments of naturals:
The set of natural numbers is infinite.
I'm sure that saved you quite a bit of time.
Which is the opposite of what you want, of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-23 12:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0863fa2b-bf78-4202-81b2-9e6865c6d6c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211172 |
Am Sonntag, 22. September 2019 01:29:02 UTC+2 schrieb Jim Burns:
> You present one thing not empty and another thing empty,
> and you call it a contradiction.
I present the non-empty intersections (*)
E(1)
E(1) ∩ E(2)
E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3)
E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ E(4)
...
And I present the empty intersection (**)
E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ E(4) ...
And I ask what remains if we subtract every set intersected in (*) from the set intersected in (**). Since the results are different, the difference cannot be zero.
> Once upon a time, there were FISONs, Finite Initial
> Sequences Of Naturals.
They were sufficient to show that no union of FISONs can be larger than at least one of the unioned FISONs
{1} = {1}
{1} U {1, 2} = {1, 2}
{1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} = {1, 2, 3}
{1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} U {1, 2, 3, 4} = {1, 2, 3, 4,}
{1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} U {1, 2, 3, 4} U {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
...
and in particular not larger than all of the unioned FISONs. But the infinite union was claimed to exist nevertheless, often wrongly based on potential infinity, i.e., unboundedness. Well for endsegments we have the same but now the infinite set has a property, an intersection, which differs from all finite sets. Therefore there must be a difference in the participating endsegments because the same endsegments cannot yield different results.
>
> Then, there were endsegments of naturals.
And now I can ask: What is the difference? And your and your colleagues answers here show that you cannot defend your hobby horse other than by uttering childish nonsense. That is a great progress.
Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-23 22:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <86b31f39-83b0-2762-df3a-414c70b155e8@att.net> |
| In reply to | #211202 |
On 9/23/2019 3:33 PM, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 22. September 2019 01:29:02 UTC+2
> schrieb Jim Burns:
>> You present one thing not empty and another thing empty,
>> and you call it a contradiction.
>
> I present the non-empty intersections (*)
>
> E(1)
= E(1)
> E(1) ∩ E(2)
= E(2)
> E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3)
= E(3)
> E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ E(4)
= E(4)
> ...
= ...
> And I present the empty intersection (**)
>
> E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ E(4) ...
= {}
> And I ask what remains if we subtract every set
> intersected in (*)
... which sets would be the infinitely-many finite sets
{ E(1) }
{ E(1), E(2) }
{ E(1), E(2), E(3) }
{ E(1), E(2), E(3), E(4) }
...
> from the set intersected in (**).
... which set would be the one infinite set
{ E(1), E(2), E(3), E(4), ... }
> Since the results are different, the difference
> cannot be zero.
The set differences are
{ E(2), E(3), E(4), ... }
{ E(3), E(4), E(5), ... }
{ E(4), E(5), E(6), ... }
{ E(5), E(6), E(7), ... }
...
The results are, for natnums j,k,
(*) forall k, exists j, j >= k, and
(**) not exists k, forall j, k >= j.
They are different, not as different as you pretend
they are, but a little different.
You haven't offered any reason to think that they
should not be different -- other than that their being
different is in conflict with how you (WM) think
things should be. Evidently, you think that's a reason.
You also have not offered any reason that the sets
of endsegments you ask about should have anything to do
with (*) and (**).
>> Once upon a time, there were FISONs, Finite Initial
>> Sequences Of Naturals.
>
> They were sufficient to show that no union of FISONs
> can be larger than at least one of the unioned FISONs
> {1} = {1}
> {1} U {1,2} = {1,2}
> {1} U {1,2} U {1,2,3} = {1,2,3}
> {1} U {1,2} U {1,2,3} U {1,2,3,4} = {1,2,3,4}
> ...
>
> and in particular not larger than all of the unioned FISONs.
You are incorrect.
In particular, you are incorrect that *those* unions
show something about *all* of the unions of FISONs.
> But the infinite union was claimed to exist nevertheless,
> often wrongly based on potential infinity, i.e.,
> unboundedness.
In ICP+, the infinite union is claimed to exist based upon
the existence of defined collections,*comprehension* ,
with the background assumptions of *definite* membership
in collections and *definite* "coordinate-ship" in
ordered pairs.
For j,k in N:
Define Fison(j) as
Ak:( k in FISON(j) <-> k =< j )
Define InfiniteUnion as
Ak:( k in InfiniteUnion <-> Ej:( k in FISON(j) ) )
They exist by comprehension.
They're unique by extensionality.
I think I may have mentioned this to you a few times.
> Well for endsegments we have the same but now the infinite
> set has a property, an intersection, which differs from
> all finite sets.
> Therefore there must be a difference in the participating
> endsegments because the same endsegments cannot yield
> different results.
Your argument is like saying
"Adding two cannot yield different results.
Therefore, 3 + 2 = 5 + 2 or else there's a contradiction."
Why the hell should those equal each other? 3 is not 5.
Why the hell should finite sets and infinite sets
have the same property?
This is not a rhetoric question. For some properties,
they *do* have the same property. *And we can say why*
You don't say why. You wave your hands.
>> Then, there were endsegments of naturals.
>
> And now I can ask: What is the difference?
What is _what_ difference?
Between FISONs and endsegments? Formally, not much.
They're complements of each other.
Are you asking *us* why *you* ever started going
around and around over endsegments?
I couldn't say. Probably not for any honest reason.
> And your and your colleagues answers here show that
> you cannot defend your hobby horse other than by
> uttering childish nonsense. That is a great progress.
I'm doing my best.
I shall continue to look for even more childish ways
to explain to you what you do not understand.
I admit that you are much better at piling up
garbage than I am at clearing it away. Sigh.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 32 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web