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 3 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 32 Next page →
| From | Python <python@invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-16 17:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5d7fa56e$0$3522$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #210789 |
Crank Wolfgang Mueckenheim sockpuppet, Ganzhinterseher wrote: ... > but there is no actual infinity surpassing all of them. The universal > quantifier prevents more endsegments than are covered by (*). Idiotic meaningless language, as usual with Crank 'Gang of Wolves' 'Houseof Mosquitoes', also known as Wolfgang Mueckenheim, from Hochschule Augsburg.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-16 11:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <aeb63ffe-8dcf-4e10-f8f2-78eeb7b51aca@att.net> |
| In reply to | #210789 |
On 9/16/2019 10:34 AM, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
> Am Montag, 16. September 2019 15:55:23 UTC+2
> schrieb Jim Burns:
>> On 9/15/2019 8:11 AM, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
>> It should be straightforward to show me this contradiction.
>>
>> You mean that
>> | The intersection of all endsegments of N is empty.
>> contradicts
>> | ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) =/= { } (*)
>> Right?
>
> No,
Then you _aren't_ claiming that _we_ are contradicting
_ourselves_ , you're claiming that _we_ are contradicting
_you_ (WM). Is that right?
> No, I mean that there is no "all endsegments" because
> there is no endsegment and no set of endsegments that
> could extend any finite set E(1), E(2), ..., E(n) to
> an actual infinite set.
The set of endsegments "extends" to the set of endsegments,
obviously, so you don't mean that.
"No _finite_ set of endsegments"? If you mean that
no _finite_ set of endsegments extends to the complete
set of endsegments, then I agree. But we do not _need_
finite sets of endsegments to extend to the set of
endsegments in order to reason about that set.
_This is what I am showing you_.
Did you misunderstand my earlier question?
<WM<JB>>
|> The widely accepted first-order semantics has definite
|> domains and definite truth values for the basic predicates.
|> Do you agree to that?
|
| Of course. (*).
|
[Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:15:27 -0700 (PDT)]
I went on:
<<JB>>
|> If you don't agree, your conclusions about N and the
|> intersection of all endsegments does not apply. If I
|> prove that 3/2 is between 1 and 2, but you refuse accept
|> rationals, how does that mean anything for an argument
|> about rationals?
|>
|> I assume that there is a definite domain of individuals
|> and a definite domain of collections, that *membership of*
|> *individuals in collections is definite* (exactly one of
|> true or false), that being a coordinate (individual) of
|> an ordered pair (individual) is definite.
|>
|> All of that is too easy to forget to ask about, because the
|> answer is very nearly always "Agreed". But they're essential
|> to moving forward.
*emphasis added*
N is defined to be the (definite) collection of individuals
which are (definitely) in all of the (definitely)
pre-inductive collections.
> The sets are unbounded:
> E(1)
> E(1), E(2)
> E(1), E(2), E(3)
> ...
> E(1), E(2), ..., E(n)
> ...
> but there is no actual infinity surpassing all of them.
> The universal quantifier prevents more endsegments than
> are covered by (*).
Look at my previous post, where I show that
| ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) =/= { } (*)
is equivalent to
| An e N, Ek e N:( n =< k )
and
| The intersection of all endsegments is empty.
is equivalent to
| An e N, Ek e N:( n < k )
I don't use "more endsegments". Go, see.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-16 10:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8529e34b-2bfd-45e4-9b87-b3d64300b8f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210807 |
Am Montag, 16. September 2019 17:49:08 UTC+2 schrieb Jim Burns:
> On 9/16/2019 10:34 AM, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
> "No _finite_ set of endsegments"? If you mean that
> no _finite_ set of endsegments extends
can be extended
> to the complete
> set of endsegments,
> then I agree. But we do not _need_
> finite sets of endsegments to extend to the set of
> endsegments in order to reason about that set.
You can reason about it, I can reason about it, for instance that it does not exist if logic and
∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) =/= { } (*)
are true.
> |> I assume that there is a definite domain of individuals
(*) shows that this domain is not larger than every finite set.
>
> N is defined to be the (definite) collection of individuals
> which are (definitely) in all of the (definitely)
> pre-inductive collections.
This collection is not larger than every finite set.
∀n ∈ ℕ: |{1, 2, 3, ..., n}| < ℵo.
>
> Look at my previous post, where I show that
> | ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) =/= { } (*)
> is equivalent to
> | An e N, Ek e N:( n =< k )
> and
> | The intersection of all endsegments is empty.
> is equivalent to
> | An e N, Ek e N:( n < k )
>
> I don't use "more endsegments".
Nevertheless you get a contradiction if you assume that all endsegmnents are definable.
The intersection of all definable endsegments is not empty according to (*) where the universal quantifier rules. Therefore there is no endsegment that would change the general result, i.e., the statement (*).
Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-17 00:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <baacd2c9-ea2b-d644-c001-a161188bc9e5@att.net> |
| In reply to | #210820 |
On 9/16/2019 1:18 PM, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
> Am Montag, 16. September 2019 17:49:08 UTC+2
> schrieb Jim Burns:
>> Look at my previous post, where I show that
>> | ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) =/= { } (*)
>> is equivalent to
>> | An e N, Ek e N:( n =< k )
>> and
>> | The intersection of all endsegments is empty.
>> is equivalent to
>> | An e N, Ek e N:( n < k )
>>
>> I don't use "more endsegments".
>
> Nevertheless you get a contradiction if you assume that
> all endsegmnents are definable. The intersection of all
> definable endsegments is not empty according to (*)
> where the universal quantifier rules. Therefore there is
> no endsegment that would change the general result, i.e.,
> the statement (*).
Nothing changes, nothing _needs_ to change.
What you see as contradictory statements are only
two different ways to frame the same question, or
nearly the same.
This is the way you (WM) "prove" things: you frame
things to call out to certain of our intuitions, and
then you _stop_ and say "Isn't it obvious?"
Calling out to certain intuitions is not a proof.
I think Daniel Dennett calls such arguments intuition
pumps. There's a place for them, if they're used
responsibly. I've never seen you (WM) use them
responsibly.
But they're not ever proofs. The topic here is an excellent
illustration of _why_ they're not proofs. Even though
they _seem_ contradictory to _you_ (WM), when you look
below the surface at the definitions,
| All endsegments are not empty.
is almost exactly the same claim as
| The intersection of all endsegments is empty.
All endsegments are not empty. (*)
Forall j, exists k such that k in E(j)
Forall j, exists k such that k >= j (*')
The intersection of all endsegments is empty. (**)
Forall j, exists k such that j not in E(k)
Forall j, exists k such that ~( j >= k )
~( j >= k ) <-> ( k > j )
Forall j, exists k such that k > j (**')
You think that
| All endsegments are not empty.
and
| The intersection of all endsegments is empty.
are contradictory. However, (I hope) you think that
| Forall j, exists k such that k >= j
and
| Forall j, exists k such that k >= j
_are not_ contradictory, even though their meanings
haven't changed. And *that* is why intuition pumps,
especially as you (WM) use them, are *not* proofs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-17 00:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <77db91dc-947a-8404-5915-214dc1d56662@att.net> |
| In reply to | #210877 |
On 9/17/2019 12:37 AM, Jim Burns wrote:
> On 9/16/2019 1:18 PM, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
>> Am Montag, 16. September 2019 17:49:08 UTC+2
>> schrieb Jim Burns:
>
>>> Look at my previous post, where I show that
>>> | ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) =/= { } (*)
>>> is equivalent to
>>> | An e N, Ek e N:( n =< k )
>>> and
>>> | The intersection of all endsegments is empty.
>>> is equivalent to
>>> | An e N, Ek e N:( n < k )
>>>
>>> I don't use "more endsegments".
>>
>> Nevertheless you get a contradiction if you assume that
>> all endsegmnents are definable. The intersection of all
>> definable endsegments is not empty according to (*)
>> where the universal quantifier rules. Therefore there is
>> no endsegment that would change the general result, i.e.,
>> the statement (*).
>
> Nothing changes, nothing _needs_ to change.
>
> What you see as contradictory statements are only
> two different ways to frame the same question, or
> nearly the same.
>
> This is the way you (WM) "prove" things: you frame
> things to call out to certain of our intuitions, and
> then you _stop_ and say "Isn't it obvious?"
>
> Calling out to certain intuitions is not a proof.
> I think Daniel Dennett calls such arguments intuition
> pumps. There's a place for them, if they're used
> responsibly. I've never seen you (WM) use them
> responsibly.
>
> But they're not ever proofs. The topic here is an excellent
> illustration of _why_ they're not proofs. Even though
> they _seem_ contradictory to _you_ (WM), when you look
> below the surface at the definitions,
> | All endsegments are not empty.
> is almost exactly the same claim as
> | The intersection of all endsegments is empty.
>
> All endsegments are not empty. (*)
> Forall j, exists k such that k in E(j)
> Forall j, exists k such that k >= j (*')
>
> The intersection of all endsegments is empty. (**)
> Forall j, exists k such that j not in E(k)
> Forall j, exists k such that ~( j >= k )
> ~( j >= k ) <-> ( k > j )
> Forall j, exists k such that k > j (**')
>
> You think that
> | All endsegments are not empty.
> and
> | The intersection of all endsegments is empty.
> are contradictory. However, (I hope) you think that
> | Forall j, exists k such that k >= j
> and
> | Forall j, exists k such that *k > j*
*was k >= j. D'oh!
> _are not_ contradictory, even though their meanings
> haven't changed. And *that* is why intuition pumps,
> especially as you (WM) use them, are *not* proofs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-17 08:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60c3e0c0-b6a8-4851-8210-1805e2b88b88@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210877 |
Am Dienstag, 17. September 2019 06:37:21 UTC+2 schrieb Jim Burns:
> On 9/16/2019 1:18 PM, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
> > Therefore there is
> > no endsegment that would change the general result, i.e.,
> > the statement (*).
>
> Nothing changes, nothing _needs_ to change.
Of course the non-empty set needs to change in order to get the empty set.
All endsegments appearing here
∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) =/= { } (*)
can be removed from all endsegments appearing here
E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... = { } (**)
without changing the empty result of (**). What remains? What is causing this empty result?
> Calling out to certain intuitions is not a proof.
Therefore try mathematics. What is the result when subtracting all endsegments appearing in (*) from all endsegmnets appearing in (**)?
> 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. Why do you think that the intersection of all endsegments is empty? Because you prove that for every k there is an endsegment not containing it. But you forget that every k that you can chose and define is also in (*) yielding a not empty intersection. Try to understand why this is inconsistent reasoning: You deal with all definable k only (proved by their being in (*)) but you claim to have dealt with all k of (**).
Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-17 16:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <8266fcff-bd8d-455e-07b0-8e65bbfb35ad@att.net> |
| In reply to | #210911 |
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? Does it help that the two later formulas (*') and (**') mean the same as the two earlier formulas (*) and (**)? (unsnipping) >> [...] However, (I hope) you think that >> | Forall j, exists k such that k >= j >> and >> | Forall j, exists k such that k > j >> _are not_ contradictory, even though their meanings >> haven't changed. And *that* is why intuition pumps, >> especially as you (WM) use them, are *not* proofs. > Why do you think that the intersection of all endsegments > is empty? Because you prove that for every k there is > an endsegment not containing it. But you forget that > every k that you can chose and define is also in (*) > yielding a not empty intersection. Try to understand why > this is inconsistent reasoning: You deal with all > definable k only (proved by their being in (*)) but you > claim to have dealt with all k of (**). These "explanations" of yours sound as though you're talking about two different "sets of all naturals". If you are, you can make that clear by answering this question: What is the subset of N that is an _element_ of some endsegment, but which does not _index_ any endsegment? We shall say that the _index_ of an endsegment E(j) is a natural number j such that forall k in N, k e E(j) <-> k >= j
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-18 08:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <95dc1529-0d1b-4f50-aac7-86486e850400@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210957 |
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.
>
> (unsnipping)
> >> [...] However, (I hope) you think that
> >> | Forall j, exists k such that k >= j
> >> and
> >> | Forall j, exists k such that k > j
> >> _are not_ contradictory, even though their meanings
> >> haven't changed. And *that* is why intuition pumps,
> >> especially as you (WM) use them, are *not* proofs.
>
> > Why do you think that the intersection of all endsegments
> > is empty? Because you prove that for every k there is
> > an endsegment not containing it. But you forget that
> > every k that you can chose and define is also in (*)
> > yielding a not empty intersection. Try to understand why
> > this is inconsistent reasoning: You deal with all
> > definable k only (proved by their being in (*)) but you
> > claim to have dealt with all k of (**).
>
> These "explanations" of yours sound as though you're
> talking about two different "sets of all naturals".
> If you are, you can make that clear by answering this
> question:
>
> What is the subset of N that is an _element_
> of some endsegment, but which does not _index_ any
> endsegment?
Since your question cannot be answered, either there are dark numbers or (**) is wrong.
I do not claim that (**) is true. I only claim that if (**) is true, then it is not true by the collection of endegmnets appearing in (*) because for all of them the empty intersection has been excluded.
Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-19 01:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87sgot5cq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #211002 |
Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> writes:
(AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
Unendlichen" at Hochschule Augsburg.)
> 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) ∩ ... = { } (**).
It's just a word game. All end segments (definable or otherwise) do
/not/ appear in (*). (*) is always a finite intersection. All end
segments /do/ occur in (**). It's an infinite intersection.
(*) can be generalised so that it /does/ include the case of all end
segments:
∀S ∈ P(N): Intersection_{i ∈ S} E(i) =/= {}
and now it's false because Intersection_{i ∈ N} E(i) = {}. (If you are
tempted to be sidetracked by the case of S = {}, just exclude it with ∀S
∈ (P(N)\{}) since if, and how, empty intersections are defined is beside
the point here.)
This situation is very common. For example
∀S ∈ P(N): Product_{i ∈ S} 1/i =/= 0
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.
I don't really think you believe your shtick. It obvious that there are
numbers that appear in every member of any finite collection of end
segments, just as it is obvious that no number appears in every one.
It's neither surprising nor contradictory. Do your students buy this
particular word game, or have you not yet tried it out on them?
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-19 05:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <044c2e35-672e-40df-afb7-ca63c8c2a85f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211057 |
Am Donnerstag, 19. September 2019 02:52:35 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.)
>
> > 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) ∩ ... = { } (**).
>
> It's just a word game. All end segments (definable or otherwise) do
> /not/ appear in (*). (*) is always a finite intersection.
Then answer finally my question: What endsegment does not appear in (*)?
> (*) 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? Or is it correct that you cannot define them?
>
> This situation is very common. For example
Let me know your answer. That would be enough.
Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-20 01:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87zhiz4xh2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #211072 |
Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> writes:
> Am Donnerstag, 19. September 2019 02:52:35 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.)
>>
>> > 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) ∩ ... = { } (**).
>>
>> It's just a word game. All end segments (definable or otherwise) do
>> /not/ appear in (*). (*) is always a finite intersection.
>
> Then answer finally my question: What endsegment does not appear in
> (*)?
E(n+1), among others.
>> (*) 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. You are playing a game with the word
"all". You mean "any end segment may appear" not "all end segments
appear", but you must avoid that subjunctive for the trick to have any
chance of fooling someone.
> 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. I have no idea if that is what you mean
because "defined" is one of your magic words.
>> 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 (##).
Shall we publish this one together as the second Bacarisse Mueckenheim
theorem? (I'm still waiting on a tiny detail from your that's holding
up the first Bacarisse Mueckenheim theorem, but that one was about
WMaths.)
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-20 08:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fba880e0-7211-46a8-8045-ba72883c06c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211102 |
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.
But it would not help either, because
∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) ∩ E(n+1) =/= { } .
>
> >> (*) 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 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) =/= {} ? (**)
> > 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 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.
>
> >> 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. But all endsegments shall be sufficient to get the empty set. Limits are not appropriate in this case because they would also enter the bijection (E(n), q_n) and would invalidate it.
Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-20 14:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a1ed0cc1-c0a9-4cc7-8b3a-5d947bcede72@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211123 |
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.
Once again, you are confused because you're trying to use two completely different meanings for something at the same time, so you're seeing a contradiction that doesn't actually exist.
> But it would not help either, because
>
> ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) ∩ E(n+1) =/= { } .
That's a different statement!
> > >> (*) 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 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) =/= {} ? (**)
When n = 1, the first endsegment used in (*) but not in (**) is E(2), i.e. E(1+1).
When n = 2, the first endsegment used in (*) but not in (**) is E(3), i.e. E(2+1).
When n = 3, the first endsegment used in (*) but not in (**) is E(4), i.e. E(3+1).
etc.
So for each n in N, the first endsegment used in (*) but not in (**) is E(n+1).
How is that not trivially obvious to you?
EFQ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-21 13:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0193938a-b491-4998-bcaf-b30dc980f5f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211148 |
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. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-21 13:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d7f2aa1a-ec43-4267-be49-ab036552244e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211165 |
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 (*). 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 into an incoherent, arbitrarily fluctuating mess in which n and n+1 are indistinguishable". EFQ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-23 12:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5c7e0fe3-2f31-4195-84f7-b80574a5e6ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211167 |
Am Samstag, 21. September 2019 22:44:58 UTC+2 schrieb Exfalso Quodlibet: > In your (*), ∀n means "for each n, evaluate this static expression to get a single static result". ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) means: E(1) E(1) ∩ E(2) E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ E(4) ... Try to find an E(n+1) that does not appear. REgards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-23 21:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5d891986$0$15500$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #211196 |
Crank Wolfgang Mueckenheim sockpuppet, Ganzhinterseher wrote: > Am Samstag, 21. September 2019 22:44:58 UTC+2 schrieb Exfalso Quodlibet: >> In your (*), ∀n means "for each n, evaluate this static expression to get a single static result". > > ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) means: ... means nothing E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) is not a predicate. > E(1) > E(1) ∩ E(2) > E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) > E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ E(4) > ... means, at best, a sequence of set. > Try to find an E(n+1) that does not appear. E(5) didn't. Now go fuck yourself, Crank Adjunct Lecturer Wolfgang Mueckenheim, from Hochschule Augsburg.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-23 12:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d855ac96-e604-42b0-8ab9-a34f74149834@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211196 |
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:09:57 PM UTC-4, Ganzhinterseher wrote: > Am Samstag, 21. September 2019 22:44:58 UTC+2 schrieb Exfalso Quodlibet: > > In your (*), ∀n means "for each n, evaluate this static expression to get a single static result". > > ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) means: > > E(1) > E(1) ∩ E(2) > E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) > E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ E(4) > ... > > Try to find an E(n+1) that does not appear. In fact, I can find one for each! E(2) doesn't appear in the first expression. E(3) doesn't appear in the second expression. E(4) doesn't appear in the third expression. E(5) doesn't appear in the fourth expression. And in general, for every n, E(n+1) won't appear in the corresponding expression. You cannot find a single n for which E(n+1) doesn't appear in the corresponding expression. How is that not trivially obvious to you? EFQ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-23 13:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a921b4f7-9c7e-4451-93ef-8b8217359860@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211205 |
Am Montag, 23. September 2019 21:49:29 UTC+2 schrieb Exfalso Quodlibet: > On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:09:57 PM UTC-4, Ganzhinterseher wrote: > > Am Samstag, 21. September 2019 22:44:58 UTC+2 schrieb Exfalso Quodlibet: > > > In your (*), ∀n means "for each n, evaluate this static expression to get a single static result". > > > > ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) means: > > > > E(1) > > E(1) ∩ E(2) > > E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) > > E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ E(4) > > ... > > > > Try to find an E(n+1) that does not appear. > > In fact, I can find one for each! > > E(2) doesn't appear in the first expression. > E(3) doesn't appear in the second expression. > E(4) doesn't appear in the third expression. > E(5) doesn't appear in the fourth expression. Try to find an E(n+1) that does not appear in all finite intersections. We have two sets: (*) containing all endsegments belonging to finite initial segments and yielding non-empty intersections, and (**) containing all endsegments without any restriction and with a very different intersection. We are looking for the cause (**) \ (*) of the different result. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-23 15:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <963eb943-a440-450e-8afe-a445799ebfb5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211207 |
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 4:01:53 PM UTC-4, Ganzhinterseher wrote: > Am Montag, 23. September 2019 21:49:29 UTC+2 schrieb Exfalso Quodlibet: > > On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:09:57 PM UTC-4, Ganzhinterseher wrote: > > > Am Samstag, 21. September 2019 22:44:58 UTC+2 schrieb Exfalso Quodlibet: > > > > In your (*), ∀n means "for each n, evaluate this static expression to get a single static result". > > > > > > ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) means: > > > > > > E(1) > > > E(1) ∩ E(2) > > > E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) > > > E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ E(3) ∩ E(4) > > > ... > > > > > > Try to find an E(n+1) that does not appear. > > > > In fact, I can find one for each! > > > > E(2) doesn't appear in the first expression. > > E(3) doesn't appear in the second expression. > > E(4) doesn't appear in the third expression. > > E(5) doesn't appear in the fourth expression. > > Try to find an E(n+1) that does not appear in all finite intersections. For all finite intersection of the form E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n), E(n+1) does not appear. > We have two sets: We have a whole heck of a lot more than that! Each E(n) is a set. There are an infinite number of those. Each finite intersection E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) is a set. There are an infinite number of those. The infinite intersection E(1) ∩ E(2) ∩ ... ∩ E(n) ∩ ... is a set. There is only one of those. > (*) containing all endsegments belonging to finite initial segments (*) is not a set. (*) is an infinite number of sets. > and yielding non-empty intersections, and (**) containing all endsegments without any restriction and with a very different intersection. > We are looking for the cause (**) \ (*) of the different result. (**) is empty, so (**) \ S is empty, for any set S you can imagine. There is no "different result" (whatever that means). Once again, your sloppy formalism, broken English, and illogical thinking are failing you. Also, apparently so is your memory, since you said "EOD" just yesterday, and yet, the discussion is still continuing. EFQ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 32 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web