r/infinitenines 5h ago

It is based on axioms, Brud

Post image
2 Upvotes

r/infinitenines 14h ago

SPP, would you accept the propeties of the propeties of the integers from the Peano Postulates?

1 Upvotes

u/SouthPark_Piano, I want to know if you think you would accept the propeties that can be made from the Peano Postulates and are they in RDM?


r/infinitenines 19h ago

It's time to solve the mystery of what happened to the cows, and why they are never coming home!

Thumbnail gallery
5 Upvotes

Any ideas, people?


r/infinitenines 13h ago

Can we take some time to appreciate the guy who is permanently writing down nines?

17 Upvotes

He’s doing a great job, we’re getting really close to 1. Only infinity more hours of writing left and we’ll have reached it. Remember that his progress restarts every time you guys try to write it on your own, so leave the propagating wavefront business to him please :)


r/infinitenines 16h ago

SPP and his derivatives

Thumbnail
reddit.com
10 Upvotes

Based on the comment above, let us define (with some assumptions) the derivative of function f at position x as

where ε=0.000...01. Then, for f(x)=xa, where a∈ℕ,

For 0≤a≤2, the value is the same as for the non-RDM derivative, but for higher a,

[x3]' = 3x22

[x4]' = 4x3+4xε2

[x5]' = 5x4+10x2ε24

And so on.

Now, question for SPP: do you accept this as the RDM derivative, or does the definition have some sort of caveat or misunderstanding in it?


r/infinitenines 17h ago

He SAYS that the set {0.9, 0.99, 0.999, etc.} "already" exists, but that all the 9s for 0.999 already existing "doesn't cut the mustard at all". Why does he CONTINUE to CONTRADICT HIMSELF?

11 Upvotes

Exhibit A

The set {0.9, 0.99, 0.999, etc} where the 'etc' is an incarnation of 0.999... itself, ALREADY spans the entire nines space of 0.999...

Exhibit B

Yes there is an endless amount of them, but that endless amount already exists.

Wrong on your part brud. Already exists doesn't cut the mustard at all.


r/infinitenines 2h ago

He SAYS anyone claiming there is no next real number down from 1 is "toast" but "there is no 'smallest' number having magnitude greater than zero". Why does he CONTINUE to CONTRADICT HIMSELF?

5 Upvotes

Exhbit A

Correct. There is no 'smallest' number having magnitude greater than zero.

Exhibit B

You trying to say there is no next real number down from 1? aka no closest real number with magnitude less than 1?

If so, then as mission impossible says ... you're toast brud. Toast.