Re: Infinite Binary Strings: A Question

In article
<b5292b52-a428-4321-98d8-a2fd8bcf5f1f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
LudovicoVan <julio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 25 Sep, 19:03, Virgil <Vir...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article
<c46978c4-fe98-4b4f-b5bb-a707bca74...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
 LudovicoVan <ju...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 25 Sep, 04:40, Virgil <Vir...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article
<5afbea3c-f870-4a81-8b09-b00df4cf7...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

 LudovicoVan <ju...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Here are few examples:

"0.(0)" <-> "0...0"

Sorry, this one should read:

  "0.(0)" <-> "0.0...0"

On the contrary, it should read something like"0.0...".

In mathematical notation, an ellipsis followed by an end term always
represents a finite sequence, and only those without an end term are
allowed to represent infinite sequences.

-LV

"0.01(10)" <-> "0.0110...10"

Wrong again. "0.01(10)" <-> "0.01101010..." if it is to be infinite.

"101.01(100)" <-> "101.01100...100"

Wrong yet again. "101.01(100)" <-> "101.01100100100..."

Idiot, I have given a notation, and you give the usual nonsense and
denial.

I merely deny what is impossible.

You are denying a *notation*: you are just denial and nonsense.

You demand an infinite ordered set of digit positions with a first and a
last and with only a finite number of others between any two of them.

That's not what my *notation* demands, that's even a contradiction,
idiot and bullshitter. I have just given an alternative way to write a
periodic expansion that is food for thought, still it is equivalent to
the more conventional: "(p)" <-> "p...p". It's just a mapping, and it
works: idiot.

Between which pairs of elements of your form of list are there only
finitely many others and between which pairs are infinitely many
allowed?

Until that question is settled, your "notation" is nonsense.

The reason why this notation is food for thought is of course going
not to even have a chance to be focused: as usual, it will be
submerged by the mere amount of bull*** and nonsense you keep
throwing at all attempts of discussion that may in any way endanger
your dogma. Still that reflection is just on the lines of the OP,
itself submerged by the bull*** and the nonsense.

Between which pairs of elements of your form of list are there only
finitely many others allowed and between which pairs are infinitely
many allowed?

Until that question is settled, your "notation" is nonsense.

It don't fly!

I stipulate a *notation*. You indirectly deny the basic distinction
between numbers and numerals here

On the contrary, I am well aware of the distinction, but I am also aware
of the nonsense of having a "list" or "sequence" of digits which allows
infinitely many digits between any two digits as your does.

: you are just bull***, nonsense,

My "nonsense" is sufficiently logical toreveal the contradictions in
your "sense".

when not straight lies, ad hominem, and what-else.

You are a true calamity for this group.

Calling me names and heaping insults on me will not make your arguments
any less invalid.

Between which pairs of elements of your form of list are there only
finitely many others allowed and between which pairs are infinitely
many allowed?

Until that question is settled, your "notation" is nonsense.
.

Quantcast