0d Lines and Circles

[Eodnhoj7]

My intellectual superiority is a fact. I don't even remember the last time I lost a major philosophical debate, was probably 10+ years ago.

Wow so you do believe you know it all and are better than everyone. Narcistic Delusions and schizophrenic tendencies...sad.

Really, because the common standard is when someone reverts to ad homninums with no argument...that is a loss. From other points of view...you lose alot.

But hey, it's all relative. You do you and just keep pretending.

ROLF

Atla: "I HAVE NEVER LOST A PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT IN YEARS!"

Person A: (insert argument here)

ATLA: WRONG DEFINITION AND CONTEXT! I WIN!

Person A: uh win what?

ATLA: WRONG DEFINITION AND CONTEXT! I WIN!


Rofl! You go get'em winner....

Very well, my answer to your question is (I didn't read the OP, just this short version): you don't understand what a line is, what dimensions are, and how to use 'exist' in such a context. The way you are confusing things hints at a possible psychosis. Especially this idea of the 'act of forming'.

False.

The lines are 1 dimensional. They have no width.

1 line is on top of another line, but considering there is no width and the space between them has no width...is there a 0d line?

(Hint the number line observes lines seperated by 0d points that have no width...this occurs horizontally).

99.9%+ of the time you would be right, but I am (or rather I was) some kind of high-functioning savant, it's an extremely rare mental defect that in some ways increases thinking ability by an extreme margin.
(We can sort of directly access the underlying unconscious's raw parallel thinking capacity. I also input everything known to humanity into my unconscious and created a unified model there. It's a program that's still running.)

But the above is not needed to see that your topic question makes no sense, just as your prior 100 qustions made no sense.

So what, I was professionally tested as a genius as well....they are a dime a dozen....and there are alot of categories of "genius".

Wow you created a unified model...like a million other geniuses...good for you. So everything known to humanity? So that includes all the contradictions as well.

Anyhow,

I worked with a professional retired Harvard professor on a screen play. He worked in the White House, was a friend to the ambassador of china, etc... and I mean "etc" because he has more stories than I can even recall. He was on TV show one time. Why? It was a show on savants. This professor could memorize anything...but that was it. He could not reason reality, just copy the forms and apply them. No creativity what so ever...but genius none the less.

You copy stuff, that is it...of course it makes no sense...you copy stuff...you can't break it down. That is called divergent thinking, savants generally do not possess it...but you should know this.

"Sort of directly access the raw consciousness"...wow so the "sort of" just means you don't know. Raw consciousness is empty of form...Buddhists observed this for thousands of years...and the taosists as well. Socrates observed this as well as the Western Faiths.


The truth of it is your just a retard who copies other people's work. Nice try with the lettering, I can read books upside down...try harder.

For the record, the print shows up normal when you hit "respond"...."genius"....

[Eodnhoj7]

The number line is composed of infinite numbers and yet it is a line ... if the numbers are progressing then so is the line

The line cannot be fully mapped because it is infinite but it is still nonetheless complete

Yes! Think about what you just said.

It cannot be fully mapped but it is complete...why?

Each number can be thought of as an individual point on an infinite one dimensional line

False, that means you can quantify 0's and multiply them...but this leads to zero. You cannot have 7 zeros without saying 7×1=7. The zeros are equated to 1 when quantified.

It is the lines which are quantified.

It may seem counter intuitive to think of an infinite line as complete but it is an abstract concept and so is not affected by limitation
Beliefs are not effected by limitation either.

A line composed of infinite points necessitates it as composed of infinite lines...each line or line segment is infinite by default...but this necessitates that each quantifiable line as a number is an infinite set. 1 is an infinity. Same with 2. And 3. Etc..


Physical infinity of the past and future cannot exist all at once but mathematical infinity can even if minds cannot perceive it as such

This is an assumption as there is not proof for or against infinity.

Therefore the infinite number line is fully complete as an abstract entity even if it can never be fully mapped because it is infinite

That is like saying "it is infinite because we say so". It is complete because it is circular. It begins with a 0d point and ends with the same 0d point. It begins with void and ends with void...the line is a 2d circle on its side.


So strictly in the sense that it is complete there is no progression as all points on the line are accounted for because they are fixed

They are not fixed as they are the underlying medium that has no definite position as they are not limited to it.

If I have line A and divide it into infinite lines,
One of these lines, B, in turn is divided into infinite lines,
And the same for C and D, ad infinitum,
Then each of these points as existing relative to other points is always progressively changing position as the position changes when relative to a new set of lines.

It is like saying all the points of a sphere are fixed, but those points are composed of further points upon further examination and we are left with a continual change with each new observation.

The points are not fixed, and your argument is grounded in "assumption" and the fallacy of bandwagon. Axioms in math change, math is not a constant.

[Atla]

So what, I was professionally tested as a genius as well....they are a dime a dozen....and there are alot of categories of "genius".

Wow you created a unified model...like a million other geniuses...good for you. So everything known to humanity? So that includes all the contradictions as well.

Anyhow,

I worked with a professional retired Harvard professor on a screen play. He worked in the White House, was a friend to the ambassador of china, etc... and I mean "etc" because he has more stories than I can even recall. He was on TV show one time. Why? It was a show on savants. This professor could memorize anything...but that was it. He could not reason reality, just copy the forms and apply them. No creativity what so ever...but genius none the less.

You copy stuff, that is it...of course it makes no sense...you copy stuff...you can't break it down. That is called divergent thinking, savants generally do not possess it...but you should know this.

"Sort of directly access the raw consciousness"...wow so the "sort of" just means you don't know. Raw consciousness is empty of form...Buddhists observed this for thousands of years...and the taosists as well. Socrates observed this as well as the Western Faiths.


The truth of it is your just a retard who copies other people's work. Nice try with the lettering, I can read books upside down...try harder.

For the record, the print shows up normal when you hit "respond"...."genius"....

Err no, 150 IQ 'geniuses' are a dime a dozen, you're nothing special. You aren't even relevant because interesting insights usually come from people in the 180+ range.

And calendar savantism is just some autistic one-trick-pony stuff, that doesn't get you anywhere.

Why do you think I can always easily debunk your claims, and then you keep changing the subject?

You also mixed up unconscious with consciousness.

[Eodnhoj7]

So what, I was professionally tested as a genius as well....they are a dime a dozen....and there are alot of categories of "genius".

Wow you created a unified model...like a million other geniuses...good for you. So everything known to humanity? So that includes all the contradictions as well.

Anyhow,

I worked with a professional retired Harvard professor on a screen play. He worked in the White House, was a friend to the ambassador of china, etc... and I mean "etc" because he has more stories than I can even recall. He was on TV show one time. Why? It was a show on savants. This professor could memorize anything...but that was it. He could not reason reality, just copy the forms and apply them. No creativity what so ever...but genius none the less.

You copy stuff, that is it...of course it makes no sense...you copy stuff...you can't break it down. That is called divergent thinking, savants generally do not possess it...but you should know this.

"Sort of directly access the raw consciousness"...wow so the "sort of" just means you don't know. Raw consciousness is empty of form...Buddhists observed this for thousands of years...and the taosists as well. Socrates observed this as well as the Western Faiths.


The truth of it is your just a retard who copies other people's work. Nice try with the lettering, I can read books upside down...try harder.

For the record, the print shows up normal when you hit "respond"...."genius"....

Err no, 150 IQ 'geniuses' are a dime a dozen, you're nothing special. You aren't even relevant because interesting insights usually come from people in the 180+ range.

And calendar savantism is just some autistic one-trick-pony stuff, that doesn't get you anywhere.

Why do you think I can always easily debunk your claims, and then you keep changing the subject?

You also mixed up unconscious with consciousness.

What change in subject, when I argue it is all context within context...that is the point. All answers, as contextual are simultaneously true and false. I am saying you are wrong, that is not changing context...quote where you have said this.

As to the next point.

157-161...so much for your memorization. If you really memorized it you would have said "160 range"...so much for knowing it all. And the professional test was not limited to IQ but spatial and verbal reasoning...so much for your memory.

No, you just say "wrong". It is not debunking.

As to the rest.

Not really, the IQ test does not measure creativity, and a variety of other fields, and we dont know the IQs of those who created it. It's a self referential loop, it is determined by those who created it and those who created it may be lower than 180 (most likely 160 range) thus anyone who scores higher than those who created it cannot be accurately measured.

The IQ test is old news, anyone with a high IQ knows it is bunk...but you should no this.

As to interesting insights:

Einstein was 160 range, feynman 125, kant 175, and hundreds of others where below 180. Alot are 160 and below. Practically speaking 130-140 is effective before people become lopsided.

You cannot differ the unconscious from the consciousness when they are integrated, the unconsciousness is formless and consciousness is form, they are simultaneous. If you define one you use the other.


Wow you really are just making up stuff...

[Atla]

So what, I was professionally tested as a genius as well....they are a dime a dozen....and there are alot of categories of "genius".

Wow you created a unified model...like a million other geniuses...good for you. So everything known to humanity? So that includes all the contradictions as well.

Anyhow,

I worked with a professional retired Harvard professor on a screen play. He worked in the White House, was a friend to the ambassador of china, etc... and I mean "etc" because he has more stories than I can even recall. He was on TV show one time. Why? It was a show on savants. This professor could memorize anything...but that was it. He could not reason reality, just copy the forms and apply them. No creativity what so ever...but genius none the less.

You copy stuff, that is it...of course it makes no sense...you copy stuff...you can't break it down. That is called divergent thinking, savants generally do not possess it...but you should know this.

"Sort of directly access the raw consciousness"...wow so the "sort of" just means you don't know. Raw consciousness is empty of form...Buddhists observed this for thousands of years...and the taosists as well. Socrates observed this as well as the Western Faiths.


The truth of it is your just a retard who copies other people's work. Nice try with the lettering, I can read books upside down...try harder.

For the record, the print shows up normal when you hit "respond"...."genius"....

Err no, 150 IQ 'geniuses' are a dime a dozen, you're nothing special. You aren't even relevant because interesting insights usually come from people in the 180+ range.

And calendar savantism is just some autistic one-trick-pony stuff, that doesn't get you anywhere.

Why do you think I can always easily debunk your claims, and then you keep changing the subject?

You also mixed up unconscious with consciousness.

What change in subject, when I argue it is all context within context...that is the point. All answers, as contextual are simultaneously true and false. I am saying you are wrong, that is not changing context...quote where you have said this.

As to the next point.

157-161...so much for your memorization. If you really memorized it you would have said "160 range"...so much for knowing it all. And the professional test was not limited to IQ but spatial and verbal reasoning...so much for your memory.

No, you just say "wrong". It is not debunking.

As to the rest.

Not really, the IQ test does not measure creativity, and a variety of other fields, and we dont know the IQs of those who created it. It's a self referential loop, it is determined by those who created it and those who created it may be lower than 180 (most likely 160 range) thus anyone who scores higher than those who created it cannot be accurately measured.

The IQ test is old news, anyone with a high IQ knows it is bunk...but you should no this.

As to interesting insights:

Einstein was 160 range, feynman 125, kant 175, and hundreds of others where below 180. Alot are 160 and below. Practically speaking 130-140 is effective before people become lopsided.

You cannot differ the unconscious from the consciousness when they are integrated, the unconsciousness is formless and consciousness is form, they are simultaneous. If you define one you use the other.


Wow you really are just making up stuff...

As I said you're in the ~150 range, psychosis slightly decreases cognitive abilities.

Saying that "All answers, as contextual are simultaneously true and false." is just an idiotic oversimplification, distortion. Overall you can't handle the hierarchies of abstractions properly and so you just change the subject.

As for Feynman, judging from the way he thought, he was almost certainly a high-functioning savant. That's how he could effortlessly outperform others with higher IQs. Exactly my point.

As far as I know Einstein had some enlarged brain region which gave him his insight (plus he stole a lot), but otherwise he wasn't particularly impressive.

As for the unconscious, it's formless in the sense that we can't notice how it functions. But in the case of savants, at the end of this unnoticable process, it keeps throwing out answers anyway. That's the whole point.

You're a clueless moron as always.

[surreptitious57]

A line composed of infinite points necessitates it as composed of infinite lines ... each line or line segment is infinite by default ... but this necessitates that each quantifiable line as a number is an infinite set . I is an infinity . Same with 2 . And 3 . Etc

There are irrational numbers with an infinite number of decimal points
There are an infinite number of numbers between every two numbers
The number line extends to both negative and positive infinity
And these are the three separate infinities of the number line

And they can all be simply represented as separate points on the infinite but yet complete one dimensional number line
The proof for the infinity of the number line is that there are no such things as the largest negative or positive integers

[surreptitious57]

The points are not fixed and your argument is grounded in assumption

There is no assumption in infinity as it is a fundamental characteristic of the number line
Irrationals belong to both an infinite set and have infinite decimal places
There are also many other infinite sets contained within the number line
And the number line itself extends to both negative and positive infinity
Also other infinities beyond the cardinals like the ordinals and aleph null

[Eodnhoj7]

A line composed of infinite points necessitates it as composed of infinite lines ... each line or line segment is infinite by default ... but this necessitates that each quantifiable line as a number is an infinite set . I is an infinity . Same with 2 . And 3 . Etc

There are irrational numbers with an infinite number of decimal points
With each set of points on a number line have a distance thus a length...therefore a line.

There are an infinite number of numbers between every two numbers
0 is not quantifiable. Each number is composed of infinite numbers.

The number line extends to both negative and positive infinity
And these are the three separate infinities of the number line

They can be superimposed on top of eachother as all existing between and through zero.

And they can all be simply represented as separate points on the infinite but yet complete one dimensional number line

The points are 0d. They cannot be quantified without saying 0 is multipliable.




The proof for the infinity of the number line is that there are no such things as the largest negative or positive integers

No, that is a proof for finiteness being dynamic and numbers are always changing.

[Eodnhoj7]

The points are not fixed and your argument is grounded in assumption

There is no assumption in infinity as it is a fundamental characteristic of the number line
False, as some claim infinity is not even a number. Unless it can be quantified it is not a mathematical entity, and it can be quantified, but the number line is dynamically expanding as all you can define is a newer and newer number.


Infinity effectively is 1 as the number line is one unit relative to another number line where each set of numbers are fractals/fractions.


Irrationals belong to both an infinite set and have infinite decimal places
Yes.
There are also many other infinite sets contained within the number line
Yes.
And the number line itself extends to both negative and positive infinity
Yes.
Also other infinities beyond the cardinals like the ordinals and aleph null
Yes.

But this does not negate the number line is dynamic and perpetually changing.

[surreptitious57]

As far as I know Einstein had some enlarged brain region which gave him his insight but otherwise he was not particularly impressive

I think that the enlarged pre frontal cortex is an urban myth and his brain was simply of average size
But what made him a genius was his persistence in not giving up on a problem till it had been solved

[Atla]

As far as I know Einstein had some enlarged brain region which gave him his insight but otherwise he was not particularly impressive

I think that the enlarged pre frontal cortex is an urban myth and his brain was simply of average size
But what made him a genius was his persistence in not giving up on a problem till it had been solved

But they seem to have found a lot of oddities about his brain. Some parts larger some smaller. Apparently he also had an extra lobe somewhere, and some other parts were simply missing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_brain

I think relativity was how he naturally experienced spacetime (through coincidence), so he didn't really have to put in much effort there. He couldn't really handle QM though (but at least he persistently tried, unlike others who just swept it under the carpet).

[Eodnhoj7]

Err no, 150 IQ 'geniuses' are a dime a dozen, you're nothing special. You aren't even relevant because interesting insights usually come from people in the 180+ range.

And calendar savantism is just some autistic one-trick-pony stuff, that doesn't get you anywhere.

Why do you think I can always easily debunk your claims, and then you keep changing the subject?

You also mixed up unconscious with consciousness.

What change in subject, when I argue it is all context within context...that is the point. All answers, as contextual are simultaneously true and false. I am saying you are wrong, that is not changing context...quote where you have said this.

As to the next point.

157-161...so much for your memorization. If you really memorized it you would have said "160 range"...so much for knowing it all. And the professional test was not limited to IQ but spatial and verbal reasoning...so much for your memory.

No, you just say "wrong". It is not debunking.

As to the rest.

Not really, the IQ test does not measure creativity, and a variety of other fields, and we dont know the IQs of those who created it. It's a self referential loop, it is determined by those who created it and those who created it may be lower than 180 (most likely 160 range) thus anyone who scores higher than those who created it cannot be accurately measured.

The IQ test is old news, anyone with a high IQ knows it is bunk...but you should no this.

As to interesting insights:

Einstein was 160 range, feynman 125, kant 175, and hundreds of others where below 180. Alot are 160 and below. Practically speaking 130-140 is effective before people become lopsided.

You cannot differ the unconscious from the consciousness when they are integrated, the unconsciousness is formless and consciousness is form, they are simultaneous. If you define one you use the other.



Wow you really are just making up stuff...

As I said you're in the ~150 range, psychosis slightly decreases cognitive abilities.

You mean the false premise of 180+ plus required for scientific discoveries when proven otherwise...that is what you mean by a decrease?

Saying that "All answers, as contextual are simultaneously true and false." is just an idiotic oversimplification, distortion. Overall you can't handle the hierarchies of abstractions properly and so you just change the subject.
As usual you don't know what you are talking about and getting off subject.....give evidence as to what defines a hierarchy of abstractions. Just dont make it like your 180+ evidence and effective genius...that was pathetic.

1. False, all words as defined by other words are generalizations of those mother words, all principles are generalizations of how some phenomenon operates, etc. All phenomenon are generalizations.

2. Hierarchy is relative.

Standard romantic triangle can prove this: Woman marries rich man because of financial hierarchy, but screws pool boy because of physical hierarchy. Which hierarchy is better.

3. There is no hierarchy except an underlying center point. A hierarchy requires an apex that is seperate from as base, up can be down and down can be up. The only common notion is the center point from which these extremes stem from as this center point supersedes both while existing through both.

You will not understand this, you are not intelligent enough to think it through.

As for Feynman, judging from the way he thought, he was almost certainly a high-functioning savant. That's how he could effortlessly outperform others with higher IQs. Exactly my point.

No, he created alot of formulas...he possessed divergent thinking as well.

As far as I know Einstein had some enlarged brain region which gave him his insight (plus he stole a lot), but otherwise he wasn't particularly impressive.

Fallacy, you are using subjective standard that is undefined....what does impressive mean? How do you steal ideas?

I know his name...noone here know your unified model or what you invented.

As for the unconscious, it's formless in the sense that we can't notice how it functions. But in the case of savants, at the end of this unnoticable process, it keeps throwing out answers anyway. That's the whole point.

Wow...that was "deep" tell us something we dont know.

Throwing out answers from what? It is no different than saying a vaccuum negates itself into particles (physics) or 0d negating itself into linear space or...etc.

Those answers are conscious, the subconsciousness as formless negates itself intomconsciousness.


You're a clueless moron as always.

Says the man who talks to tables...I mean so you learn nothing here, and you are here because you are bored....basically what you are saying is you have nothing really to contribute and are useless.

[Skepdick]

No, the notation on the right is not defined. The notation on the left .999..., is defined as 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + ...

You are using "..." in the definition of "...". Isn't that circular reasoning?

which is a geometric series that sums to 1, as is proved in freshman calcuus the world over.

That's one interpretation. Another interpretation is that it converges towards 1, but never really gets there. It is an approximation of - a range-precision trade-off.

Are infinite series total functions in your religion? I expect you to appeal to the AC at this point, because in my world a function which accepts infinite input can never be total. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_lo ... rpretation

[wtf]

You are using "..." in the definition of "...". Isn't that circular reasoning?

No, since the ellipses are not the point at issue here. Surely you know that. I found this remark disingenuous because of that.

Rather we are interested in the precise definition of decimal notation. If this site supported math markup I could just as easily have written



where the rightmost summation avoids the infinity sign for those so inclined.

That's one interpretation.

Indeed it is, but it is the standard interpretation that underlies most of modern math and all of modern physical science. And social science as well, since social science is all about probability and statistics these days, and those disciplines rest on standard calculus and the theory of the real numbers.

Alternative foundations are certainly possible and are interesting in their own right; but the burden is on you to clearly express your alternative idea.

Another interpretation is that it converges towards 1, but never really gets there.

That's just your lack of understanding of convergence. The sum of the sequence 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + ... IS exactly 1. That's what convergence means.

Even if I grant that you are coming from some (as not yet not clearly identified) alternative math perspective, you would still know the definition of convergence. That you don't tells me something about the state of your knowledge.

For example, in constructive math the definition of convergence is exactly the same as it is in standard math; except that we insist that the rate of convergence is bounded by a computable function. Surely if you are an expert in constructive math you'd know this. But you aren't and you don't.

It is an approximation of - a range-precision trade-off.

No it's not. It's standard math. If you have a different idea, feel free to explicate it.

You linked to the Wiki page on basic floating point arithmetic? LOL. Who are you trying to impress? I was hacking IEEE-754 back when you were still learning to substitute insults and arrogance for actual knowledge.

Are infinite series total functions in your religion?

First, please explain what you mean by a series being a total function. You use standard technical terms in funny ways, as if you either have your own definitions or are just repeating buzzwords you don't understand.

Secondly, you are quite wrong about standard math being my religion. I've studied many forms of alternate math: the hyperreals, various flavors of constructive math, and finitism and ultrafinitism. I'm quite open to alternative approaches.

I get the feeling I know more about those subjects than you do. Your attitude exceeds your knowledge.

If you have a technical argument you want to make, based on some alternative approach to math, feel free to express yourself. I'm afraid insults won't do. When I say I've studied these forms of alt-math I mean I've read papers, invested nontrivial time and effort to come up to speed on the basice ideas. Not just click on Wiki pages. So up your game intellectually or put a sock in it. Insults won't cut it.

I expect you to appeal to the AC at this point,

Why? Can you explain that? I can see that you must be confused about AC since it's not needed in the standard proof that .999... = 1. Once again, I see you using technical phrases without any understanding.

Every form of constructive or neo-intuitionistic math accepts at least some form of AC, since without it you can't get much modern math off the ground. Even quantum physics depends on functional analysis which depends on a weak form of AC. I wonder if you know any of this. You haven't convinced me.

because in my world

What world is that? You think you are in some special alternative math world when in fact I have studied alternative math of every type and from what you've written I can't see that you have any knowledge of the subject at all. All you have in insults and non-sequiturs.

What is it exactly that you are espousing? And if you think YOUR world is right and everyone else's is wrong, then you are the one clinging to religion.

a function which accepts infinite input can never be total.

Whatever dude. Word salad. What function? What infinite input? Please make your remarks clear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_lo ... rpretation

That seems to be some sort of neo-intuitionistic approach. I'd be interested to learn more. But why this approach and not some other? Even among the constructivist or neo-intuitionistic approaches there are many different variations.

Myself I'm very openminded about foundations and alternative approaches. I do like coherent argument from someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

Instead of tossing out insults, ignorance, and nonsequiturs, why don't you tell us a little about your ideas and how they pertain to the subject at hand? And why you believe that one particular flavor of constructive math is better than all the other flavors out there.

[Eodnhoj7]

You are using "..." in the definition of "...". Isn't that circular reasoning?

No, since the ellipses are not the point at issue here. Surely you know that. I found this remark disingenuous because of that.

Rather we are interested in the precise definition of decimal notation. If this site supported math markup I could just as easily have written



where the rightmost summation avoids the infinity sign for those so inclined.

That's one interpretation.

Indeed it is, but it is the standard interpretation that underlies most of modern math and all of modern physical science. And social science as well, since social science is all about probability and statistics these days, and those disciplines rest on standard calculus and the theory of the real numbers.

Alternative foundations are certainly possible and are interesting in their own right; but the burden is on you to clearly express your alternative idea.

Another interpretation is that it converges towards 1, but never really gets there.

That's just your lack of understanding of convergence. The sum of the sequence 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + ... IS exactly 1. That's what convergence means.

Even if I grant that you are coming from some (as not yet not clearly identified) alternative math perspective, you would still know the definition of convergence. That you don't tells me something about the state of your knowledge.

For example, in constructive math the definition of convergence is exactly the same as it is in standard math; except that we insist that the rate of convergence is bounded by a computable function. Surely if you are an expert in constructive math you'd know this. But you aren't and you don't.

It is an approximation of - a range-precision trade-off.

No it's not. It's standard math. If you have a different idea, feel free to explicate it.

You linked to the Wiki page on basic floating point arithmetic? LOL. Who are you trying to impress? I was hacking IEEE-754 back when you were still learning to substitute insults and arrogance for actual knowledge.

Are infinite series total functions in your religion?

First, please explain what you mean by a series being a total function. You use standard technical terms in funny ways, as if you either have your own definitions or are just repeating buzzwords you don't understand.

Secondly, you are quite wrong about standard math being my religion. I've studied many forms of alternate math: the hyperreals, various flavors of constructive math, and finitism and ultrafinitism. I'm quite open to alternative approaches.

I get the feeling I know more about those subjects than you do. Your attitude exceeds your knowledge.

If you have a technical argument you want to make, based on some alternative approach to math, feel free to express yourself. I'm afraid insults won't do. When I say I've studied these forms of alt-math I mean I've read papers, invested nontrivial time and effort to come up to speed on the basice ideas. Not just click on Wiki pages. So up your game intellectually or put a sock in it. Insults won't cut it.

I expect you to appeal to the AC at this point,

Why? Can you explain that? I can see that you must be confused about AC since it's not needed in the standard proof that .999... = 1. Once again, I see you using technical phrases without any understanding.

Every form of constructive or neo-intuitionistic math accepts at least some form of AC, since without it you can't get much modern math off the ground. Even quantum physics depends on functional analysis which depends on a weak form of AC. I wonder if you know any of this. You haven't convinced me.

because in my world

What world is that? You think you are in some special alternative math world when in fact I have studied alternative math of every type and from what you've written I can't see that you have any knowledge of the subject at all. All you have in insults and non-sequiturs.

What is it exactly that you are espousing? And if you think YOUR world is right and everyone else's is wrong, then you are the one clinging to religion.

a function which accepts infinite input can never be total.

Whatever dude. Word salad. What function? What infinite input? Please make your remarks clear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_lo ... rpretation

That seems to be some sort of neo-intuitionistic approach. I'd be interested to learn more. But why this approach and not some other? Even among the constructivist or neo-intuitionistic approaches there are many different variations.

Myself I'm very openminded about foundations and alternative approaches. I do like coherent argument from someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

Instead of tossing out insults, ignorance, and nonsequiturs, why don't you tell us a little about your ideas and how they pertain to the subject at hand? And why you believe that one particular flavor of constructive math is better than all the other flavors out there.

It really doesn't matter as all numbers exist through counting, the most basic act of counting is grounded in spatial forms (considering 99.99999 of atoms are empty), with these spatial forms represented through the line and point.

Considering counting is grounded in the point and line (as number exists through counting), and the line is composed of infinite 0d points only (according to your stance)...you literally have 0 foundations.

Your math, "your" math, cannot even be justified as it is counting 0's...you might as well be equivocating them to "1".