M
myopic
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Sorry, but the gibberish is entirely on your part.If you would care to "call me out" then feel free to try. But you will have to speak precisely and not in the manner that you used thus far. It makes no sense.Rather than having proven myself wrong, I have shown you the meaning of a specific infinite series and have provided you a rigorous proof that the sum is in fact 1. OF COURSE there is a limiting operation, that is implicit in the definition of the sum of an infinite series.You have a fundamental problem -- you don't know what you are talking about. Not a clue. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Uh, the proof listed actually does not equal one. Not sure how you can show support with this equation. I know certain abstract mathematical theories were put out in the early 40', forget who, and the purpose was to provide a theorem to shore up the unified field theory. And then I think it came back again with string theory, but I know in your example posted, this is certainly not the case.</p><p> I want to say you are thinking of scalar models and the use of bridging two planes? I see this quite a bit in logarithms for computational science...building the internet. It's the same notion as different sizes of infinity, some may be exponentially bound, others scalar. Mandelbrodt is an example of scalar, much like a model of the www. </p><p> But not sure how can say denominator in series being (/x-1) where the variable is set as x is less than 1 could yield a result of 1 itself.</p><p>_________</p><p> </p><p> </p>