>[math]1^/infty /neq 1[/math]WTF?
>>16820840second attempt:>[math]1^\infty \neq 1[/math]WTF?
(1 + a/x)^x --> e^a, x-->inf
>>16820872yeah, that's what I said, [math]1^\infty \neq 1[/math]
0^0 = 0^1 * 0^-1 = exp(log(0) - exp(log(0))
0 ^ inf = 1
>>16820840False, 1^∞ = 1 unless you change 1 into something that isn't 1 and pretend you didn't. But 1^∞ is literally always 1.
>>16820840infinity is notational only
[math]1^{\text{N.A.N.}} \neq \text{Number}[/math]this mystifies the midwit
>>16821191>Indian reply syntax
>>16821197actually, indian syntax is naan. be more respectful to your american compatriots, lest you get the farmer pitchfork special, faggot
>>16821202You learned how to reply!
>>16821202Is not the same entity, "quote me with this"
>>16821191>1 x 1 = 1This mystifies someone
>>16820842as a limit, if it's discrete it does equal 1
>>16820840110also this formula makes no sense 1∞≠1Imho, Gödel and Tarski are idiots for thinking meta-truth encompassing all logical systems should exist when symbolic logic is just a way to generate symbols. I think they’re complete morons for claiming there are truths that aren’t provable, since they redefine “truth” outside the logical framework to begin with.For instance, Gödel’s conclusion, derived from parts of an algebraic system referring to the whole logical framework from outside that framework, is as braindead as the “set of all sets” containing themselves or whatever. People should stop reading philosophy.
>>16820840count the blue petals, retard
