1.000000000040 lol

Lets count every number from 1 to 2!
- p0x
- Thread is marked as Resolved.
There are 179 replies in this Thread. The last Post () by MISTER(robert)BROT.
-
-
-
1.000000000042
In the number above... you can see the answer of all your questions !!
Yep, I'm a genius
-
1.000000000043
we just need the Ultimate Question now
-
1.000000000044
-
1.000000000045
I found thet ultimate question.
But due to keep the integrity of some member's troll reputation, I won't post it in public
It is related with... using pink and mentioning unusual terms for a "man".
-
1.000000000046 edit: forgot lol
QuoteParadoxes of set theory
Discussions of set-theoretic paradoxes
began to appear around the end of the nineteenth century. Some of these
implied fundamental problems with Cantor's set theory program.[50] In an 1897 paper on an unrelated topic, Cesare Burali-Forti set out the first such paradox, the Burali-Forti paradox: the ordinal number
of the set of all ordinals must be an ordinal and this leads to a
contradiction. Cantor discovered this paradox in 1895, and described it
in an 1896 letter to Hilbert.
Criticism mounted to the point where Cantor launched counter-arguments
in 1903, intended to defend the basic tenets of his set theory.[11]In 1899, Cantor discovered his eponymous paradox: what is the cardinal number of the set of all sets? Clearly it must be the greatest possible cardinal. Yet for any set A, the cardinal number of the power set of A is strictly larger than the cardinal number of A (this fact is now known as Cantor's theorem). This paradox, together with Burali-Forti's, led Cantor to formulate a concept called limitation of size,[51]
according to which the collection of all ordinals, or of all sets, was
an "inconsistent multiplicity" that was "too large" to be a set. Such
collections later became known as proper classes.One common view among mathematicians is that these paradoxes, together with Russell's paradox,
demonstrate that it is not possible to take a "naive", or
non-axiomatic, approach to set theory without risking contradiction, and
it is certain that they were among the motivations for Zermelo and others to produce axiomatizations of set theory. Others note, however, that the paradoxes do not obtain in an informal view motivated by the iterative hierarchy, which can be seen as explaining the idea of limitation of size. Some also question whether the Fregean formulation of naive set theory (which was the system directly refuted by the Russell paradox) is really a faithful interpretation of the Cantorian conception.[52]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor
PS
p0x that is Ultimate Question ...math is almost die for that
-
1.000000000047
-
1.000000000048 edit: forgot lol
-
1.000000000049
-
1.000000000050 lol
-
1.000000000051 lol
-
1.000000000052 lol
-
1.000000000053... lol
-
1.000000000054 lol
-
1.000000000055
-
1.000000000056
-
1.000000000057 lol
-
1.000000000058
-
1.000000000059 lol