Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 04:03:04 UTC No. 16190642

Doesn't imagining the multiplication in a physical space sort of write this whole thing off? A 1*1 grid will only have 1 square, because it is one square long and one square wide, unless you interpret there being a gap in the initial so it's
01
10

Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 04:48:51 UTC No. 16190664

Well considering you have to use cauchy sequences to mulitply real numbers I'm not surprised people go crazy over just multiplication.
I mean maybe it's well defined in whatever arithmetic he's using, but there kind of an international standard.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 08:43:53 UTC No. 16190812

>>16190664
Is that ... is that a sequence of rational numbers? And it's going on and on ... forever ... it never stops ... I'm frightened. What's this? The numbers are getting ... getting closer to 1? And there's another sequence! It's too horrible to contemplate, but I think it's doing the same thing! Wait, is that, are the corresponding terms in the sequences being ... multiplied together? And I don't even want to look, but I can't help looking ... it can't be ... the products are approaching 1? Aaaaaaaaaa I'm going INSANE, save me Nigger-Man!

Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 09:18:37 UTC No. 16190853

He doesn't really explain anything properly, but it seems to be a misunderstanding of associativity and commutativity?
He also defines multiplication badly by saying you add a to itself b times. Those b times should include the initial a. 2*2= 2 + 2, not (2) + 2 + 2.
We use math because it makes sense, not the other way around. If you find results that don't reflect reality, use a system that does. He's using wrong definitions based on bad wording.