why everyone uses the e-rational?

[AntonioLao]

Leonhard Euler (1707-1783) defined logarithms as exponents in 1728 but never published his introduction on the base of natural logarithms, e, even though his early paper described it as continued fractions. Furthermore, he showed it’s vice versa representations with infinite series. However, 18th century mathematicians never took seriously the question of convergence and divergence. In addition, negative numbers were not really well understood. Euler, in late 1700s, still believed that they were numerical quantities greater than infinity. Nonetheless, by this time, it was proven beyond the shadow of mathematical logic that both e and e are irrationals. At the close of the 18th century irrational e was still not as guilty as charged until the landmark cornerstone proof of Charles Hermite (1822-1901) in 1873 showing that e is also transcendental separating it from algebraic irrationals as solutions to polynomials and rational equations.

Why everyone uses e? The answer is simple. They wanted to reach infinity. But unbeknown to their mathematical common sense, even Georg Cantor and his transfinites, transcendental irrationals: e and p were the right and left inverse limits of reciprocal unity of the rational number 3, e is always trapped between 2 and 3, while p is immobilized between 3 and 4. In a word, although it is proven that more irrationals exist, but the absolute mathematical truth is that they will never escape the mete and bound of rationality unless, of course, infinity is also irrational.

Footnotes: the existence of e-p-rationals presented a direct proof for a proximity theorem implying the important and usefulness of real numbers that are in the infinitesimal neighborhood of each other but not exactly on top of each other identically. Hence, enter the absolute mathematical power of 1 and -1.

[mkirkpatrick]

The circle with a one within it,or expressed as 1/0 seems to contain within it all that
is within the relative universe.if you continue the line on e you would in fact already have this?



regards michael