• In maths, lines have﻿ no thickness.

• brain.exe has stopped working﻿ and deleted itself

• gurl stop fuckin ma braain﻿

• You have it right. Although here is there no slipping﻿ in of anything, rather a burying or ignoring of the formal definitions of Length and Measurement.

• There is no "YOU" in Mathematics. That is the first problem. One needs to think of these processes as being purely formal. No sloppy imperfect human interaction happens, only the pure analysis. The collapsing is in a geometric sense perfect: the eckige lines DO converge geometrically. What fails is the measurement: measure-theoretic convergence, and a black-boxed convergence that occurs when computing lengths-via-integrals. I. e., lines L_n —> circle S alone does not imply MEAS(L_n) —> MEAS(S).﻿

• No. If π were rounded, not π but the rounding thereof would be 3.﻿ π remains π and his value remains 3,14159… = Lim(3; 22/7; 333/106; 355/113) = etc.

• With respect to multiplication in the group: ℝ u {∞} (one pt. compactification) there exists an﻿ isomorphism so that ∞ and 0 are switched. So w.r.t. to multiplication are they similar. Similarity as you correctly observed breaks down with respect to more structure, so that one concludes, they are not the same.

• Almost true. One fine adjustment. She never shows WHY the proof is invalid, but rather THAT it is invalid. The WHY/HOW is as follows: one performs an analysis on the in-Argument-occurring assumptions/principles and terms. Invalidity is shown either by discrediting the principles, the applied logic﻿ or uncovering an ambiguous use of terms. Here "Measurement" is being mishandled. Computations computing a length according to another metric… or 1-dim masses of mass-theoretic disjoint objects.

• The sweater﻿ sleeves are approaching triangle.

• ...Sis?﻿