Discussion:
Fiction numbers create fiction angles too
Add Reply
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-02 08:09:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure

I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely

If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)

The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2ed, April, 2017
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017
Dan Christensen
2017-04-02 16:16:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The fiction numbers...
No such thing. BKK just doesn't know what to do when he runs out fingers and toes.


Dan
a***@gmail.com
2017-04-03 00:36:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
how does one construct 21/90 of a quartercircle?
Vinicius Claudino Ferraz
2017-04-03 17:18:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
hey, wait!

the talk is about fiction angles or fiction angels?
Post by a***@gmail.com
how does one construct 21/90 of a quartercircle?
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-04 08:08:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure
I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely
If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2ed, April, 2017
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017
Then it is so easy now to identify all the fiction angles in integer degrees,

So, if (n) is integer degree angle, and (n) is not divisible by (3), then it is a fiction and non existing angle (for sure)

Otherwise try constructing EXACTLY any angle of this integer form (3m + 1),
or (3m - 1), where (m) is integer number, in any possible triangle, having the whole universe as a board

And naturally, if (n) is divisible by (3), then such integer degree angle exists for sure

This simple rule principle can easily be expanded into rational or constructible form angle

** An important NOTE to secretive researchers or Wikipedia Writers**

Please try to understand completely the simple concept, just before you rush into your secretive research or Modifying or adding new wikipedia pages

Also, do not pretend that there was such references before many centuries and it is suddenly now becomes clearer, being honest is much more worth than your product, for sure

BK

BK
a***@gmail.com
2017-04-07 06:22:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
your supposition is ill-posed for,
if it were so, then trisection could
be done with compasses -- bZZZZZt
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-08 06:40:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@gmail.com
your supposition is ill-posed for,
if it were so, then trisection could
be done with compasses -- bZZZZZt
And, yes it can be done by unmarked straightedge and compass, once you throw away all fiction numbers from your dictionary, for sure

BK
a***@gmail.com
2017-04-08 08:44:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
yes, as you said that you could trisect an angle
of 21/360 of a cycle -- just d00 it
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And, yes it can be done by unmarked straightedge and compass, once you throw away all fiction numbers from your dictionary, for sure
BK
a***@gmail.com
2017-04-08 22:35:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
it's only secondr00ts that are constructible, and
secodr00ts of secondr00ts; if you want to train a regular tetragon,
that is an optional.

I'm sure that your "pr00f" of Fermat's p-adic theorem is
of intrinsic interest, since that other guy showed what it was,
clearly not a pr00f of that
a***@gmail.com
2017-04-08 23:45:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
so, what is the third power of three in base_three;
what is the sec0np0wer of t00 in base t00; and
what is the first p0wer of 0ne in base_0ne. also,
always end with a trickquest ion
Post by a***@gmail.com
I'm sure that your "pr00f" of Fermat's p-adic theorem is
of intrinsic interest, since that other guy showed what it was,
clearly not a pr00f of that
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-09 07:38:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@gmail.com
yes, as you said that you could trisect an angle
of 21/360 of a cycle -- just d00 it
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And, yes it can be done by unmarked straightedge and compass, once you throw away all fiction numbers from your dictionary, for sure
BK
It is so clear that you have understood nothing from my many posts regarding this simple issue

In integer degrees angle (say simply from 0 to 90), I had defined the existing angles of the form (3n), which implies directly that the integer degree angles are (0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45, 48, 51, 54, 57, 60, 63, 66, 69, 72, 75, 78, 81, 84, 87, 90)

But I defined also the integer degree angle (n) is fiction angle or non existing angle provided that (n) is not divisible by (3)

So, the tri sectable angles therefore are of the form (9n), those are

(0, 9, 18, 27, 36, 45, 54, 63, 72, 81, 90) degrees, are only the tri sectable angles for sure

And I assume your angle here is (21) degrees, not divisible by 9, therefore impossible to trisect, because its trisection angle does not exist for sure

Bassam King Karzeddin
9 th, April, 2017
Doc Ellis
2017-04-09 14:51:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Shut up mathforum.org imbecile. Your insane rantings are entirely off-topic
and unwelcome. Go sodomize a goat (your mother).
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-09 17:55:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Doc Ellis
Shut up mathforum.org imbecile. Your insane rantings are entirely off-topic
and unwelcome. Go sodomize a goat (your mother).
Another real imbecile (number 17 I think), recognized immediately from his first post, and hopefully the last one, wonder!

So, what can anyone expect from an imbecile as this?, wonder!

BK
t***@gmail.com
2017-04-09 15:36:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
you are waffling back & forth on an ill-posed problemma,
whether or not your formation of sec0ndp0wer tuples is a)
new, or b)
interseting -- even though it does not dys\prove the "last" theorem
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by a***@gmail.com
yes, as you said that you could trisect an angle
of 21/360 of a cycle -- just d00 it
In integer degrees angle (say simply from 0 to 90), I had defined the existing angles of the form (3n), which implies directly that the integer degree angles are (0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45, 48, 51, 54, 57, 60, 63, 66, 69, 72, 75, 78, 81, 84, 87, 90)
But I defined also the integer degree angle (n) is fiction angle or non existing angle provided that (n) is not divisible by (3)
So, the tri sectable angles therefore are of the form (9n), those are
And I assume your angle here is (21) degrees, not divisible by 9, therefore impossible to trisect, because its trisection angle does not exist for sure
a***@gmail.com
2017-04-10 00:38:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
as far as I am aware,
teh only way to construct angles is vie regular polygona,
as far as compasses are used;
do you have some other method?
Post by a***@gmail.com
yes, as you said that you could trisect an angle
of 21/360 of a cycle -- just d00 it
In integer degrees angle 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45, 48, 51, 54, 57, 60, 63, 66, 69, 72, 75, 78, 81, 84, 87, 90)
a***@gmail.com
2017-04-10 13:05:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
surely, you do not have any way to trisect a 21-degree angle, or
Bombelli et al would have found it, "imaginarily"
the only way to construct angles is vie regular polygona,
as far as compasses are used;
do you have some other method?
Post by a***@gmail.com
yes, as you said that you could trisect an angle
of 21/360 of a cycle -- just d00 it
In integer degrees angle 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45, 48, 51, 54, 57, 60, 63, 66, 69, 72, 75, 78, 81, 84, 87, 90)
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-11 08:12:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure
I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely
If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017
And it is impossible existence of any triangle to exist with constructible sides and with at least one integer angle that is not divisible by (3), for sure

And the converse is true also, where a triangle with integer degree angles divisible by (3), must exist with constructible sides EXACTLY

Note here no INFINITE APPROXIMATION nonsense is allowed for the sides of the triangle

Bassam King Karzeddin
11 th, April, 2017
a***@gmail.com
2017-04-11 19:11:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
you mean, like the pentagon, of course; so,
I just will not be "allowed to construct any pentagonum,
what so ever" -- thanks for the heads "up"
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-12 07:17:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@gmail.com
you mean, like the pentagon, of course; so,
I just will not be "allowed to construct any pentagonum,
what so ever" -- thanks for the heads "up"
Do not divert the issue or mislead others as usual Troll, (72) and (108) degrees angles are easily constructible angles from my definition, hence a pentagon is constructed, WHICH was done thousands of years back, even without your (e) or (i), for sure

BK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-05-09 17:51:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure
I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely
If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2ed, April, 2017
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017
Of course, a fiction number can not represent any physical length, but if we insist blindly and stubbornly on those fiction numbers, then we must face the problem again with angles, and angles can not cheat for sure

And yes, no triangle exists with exactly known sides that has one of its integer degrees angles not divisible by (3), sure

BK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-05-13 14:01:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure
I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely
If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2ed, April, 2017
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017
Ans still they cannot bring even one angle into existence, for sure

And so so oddly, they (the top professional mathematicians) refuse and do not want to understand what was the reason, wonder!

But frankly, mathematics is not only counting on fingers, and the Queen said it is not up to your damn silly convenience for sure

BKK
Python
2017-05-13 14:08:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Ans still they cannot bring even one angle into existence, for sure
And so so oddly, they (the top professional mathematicians) refuse and do not want to understand what was the reason, wonder!
But frankly, mathematics is not only counting on fingers, and the Queen said it is not up to your damn silly convenience for sure
BKK
Did you ever succeed in convincing any decent sane person of the
validity of your shit, Mr Karzeddin? For sure not. Wonder!
bassam king karzeddin
2017-05-14 07:53:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Ans still they cannot bring even one angle into existence, for sure
And so so oddly, they (the top professional mathematicians) refuse and do not want to understand what was the reason, wonder!
But frankly, mathematics is not only counting on fingers, and the Queen said it is not up to your damn silly convenience for sure
BKK
Did you ever succeed in convincing any decent sane person of the
validity of your shit, Mr Karzeddin? For sure not. Wonder!
As if mathematics is up to everyone convenience, especially a moron typo of your alike, wonder!

No stupid, true mathematics require your complete blind obedience (even without your choice), wonder!
And mathematics is not at all as a matter of democracy for sure

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-05-31 08:53:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure
I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely
If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2ed, April, 2017
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
So, nobody is capable of constructing such alleged any one of the alleged real angles existing angles with integer degrees but still, they claim their existence, and not only that they do claim so ignorantly that those angles can be trisected also

And the common sense conclusion we can say that if the angle itself is the nonexisting angle, then how the hell you can construct its one-third? wonder!

So, the main problem is only common sense that is not accepted method in mathematic.

So, the common sense principle must be added to the mathematical terminologies in order to clear out most of all those unsolved problems that are mind blocking and binding for sure


BKK
Post by bassam king karzeddin
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017
Markus Klyver
2017-05-31 09:26:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Not all of them are constructable in the sense you are talking about. Doesn't mean we can't y'all usefully about them.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-05-31 10:07:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Markus Klyver
Not all of them are constructable in the sense you are talking about. Doesn't mean we can't y'all usefully about them.
Those given integer degree angles are fiction angles, and never think of trisecting or bisecting or generally dividing them, but their proper multiple may be real angles (this is the whole puzzle)

Otherwise Just try constructing exactly only one angle of those claimed (by me only) as a fiction angles,(Example: the integer degree angle (n), where gcd(n, 3) = 1,

and please do not tell me any approximation since they used this silly trick as Epsilon - Delta & Cauchy nonsense was illegally used to generate infinitely many fiction numbers as any real existing constructible number

And the poor people were easily mocked and got deceived, but the same silly nonsense game can not be played again with creation of fiction angles for sure

And still, this simple fact would take few more centuries to be realized by common typo mathematicians, and once adopted and enforced by top authorities in maths only, wonder!

So, only the common sense which was not considered in mathematics while discovering or manufacturing the real existing numbers?


BKK
Markus Klyver
2017-05-31 10:36:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Again, the way you talk about "constructable numbers" is a pretty narrow view on numbers.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-06-06 11:23:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Markus Klyver
Again, the way you talk about "constructable numbers" is a pretty narrow view on numbers.
If you read more carefully, you would easily conclude that there are no (numbers or angles) that are not constructible

But if you got used to current modern maths, then sure you may imagine any number or any numerical angle and still think you are right

But reality was never any mathematical wrong imaginations

And the existing reality is very far away from any ill mathematical conceptualization for sure

BKK
Markus Klyver
2017-06-06 22:45:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
But you use non-constructive arguments everyday. Why should it be different in mathematics? Why limit ourselves to a pretty narrow and arbitrary view of mathematics?
Me
2017-06-06 23:17:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Why limit ourselves to a pretty narrow and arbitrary view [...]?
Because "we" are cranks?
Markus Klyver
2017-06-06 23:52:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Finitist and constructive mathematics is all fine, but it starts to get cranky IMO when you call mainstream math stupid and don't offer a reasonable explanation for why it doesn't work.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-06-07 09:52:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Me
Why limit ourselves to a pretty narrow and arbitrary view [...]?
Because "we" are cranks?
Actually, you are victims of so wrong and so cheap cheating education not suitable even for sheep, wonder!

BKK
Markus Klyver
2017-06-07 10:26:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Spoken like a true crank.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-06-15 08:25:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Markus Klyver
Spoken like a true crank.
Most often, people don't like facts, hence they name them cranky, but it doesn't any matter for sure

BKK
Markus Klyver
2017-06-15 13:08:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Spoken like a true crank.
Most often, people don't like facts, hence they name them cranky, but it doesn't any matter for sure
BKK
Well, then tell me why compass-and-straightedge construction should be the only "valid construction" out there.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-06-17 08:20:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Markus Klyver
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Spoken like a true crank.
Most often, people don't like facts, hence they name them cranky, but it doesn't any matter for sure
BKK
Well, then tell me why compass-and-straightedge construction should be the only "valid construction" out there.
Because the whole issue is very tricky, and if you imagine that an arithmetical cube root of none cube integer must exist, then indeed there is something called numerical approximation which is not so difficult for a carpenter (even before BC), with little skill of computation or trial and error method, that are indeed much more precise than any alleged absolutely correct constructions that depends basically on a obvious fallacy

So, yes a carpenter can make a cube box of two units size, but APPROXIMATELY for sure

And You may guess what would happen if APPROXIMATION process itself becomes ENDLESS!

So for angle, APPROXIMATE measurements tools by mankalah is still far better APPROXIMATION than much-alleged constructions methods

The theme is too..... simple, you can not create something from imagination into a real existence based on endless operation, for sure

And if someone in old history had deceived the entire mathematical community for so many centuries now, then his damn silly cheating can not go for ever, and for sure

And you are free to check the moderated history sections of a cubic polynomial that there is not any rigorous proof of the existence of such roots as 2^{1/3}, but only unproven and naive or SO foolish conclusions, for sure

And because this is not any ordinary little issue like the so many daily published papers, but the issue is impossible to be considered by any professional authorities for so many silly reasons, then this must be publically addressed to the interest of the clever and brave students to start cleaning officially the old maths from all the so dirty dust that had been inherited and accumulated over the heads for so many centuries now, wonder!


BKK
s***@googlemail.com
2017-06-17 09:10:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Spoken like a true crank.
Most often, people don't like facts, hence they name them cranky, but it doesn't any matter for sure
BKK
Well, then tell me why compass-and-straightedge construction should be the only "valid construction" out there.
Because the whole issue is very tricky, and if you imagine that an arithmetical cube root of none cube integer must exist, then indeed there is something called numerical approximation which is not so difficult for a carpenter (even before BC), with little skill of computation or trial and error method, that are indeed much more precise than any alleged absolutely correct constructions that depends basically on a obvious fallacy
So, yes a carpenter can make a cube box of two units size, but APPROXIMATELY for sure
And You may guess what would happen if APPROXIMATION process itself becomes ENDLESS!
So for angle, APPROXIMATE measurements tools by mankalah is still far better APPROXIMATION than much-alleged constructions methods
The theme is too..... simple, you can not create something from imagination into a real existence based on endless operation, for sure
And if someone in old history had deceived the entire mathematical community for so many centuries now, then his damn silly cheating can not go for ever, and for sure
And you are free to check the moderated history sections of a cubic polynomial that there is not any rigorous proof of the existence of such roots as 2^{1/3}, but only unproven and naive or SO foolish conclusions, for sure
And because this is not any ordinary little issue like the so many daily published papers, but the issue is impossible to be considered by any professional authorities for so many silly reasons, then this must be publically addressed to the interest of the clever and brave students to start cleaning officially the old maths from all the so dirty dust that had been inherited and accumulated over the heads for so many centuries now, wonder!
BKK
If only you'd understand math, bassy
Markus Klyver
2017-07-18 15:11:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Spoken like a true crank.
Most often, people don't like facts, hence they name them cranky, but it doesn't any matter for sure
BKK
Well, then tell me why compass-and-straightedge construction should be the only "valid construction" out there.
Because the whole issue is very tricky, and if you imagine that an arithmetical cube root of none cube integer must exist, then indeed there is something called numerical approximation which is not so difficult for a carpenter (even before BC), with little skill of computation or trial and error method, that are indeed much more precise than any alleged absolutely correct constructions that depends basically on a obvious fallacy
So, yes a carpenter can make a cube box of two units size, but APPROXIMATELY for sure
And You may guess what would happen if APPROXIMATION process itself becomes ENDLESS!
So for angle, APPROXIMATE measurements tools by mankalah is still far better APPROXIMATION than much-alleged constructions methods
The theme is too..... simple, you can not create something from imagination into a real existence based on endless operation, for sure
And if someone in old history had deceived the entire mathematical community for so many centuries now, then his damn silly cheating can not go for ever, and for sure
And you are free to check the moderated history sections of a cubic polynomial that there is not any rigorous proof of the existence of such roots as 2^{1/3}, but only unproven and naive or SO foolish conclusions, for sure
And because this is not any ordinary little issue like the so many daily published papers, but the issue is impossible to be considered by any professional authorities for so many silly reasons, then this must be publically addressed to the interest of the clever and brave students to start cleaning officially the old maths from all the so dirty dust that had been inherited and accumulated over the heads for so many centuries now, wonder!
BKK
You have not still answered my question. Tell me why compass-and-straightedge construction should be the only "valid construction" out there!
bassam king karzeddin
2017-07-18 15:33:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Markus Klyver
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Spoken like a true crank.
Most often, people don't like facts, hence they name them cranky, but it doesn't any matter for sure
BKK
Well, then tell me why compass-and-straightedge construction should be the only "valid construction" out there.
Because the whole issue is very tricky, and if you imagine that an arithmetical cube root of none cube integer must exist, then indeed there is something called numerical approximation which is not so difficult for a carpenter (even before BC), with little skill of computation or trial and error method, that are indeed much more precise than any alleged absolutely correct constructions that depends basically on a obvious fallacy
So, yes a carpenter can make a cube box of two units size, but APPROXIMATELY for sure
And You may guess what would happen if APPROXIMATION process itself becomes ENDLESS!
So for angle, APPROXIMATE measurements tools by mankalah is still far better APPROXIMATION than much-alleged constructions methods
The theme is too..... simple, you can not create something from imagination into a real existence based on endless operation, for sure
And if someone in old history had deceived the entire mathematical community for so many centuries now, then his damn silly cheating can not go for ever, and for sure
And you are free to check the moderated history sections of a cubic polynomial that there is not any rigorous proof of the existence of such roots as 2^{1/3}, but only unproven and naive or SO foolish conclusions, for sure
And because this is not any ordinary little issue like the so many daily published papers, but the issue is impossible to be considered by any professional authorities for so many silly reasons, then this must be publically addressed to the interest of the clever and brave students to start cleaning officially the old maths from all the so dirty dust that had been inherited and accumulated over the heads for so many centuries now, wonder!
BKK
You have not still answered my question. Tell me why compass-and-straightedge construction should be the only "valid construction" out there!
The compass might indicate the circle, but which circle? since we do know that the real perfect circle doesn't exist in reality, but constructible regular polygons do exist for sure, and not with any desired integer number of sides we wish, but only with many integers, where those regular polygons do intersect with that imaginable called perfect circle and thus can be scaled up to similarity to be truly visible to us

And why a straight line, of course, the sides of any constructible regular polygons are only straight lines, where the straight line is never any curve but the shortest distance between any two locations and their endless extension beyond their locations endlessly (Euclide and ancient original definition)

But if you claim that space isn't euclidean's, then this was never proven absolutely correct until date for sure

On the contrary, I had published a proof (in my posts) that space is only Euclidean

BKK
Markus Klyver
2017-07-18 16:25:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Spoken like a true crank.
Most often, people don't like facts, hence they name them cranky, but it doesn't any matter for sure
BKK
Well, then tell me why compass-and-straightedge construction should be the only "valid construction" out there.
Because the whole issue is very tricky, and if you imagine that an arithmetical cube root of none cube integer must exist, then indeed there is something called numerical approximation which is not so difficult for a carpenter (even before BC), with little skill of computation or trial and error method, that are indeed much more precise than any alleged absolutely correct constructions that depends basically on a obvious fallacy
So, yes a carpenter can make a cube box of two units size, but APPROXIMATELY for sure
And You may guess what would happen if APPROXIMATION process itself becomes ENDLESS!
So for angle, APPROXIMATE measurements tools by mankalah is still far better APPROXIMATION than much-alleged constructions methods
The theme is too..... simple, you can not create something from imagination into a real existence based on endless operation, for sure
And if someone in old history had deceived the entire mathematical community for so many centuries now, then his damn silly cheating can not go for ever, and for sure
And you are free to check the moderated history sections of a cubic polynomial that there is not any rigorous proof of the existence of such roots as 2^{1/3}, but only unproven and naive or SO foolish conclusions, for sure
And because this is not any ordinary little issue like the so many daily published papers, but the issue is impossible to be considered by any professional authorities for so many silly reasons, then this must be publically addressed to the interest of the clever and brave students to start cleaning officially the old maths from all the so dirty dust that had been inherited and accumulated over the heads for so many centuries now, wonder!
BKK
You have not still answered my question. Tell me why compass-and-straightedge construction should be the only "valid construction" out there!
The compass might indicate the circle, but which circle? since we do know that the real perfect circle doesn't exist in reality, but constructible regular polygons do exist for sure, and not with any desired integer number of sides we wish, but only with many integers, where those regular polygons do intersect with that imaginable called perfect circle and thus can be scaled up to similarity to be truly visible to us
And why a straight line, of course, the sides of any constructible regular polygons are only straight lines, where the straight line is never any curve but the shortest distance between any two locations and their endless extension beyond their locations endlessly (Euclide and ancient original definition)
But if you claim that space isn't euclidean's, then this was never proven absolutely correct until date for sure
On the contrary, I had published a proof (in my posts) that space is only Euclidean
BKK
"since we do know that the real perfect circle doesn't exist in reality, but constructible regular polygons do exist for sure"

Then give me examples of perfect polygons existing in physical reality.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-07-18 17:58:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Markus Klyver
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Spoken like a true crank.
Most often, people don't like facts, hence they name them cranky, but it doesn't any matter for sure
BKK
Well, then tell me why compass-and-straightedge construction should be the only "valid construction" out there.
Because the whole issue is very tricky, and if you imagine that an arithmetical cube root of none cube integer must exist, then indeed there is something called numerical approximation which is not so difficult for a carpenter (even before BC), with little skill of computation or trial and error method, that are indeed much more precise than any alleged absolutely correct constructions that depends basically on a obvious fallacy
So, yes a carpenter can make a cube box of two units size, but APPROXIMATELY for sure
And You may guess what would happen if APPROXIMATION process itself becomes ENDLESS!
So for angle, APPROXIMATE measurements tools by mankalah is still far better APPROXIMATION than much-alleged constructions methods
The theme is too..... simple, you can not create something from imagination into a real existence based on endless operation, for sure
And if someone in old history had deceived the entire mathematical community for so many centuries now, then his damn silly cheating can not go for ever, and for sure
And you are free to check the moderated history sections of a cubic polynomial that there is not any rigorous proof of the existence of such roots as 2^{1/3}, but only unproven and naive or SO foolish conclusions, for sure
And because this is not any ordinary little issue like the so many daily published papers, but the issue is impossible to be considered by any professional authorities for so many silly reasons, then this must be publically addressed to the interest of the clever and brave students to start cleaning officially the old maths from all the so dirty dust that had been inherited and accumulated over the heads for so many centuries now, wonder!
BKK
You have not still answered my question. Tell me why compass-and-straightedge construction should be the only "valid construction" out there!
The compass might indicate the circle, but which circle? since we do know that the real perfect circle doesn't exist in reality, but constructible regular polygons do exist for sure, and not with any desired integer number of sides we wish, but only with many integers, where those regular polygons do intersect with that imaginable called perfect circle and thus can be scaled up to similarity to be truly visible to us
And why a straight line, of course, the sides of any constructible regular polygons are only straight lines, where the straight line is never any curve but the shortest distance between any two locations and their endless extension beyond their locations endlessly (Euclide and ancient original definition)
But if you claim that space isn't euclidean's, then this was never proven absolutely correct until date for sure
On the contrary, I had published a proof (in my posts) that space is only Euclidean
BKK
"since we do know that the real perfect circle doesn't exist in reality, but constructible regular polygons do exist for sure"
Then give me examples of perfect polygons existing in physical reality.
I really gave you, but it seems that you don't get the meaning of the word existence in maths, or maybe you want it with material representation which is very different

OK, I will make it easy for you

Do you get the so easy meaning of the non-existence of (non-zero integer) solution for this Diophantine Equation, (n^2 = 2m^2)

Or the existence of the many integer solutions of this Diophantine Equation:

(n^2 = 2m^2 + 1), see bursegan solutions

So, the deep meaning of the meaning of the word existence in maths that you seem not to understand, wonder!

If the case is such, then you are a hopeless case for sure

BKK
konyberg
2017-07-18 22:41:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
(a^2 + b^2 - c^2) / (2ab) = cos(C)
How many values for cos(C)?
BKK Chew on this!
KON
bassam king karzeddin
2017-07-19 17:37:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by konyberg
(a^2 + b^2 - c^2) / (2ab) = cos(C)
How many values for cos(C)?
BKK Chew on this!
KON
Most likely your question isn't clear enough!

But if you fix the angle (C), then the angle (C) is a constructible angle provided that (a, b, c) are real constructible numbers (forming a triangle with positive sides), and (abc =/= 0)

BKK
konyberg
2017-07-19 18:18:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The conditions are the usual ones:
a+b>c, a+c>b and b+c>a.
And a,b and c are positive real.
KON
bassam king karzeddin
2017-07-19 18:38:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by konyberg
a+b>c, a+c>b and b+c>a.
And a,b and c are positive real.
KON
So what is your point?

We stated that must form a triangle, where sum of any two sides is greater than the third (for non-straight line triangle)

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-07-20 11:03:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by konyberg
a+b>c, a+c>b and b+c>a.
And a,b and c are positive real.
KON
but if you meant to say something like, let the triangle be with real sides as (e, Pi, 1), of course, you and the mathematics may so naively imagine that triangle exists since it is according to definitions

But, you must know that exists ONLY in MIND or in CURRENT MATHEMATICS, and NEVER in REALITY for sure

I call it the fictitious triangle (that never exists)

Otherwise, give a good argument

BKK
Post by konyberg
a+b>c, a+c>b and b+c>a.
And a,b and c are positive real.
KON
konyberg
2017-07-20 12:23:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
What would it mean to you that cos(C) was a rational and C not rational? Is C now a proper angle?
KON
bassam king karzeddin
2017-07-20 13:01:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by konyberg
What would it mean to you that cos(C) was a rational and C not rational? Is C now a proper angle?
KON
See, when we talk about (Pi) as an angle, then it is indeed rationalised in mind and reality because it is a constructible ANGLE but (Pi) is not an existing number itself, (it is the first fiction number in mathematics, a 2^{1/3} was the second)

What do I say so clearly that the existing real angles, in reality, are only those angles that can be found in any triangle with real constructible sides only, and therefore constructible angles too

where also the arbitrary real sides or angles are also constructible

Thus none of the angles I provided has any chance of existence in the physical reality around us, for sure

However, there are much more fiction angles to the list I have already mentioned, and if you don't believe it then let the whole mathematics create only one of those claimed as fiction angles by me as an existing angle but not in mind, (only in reality as so many other angles mentioned)

In short, if a length or an angle exists, then must be CONSTRUCTIBLE

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
7/20/2017
bassam king karzeddin
2017-08-06 12:23:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by konyberg
What would it mean to you that cos(C) was a rational and C not rational? Is C now a proper angle?
KON
See, when we talk about (Pi) as an angle, then it is indeed rationalised in mind and reality because it is a constructible ANGLE but (Pi) is not an existing number itself, (it is the first fiction number in mathematics, a 2^{1/3} was the second)
What do I say so clearly that the existing real angles, in reality, are only those angles that can be found in any triangle with real constructible sides only, and therefore constructible angles too
where also the arbitrary real sides or angles are also constructible
Thus none of the angles I provided has any chance of existence in the physical reality around us, for sure
However, there are much more fiction angles to the list I have already mentioned, and if you don't believe it then let the whole mathematics create only one of those claimed as fiction angles by me as an existing angle but not in mind, (only in reality as so many other angles mentioned)
In short, if a length or an angle exists, then must be CONSTRUCTIBLE
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
7/20/2017
And the professional moderators at Quora had most likely hidden this question without being able to refute my new claims that were based on rigorous proofs as if trying to hide the facts by spider threads anymore

https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-exactly-construct-a-triangle-with-known-sides-such-that-at-least-one-of-its-angles-is-in-integer-degree-n-where-n-is-not-a-multiple-of-3
BKK
b***@gmail.com
2017-06-15 15:06:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
BKK its not fiction numbers, its call Unicorn numbers.
When will you learn? Do you try to copy this guy:

Dilworth, William (1974), "A correction in Set Theory" (PDF),
Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts
and Letters, 62: 205–216, retrieved June 16, 2016
http://images.library.wisc.edu/WI/EFacs/transactions/WT1974/reference/wi.wt1974.wdilworth.pdf
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Spoken like a true crank.
Most often, people don't like facts, hence they name them cranky, but it doesn't any matter for sure
BKK
b***@gmail.com
2017-06-15 15:16:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
If you were consequent, you would call negative
numbers also fictions. And then you would be

in the same position as poor Cardano, who needed
to deal with all variants separately:
ax3 + bx + c = 0
ax3 + bx = c
ax3 + c = bx
ax3 = bx + c
etc..

Since he was not able to allow negative parametrs
a,b,c. Its always possible to put yourself in a more

retarded position as you already are. Take AP for
example, his last brain cells are about to evaporate

because of his own brain farts.
Post by b***@gmail.com
BKK its not fiction numbers, its call Unicorn numbers.
Dilworth, William (1974), "A correction in Set Theory" (PDF),
Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts
and Letters, 62: 205–216, retrieved June 16, 2016
http://images.library.wisc.edu/WI/EFacs/transactions/WT1974/reference/wi.wt1974.wdilworth.pdf
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Spoken like a true crank.
Most often, people don't like facts, hence they name them cranky, but it doesn't any matter for sure
BKK
Zeit Geist
2017-06-07 17:08:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Me
Why limit ourselves to a pretty narrow and arbitrary view [...]?
Because "we" are cranks?
Actually, you are victims of so wrong and so cheap cheating education not suitable even for sheep, wonder!
BKK
Shit up stupid fucktarded asshole.
Thank you.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-06-22 05:41:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure
I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely
If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2ed, April, 2017
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017
Any clever student can notice now and so easily that the whole mathematics can't construct you exactly with any angle in integer degrees, say (n) degrees where (n) isn't divisible by (3) in any existing triangle with exact sides,

But of course, the alleged top professional mathematicians are extremely very expert in APPROXIMATION, especially that type of ENDLESS APPROXIMATIONS at the FOOLS PARADISE called INFINITY just to plough and cheat you without being shameful or regret

And the so sad part of this so obvious fiction story is mainly the Global common typo public mathematicians that constitute the vast majorities, where they are so simply not any real independent thinkers, and also big dreamers to make some more success nonsense out of nothing, wonder

Everyone must realise now that easy fictions are much more desirable to humans than any real naked facts since it is a kind of business mind games for normally abnormal people who are actually true failures and also big criminals for cheating the innocent human minds

And this is so, unfortunately, is the case with moderated human history not only in mathematics but also in all walks of life

And the mathematicians are generally paintings themselves with so much shames as usual by ignoring such hot issues to be clarified from its mere roots by hiding and keeping the forgery mathematics

History of mathematics isn't moderated anymore, for sure

And before you give a counter argument, just try to bring with you only one of those (not-existing angles claimed by me), in any triangle with exactly known sides

And you may ignore that infamous hired Troll in Sci.math who usually claim to have a reference for anything published publically in mathematics not discovered yet

And it was so necessary to publicly publish those sensitive many topics in this criticising manners just to enlighten and free the mathematicians from so long salvation

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-07-18 14:03:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure
I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely
If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2ed, April, 2017
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017
So, it is so clear now (at least for me), why do we miss many angles by simple counting in real numbers, of course, it sounds like a crazy idea for the first time, but it is absolutely a fact that no one can refute since the absolute facts do remain irrefutable and forever for sure

SO, can you imagine then, the physical meaning of some missing non-existing angles in two dimensions at least? wonder!

Hint: ever listen to those alleged proffissional mathematicians who do object aimlessly unless they show you only one of those many angles that I do claim as fiction angles (of course with few published proofs)

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-07-23 08:48:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure
I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely
If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2ed, April, 2017
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017
And the strongest evidence is just before your big eyes,

Did the mathematics invalidate only one of my claims? wonder!

They can't for more than (100%) suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure

And they wouldn't accept the obvious facts for so tiny negligible and psychological reasons, as if it truly matters, wonder!

Which is more important after all, your alleged fake intellectuality or the so obvious facts? wonder!

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-07-29 14:55:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure
I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely
If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2ed, April, 2017
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017
And the most intriguing idea about dealing with fairy angles instead of fairy positive real numbers is that top professional mathematickers can't apply that silly tools of Epsilon Delta to manufacture those much real algebraic or transcendental numbers into manufacturing that many fairy angles for sure

Actually, they might have indeed forgotten to coordinate the fictions in both real numbers and angles timeously

But, certainly, in the near future, they would try to correct the issue accordingly, just keep this for the record and wait for those Wikipedia smugglers or secretive researchers for sure, but then you ought to expose them so openly and so loudly if you still have any drop of honesty

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-08-05 12:17:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure
I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely
If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2ed, April, 2017
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017
And the most intriguing idea about dealing with fairy angles instead of fairy positive real numbers is that top professional mathematickers can't apply that silly tools of Epsilon Delta to manufacture those much real algebraic or transcendental numbers into manufacturing that many fairy angles for sure
Actually, they might have indeed forgotten to coordinate the fictions in both real numbers and angles timeously
But, certainly, in the near future, they would try to correct the issue accordingly, just keep this for the record and wait for those Wikipedia smugglers or secretive researchers for sure, but then you ought to expose them so openly and so loudly if you still have any drop of honesty
BKK
*
bassam king karzeddin
2017-08-09 12:41:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure
I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely
If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2ed, April, 2017
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017
So, few months elapsed now and the mathematics or the mathematicians couldn't show even angle, wonder!

Doesn't this you genius mathematicians intrigue you into anything? wonder!

Or, is it that you had eaten something very solid that is too difficult to digest? wonder!

Or do you like only your own REFUTED games of Epsilon - delta trick? WONDER!
bkk

Loading...