Discussion:
Can you draw?
Add Reply
bassam king karzeddin
2016-11-06 15:09:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?

Any suggestions are welcomed

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
Peter Percival
2016-11-07 11:47:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
What do you mean by a constructible number?

(The answer to the question "can you draw x?" is always "yes." But he
who views the drawing may not like it. Picasso could draw even though
none of his models had both eyes on the same side of their noses.)
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any suggestions are welcomed
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
a***@gmail.com
2016-11-07 21:27:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
firstly, hs seems to be confusing the ideal of conjugates in the complex plain,
but it's still an intersting query, and may be an important property,
that I've ne'er seen (or,
just have not noticed in this case
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
What do you mean by a constructible number?
bassam king karzeddin
2017-03-29 16:31:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@gmail.com
firstly, hs seems to be confusing the ideal of conjugates in the complex plain,
but it's still an intersting query, and may be an important property,
that I've ne'er seen (or,
just have not noticed in this case
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
What do you mean by a constructible number?
OPPs, I forgot to reply you, and nobody had cracked it yet, wonder!

BK
b***@gmail.com
2017-03-29 16:38:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
If you marvel how c*c = -1 has the following two solutions:

c1 = i

c2 = -i

Check out the drawing here (*). Its very simple for square root problems:

c1 = a+i*b

c2 = -a-i*b

Proof: We know c1*c1 = z, i.e. z=a^2-b^2+i*2*a*b. Now check
that c2*c2 = z holds as well. Do the computation, c2*c2 =
(-a)^2 - (-b)^2+i*2*(-a)*(-b) = a^2-b^2+i*2*a*b. Q.E.D.

(*)
http://math.stackexchange.com/a/44500/4414
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by a***@gmail.com
firstly, hs seems to be confusing the ideal of conjugates in the complex plain,
but it's still an intersting query, and may be an important property,
that I've ne'er seen (or,
just have not noticed in this case
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
What do you mean by a constructible number?
OPPs, I forgot to reply you, and nobody had cracked it yet, wonder!
BK
konyberg
2017-03-29 21:53:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
If a = b then it should be easy.

KON
bassam king karzeddin
2017-03-30 14:34:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
How to dig into your rusted skulls to show you this infamous fiction story about imaginary or complex numbers

With rigorous counter examples provided earlier, you are not convinced

With more than logical proofs provided earlier, you are not convinced too

With basic common sense, still you are not convinced too

But, certainly with an authority proof, you would be convinced completely, even you admit so openly that you do not have a single clue to a century proof, even after more than Quarter a century, wonder! (hint:FLT CASE)

But make sure that no authority in mathematics would agree on a proof that is against their own existence, because then, only talented people can play the mathematics

And, I guess it would require you few more centuries to understand the proof of FLT, than it had been taken to solve

But, so unfortunately, the newborn artificial intelligence would soon make you relax forever from this simple role, (for sure)

And your plenty unnecessary forms would certainly get extinct, for sure

So, butter learn something else useful that would keep you away from being extinct like dinosaurs

So, farms and factories would be a suitable choice for you, especially that your scores in high schools, couldn't get you a better admission on higher scientific field or many other useful branches, since those fields are actually requiring more talented in mathematics, wonder!

So, give up for ever, and your stubborn denial would not make any difference for sure

BK
b***@gmail.com
2017-03-30 15:15:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
But you need to have mad skillz for good math. Skillzs is every-
thing bro. Don't let yourself watered down by average sources.

FLT can be used to show that 2^(1/3) isn't rational. But this
only shows that 2^(1/3) doesn't exist in Q.

But still it can exist anywhere else, for example in A algebraic
numbers (countable), in R real numbers (uncountable), etc.. etc..

Get skillz man, learn some math!
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, give up for ever, and your stubborn denial would not make any difference for sure
BK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-08 08:29:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
But you need to have mad skillz for good math. Skillzs is every-
thing bro. Don't let yourself watered down by average sources.
FLT can be used to show that 2^(1/3) isn't rational. But this
only shows that 2^(1/3) doesn't exist in Q.
2^(1/3) does not exist in Q, Yes very easy

but also 2^(1/3) does not exist anywhere except in two tiny minds, for sure

How many times must I prove it as a fabricated by your alleged genius ancestors and a non existence or fiction number only? wonder!

And what was the impossibility problem of doubling the cube moron, raised by the ancient Greeks? Troll

Was it only about doubling the the cube of integer side only, stupid? for sure

Or was it about doubling the cube with an arbitrary side?, dump

And what does it mean by arbitrary side length?, but I know this is so difficult to be comprehended by your alikes, wonder!

And do you still understand the deep meaning of the fiction angles or the non existing angles explained and proved in my posts, (say now, angles in integer degrees that are not divisible by (3), ), as the angle (20) degrees?

But still, you have a very long way to comprehend anything of what I proved, and never tell me again about your of those moron terms as UNICORN,

Since you had been caught here only, and now as many times before in believing in the existence of such fiction numbers such as [2^(1/3]

And do not tell me again and AGAIN the ENDLESS approximation of that number, by the so many formulas you can bring, because I know very well that WAS never any problem for a carpentry works, by trial and error even before BC,
Post by b***@gmail.com
But still it can exist anywhere else, for example in A algebraic
numbers (countable), in R real numbers (uncountable), etc.. etc..
Take it from me as a prove truth quite many times in my posts, those alleged real numbers (other than constructible numbers) are only existing in too poor minds, but still we might need their little Rational approximation for our little carpentry works, and without the needs of all your alleged modern mythematics, for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
Get skillz man, learn some math!
Forget what had you learnt, just try it yourself and ask your silly self, why one day, discovering the existence sqrt(2) was a big revolutionary idea in mathematics?, and when was similar event in the history of mathematics for the arithmetical cube root of two, [2^{1/3}]?,

Or how did this dirty number [2^{1/3}] sneak into mathematics?

Was it proved existent?, where are your proofs then?

Do not search history section, since there was not any rigorous proofs, but only FOOLISH conclusions, for sure

When shall you get skilled enough myth man?wonder!
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, give up for ever, and your stubborn denial would not make any difference for sure
BK
Bassam King Karzeddin
8 th, April, 2017
a***@gmail.com
2017-04-08 08:52:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
it is just the edge of the hexahedron that is twice the volume
of the unit-edge hexahedron, a.k.a "doubling the hexahedron";
what is the size of the hexahedron with twice the area?
Python
2017-04-08 17:04:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
for sure, wonder, for sure, wonder, for sure, wonder, for sure,
wonder, for sure, WONDER, FOR SURE, ...
Your idocies don't mean much, Mr Karzeddin.
a***@gmail.com
2017-03-31 05:29:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
you have to learn either a)
electronics, or b)
vector mechanics, to really comprehend imaginaries;
that is all she worte, til the pr00f
that octonions are not associative --
parentheses & how to use them!
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, give up for ever, and your stubborn denial would not make any difference for sure
BK
a***@gmail.com
2017-04-07 06:46:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I'm only familiar with the use
of the secondr00t of minus one in electronisc, but
it ceratinly ought to be quaternionized,
if possible. Gibbs got rid of the imaginreies
of quaternions by makeing inner product and
outer product to be seperate operations
Post by a***@gmail.com
vector mechanics, to really comprehend imaginaries;
that is all she worte, til the pr00f
that octonions are not associative --
parentheses & how to use them!
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, give up for ever, and your stubborn denial
I'm taking the fifth amendment\postulatory
Amelien
2017-04-08 11:39:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 6:15:34 PM UTC+3,
Post by b***@gmail.com
But you need to have mad skillz for good math.
Skillzs is every-
Post by b***@gmail.com
thing bro. Don't let yourself watered down by
average sources.
Post by b***@gmail.com
FLT can be used to show that 2^(1/3) isn't
rational. But this
Post by b***@gmail.com
only shows that 2^(1/3) doesn't exist in Q.
2^(1/3) does not exist in Q, Yes very easy
but also 2^(1/3) does not exist anywhere except in
n two tiny minds, for sure
How many times must I prove it as a fabricated by
y your alleged genius ancestors and a non existence
or fiction number only? wonder!
And what was the impossibility problem of doubling
g the cube moron, raised by the ancient Greeks? Troll
Was it only about doubling the the cube of integer
r side only, stupid? for sure
Or was it about doubling the cube with an arbitrary
y side?, dump
And what does it mean by arbitrary side length?, but
t I know this is so difficult to be comprehended by
your alikes, wonder!
And do you still understand the deep meaning of the
e fiction angles or the non existing angles
explained and proved in my posts, (say now, angles in
integer degrees that are not divisible by (3), ), as
the angle (20) degrees?
But still, you have a very long way to comprehend
d anything of what I proved, and never tell me again
about your of those moron terms as UNICORN,
Since you had been caught here only, and now as many
times before in believing in the existence of such
fiction numbers such as [2^(1/3]
And do not tell me again and AGAIN the ENDLESS
S approximation of that number, by the so many
formulas you can bring, because I know very well
that WAS never any problem for a carpentry works, by
trial and error even before BC,
Post by b***@gmail.com
But still it can exist anywhere else, for example
in A algebraic
Post by b***@gmail.com
numbers (countable), in R real numbers
(uncountable), etc.. etc..
Take it from me as a prove truth quite many times in
n my posts, those alleged real numbers (other than
constructible numbers) are only existing in too poor
minds, but still we might need their little Rational
approximation for our little carpentry works, and
without the needs of all your alleged modern
mythematics, for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
Get skillz man, learn some math!
Forget what had you learnt, just try it yourself and
d ask your silly self, why one day, discovering the
existence sqrt(2) was a big revolutionary idea in
mathematics?, and when was similar event in the
history of mathematics for the arithmetical cube
root of two, [2^{1/3}]?,
Or how did this dirty number [2^{1/3}] sneak into
o mathematics?
Was it proved existent?, where are your proofs then?
Do not search history section, since there was not
t any rigorous proofs, but only FOOLISH conclusions,
for sure
When shall you get skilled enough myth man?wonder!
Post by b***@gmail.com
Am Donnerstag, 30. März 2017 16:34:05 UTC+2 schrieb
On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 5:40:08 AM UTC+3,
So, give up for ever, and your stubborn denial
would not make any difference for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
BK
Bassam King Karzeddin
8 th, April, 2017
I find your reasoning very good as well as your methods.
Ross A. Finlayson
2017-04-08 15:01:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amelien
On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 6:15:34 PM UTC+3,
Post by b***@gmail.com
But you need to have mad skillz for good math.
Skillzs is every-
Post by b***@gmail.com
thing bro. Don't let yourself watered down by
average sources.
Post by b***@gmail.com
FLT can be used to show that 2^(1/3) isn't
rational. But this
Post by b***@gmail.com
only shows that 2^(1/3) doesn't exist in Q.
2^(1/3) does not exist in Q, Yes very easy
but also 2^(1/3) does not exist anywhere except in
n two tiny minds, for sure
How many times must I prove it as a fabricated by
y your alleged genius ancestors and a non existence
or fiction number only? wonder!
And what was the impossibility problem of doubling
g the cube moron, raised by the ancient Greeks? Troll
Was it only about doubling the the cube of integer
r side only, stupid? for sure
Or was it about doubling the cube with an arbitrary
y side?, dump
And what does it mean by arbitrary side length?, but
t I know this is so difficult to be comprehended by
your alikes, wonder!
And do you still understand the deep meaning of the
e fiction angles or the non existing angles
explained and proved in my posts, (say now, angles in
integer degrees that are not divisible by (3), ), as
the angle (20) degrees?
But still, you have a very long way to comprehend
d anything of what I proved, and never tell me again
about your of those moron terms as UNICORN,
Since you had been caught here only, and now as many
times before in believing in the existence of such
fiction numbers such as [2^(1/3]
And do not tell me again and AGAIN the ENDLESS
S approximation of that number, by the so many
formulas you can bring, because I know very well
that WAS never any problem for a carpentry works, by
trial and error even before BC,
Post by b***@gmail.com
But still it can exist anywhere else, for example
in A algebraic
Post by b***@gmail.com
numbers (countable), in R real numbers
(uncountable), etc.. etc..
Take it from me as a prove truth quite many times in
n my posts, those alleged real numbers (other than
constructible numbers) are only existing in too poor
minds, but still we might need their little Rational
approximation for our little carpentry works, and
without the needs of all your alleged modern
mythematics, for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
Get skillz man, learn some math!
Forget what had you learnt, just try it yourself and
d ask your silly self, why one day, discovering the
existence sqrt(2) was a big revolutionary idea in
mathematics?, and when was similar event in the
history of mathematics for the arithmetical cube
root of two, [2^{1/3}]?,
Or how did this dirty number [2^{1/3}] sneak into
o mathematics?
Was it proved existent?, where are your proofs then?
Do not search history section, since there was not
t any rigorous proofs, but only FOOLISH conclusions,
for sure
When shall you get skilled enough myth man?wonder!
Post by b***@gmail.com
Am Donnerstag, 30. März 2017 16:34:05 UTC+2 schrieb
On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 5:40:08 AM UTC+3,
So, give up for ever, and your stubborn denial
would not make any difference for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
BK
Bassam King Karzeddin
8 th, April, 2017
I find your reasoning very good as well as your methods.
I don't see any method, at all.

The JG/BKK split-brain hive-mind is clearly deficient
in terms of continuum mechanics. (It's the "retro-
finitist crankety troll spam-bot", and can't do "most"
of mathematics.)

"Standard" or "modern" mathematics may be less clearly
so, because there's more to continuity (and less to its
establishment), because the line as of points is drawn.

There are rhetoricians here besides mathematicians
and logicians, don't confuse the untrammeled spew of
the JG/BKK split-brain hive-mind with a development
of rhetoric, beyond reason.

So, well-order the reals.

Draw a line, the points are drawn.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-08 17:06:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Post by Amelien
On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 6:15:34 PM UTC+3,
Post by b***@gmail.com
But you need to have mad skillz for good math.
Skillzs is every-
Post by b***@gmail.com
thing bro. Don't let yourself watered down by
average sources.
Post by b***@gmail.com
FLT can be used to show that 2^(1/3) isn't
rational. But this
Post by b***@gmail.com
only shows that 2^(1/3) doesn't exist in Q.
2^(1/3) does not exist in Q, Yes very easy
but also 2^(1/3) does not exist anywhere except in
n two tiny minds, for sure
How many times must I prove it as a fabricated by
y your alleged genius ancestors and a non existence
or fiction number only? wonder!
And what was the impossibility problem of doubling
g the cube moron, raised by the ancient Greeks? Troll
Was it only about doubling the the cube of integer
r side only, stupid? for sure
Or was it about doubling the cube with an arbitrary
y side?, dump
And what does it mean by arbitrary side length?, but
t I know this is so difficult to be comprehended by
your alikes, wonder!
And do you still understand the deep meaning of the
e fiction angles or the non existing angles
explained and proved in my posts, (say now, angles in
integer degrees that are not divisible by (3), ), as
the angle (20) degrees?
But still, you have a very long way to comprehend
d anything of what I proved, and never tell me again
about your of those moron terms as UNICORN,
Since you had been caught here only, and now as many
times before in believing in the existence of such
fiction numbers such as [2^(1/3]
And do not tell me again and AGAIN the ENDLESS
S approximation of that number, by the so many
formulas you can bring, because I know very well
that WAS never any problem for a carpentry works, by
trial and error even before BC,
Post by b***@gmail.com
But still it can exist anywhere else, for example
in A algebraic
Post by b***@gmail.com
numbers (countable), in R real numbers
(uncountable), etc.. etc..
Take it from me as a prove truth quite many times in
n my posts, those alleged real numbers (other than
constructible numbers) are only existing in too poor
minds, but still we might need their little Rational
approximation for our little carpentry works, and
without the needs of all your alleged modern
mythematics, for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
Get skillz man, learn some math!
Forget what had you learnt, just try it yourself and
d ask your silly self, why one day, discovering the
existence sqrt(2) was a big revolutionary idea in
mathematics?, and when was similar event in the
history of mathematics for the arithmetical cube
root of two, [2^{1/3}]?,
Or how did this dirty number [2^{1/3}] sneak into
o mathematics?
Was it proved existent?, where are your proofs then?
Do not search history section, since there was not
t any rigorous proofs, but only FOOLISH conclusions,
for sure
When shall you get skilled enough myth man?wonder!
Post by b***@gmail.com
Am Donnerstag, 30. März 2017 16:34:05 UTC+2 schrieb
On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 5:40:08 AM UTC+3,
So, give up for ever, and your stubborn denial
would not make any difference for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
BK
Bassam King Karzeddin
8 th, April, 2017
I find your reasoning very good as well as your methods.
So, you may kindly help many others who suffer a lot from understanding the simplicity of the common sense
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
I don't see any method, at all.
That is definitely because either you can not see, or do not want and refuse to see the simplest shining truth, and this is normal reaction as many lessons from history, since the vast majority of people are not so different from old inhabitants of old centuries,
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
The JG/BKK split-brain hive-mind is clearly deficient
in terms of continuum mechanics. (It's the "retro-
finitist crankety troll spam-bot", and can't do "most"
of mathematics.)
Same ill incomprehensible words you usually repeat in many occasions, which sounds as nothing as meaningless as usual
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
"Standard" or "modern" mathematics may be less clearly
so, because there's more to continuity (and less to its
establishment), because the line as of points is drawn.
And of course you can see your described points under microscopic picture, as a spherical particles I suppose, especially you had assigned them with some tiny radius as Epsilon, and Delta to complete your little exposed mind game, where then you can play so comfortably with infinite confidence, do not you really? wonder!

But, I had taken the problem from what you illegally claim as real numere to an angle sky concept, where your silly game is definitely more exposed and invalidated, for sure

And if you do not believe so, just get the sides of any triangle exactly that have only one integer degree angle that is not divisible by (3)

But you cannot for sure
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
There are rhetoricians here besides mathematicians
and logicians, don't confuse the untrammeled spew of
the JG/BKK split-brain hive-mind with a development
of rhetoric, beyond reason.
Really!, were there any logicians, philosophers, mathematicians in the last 2000 years, especially after the Pythagoreans, yes sure, may be very few, but many other business Jugglers mathematicians for sure

Had there been any reals, then you would not see this huge size of fiction stories in mathematics today, but truly speaking, there were many skilled carpenters who gained enough reputation, especially those many of them who died so young before even knowing that their handwritten scratch papers in the last day of their lives was later found by the so alleged nobles of your alikes as a treasure (alas, ..., with so much fun) and so unbelievable tragedies for sure

But Bollywood can still make good tragedy films that would make you cry from those fictional stories, for sure
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
So, well-order the reals.
Reals are only constructibles for sure, and you could not refute any of my proofs, others have not any location on a number line, but they have many locations in very poor minds only, and so definitely
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Draw a line, the points are drawn.
Again points, but truly you have not even a single valid point, for sure

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
8 th, April, 2017
Ross A. Finlayson
2017-04-08 23:03:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Post by Amelien
On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 6:15:34 PM UTC+3,
Post by b***@gmail.com
But you need to have mad skillz for good math.
Skillzs is every-
Post by b***@gmail.com
thing bro. Don't let yourself watered down by
average sources.
Post by b***@gmail.com
FLT can be used to show that 2^(1/3) isn't
rational. But this
Post by b***@gmail.com
only shows that 2^(1/3) doesn't exist in Q.
2^(1/3) does not exist in Q, Yes very easy
but also 2^(1/3) does not exist anywhere except in
n two tiny minds, for sure
How many times must I prove it as a fabricated by
y your alleged genius ancestors and a non existence
or fiction number only? wonder!
And what was the impossibility problem of doubling
g the cube moron, raised by the ancient Greeks? Troll
Was it only about doubling the the cube of integer
r side only, stupid? for sure
Or was it about doubling the cube with an arbitrary
y side?, dump
And what does it mean by arbitrary side length?, but
t I know this is so difficult to be comprehended by
your alikes, wonder!
And do you still understand the deep meaning of the
e fiction angles or the non existing angles
explained and proved in my posts, (say now, angles in
integer degrees that are not divisible by (3), ), as
the angle (20) degrees?
But still, you have a very long way to comprehend
d anything of what I proved, and never tell me again
about your of those moron terms as UNICORN,
Since you had been caught here only, and now as many
times before in believing in the existence of such
fiction numbers such as [2^(1/3]
And do not tell me again and AGAIN the ENDLESS
S approximation of that number, by the so many
formulas you can bring, because I know very well
that WAS never any problem for a carpentry works, by
trial and error even before BC,
Post by b***@gmail.com
But still it can exist anywhere else, for example
in A algebraic
Post by b***@gmail.com
numbers (countable), in R real numbers
(uncountable), etc.. etc..
Take it from me as a prove truth quite many times in
n my posts, those alleged real numbers (other than
constructible numbers) are only existing in too poor
minds, but still we might need their little Rational
approximation for our little carpentry works, and
without the needs of all your alleged modern
mythematics, for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
Get skillz man, learn some math!
Forget what had you learnt, just try it yourself and
d ask your silly self, why one day, discovering the
existence sqrt(2) was a big revolutionary idea in
mathematics?, and when was similar event in the
history of mathematics for the arithmetical cube
root of two, [2^{1/3}]?,
Or how did this dirty number [2^{1/3}] sneak into
o mathematics?
Was it proved existent?, where are your proofs then?
Do not search history section, since there was not
t any rigorous proofs, but only FOOLISH conclusions,
for sure
When shall you get skilled enough myth man?wonder!
Post by b***@gmail.com
Am Donnerstag, 30. März 2017 16:34:05 UTC+2 schrieb
On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 5:40:08 AM UTC+3,
So, give up for ever, and your stubborn denial
would not make any difference for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
BK
Bassam King Karzeddin
8 th, April, 2017
I find your reasoning very good as well as your methods.
So, you may kindly help many others who suffer a lot from understanding the simplicity of the common sense
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
I don't see any method, at all.
That is definitely because either you can not see, or do not want and refuse to see the simplest shining truth, and this is normal reaction as many lessons from history, since the vast majority of people are not so different from old inhabitants of old centuries,
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
The JG/BKK split-brain hive-mind is clearly deficient
in terms of continuum mechanics. (It's the "retro-
finitist crankety troll spam-bot", and can't do "most"
of mathematics.)
Same ill incomprehensible words you usually repeat in many occasions, which sounds as nothing as meaningless as usual
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
"Standard" or "modern" mathematics may be less clearly
so, because there's more to continuity (and less to its
establishment), because the line as of points is drawn.
And of course you can see your described points under microscopic picture, as a spherical particles I suppose, especially you had assigned them with some tiny radius as Epsilon, and Delta to complete your little exposed mind game, where then you can play so comfortably with infinite confidence, do not you really? wonder!
But, I had taken the problem from what you illegally claim as real numere to an angle sky concept, where your silly game is definitely more exposed and invalidated, for sure
And if you do not believe so, just get the sides of any triangle exactly that have only one integer degree angle that is not divisible by (3)
But you cannot for sure
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
There are rhetoricians here besides mathematicians
and logicians, don't confuse the untrammeled spew of
the JG/BKK split-brain hive-mind with a development
of rhetoric, beyond reason.
Really!, were there any logicians, philosophers, mathematicians in the last 2000 years, especially after the Pythagoreans, yes sure, may be very few, but many other business Jugglers mathematicians for sure
Had there been any reals, then you would not see this huge size of fiction stories in mathematics today, but truly speaking, there were many skilled carpenters who gained enough reputation, especially those many of them who died so young before even knowing that their handwritten scratch papers in the last day of their lives was later found by the so alleged nobles of your alikes as a treasure (alas, ..., with so much fun) and so unbelievable tragedies for sure
But Bollywood can still make good tragedy films that would make you cry from those fictional stories, for sure
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
So, well-order the reals.
Reals are only constructibles for sure, and you could not refute any of my proofs, others have not any location on a number line, but they have many locations in very poor minds only, and so definitely
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Draw a line, the points are drawn.
Again points, but truly you have not even a single valid point, for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
8 th, April, 2017
It's not like trying to convince people there are
infinite alternatives to transfinite cardinals being
"the truth". The continuum and its real numbers
and usual methods of real analysis are quite totally
de rigeur in mathematics already today, and trying
to convince people they don't use what they already
use isn't so much just futile as furthermore odious.

Alternative methods or finite constructions of many,
any, and all sorts have places, in numerical methods,
but they certainly aren't complete and are far from
fundamental.

So, retro-finitist crankety-trolls can get bent (and bite it).


Then, drawing the line, follows from an extension of
there being infinitely many points in their line as the
line segment (or line-drawing), not just as axiomatized
to exist (like Euclid's geometry of points, then lines,
then planes, ..., all sorts of further definitions to
establish the infinite-dimensional orthonormal vector
space R^N).

So, well-ordering the reals is line-drawing.

(And retro-finitist turtle-bowls don't much gain
in Zeno's foot-race.)
Ross A. Finlayson
2017-04-08 23:19:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Post by Amelien
On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 6:15:34 PM UTC+3,
Post by b***@gmail.com
But you need to have mad skillz for good math.
Skillzs is every-
Post by b***@gmail.com
thing bro. Don't let yourself watered down by
average sources.
Post by b***@gmail.com
FLT can be used to show that 2^(1/3) isn't
rational. But this
Post by b***@gmail.com
only shows that 2^(1/3) doesn't exist in Q.
2^(1/3) does not exist in Q, Yes very easy
but also 2^(1/3) does not exist anywhere except in
n two tiny minds, for sure
How many times must I prove it as a fabricated by
y your alleged genius ancestors and a non existence
or fiction number only? wonder!
And what was the impossibility problem of doubling
g the cube moron, raised by the ancient Greeks? Troll
Was it only about doubling the the cube of integer
r side only, stupid? for sure
Or was it about doubling the cube with an arbitrary
y side?, dump
And what does it mean by arbitrary side length?, but
t I know this is so difficult to be comprehended by
your alikes, wonder!
And do you still understand the deep meaning of the
e fiction angles or the non existing angles
explained and proved in my posts, (say now, angles in
integer degrees that are not divisible by (3), ), as
the angle (20) degrees?
But still, you have a very long way to comprehend
d anything of what I proved, and never tell me again
about your of those moron terms as UNICORN,
Since you had been caught here only, and now as many
times before in believing in the existence of such
fiction numbers such as [2^(1/3]
And do not tell me again and AGAIN the ENDLESS
S approximation of that number, by the so many
formulas you can bring, because I know very well
that WAS never any problem for a carpentry works, by
trial and error even before BC,
Post by b***@gmail.com
But still it can exist anywhere else, for example
in A algebraic
Post by b***@gmail.com
numbers (countable), in R real numbers
(uncountable), etc.. etc..
Take it from me as a prove truth quite many times in
n my posts, those alleged real numbers (other than
constructible numbers) are only existing in too poor
minds, but still we might need their little Rational
approximation for our little carpentry works, and
without the needs of all your alleged modern
mythematics, for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
Get skillz man, learn some math!
Forget what had you learnt, just try it yourself and
d ask your silly self, why one day, discovering the
existence sqrt(2) was a big revolutionary idea in
mathematics?, and when was similar event in the
history of mathematics for the arithmetical cube
root of two, [2^{1/3}]?,
Or how did this dirty number [2^{1/3}] sneak into
o mathematics?
Was it proved existent?, where are your proofs then?
Do not search history section, since there was not
t any rigorous proofs, but only FOOLISH conclusions,
for sure
When shall you get skilled enough myth man?wonder!
Post by b***@gmail.com
Am Donnerstag, 30. März 2017 16:34:05 UTC+2 schrieb
On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 5:40:08 AM UTC+3,
So, give up for ever, and your stubborn denial
would not make any difference for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
BK
Bassam King Karzeddin
8 th, April, 2017
I find your reasoning very good as well as your methods.
So, you may kindly help many others who suffer a lot from understanding the simplicity of the common sense
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
I don't see any method, at all.
That is definitely because either you can not see, or do not want and refuse to see the simplest shining truth, and this is normal reaction as many lessons from history, since the vast majority of people are not so different from old inhabitants of old centuries,
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
The JG/BKK split-brain hive-mind is clearly deficient
in terms of continuum mechanics. (It's the "retro-
finitist crankety troll spam-bot", and can't do "most"
of mathematics.)
Same ill incomprehensible words you usually repeat in many occasions, which sounds as nothing as meaningless as usual
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
"Standard" or "modern" mathematics may be less clearly
so, because there's more to continuity (and less to its
establishment), because the line as of points is drawn.
And of course you can see your described points under microscopic picture, as a spherical particles I suppose, especially you had assigned them with some tiny radius as Epsilon, and Delta to complete your little exposed mind game, where then you can play so comfortably with infinite confidence, do not you really? wonder!
But, I had taken the problem from what you illegally claim as real numere to an angle sky concept, where your silly game is definitely more exposed and invalidated, for sure
And if you do not believe so, just get the sides of any triangle exactly that have only one integer degree angle that is not divisible by (3)
But you cannot for sure
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
There are rhetoricians here besides mathematicians
and logicians, don't confuse the untrammeled spew of
the JG/BKK split-brain hive-mind with a development
of rhetoric, beyond reason.
Really!, were there any logicians, philosophers, mathematicians in the last 2000 years, especially after the Pythagoreans, yes sure, may be very few, but many other business Jugglers mathematicians for sure
Had there been any reals, then you would not see this huge size of fiction stories in mathematics today, but truly speaking, there were many skilled carpenters who gained enough reputation, especially those many of them who died so young before even knowing that their handwritten scratch papers in the last day of their lives was later found by the so alleged nobles of your alikes as a treasure (alas, ..., with so much fun) and so unbelievable tragedies for sure
But Bollywood can still make good tragedy films that would make you cry from those fictional stories, for sure
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
So, well-order the reals.
Reals are only constructibles for sure, and you could not refute any of my proofs, others have not any location on a number line, but they have many locations in very poor minds only, and so definitely
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Draw a line, the points are drawn.
Again points, but truly you have not even a single valid point, for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
8 th, April, 2017
It's not like trying to convince people there are
infinite alternatives to transfinite cardinals being
"the truth". The continuum and its real numbers
and usual methods of real analysis are quite totally
de rigeur in mathematics already today, and trying
to convince people they don't use what they already
use isn't so much just futile as furthermore odious.
Alternative methods or finite constructions of many,
any, and all sorts have places, in numerical methods,
but they certainly aren't complete and are far from
fundamental.
So, retro-finitist crankety-trolls can get bent (and bite it).
Then, drawing the line, follows from an extension of
there being infinitely many points in their line as the
line segment (or line-drawing), not just as axiomatized
to exist (like Euclid's geometry of points, then lines,
then planes, ..., all sorts of further definitions to
establish the infinite-dimensional orthonormal vector
space R^N).
So, well-ordering the reals is line-drawing.
(And retro-finitist turtle-bowls don't much gain
in Zeno's foot-race.)
See: infinity IS what draws the points to a line.

Continuity (constructivistically, and analytically)
this way really is the result of infinity of the
numbers, in the infinity of the numbers.

Finite combinatorics and classical constructions
are just tools in the middle.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-09 16:14:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Post by Amelien
On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 6:15:34 PM UTC+3,
Post by b***@gmail.com
But you need to have mad skillz for good math.
Skillzs is every-
Post by b***@gmail.com
thing bro. Don't let yourself watered down by
average sources.
Post by b***@gmail.com
FLT can be used to show that 2^(1/3) isn't
rational. But this
Post by b***@gmail.com
only shows that 2^(1/3) doesn't exist in Q.
2^(1/3) does not exist in Q, Yes very easy
but also 2^(1/3) does not exist anywhere except in
n two tiny minds, for sure
How many times must I prove it as a fabricated by
y your alleged genius ancestors and a non existence
or fiction number only? wonder!
And what was the impossibility problem of doubling
g the cube moron, raised by the ancient Greeks? Troll
Was it only about doubling the the cube of integer
r side only, stupid? for sure
Or was it about doubling the cube with an arbitrary
y side?, dump
And what does it mean by arbitrary side length?, but
t I know this is so difficult to be comprehended by
your alikes, wonder!
And do you still understand the deep meaning of the
e fiction angles or the non existing angles
explained and proved in my posts, (say now, angles in
integer degrees that are not divisible by (3), ), as
the angle (20) degrees?
But still, you have a very long way to comprehend
d anything of what I proved, and never tell me again
about your of those moron terms as UNICORN,
Since you had been caught here only, and now as many
times before in believing in the existence of such
fiction numbers such as [2^(1/3]
And do not tell me again and AGAIN the ENDLESS
S approximation of that number, by the so many
formulas you can bring, because I know very well
that WAS never any problem for a carpentry works, by
trial and error even before BC,
Post by b***@gmail.com
But still it can exist anywhere else, for example
in A algebraic
Post by b***@gmail.com
numbers (countable), in R real numbers
(uncountable), etc.. etc..
Take it from me as a prove truth quite many times in
n my posts, those alleged real numbers (other than
constructible numbers) are only existing in too poor
minds, but still we might need their little Rational
approximation for our little carpentry works, and
without the needs of all your alleged modern
mythematics, for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
Get skillz man, learn some math!
Forget what had you learnt, just try it yourself and
d ask your silly self, why one day, discovering the
existence sqrt(2) was a big revolutionary idea in
mathematics?, and when was similar event in the
history of mathematics for the arithmetical cube
root of two, [2^{1/3}]?,
Or how did this dirty number [2^{1/3}] sneak into
o mathematics?
Was it proved existent?, where are your proofs then?
Do not search history section, since there was not
t any rigorous proofs, but only FOOLISH conclusions,
for sure
When shall you get skilled enough myth man?wonder!
Post by b***@gmail.com
Am Donnerstag, 30. März 2017 16:34:05 UTC+2 schrieb
On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 5:40:08 AM UTC+3,
So, give up for ever, and your stubborn denial
would not make any difference for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
BK
Bassam King Karzeddin
8 th, April, 2017
I find your reasoning very good as well as your methods.
So, you may kindly help many others who suffer a lot from understanding the simplicity of the common sense
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
I don't see any method, at all.
That is definitely because either you can not see, or do not want and refuse to see the simplest shining truth, and this is normal reaction as many lessons from history, since the vast majority of people are not so different from old inhabitants of old centuries,
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
The JG/BKK split-brain hive-mind is clearly deficient
in terms of continuum mechanics. (It's the "retro-
finitist crankety troll spam-bot", and can't do "most"
of mathematics.)
Same ill incomprehensible words you usually repeat in many occasions, which sounds as nothing as meaningless as usual
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
"Standard" or "modern" mathematics may be less clearly
so, because there's more to continuity (and less to its
establishment), because the line as of points is drawn.
And of course you can see your described points under microscopic picture, as a spherical particles I suppose, especially you had assigned them with some tiny radius as Epsilon, and Delta to complete your little exposed mind game, where then you can play so comfortably with infinite confidence, do not you really? wonder!
But, I had taken the problem from what you illegally claim as real numere to an angle sky concept, where your silly game is definitely more exposed and invalidated, for sure
And if you do not believe so, just get the sides of any triangle exactly that have only one integer degree angle that is not divisible by (3)
But you cannot for sure
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
There are rhetoricians here besides mathematicians
and logicians, don't confuse the untrammeled spew of
the JG/BKK split-brain hive-mind with a development
of rhetoric, beyond reason.
Really!, were there any logicians, philosophers, mathematicians in the last 2000 years, especially after the Pythagoreans, yes sure, may be very few, but many other business Jugglers mathematicians for sure
Had there been any reals, then you would not see this huge size of fiction stories in mathematics today, but truly speaking, there were many skilled carpenters who gained enough reputation, especially those many of them who died so young before even knowing that their handwritten scratch papers in the last day of their lives was later found by the so alleged nobles of your alikes as a treasure (alas, ..., with so much fun) and so unbelievable tragedies for sure
But Bollywood can still make good tragedy films that would make you cry from those fictional stories, for sure
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
So, well-order the reals.
Reals are only constructibles for sure, and you could not refute any of my proofs, others have not any location on a number line, but they have many locations in very poor minds only, and so definitely
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Draw a line, the points are drawn.
Again points, but truly you have not even a single valid point, for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
8 th, April, 2017
It's not like trying to convince people there are
infinite alternatives to transfinite cardinals being
"the truth". The continuum and its real numbers
and usual methods of real analysis are quite totally
de rigeur in mathematics already today, and trying
to convince people they don't use what they already
use isn't so much just futile as furthermore odious.
Alternative methods or finite constructions of many,
any, and all sorts have places, in numerical methods,
but they certainly aren't complete and are far from
fundamental.
So, retro-finitist crankety-trolls can get bent (and bite it).
Then, drawing the line, follows from an extension of
there being infinitely many points in their line as the
line segment (or line-drawing), not just as axiomatized
to exist (like Euclid's geometry of points, then lines,
then planes, ..., all sorts of further definitions to
establish the infinite-dimensional orthonormal vector
space R^N).
So, well-ordering the reals is line-drawing.
(And retro-finitist turtle-bowls don't much gain
in Zeno's foot-race.)
Why do you oftenly keep copying and pasting your irrelevant arguments as an answer to any issue we present?

It is indeed so irrelevant to my issue here for sure
Wonder!
BK
b***@gmail.com
2017-04-09 17:15:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Hey Puppy, skillz is everything man. Learn some
math man, skillz helps a lot for good math.

The length of the chord between x and y is:

|x-y| = sqrt(z*t) where z=x-y and t=conj(z)

Hence:
|[a + ib]-[b - ia]| =

sqrt((a-b+(b-a)i)*(a-b-(b-a)i)) =

sqrt(2)*|b-a|

Right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_value#Complex_numbers
Post by bassam king karzeddin
sqrt([a + ib]^2 + [b - ia]^2) = 0
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-09 18:11:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey Puppy, skillz is everything man. Learn some
math man, skillz helps a lot for good math.
|x-y| = sqrt(z*t) where z=x-y and t=conj(z)
|[a + ib]-[b - ia]| =
sqrt((a-b+(b-a)i)*(a-b-(b-a)i)) =
sqrt(2)*|b-a|
Right?
Not Right
Post by b***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_value#Complex_numbers
this is reference is for imbeciles, for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
sqrt([a + ib]^2 + [b - ia]^2) = 0
What was my question moron? wonder!

Here it is drop by drop for you

(a + ib)^2 = a^2 - b^2 + 2ab, (Right?), eqn.(1)

(b - ia)^2 = b^2 - a^2 - 2abi, (Right?), eqn.(2)

So, let their sum (eqn.(1) + eqn.(2) = eqn.(3))

eqn.(3) = 0, (Right?)

And guess what are your complex numbers Troll? and refer to the first question

Donot be thankful, but be a denier as always as usual, for sure

BK
Peter Percival
2017-04-09 18:31:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey Puppy, skillz is everything man. Learn some
math man, skillz helps a lot for good math.
|x-y| = sqrt(z*t) where z=x-y and t=conj(z)
|[a + ib]-[b - ia]| =
sqrt((a-b+(b-a)i)*(a-b-(b-a)i)) =
sqrt(2)*|b-a|
Right?
Not Right
Post by b***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_value#Complex_numbers
this is reference is for imbeciles, for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
sqrt([a + ib]^2 + [b - ia]^2) = 0
What was my question moron? wonder!
Here it is drop by drop for you
(a + ib)^2 = a^2 - b^2 + 2ab, (Right?), eqn.(1)
No, (a + ib)^2 = a^2 - b^2 + 2iab.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
(b - ia)^2 = b^2 - a^2 - 2abi, (Right?), eqn.(2)
So, let their sum (eqn.(1) + eqn.(2) = eqn.(3))
eqn.(3) = 0, (Right?
Yes, after correction of typo.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
)
So what?
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And guess what are your complex numbers Troll? and refer to the first question
Donot be thankful, but be a denier as always as usual, for sure
BK
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-09 19:13:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey Puppy, skillz is everything man. Learn some
math man, skillz helps a lot for good math.
|x-y| = sqrt(z*t) where z=x-y and t=conj(z)
|[a + ib]-[b - ia]| =
sqrt((a-b+(b-a)i)*(a-b-(b-a)i)) =
sqrt(2)*|b-a|
Right?
Not Right
Post by b***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_value#Complex_numbers
this is reference is for imbeciles, for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
sqrt([a + ib]^2 + [b - ia]^2) = 0
What was my question moron? wonder!
Here it is drop by drop for you
(a + ib)^2 = a^2 - b^2 + 2ab, (Right?), eqn.(1)
No, (a + ib)^2 = a^2 - b^2 + 2iab.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
(b - ia)^2 = b^2 - a^2 - 2abi, (Right?), eqn.(2)
So, let their sum (eqn.(1) + eqn.(2) = eqn.(3))
eqn.(3) = 0, (Right?
Yes, after correction of typo.
Thanks for correction of typo
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
)
So what?
The fictitious meaningless of complex numbers I suppose!

Or do you see another meaning involving time concept to this problem?, wonder!

BK
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And guess what are your complex numbers Troll? and refer to the first question
Donot be thankful, but be a denier as always as usual, for sure
BK
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Peter Percival
2017-04-09 19:49:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey Puppy, skillz is everything man. Learn some
math man, skillz helps a lot for good math.
|x-y| = sqrt(z*t) where z=x-y and t=conj(z)
|[a + ib]-[b - ia]| =
sqrt((a-b+(b-a)i)*(a-b-(b-a)i)) =
sqrt(2)*|b-a|
Right?
Not Right
Post by b***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_value#Complex_numbers
this is reference is for imbeciles, for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
sqrt([a + ib]^2 + [b - ia]^2) = 0
What was my question moron? wonder!
Here it is drop by drop for you
(a + ib)^2 = a^2 - b^2 + 2ab, (Right?), eqn.(1)
No, (a + ib)^2 = a^2 - b^2 + 2iab.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
(b - ia)^2 = b^2 - a^2 - 2abi, (Right?), eqn.(2)
So, let their sum (eqn.(1) + eqn.(2) = eqn.(3))
eqn.(3) = 0, (Right?
Yes, after correction of typo.
Thanks for correction of typo
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
)
So what?
The fictitious meaningless of complex numbers I suppose!
How does (a + ib)^2 + (b - ia)^2 = 0 show that complex numbers are
fictitious or meaningless?
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-10 08:33:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey Puppy, skillz is everything man. Learn some
math man, skillz helps a lot for good math.
|x-y| = sqrt(z*t) where z=x-y and t=conj(z)
|[a + ib]-[b - ia]| =
sqrt((a-b+(b-a)i)*(a-b-(b-a)i)) =
sqrt(2)*|b-a|
Right?
Not Right
Post by b***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_value#Complex_numbers
this is reference is for imbeciles, for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
sqrt([a + ib]^2 + [b - ia]^2) = 0
What was my question moron? wonder!
Here it is drop by drop for you
(a + ib)^2 = a^2 - b^2 + 2ab, (Right?), eqn.(1)
No, (a + ib)^2 = a^2 - b^2 + 2iab.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
(b - ia)^2 = b^2 - a^2 - 2abi, (Right?), eqn.(2)
So, let their sum (eqn.(1) + eqn.(2) = eqn.(3))
eqn.(3) = 0, (Right?
Yes, after correction of typo.
Thanks for correction of typo
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
)
So what?
The fictitious meaningless of complex numbers I suppose!
How does (a + ib)^2 + (b - ia)^2 = 0 show that complex numbers are
fictitious or meaningless?
To get this obvious fiction fast, just remember what was the real number line definition, before the artificial symmetry had been deployed to make the positive and negative as a mirror image, and generalized to (X, Y, Z - axis), three orthogonal space coordinates (of course for a dirty purpose)

Does this mathematical coordinations exist in our physical existing world around us?

It is indeed existing from a reference point, but in positive sense and opposite directions,

So, the real line number (say X-axis) which is a straight line joining two locations and their endless extension in opposite directions, (there was nothing indicating any negative sense in the original definition, and as it is indeed)
at start point (say zero), you can go positive (say right direction), and you can go also positive (say left direction) along the real number line,

But what did they do, deleting one complete say left direction from a start point and mirroring the right direction (about Y-axis), and creating those mirror image of right direction to create the negative numbers as real, whereas mirror image can not be any real, but fictitious reality out of deliberate artificial symmetry just for another dirty purpose of creating those illegal imaginary numbers

I had explained this fallacy in other posts about multiplication operation and their actual mirror image that contradicts clearly what had been wrongly established as a convention, never any real discovery,

Just Mark (5)*(7) = (35) and their product (35) on the right side, and look at their mirror image as (-5)*(-7) = (-35)

**Note here that Y-axis is acting as a mirror image for X-axis

Exactly, and here is the wisdom for anyone wants to evolve honestly

This is invented mathematics, this is not discovered mathematics where no one would be able to cover the truth with spiders threads,

Let alone the mathematicians go beyond limitation after their own mad invented purposely mathematics as here for a little issue only

All the ancient mathematicians (Babylonians, Egyptians, Indians, chinese, Greeks, Arabs, Muslims, ...) had missed the greatest nonsense idea of the solution of say (x^2 = - 1), it was not even any listed problem, then the unearthly genius solved it in his illogical imagination, then it became as a global religion for mathematics

See how much efforts it took that genius to solve it!?

The magical solution: let There be a number (and call it (i) the imaginary unit, since obviously cannot be any real), where once multiplied by itself, then it would give you back itself but in mirror image of unity. END, Heaven was opened so widely for the mathematicians even befor Contor to add to this obvious legend

A simple refutation (from their mathematical definition about negative numbers):

(- 1) = (-1)*(-1)*(-1)

Then take the square roots of both sides, you get this:

i = i^3, or (i^2 = 1), contrary to their well formed fake definition

but, they the professionals, would shout loudly, hey, stop here, this should be done this way and not the way you do it, better they design a catalog for this manufacturer item

The fact that, even that genius imagination is absolutely illogical nonsense

same for this legend solution (x^3 = 2), but with positive sense and a trip to the paradise of fools (the infinity)

Then their ultimate findings the fundamental theorem of Algebra, what a coincident is this, really world of mathematics

Mathematics is mainly Diophantine equation solutions and geometry, rest are in full doubt

True mathematicians should throw away and immediately this long standing shame upon their shoulders

This fiction story had limited the physics to run into those barriers fictions, where then speed of light had been fixed, wonder!
Post by Peter Percival
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
10 th, April., 2017
konyberg
2017-04-10 10:15:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey Puppy, skillz is everything man. Learn some
math man, skillz helps a lot for good math.
|x-y| = sqrt(z*t) where z=x-y and t=conj(z)
|[a + ib]-[b - ia]| =
sqrt((a-b+(b-a)i)*(a-b-(b-a)i)) =
sqrt(2)*|b-a|
Right?
Not Right
Post by b***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_value#Complex_numbers
this is reference is for imbeciles, for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
sqrt([a + ib]^2 + [b - ia]^2) = 0
What was my question moron? wonder!
Here it is drop by drop for you
(a + ib)^2 = a^2 - b^2 + 2ab, (Right?), eqn.(1)
No, (a + ib)^2 = a^2 - b^2 + 2iab.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
(b - ia)^2 = b^2 - a^2 - 2abi, (Right?), eqn.(2)
So, let their sum (eqn.(1) + eqn.(2) = eqn.(3))
eqn.(3) = 0, (Right?
Yes, after correction of typo.
Thanks for correction of typo
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
)
So what?
The fictitious meaningless of complex numbers I suppose!
How does (a + ib)^2 + (b - ia)^2 = 0 show that complex numbers are
fictitious or meaningless?
To get this obvious fiction fast, just remember what was the real number line definition, before the artificial symmetry had been deployed to make the positive and negative as a mirror image, and generalized to (X, Y, Z - axis), three orthogonal space coordinates (of course for a dirty purpose)
Does this mathematical coordinations exist in our physical existing world around us?
It is indeed existing from a reference point, but in positive sense and opposite directions,
So, the real line number (say X-axis) which is a straight line joining two locations and their endless extension in opposite directions, (there was nothing indicating any negative sense in the original definition, and as it is indeed)
at start point (say zero), you can go positive (say right direction), and you can go also positive (say left direction) along the real number line,
But what did they do, deleting one complete say left direction from a start point and mirroring the right direction (about Y-axis), and creating those mirror image of right direction to create the negative numbers as real, whereas mirror image can not be any real, but fictitious reality out of deliberate artificial symmetry just for another dirty purpose of creating those illegal imaginary numbers
I had explained this fallacy in other posts about multiplication operation and their actual mirror image that contradicts clearly what had been wrongly established as a convention, never any real discovery,
Just Mark (5)*(7) = (35) and their product (35) on the right side, and look at their mirror image as (-5)*(-7) = (-35)
**Note here that Y-axis is acting as a mirror image for X-axis
Exactly, and here is the wisdom for anyone wants to evolve honestly
This is invented mathematics, this is not discovered mathematics where no one would be able to cover the truth with spiders threads,
Let alone the mathematicians go beyond limitation after their own mad invented purposely mathematics as here for a little issue only
All the ancient mathematicians (Babylonians, Egyptians, Indians, chinese, Greeks, Arabs, Muslims, ...) had missed the greatest nonsense idea of the solution of say (x^2 = - 1), it was not even any listed problem, then the unearthly genius solved it in his illogical imagination, then it became as a global religion for mathematics
See how much efforts it took that genius to solve it!?
The magical solution: let There be a number (and call it (i) the imaginary unit, since obviously cannot be any real), where once multiplied by itself, then it would give you back itself but in mirror image of unity. END, Heaven was opened so widely for the mathematicians even befor Contor to add to this obvious legend
(- 1) = (-1)*(-1)*(-1)
This is correct.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
i = i^3, or (i^2 = 1), contrary to their well formed fake definition
Here you treat complex numbers as they are real numbers. They are not!
Look up branches of complex numbers.

KON
Post by bassam king karzeddin
but, they the professionals, would shout loudly, hey, stop here, this should be done this way and not the way you do it, better they design a catalog for this manufacturer item
The fact that, even that genius imagination is absolutely illogical nonsense
same for this legend solution (x^3 = 2), but with positive sense and a trip to the paradise of fools (the infinity)
Then their ultimate findings the fundamental theorem of Algebra, what a coincident is this, really world of mathematics
Mathematics is mainly Diophantine equation solutions and geometry, rest are in full doubt
True mathematicians should throw away and immediately this long standing shame upon their shoulders
This fiction story had limited the physics to run into those barriers fictions, where then speed of light had been fixed, wonder!
Post by Peter Percival
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
10 th, April., 2017
b***@gmail.com
2017-04-10 10:29:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Maybe the problem is much deeper, for BKK and also
for JG. Maybe they don't understand how operators
are applied and what structures equations have.

For the later it helps to visualize them as trees,
for example this equation:

5 * 7 = 35

Is this tree:

=
/ \
* 35
/ \
5 7

Applying the change sign operator (-) on both sides
only gives:

-(5*7) = -35

Or in tree form:

=
/ \
- -35
|
*
/ \
5 7

But there is no distributivity law, -(A*B) = (-A)*(-B).
Some laws here could be -(A*B) = (-A)*B or -(A*B) = A*(-B).
And with the former one:

(-5)*7 = -35

Or in tree form:

=
/ \
* -35
/ \
-5 7

Anyway 300 years ago algebraists were much better
trained. And there was Bombellis Wild Thoughts:

Visual Complex Analysis - VI Multifunctions
http://people.math.sc.edu/girardi/m7034/book/VisualComplexAnalysis-Needham.pdf

Today we can even visualize complex numbers in
the plane, so that using Sqrt to denote a multi-

function, we have Sqrt(-1) = {i, -i}.
Post by konyberg
Post by bassam king karzeddin
i = i^3, or (i^2 = 1), contrary to their well formed fake definition
Here you treat complex numbers as they are real numbers. They are not!
Look up branches of complex numbers.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-10 13:21:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Maybe the problem is much deeper, for BKK and also
for JG. Maybe they don't understand how operators
are applied and what structures equations have.
[snip the garbage]

Morrow: Try to understand that is not any real discovery, but decisions, invention, convention, fabrication, fictions, which is not mathematics at all

And ask your silly self again and again, where is that positive and negative mathematical coordinations which is meant for real physical space around your tiny head

And why did they decided like that? wonder!

Is not it more sensible to consider it as it is indeed really and physically existing in terms of directions

So, drop for a while the unnecessary meaning of positive and negative, just to see it naked as it is

So, replace the positive (X-axis) by (say Right direction), denoted by R

And replace the negative (X-axis) by (say Left direction), denoted by L

Similarly for Y-axis as (North and South), denoted by N and S
And for Z-axis, (say Top and Bottom), denoted by T and B

And you would understand this whole dirty trick to avoid this huge section of fections and harmful and unnecessary mathematics for sure

And do not worry about rotations, there are many other geometrical ways to it

But still, people generally would stick to what had been programmed into their too tiny skulls, for sure

Because also, this fact path does not offer so much business in it

Bassam King Karzeddin
10 th, April, 2017
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-10 12:50:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by konyberg
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey Puppy, skillz is everything man. Learn some
math man, skillz helps a lot for good math.
|x-y| = sqrt(z*t) where z=x-y and t=conj(z)
|[a + ib]-[b - ia]| =
sqrt((a-b+(b-a)i)*(a-b-(b-a)i)) =
sqrt(2)*|b-a|
Right?
Not Right
Post by b***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_value#Complex_numbers
this is reference is for imbeciles, for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
sqrt([a + ib]^2 + [b - ia]^2) = 0
What was my question moron? wonder!
Here it is drop by drop for you
(a + ib)^2 = a^2 - b^2 + 2ab, (Right?), eqn.(1)
No, (a + ib)^2 = a^2 - b^2 + 2iab.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
(b - ia)^2 = b^2 - a^2 - 2abi, (Right?), eqn.(2)
So, let their sum (eqn.(1) + eqn.(2) = eqn.(3))
eqn.(3) = 0, (Right?
Yes, after correction of typo.
Thanks for correction of typo
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
)
So what?
The fictitious meaningless of complex numbers I suppose!
How does (a + ib)^2 + (b - ia)^2 = 0 show that complex numbers are
fictitious or meaningless?
To get this obvious fiction fast, just remember what was the real number line definition, before the artificial symmetry had been deployed to make the positive and negative as a mirror image, and generalized to (X, Y, Z - axis), three orthogonal space coordinates (of course for a dirty purpose)
Does this mathematical coordinations exist in our physical existing world around us?
It is indeed existing from a reference point, but in positive sense and opposite directions,
So, the real line number (say X-axis) which is a straight line joining two locations and their endless extension in opposite directions, (there was nothing indicating any negative sense in the original definition, and as it is indeed)
at start point (say zero), you can go positive (say right direction), and you can go also positive (say left direction) along the real number line,
But what did they do, deleting one complete say left direction from a start point and mirroring the right direction (about Y-axis), and creating those mirror image of right direction to create the negative numbers as real, whereas mirror image can not be any real, but fictitious reality out of deliberate artificial symmetry just for another dirty purpose of creating those illegal imaginary numbers
I had explained this fallacy in other posts about multiplication operation and their actual mirror image that contradicts clearly what had been wrongly established as a convention, never any real discovery,
Just Mark (5)*(7) = (35) and their product (35) on the right side, and look at their mirror image as (-5)*(-7) = (-35)
**Note here that Y-axis is acting as a mirror image for X-axis
Exactly, and here is the wisdom for anyone wants to evolve honestly
This is invented mathematics, this is not discovered mathematics where no one would be able to cover the truth with spiders threads,
Let alone the mathematicians go beyond limitation after their own mad invented purposely mathematics as here for a little issue only
All the ancient mathematicians (Babylonians, Egyptians, Indians, chinese, Greeks, Arabs, Muslims, ...) had missed the greatest nonsense idea of the solution of say (x^2 = - 1), it was not even any listed problem, then the unearthly genius solved it in his illogical imagination, then it became as a global religion for mathematics
See how much efforts it took that genius to solve it!?
The magical solution: let There be a number (and call it (i) the imaginary unit, since obviously cannot be any real), where once multiplied by itself, then it would give you back itself but in mirror image of unity. END, Heaven was opened so widely for the mathematicians even befor Cantor to add to this obvious legend
(- 1) = (-1)*(-1)*(-1)
This is correct.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
i = i^3, or (i^2 = 1), contrary to their well formed fake definition
Here you treat complex numbers as they are real numbers. They are not!
Look up branches of complex numbers.
KON
but I shall illustrate it first in more convenient numerical example

First you must remember this too elementary stuff, and answer it by true or false
A) Are the negative integers mirror image of positive integers on X-axis, where the Y-axis is acting as a mirror from (x =0), (T or F)

B) Is (-7) a mirror image of (7)? (T or F)
C) Is (-11) a mirror image of (11)? (T or F)
D) Is (-77) a mirror image of (77)? (T or F)
E) Is not the multiplication operation of (-7)*(-11) = (-77) a mirror image of multiplication operation of (7)*(11) = (77)? (T or F)

F) Is not (-1)*(-1) = (-1)? (T or F)
G) Is not sqrt(-1) = -1? (T or F)
H) Is not positive or negative are just notations for direction and opposite direction? (T or F)
I) Is the real physical existing space COORDINATIONS divided the same way mathematics divides it? (T or F)
J) Is the XYZ-axies coordination in mathematics meant for the real existing physical space? (T or F)

Game is Over for sure

And I know the thump rules that people generally would follow what had been taught to them for sure

BK
Post by konyberg
Post by bassam king karzeddin
but, they the professionals, would shout loudly, hey, stop here, this should be done this way and not the way you do it, better they design a catalog for this manufacturer item
The fact that, even that genius imagination is absolutely illogical nonsense
same for this legend solution (x^3 = 2), but with positive sense and a trip to the paradise of fools (the infinity)
Then their ultimate findings the fundamental theorem of Algebra, what a coincident is this, really world of mathematics
Mathematics is mainly Diophantine equation solutions and geometry, rest are in full doubt
True mathematicians should throw away and immediately this long standing shame upon their shoulders
This fiction story had limited the physics to run into those barriers fictions, where then speed of light had been fixed, wonder!
Post by Peter Percival
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
10 th, April., 2017
a***@gmail.com
2017-04-10 13:48:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
there are no negatives in p-adics,
and
that is where all of the nonarchimedean valuations arise,
other than inifinite-adic archimedean valuation, abaolute value.

spatially, use tetrahedral coordinates
with four quadrants, but the minus quadrants overlap
the positive ones in a rather unusual way
b***@gmail.com
2017-04-10 13:59:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Define mirror image, the what and how, otherwise
we cannot answer your question.

In math, the sign change is not a homomorphism for
multiplication, since we don't have:

-(A*B) = (-A)*(-B) /* doesn't hold */

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphism

In general multiplication doesn't distribute over multiplication:

C*(A*B) = (C*A)*(C*B) /* doesn't hold */

An exception might be C=0 or C=1, but not C=-1.

What was your question again Bossom Queen Karzinom?
Post by bassam king karzeddin
E) Is not the multiplication operation of (-7)*(-11) = (-77) a mirror image of multiplication operation of (7)*(11) = (77)? (T or F)
b***@gmail.com
2017-04-10 14:12:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Here is a proof, assuming A<>0 and B<>0 starting from:

C*(A*B) = (C*A)*(C*B)

Now apply associativity and commutativity on the right hand side:

C*(A*B) = C^2*(A*B)

Now multiply each sides by 1/(A*B):

C = C^2

Now subtract C on both sides:

C^2 - C = 0

Now factor:

C*(C-1) = 0

Now use X*Y=0 iff X=0 or Y=0:

C = 0 or C-1 = 0

Now add 1 to the second equation on both its sides:

C = 0 or C = 1

Q.E.D.
Post by b***@gmail.com
C*(A*B) = (C*A)*(C*B) /* doesn't hold */
An exception might be C=0 or C=1, but not C=-1.
b***@gmail.com
2017-04-10 14:20:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The below is in George Booles booklet...
Post by b***@gmail.com
C^2 - C = 0
C*(C-1) = 0
C = 0 or C-1 = 0
C = 0 or C = 1
Q.E.D.
konyberg
2017-04-10 15:33:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by konyberg
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey Puppy, skillz is everything man. Learn some
math man, skillz helps a lot for good math.
|x-y| = sqrt(z*t) where z=x-y and t=conj(z)
|[a + ib]-[b - ia]| =
sqrt((a-b+(b-a)i)*(a-b-(b-a)i)) =
sqrt(2)*|b-a|
Right?
Not Right
Post by b***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_value#Complex_numbers
this is reference is for imbeciles, for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
sqrt([a + ib]^2 + [b - ia]^2) = 0
What was my question moron? wonder!
Here it is drop by drop for you
(a + ib)^2 = a^2 - b^2 + 2ab, (Right?), eqn.(1)
No, (a + ib)^2 = a^2 - b^2 + 2iab.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
(b - ia)^2 = b^2 - a^2 - 2abi, (Right?), eqn.(2)
So, let their sum (eqn.(1) + eqn.(2) = eqn.(3))
eqn.(3) = 0, (Right?
Yes, after correction of typo.
Thanks for correction of typo
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
)
So what?
The fictitious meaningless of complex numbers I suppose!
How does (a + ib)^2 + (b - ia)^2 = 0 show that complex numbers are
fictitious or meaningless?
To get this obvious fiction fast, just remember what was the real number line definition, before the artificial symmetry had been deployed to make the positive and negative as a mirror image, and generalized to (X, Y, Z - axis), three orthogonal space coordinates (of course for a dirty purpose)
Does this mathematical coordinations exist in our physical existing world around us?
It is indeed existing from a reference point, but in positive sense and opposite directions,
So, the real line number (say X-axis) which is a straight line joining two locations and their endless extension in opposite directions, (there was nothing indicating any negative sense in the original definition, and as it is indeed)
at start point (say zero), you can go positive (say right direction), and you can go also positive (say left direction) along the real number line,
But what did they do, deleting one complete say left direction from a start point and mirroring the right direction (about Y-axis), and creating those mirror image of right direction to create the negative numbers as real, whereas mirror image can not be any real, but fictitious reality out of deliberate artificial symmetry just for another dirty purpose of creating those illegal imaginary numbers
I had explained this fallacy in other posts about multiplication operation and their actual mirror image that contradicts clearly what had been wrongly established as a convention, never any real discovery,
Just Mark (5)*(7) = (35) and their product (35) on the right side, and look at their mirror image as (-5)*(-7) = (-35)
**Note here that Y-axis is acting as a mirror image for X-axis
Exactly, and here is the wisdom for anyone wants to evolve honestly
This is invented mathematics, this is not discovered mathematics where no one would be able to cover the truth with spiders threads,
Let alone the mathematicians go beyond limitation after their own mad invented purposely mathematics as here for a little issue only
All the ancient mathematicians (Babylonians, Egyptians, Indians, chinese, Greeks, Arabs, Muslims, ...) had missed the greatest nonsense idea of the solution of say (x^2 = - 1), it was not even any listed problem, then the unearthly genius solved it in his illogical imagination, then it became as a global religion for mathematics
See how much efforts it took that genius to solve it!?
The magical solution: let There be a number (and call it (i) the imaginary unit, since obviously cannot be any real), where once multiplied by itself, then it would give you back itself but in mirror image of unity. END, Heaven was opened so widely for the mathematicians even befor Cantor to add to this obvious legend
(- 1) = (-1)*(-1)*(-1)
This is correct.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
i = i^3, or (i^2 = 1), contrary to their well formed fake definition
Here you treat complex numbers as they are real numbers. They are not!
Look up branches of complex numbers.
KON
but I shall illustrate it first in more convenient numerical example
First you must remember this too elementary stuff, and answer it by true or false
A) Are the negative integers mirror image of positive integers on X-axis, where the Y-axis is acting as a mirror from (x =0), (T or F)
B) Is (-7) a mirror image of (7)? (T or F)
C) Is (-11) a mirror image of (11)? (T or F)
D) Is (-77) a mirror image of (77)? (T or F)
E) Is not the multiplication operation of (-7)*(-11) = (-77) a mirror image of multiplication operation of (7)*(11) = (77)? (T or F)
If you think mirrors are ok. Then here are two mirrors! So (-7)*(-11) = 77.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
F) Is not (-1)*(-1) = (-1)? (T or F)
No

You seem to know about the number line, but has completely missed the point how to use it.

KON
Post by bassam king karzeddin
G) Is not sqrt(-1) = -1? (T or F)
H) Is not positive or negative are just notations for direction and opposite direction? (T or F)
I) Is the real physical existing space COORDINATIONS divided the same way mathematics divides it? (T or F)
J) Is the XYZ-axies coordination in mathematics meant for the real existing physical space? (T or F)
Game is Over for sure
And I know the thump rules that people generally would follow what had been taught to them for sure
BK
Post by konyberg
Post by bassam king karzeddin
but, they the professionals, would shout loudly, hey, stop here, this should be done this way and not the way you do it, better they design a catalog for this manufacturer item
The fact that, even that genius imagination is absolutely illogical nonsense
same for this legend solution (x^3 = 2), but with positive sense and a trip to the paradise of fools (the infinity)
Then their ultimate findings the fundamental theorem of Algebra, what a coincident is this, really world of mathematics
Mathematics is mainly Diophantine equation solutions and geometry, rest are in full doubt
True mathematicians should throw away and immediately this long standing shame upon their shoulders
This fiction story had limited the physics to run into those barriers fictions, where then speed of light had been fixed, wonder!
Post by Peter Percival
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
10 th, April., 2017
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-10 18:29:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by konyberg
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by konyberg
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey Puppy, skillz is everything man. Learn some
math man, skillz helps a lot for good math.
|x-y| = sqrt(z*t) where z=x-y and t=conj(z)
|[a + ib]-[b - ia]| =
sqrt((a-b+(b-a)i)*(a-b-(b-a)i)) =
sqrt(2)*|b-a|
Right?
Not Right
Post by b***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_value#Complex_numbers
this is reference is for imbeciles, for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
sqrt([a + ib]^2 + [b - ia]^2) = 0
What was my question moron? wonder!
Here it is drop by drop for you
(a + ib)^2 = a^2 - b^2 + 2ab, (Right?), eqn.(1)
No, (a + ib)^2 = a^2 - b^2 + 2iab.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
(b - ia)^2 = b^2 - a^2 - 2abi, (Right?), eqn.(2)
So, let their sum (eqn.(1) + eqn.(2) = eqn.(3))
eqn.(3) = 0, (Right?
Yes, after correction of typo.
Thanks for correction of typo
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
)
So what?
The fictitious meaningless of complex numbers I suppose!
How does (a + ib)^2 + (b - ia)^2 = 0 show that complex numbers are
fictitious or meaningless?
To get this obvious fiction fast, just remember what was the real number line definition, before the artificial symmetry had been deployed to make the positive and negative as a mirror image, and generalized to (X, Y, Z - axis), three orthogonal space coordinates (of course for a dirty purpose)
Does this mathematical coordinations exist in our physical existing world around us?
It is indeed existing from a reference point, but in positive sense and opposite directions,
So, the real line number (say X-axis) which is a straight line joining two locations and their endless extension in opposite directions, (there was nothing indicating any negative sense in the original definition, and as it is indeed)
at start point (say zero), you can go positive (say right direction), and you can go also positive (say left direction) along the real number line,
But what did they do, deleting one complete say left direction from a start point and mirroring the right direction (about Y-axis), and creating those mirror image of right direction to create the negative numbers as real, whereas mirror image can not be any real, but fictitious reality out of deliberate artificial symmetry just for another dirty purpose of creating those illegal imaginary numbers
I had explained this fallacy in other posts about multiplication operation and their actual mirror image that contradicts clearly what had been wrongly established as a convention, never any real discovery,
Just Mark (5)*(7) = (35) and their product (35) on the right side, and look at their mirror image as (-5)*(-7) = (-35)
**Note here that Y-axis is acting as a mirror image for X-axis
Exactly, and here is the wisdom for anyone wants to evolve honestly
This is invented mathematics, this is not discovered mathematics where no one would be able to cover the truth with spiders threads,
Let alone the mathematicians go beyond limitation after their own mad invented purposely mathematics as here for a little issue only
All the ancient mathematicians (Babylonians, Egyptians, Indians, chinese, Greeks, Arabs, Muslims, ...) had missed the greatest nonsense idea of the solution of say (x^2 = - 1), it was not even any listed problem, then the unearthly genius solved it in his illogical imagination, then it became as a global religion for mathematics
See how much efforts it took that genius to solve it!?
The magical solution: let There be a number (and call it (i) the imaginary unit, since obviously cannot be any real), where once multiplied by itself, then it would give you back itself but in mirror image of unity. END, Heaven was opened so widely for the mathematicians even befor Cantor to add to this obvious legend
(- 1) = (-1)*(-1)*(-1)
This is correct.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
i = i^3, or (i^2 = 1), contrary to their well formed fake definition
Here you treat complex numbers as they are real numbers. They are not!
Look up branches of complex numbers.
KON
but I shall illustrate it first in more convenient numerical example
First you must remember this too elementary stuff, and answer it by true or false
A) Are the negative integers mirror image of positive integers on X-axis, where the Y-axis is acting as a mirror from (x =0), (T or F)
B) Is (-7) a mirror image of (7)? (T or F)
C) Is (-11) a mirror image of (11)? (T or F)
D) Is (-77) a mirror image of (77)? (T or F)
E) Is not the multiplication operation of (-7)*(-11) = (-77) a mirror image of multiplication operation of (7)*(11) = (77)? (T or F)
If you think mirrors are ok. Then here are two mirrors! So (-7)*(-11) = 77.
Y-axis is the only mirror, it divides the X-axis into two opposite directions, where one of them is real and the other is the unreal mirror image

So, no double mirror w.r.t X-axis, but X-axis is acting as a mirror image for other (Y, Z) axis

And where are those mirror space images in REALITY, that mathematics must reflect, Wonder!, but for you it doesn't matter at all, for sure, (Right?)

BK
Post by konyberg
Post by bassam king karzeddin
F) Is not (-1)*(-1) = (-1)? (T or F)
No
You seem to know about the number line, but has completely missed the point how to use it.
KON
Post by bassam king karzeddin
G) Is not sqrt(-1) = -1? (T or F)
H) Is not positive or negative are just notations for direction and opposite direction? (T or F)
I) Is the real physical existing space COORDINATIONS divided the same way mathematics divides it? (T or F)
J) Is the XYZ-axies coordination in mathematics meant for the real existing physical space? (T or F)
Game is Over for sure
And I know the thump rules that people generally would follow what had been taught to them for sure
BK
Post by konyberg
Post by bassam king karzeddin
but, they the professionals, would shout loudly, hey, stop here, this should be done this way and not the way you do it, better they design a catalog for this manufacturer item
The fact that, even that genius imagination is absolutely illogical nonsense
same for this legend solution (x^3 = 2), but with positive sense and a trip to the paradise of fools (the infinity)
Then their ultimate findings the fundamental theorem of Algebra, what a coincident is this, really world of mathematics
Mathematics is mainly Diophantine equation solutions and geometry, rest are in full doubt
True mathematicians should throw away and immediately this long standing shame upon their shoulders
This fiction story had limited the physics to run into those barriers fictions, where then speed of light had been fixed, wonder!
Post by Peter Percival
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
10 th, April., 2017
konyberg
2017-04-10 18:58:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by konyberg
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by konyberg
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey Puppy, skillz is everything man. Learn some
math man, skillz helps a lot for good math.
|x-y| = sqrt(z*t) where z=x-y and t=conj(z)
|[a + ib]-[b - ia]| =
sqrt((a-b+(b-a)i)*(a-b-(b-a)i)) =
sqrt(2)*|b-a|
Right?
Not Right
Post by b***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_value#Complex_numbers
this is reference is for imbeciles, for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
sqrt([a + ib]^2 + [b - ia]^2) = 0
What was my question moron? wonder!
Here it is drop by drop for you
(a + ib)^2 = a^2 - b^2 + 2ab, (Right?), eqn.(1)
No, (a + ib)^2 = a^2 - b^2 + 2iab.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
(b - ia)^2 = b^2 - a^2 - 2abi, (Right?), eqn.(2)
So, let their sum (eqn.(1) + eqn.(2) = eqn.(3))
eqn.(3) = 0, (Right?
Yes, after correction of typo.
Thanks for correction of typo
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
)
So what?
The fictitious meaningless of complex numbers I suppose!
How does (a + ib)^2 + (b - ia)^2 = 0 show that complex numbers are
fictitious or meaningless?
To get this obvious fiction fast, just remember what was the real number line definition, before the artificial symmetry had been deployed to make the positive and negative as a mirror image, and generalized to (X, Y, Z - axis), three orthogonal space coordinates (of course for a dirty purpose)
Does this mathematical coordinations exist in our physical existing world around us?
It is indeed existing from a reference point, but in positive sense and opposite directions,
So, the real line number (say X-axis) which is a straight line joining two locations and their endless extension in opposite directions, (there was nothing indicating any negative sense in the original definition, and as it is indeed)
at start point (say zero), you can go positive (say right direction), and you can go also positive (say left direction) along the real number line,
But what did they do, deleting one complete say left direction from a start point and mirroring the right direction (about Y-axis), and creating those mirror image of right direction to create the negative numbers as real, whereas mirror image can not be any real, but fictitious reality out of deliberate artificial symmetry just for another dirty purpose of creating those illegal imaginary numbers
I had explained this fallacy in other posts about multiplication operation and their actual mirror image that contradicts clearly what had been wrongly established as a convention, never any real discovery,
Just Mark (5)*(7) = (35) and their product (35) on the right side, and look at their mirror image as (-5)*(-7) = (-35)
**Note here that Y-axis is acting as a mirror image for X-axis
Exactly, and here is the wisdom for anyone wants to evolve honestly
This is invented mathematics, this is not discovered mathematics where no one would be able to cover the truth with spiders threads,
Let alone the mathematicians go beyond limitation after their own mad invented purposely mathematics as here for a little issue only
All the ancient mathematicians (Babylonians, Egyptians, Indians, chinese, Greeks, Arabs, Muslims, ...) had missed the greatest nonsense idea of the solution of say (x^2 = - 1), it was not even any listed problem, then the unearthly genius solved it in his illogical imagination, then it became as a global religion for mathematics
See how much efforts it took that genius to solve it!?
The magical solution: let There be a number (and call it (i) the imaginary unit, since obviously cannot be any real), where once multiplied by itself, then it would give you back itself but in mirror image of unity. END, Heaven was opened so widely for the mathematicians even befor Cantor to add to this obvious legend
(- 1) = (-1)*(-1)*(-1)
This is correct.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
i = i^3, or (i^2 = 1), contrary to their well formed fake definition
Here you treat complex numbers as they are real numbers. They are not!
Look up branches of complex numbers.
KON
but I shall illustrate it first in more convenient numerical example
First you must remember this too elementary stuff, and answer it by true or false
A) Are the negative integers mirror image of positive integers on X-axis, where the Y-axis is acting as a mirror from (x =0), (T or F)
B) Is (-7) a mirror image of (7)? (T or F)
C) Is (-11) a mirror image of (11)? (T or F)
D) Is (-77) a mirror image of (77)? (T or F)
E) Is not the multiplication operation of (-7)*(-11) = (-77) a mirror image of multiplication operation of (7)*(11) = (77)? (T or F)
If you think mirrors are ok. Then here are two mirrors! So (-7)*(-11) = 77.
Y-axis is the only mirror, it divides the X-axis into two opposite directions, where one of them is real and the other is the unreal mirror image
So, no double mirror w.r.t X-axis, but X-axis is acting as a mirror image for other (Y, Z) axis
And where are those mirror space images in REALITY, that mathematics must reflect, Wonder!, but for you it doesn't matter at all, for sure, (Right?)
BK
Post by konyberg
Post by bassam king karzeddin
F) Is not (-1)*(-1) = (-1)? (T or F)
No
You seem to know about the number line, but has completely missed the point how to use it.
KON
Post by bassam king karzeddin
G) Is not sqrt(-1) = -1? (T or F)
H) Is not positive or negative are just notations for direction and opposite direction? (T or F)
I) Is the real physical existing space COORDINATIONS divided the same way mathematics divides it? (T or F)
J) Is the XYZ-axies coordination in mathematics meant for the real existing physical space? (T or F)
Game is Over for sure
And I know the thump rules that people generally would follow what had been taught to them for sure
BK
Post by konyberg
Post by bassam king karzeddin
but, they the professionals, would shout loudly, hey, stop here, this should be done this way and not the way you do it, better they design a catalog for this manufacturer item
The fact that, even that genius imagination is absolutely illogical nonsense
same for this legend solution (x^3 = 2), but with positive sense and a trip to the paradise of fools (the infinity)
Then their ultimate findings the fundamental theorem of Algebra, what a coincident is this, really world of mathematics
Mathematics is mainly Diophantine equation solutions and geometry, rest are in full doubt
True mathematicians should throw away and immediately this long standing shame upon their shoulders
This fiction story had limited the physics to run into those barriers fictions, where then speed of light had been fixed, wonder!
Post by Peter Percival
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
10 th, April., 2017
But you know that the second axis is a double mirror?

KON
b***@gmail.com
2017-04-10 20:27:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
You can do negative numbers without any mirrors.

Just use two positive numbers to represent a
positive or negative number:

(a,b) = positive or negative number

Example:

-3 = (5,8)

5 = (8,3)

Now define equality:

(a,b) = (c,d) iff a+d = c+b

Now define multiplication:

(a,b) * (c,d) := (e,f) where e := a*c+b*d and f := b*c+a*d

Lets check what -1 * -1 gives, lets pick this representants:

-1 = (3,4)

1 = (1,0)

Now:

(3,4) * (3,4) = (9+16, 12+12) = (25,24)

? (25,24) = (1,0)

? 25+0 = 24+1

Yes

So indeed -1 * -1 = 1.
Post by konyberg
But you know that the second axis is a double mirror?
KON
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-11 08:36:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by konyberg
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by konyberg
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by konyberg
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey Puppy, skillz is everything man. Learn some
math man, skillz helps a lot for good math.
|x-y| = sqrt(z*t) where z=x-y and t=conj(z)
|[a + ib]-[b - ia]| =
sqrt((a-b+(b-a)i)*(a-b-(b-a)i)) =
sqrt(2)*|b-a|
Right?
Not Right
Post by b***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_value#Complex_numbers
this is reference is for imbeciles, for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
sqrt([a + ib]^2 + [b - ia]^2) = 0
What was my question moron? wonder!
Here it is drop by drop for you
(a + ib)^2 = a^2 - b^2 + 2ab, (Right?), eqn.(1)
No, (a + ib)^2 = a^2 - b^2 + 2iab.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
(b - ia)^2 = b^2 - a^2 - 2abi, (Right?), eqn.(2)
So, let their sum (eqn.(1) + eqn.(2) = eqn.(3))
eqn.(3) = 0, (Right?
Yes, after correction of typo.
Thanks for correction of typo
Post by Peter Percival
Post by bassam king karzeddin
)
So what?
The fictitious meaningless of complex numbers I suppose!
How does (a + ib)^2 + (b - ia)^2 = 0 show that complex numbers are
fictitious or meaningless?
To get this obvious fiction fast, just remember what was the real number line definition, before the artificial symmetry had been deployed to make the positive and negative as a mirror image, and generalized to (X, Y, Z - axis), three orthogonal space coordinates (of course for a dirty purpose)
Does this mathematical coordinations exist in our physical existing world around us?
It is indeed existing from a reference point, but in positive sense and opposite directions,
So, the real line number (say X-axis) which is a straight line joining two locations and their endless extension in opposite directions, (there was nothing indicating any negative sense in the original definition, and as it is indeed)
at start point (say zero), you can go positive (say right direction), and you can go also positive (say left direction) along the real number line,
But what did they do, deleting one complete say left direction from a start point and mirroring the right direction (about Y-axis), and creating those mirror image of right direction to create the negative numbers as real, whereas mirror image can not be any real, but fictitious reality out of deliberate artificial symmetry just for another dirty purpose of creating those illegal imaginary numbers
I had explained this fallacy in other posts about multiplication operation and their actual mirror image that contradicts clearly what had been wrongly established as a convention, never any real discovery,
Just Mark (5)*(7) = (35) and their product (35) on the right side, and look at their mirror image as (-5)*(-7) = (-35)
**Note here that Y-axis is acting as a mirror image for X-axis
Exactly, and here is the wisdom for anyone wants to evolve honestly
This is invented mathematics, this is not discovered mathematics where no one would be able to cover the truth with spiders threads,
Let alone the mathematicians go beyond limitation after their own mad invented purposely mathematics as here for a little issue only
All the ancient mathematicians (Babylonians, Egyptians, Indians, chinese, Greeks, Arabs, Muslims, ...) had missed the greatest nonsense idea of the solution of say (x^2 = - 1), it was not even any listed problem, then the unearthly genius solved it in his illogical imagination, then it became as a global religion for mathematics
See how much efforts it took that genius to solve it!?
The magical solution: let There be a number (and call it (i) the imaginary unit, since obviously cannot be any real), where once multiplied by itself, then it would give you back itself but in mirror image of unity. END, Heaven was opened so widely for the mathematicians even befor Cantor to add to this obvious legend
(- 1) = (-1)*(-1)*(-1)
This is correct.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
i = i^3, or (i^2 = 1), contrary to their well formed fake definition
Here you treat complex numbers as they are real numbers. They are not!
Look up branches of complex numbers.
KON
but I shall illustrate it first in more convenient numerical example
First you must remember this too elementary stuff, and answer it by true or false
A) Are the negative integers mirror image of positive integers on X-axis, where the Y-axis is acting as a mirror from (x =0), (T or F)
B) Is (-7) a mirror image of (7)? (T or F)
C) Is (-11) a mirror image of (11)? (T or F)
D) Is (-77) a mirror image of (77)? (T or F)
E) Is not the multiplication operation of (-7)*(-11) = (-77) a mirror image of multiplication operation of (7)*(11) = (77)? (T or F)
If you think mirrors are ok. Then here are two mirrors! So (-7)*(-11) = 77.
Y-axis is the only mirror, it divides the X-axis into two opposite directions, where one of them is real and the other is the unreal mirror image
So, no double mirror w.r.t X-axis, but X-axis is acting as a mirror image for other (Y, Z) axis
And where are those mirror space images in REALITY, that mathematics must reflect, Wonder!, but for you it doesn't matter at all, for sure, (Right?)
BK
Post by konyberg
Post by bassam king karzeddin
F) Is not (-1)*(-1) = (-1)? (T or F)
No
You seem to know about the number line, but has completely missed the point how to use it.
KON
Post by bassam king karzeddin
G) Is not sqrt(-1) = -1? (T or F)
H) Is not positive or negative are just notations for direction and opposite direction? (T or F)
I) Is the real physical existing space COORDINATIONS divided the same way mathematics divides it? (T or F)
J) Is the XYZ-axies coordination in mathematics meant for the real existing physical space? (T or F)
Game is Over for sure
And I know the thump rules that people generally would follow what had been taught to them for sure
BK
Post by konyberg
Post by bassam king karzeddin
but, they the professionals, would shout loudly, hey, stop here, this should be done this way and not the way you do it, better they design a catalog for this manufacturer item
The fact that, even that genius imagination is absolutely illogical nonsense
same for this legend solution (x^3 = 2), but with positive sense and a trip to the paradise of fools (the infinity)
Then their ultimate findings the fundamental theorem of Algebra, what a coincident is this, really world of mathematics
Mathematics is mainly Diophantine equation solutions and geometry, rest are in full doubt
True mathematicians should throw away and immediately this long standing shame upon their shoulders
This fiction story had limited the physics to run into those barriers fictions, where then speed of light had been fixed, wonder!
Post by Peter Percival
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
10 th, April., 2017
But you know that the second axis is a double mirror?
KON
I know that there are three mirrors (one for each axis of XYZ)

And you end up with one only real physical existing coordinations for positive (XYZ-axis), where the rest are all mirrors images (UNREAL) at least in the space around your head, wonder!

But you may forget other (YZ-axis), and consider only the X-axis, at zero station where integers on the right sides are real, but their mirror images are on the left side of zero station, got it

Then mark the multiplication operation by three apples on the right side of zero station - where a big mirror is placed, (one on 5, one on 7, and one on 35), then see the apples images on the mirror (one on (-5), one on (-7), and one on (-35)

But, I do not think that you would get it, for sure

BK
a***@gmail.com
2017-04-11 19:14:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
that is known as "central inversion," just as when
you see your headlight preflected in those plastic things;
ever been driving at night?
Post by bassam king karzeddin
I know that there are three mirrors (one for each axis of XYZ)
And you end up with one only real physical existing coordinations for positive (XYZ-axis), where the rest are all mirrors images (UNREAL) at least in the space around your head, wonder!
But you may forget other (YZ-axis), and consider only the X-axis, at zero station where integers on the right sides are real, but their mirror images are on the left side of zero station, got it
Then mark the multiplication operation by three apples on the right side of zero station - where a big mirror is placed, (one on 5, one on 7, and one on 35), then see the apples images on the mirror (one on (-5), one on (-7), and one on (-35)
Tim Golden BandTech.com
2017-04-08 15:29:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
How about

a = 1.0, b = 1.0

Graphing 1+1i and 1-1i are both 45 degress off of the real axis, making 90 degrees total so these are orthogonal.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
a***@gmail.com
2017-04-08 17:06:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
hey, interesting form of the complex congugate, I guess
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
a = 1.0, b = 1.0
Graphing 1+1i and 1-1i are both 45 degress off of the real axis, making 90 degrees total so these are orthogonal.
likewise
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-08 17:36:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
How about
a = 1.0, b = 1.0
Graphing 1+1i and 1-1i are both 45 degress off of the real axis, making 90 degrees total so these are orthogonal.
So, what is your triangle hypotenuse?

Zero, I suppose, is not it?

BK
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
a***@gmail.com
2017-04-08 22:17:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
zero, scalar?
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Zero, I suppose, is not it?
BK
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
Tim Golden BandTech.com
2017-04-09 13:14:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
How about
a = 1.0, b = 1.0
Graphing 1+1i and 1-1i are both 45 degress off of the real axis, making 90 degrees total so these are orthogonal.
So, what is your triangle hypotenuse?
2.0
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Zero, I suppose, is not it?
BK
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
t***@gmail.com
2017-04-09 15:27:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
already almost said, it t00weiss.

I saw that j.g knows about Tesla,
just hope it is not about acting in a movie about Tesla
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Graphing 1+1i and 1-1i are both 45 degress off of the real axis, making 90 degrees total so these are orthogonal.
So, what is your triangle hypotenuse?
2.0
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Zero, I suppose, is not it?
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-09 15:40:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
How about
a = 1.0, b = 1.0
Graphing 1+1i and 1-1i are both 45 degress off of the real axis, making 90 degrees total so these are orthogonal.
So, what is your triangle hypotenuse?
2.0
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Zero, I suppose, is not it?
BK
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
2.0
But, the Hypotenuse is equal to

sqrt([a + ib]^2 + [b - ia]^2) = 0, for sure

Cannot the mathematicians envolve time concept to justify the result? wonder!

May physicians can do it, but never for philosophers, wonder!

BK
Wally W.
2017-04-09 18:36:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
How about
a = 1.0, b = 1.0
Graphing 1+1i and 1-1i are both 45 degress off of the real axis, making 90 degrees total so these are orthogonal.
So, what is your triangle hypotenuse?
2.0
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Zero, I suppose, is not it?
BK
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
2.0
But, the Hypotenuse is equal to
sqrt([a + ib]^2 + [b - ia]^2) = 0, for sure
No.

It is sqrt([a - b]^2 + [b - (-a)]^2) = 2 for a=1 and b=1
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Cannot the mathematicians envolve time concept to justify the result? wonder!
May physicians can do it, but never for philosophers, wonder!
BK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-09 19:09:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
How about
a = 1.0, b = 1.0
Graphing 1+1i and 1-1i are both 45 degress off of the real axis, making 90 degrees total so these are orthogonal.
So, what is your triangle hypotenuse?
2.0
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Zero, I suppose, is not it?
BK
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
2.0
But, the Hypotenuse is equal to
sqrt([a + ib]^2 + [b - ia]^2) = 0, for sure
No.
It is sqrt([a - b]^2 + [b - (-a)]^2) = 2 for a=1 and b=1
Here you are changing my original question for your own purpose, wonder!

So, refer to it if you do not believe it
Post by Wally W.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Cannot the mathematicians envolve time concept to justify the result? wonder!
May physicians can do it, but never for philosophers, wonder!
BK
BK
Wally W.
2017-04-09 19:25:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Wally W.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
How about
a = 1.0, b = 1.0
Graphing 1+1i and 1-1i are both 45 degress off of the real axis, making 90 degrees total so these are orthogonal.
So, what is your triangle hypotenuse?
2.0
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Zero, I suppose, is not it?
BK
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
2.0
But, the Hypotenuse is equal to
sqrt([a + ib]^2 + [b - ia]^2) = 0, for sure
No.
It is sqrt([a - b]^2 + [b - (-a)]^2) = 2 for a=1 and b=1
Here you are changing my original question for your own purpose, wonder!
So, refer to it if you do not believe it
What is the meaning of "[a + ib]^2"?

You are squaring a vector, not a component of the vector. Nor are you
calculating the magnitude/modulus of the complex number.

You wrongly said the length of the hypotenuse was zero.

The length of the hypotenuse is 2.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Wally W.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Cannot the mathematicians envolve time concept to justify the result? wonder!
May physicians can do it, but never for philosophers, wonder!
BK
BK
b***@gmail.com
2017-04-09 23:30:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Yeah squaring a complex number squares the modulus
of the complex number and doubles the argument of
the complex number modulo the angle range.

What is the argument of a complex number a+ib ? Well
it is the atan2(b,a), i.e. the angle of the coressponding
vector versus the x-axis.

Is this news? Maybe for Bossom Queen Karzinom:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_%28complex_analysis%29#Identities

So basically a^2 + b^2 = c^2 as a pythagoras is meaning
less for complex numbers. After all a side of a rectangular
triangle is measured in reals, and not complex.

Thats why I must repeat, math is a contraption, its
especially made for dim wits, in particular for those
that do not understand that there are types everywhere!

Set theory can make types explicit, in that we write
a in R or x in C. But often its implicit from the context,
or by phrases such as "in the following we will only

consider reals", etc... Whats so difficult in that?
Post by Wally W.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Wally W.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
How about
a = 1.0, b = 1.0
Graphing 1+1i and 1-1i are both 45 degress off of the real axis, making 90 degrees total so these are orthogonal.
So, what is your triangle hypotenuse?
2.0
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Zero, I suppose, is not it?
BK
Post by Tim Golden BandTech.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
2.0
But, the Hypotenuse is equal to
sqrt([a + ib]^2 + [b - ia]^2) = 0, for sure
No.
It is sqrt([a - b]^2 + [b - (-a)]^2) = 2 for a=1 and b=1
Here you are changing my original question for your own purpose, wonder!
So, refer to it if you do not believe it
What is the meaning of "[a + ib]^2"?
You are squaring a vector, not a component of the vector. Nor are you
calculating the magnitude/modulus of the complex number.
You wrongly said the length of the hypotenuse was zero.
The length of the hypotenuse is 2.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Wally W.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Cannot the mathematicians envolve time concept to justify the result? wonder!
May physicians can do it, but never for philosophers, wonder!
BK
BK
a***@gmail.com
2017-04-10 00:32:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
what is atan2
b***@gmail.com
2017-04-10 00:41:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atan2
Post by a***@gmail.com
what is atan2
b***@gmail.com
2017-04-10 00:43:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
From wiki:

"The purpose of using two arguments instead of one, i.e. just computing a atan(y/x), is to gather information on the signs of the inputs in order to return the appropriate quadrant of the computed angle, which is not possible for the single-argument arctangent function. It also avoids the problem of division by zero, as atan2(y, 0) will return a valid answer as long as y is non-zero."

But many implementations also return 0=atan2(0,0) instead of NaN=atan2(0,0).
Post by b***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atan2
Post by a***@gmail.com
what is atan2
Chris M. Thomasson
2017-04-10 01:22:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Yeah squaring a complex number squares the modulus
of the complex number and doubles the argument of
the complex number modulo the angle range.
What is the argument of a complex number a+ib ? Well
it is the atan2(b,a), i.e. the angle of the coressponding
vector versus the x-axis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_%28complex_analysis%29#Identities
So basically a^2 + b^2 = c^2 as a pythagoras is meaning
less for complex numbers. After all a side of a rectangular
triangle is measured in reals, and not complex.
[...]

Not exactly sure what you mean wrt Pythagoras not applying to complex
numbers. The absolute value of complex number (3, 4) is 5.
b***@gmail.com
2017-04-10 01:28:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Well you did use/try complex numbers a,b,c
for a^2+b^2=c^2 didn't you?

Otherwise yes, the modulus is related to
pythagoras, without doubt.
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by b***@gmail.com
Yeah squaring a complex number squares the modulus
of the complex number and doubles the argument of
the complex number modulo the angle range.
What is the argument of a complex number a+ib ? Well
it is the atan2(b,a), i.e. the angle of the coressponding
vector versus the x-axis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_%28complex_analysis%29#Identities
So basically a^2 + b^2 = c^2 as a pythagoras is meaning
less for complex numbers. After all a side of a rectangular
triangle is measured in reals, and not complex.
[...]
Not exactly sure what you mean wrt Pythagoras not applying to complex
numbers. The absolute value of complex number (3, 4) is 5.
Chris M. Thomasson
2017-04-10 01:32:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Well you did use/try complex numbers a,b,c
for a^2+b^2=c^2 didn't you?
All I did was calculate c representing the absolute value, or radius, or
"hypotenuse" if you will, of a complex number (a+bi) like:

sqrt(a^2 + b^2) = c
Post by b***@gmail.com
Otherwise yes, the modulus is related to
pythagoras, without doubt.
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by b***@gmail.com
Yeah squaring a complex number squares the modulus
of the complex number and doubles the argument of
the complex number modulo the angle range.
What is the argument of a complex number a+ib ? Well
it is the atan2(b,a), i.e. the angle of the coressponding
vector versus the x-axis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_%28complex_analysis%29#Identities
So basically a^2 + b^2 = c^2 as a pythagoras is meaning
less for complex numbers. After all a side of a rectangular
triangle is measured in reals, and not complex.
[...]
Not exactly sure what you mean wrt Pythagoras not applying to complex
numbers. The absolute value of complex number (3, 4) is 5.
Chris M. Thomasson
2017-04-10 01:33:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by b***@gmail.com
Well you did use/try complex numbers a,b,c
for a^2+b^2=c^2 didn't you?
All I did was calculate c representing the absolute value, or radius, or
sqrt(a^2 + b^2) = c
Oops, I misread what you meant! Sorry.
Chris M. Thomasson
2017-04-10 01:40:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Well you did use/try complex numbers a,b,c
for a^2+b^2=c^2 didn't you?
I guess a simple case would be:

a = (3, 0)
b = (4, 0)
c = sqrt(a^2 + b^2)

c is equal to (5, 0)

;^)
Post by b***@gmail.com
Otherwise yes, the modulus is related to
pythagoras, without doubt.
b***@gmail.com
2017-04-10 01:51:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Welcome to type inclusion. You can express it in set
theory as the subset relation, R subset C.

Of cours the details are more trickier, typically
there is an embedding involved,

but I guess you found one:

x --> (x,0)

BTW: Must shit bricks, there is a
Mandelbrot in the Gamma Function:
http://aleph.se/andart2/math/gamma-function-fractals/
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by b***@gmail.com
Well you did use/try complex numbers a,b,c
for a^2+b^2=c^2 didn't you?
a = (3, 0)
b = (4, 0)
c = sqrt(a^2 + b^2)
c is equal to (5, 0)
;^)
Post by b***@gmail.com
Otherwise yes, the modulus is related to
pythagoras, without doubt.
a***@gmail.com
2017-04-10 02:07:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
the mini=M-sets in the M-set are because
of the floatingpoint specification;
different precision should give different mini-M's,
and I suppose it is the same for other "cyclically
permutative functions."
Post by b***@gmail.com
http://aleph.se/andart2/math/gamma-function-fractals/
Chris M. Thomasson
2017-04-10 04:46:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Welcome to type inclusion. You can express it in set
theory as the subset relation, R subset C.
Of cours the details are more trickier, typically
there is an embedding involved,
x --> (x,0)
Fwiw, I also like the fact that we can take higher powers. The quad root
of a complex number (625, 0) gains imaginary parts that are not zero.
The four roots are:

0:(5,0)
1:(0,5)
2:(-5,0)
3:(0,-5)

Raise any of these to the fourth power and one will get:

(625, 0)

;^)
Post by b***@gmail.com
BTW: Must shit bricks, there is a
http://aleph.se/andart2/math/gamma-function-fractals/
Oh yeah: Very nice!

:^D
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by b***@gmail.com
Well you did use/try complex numbers a,b,c
for a^2+b^2=c^2 didn't you?
a = (3, 0)
b = (4, 0)
c = sqrt(a^2 + b^2)
c is equal to (5, 0)
;^)
Post by b***@gmail.com
Otherwise yes, the modulus is related to
pythagoras, without doubt.
Chris M. Thomasson
2017-04-10 07:26:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by b***@gmail.com
Welcome to type inclusion. You can express it in set
theory as the subset relation, R subset C.
Of cours the details are more trickier, typically
there is an embedding involved,
x --> (x,0)
Fwiw, I also like the fact that we can take higher powers. The quad root
of a complex number (625, 0) gains imaginary parts that are not zero.
0:(5,0)
1:(0,5)
2:(-5,0)
3:(0,-5)
(625, 0)
[...]

Fwiw, Negative powers work just fine... Raise any of the four following
complex roots to the negative 4th power, and you will get (625, 0):

root[0]:(0.2,0)
root[1]:(0,-0.2)
root[2]:(-0.2,0)
root[3]:(0,0.2)

Nice that .2 is the reciprocal of 5. ;^)
a***@gmail.com
2017-04-10 12:28:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
(1/5)^(-1/4) ...
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
root[0]:(0.2,0)
root[1]:(0,-0.2)
root[2]:(-0.2,0)
root[3]:(0,0.2)
Nice that .2 is the reciprocal of 5. ;^)
a***@gmail.com
2017-04-10 16:38:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
the trouble with j.g is that
he states in his preamble that he will not br00k any comment,
posting to a newgroup where it is of course to be expected.

so, he will never "get" the Greek notion of proportionality,
as applied to any "real number," whatsoever,
with any other real number ... really?

and that is the whole problemma of infinities, and
ideologs like b.k just won't get it, neithertimes
Chris M. Thomasson
2017-04-10 18:46:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@gmail.com
(1/5)^(-1/4) ...
No. (1/5)^(-4) = 625

(.2+0i)^(-4) = (625+0i)
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
root[0]:(0.2,0)
root[1]:(0,-0.2)
root[2]:(-0.2,0)
root[3]:(0,0.2)
Nice that .2 is the reciprocal of 5. ;^)
Chris M. Thomasson
2017-04-11 00:49:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Welcome to type inclusion. You can express it in set
theory as the subset relation, R subset C.
Of cours the details are more trickier, typically
there is an embedding involved,
x --> (x,0)
[...]

Fwiw, I wrote some quick code to gain the n-ary roots of a complex
number in C++. Here is a link:

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/comp.lang.c++/05XwgswUnDg/discussion

;^)
b***@gmail.com
2017-04-11 07:44:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I still don't understand how rotation, and thereby the structure
(metric) of our physical environment, emerges in complex arithmetic.
If you look at the polar rep of a complex its very easy:

z = r * e^(i * phi)

Where:

r = modulus

phi = argument

Now observe for z3 = z1 * z2:

z1 * z2 = (r1 * e^(i * phi1)) * (r2 * e^(i * phi2))

= (r1 * r2) * (e^(i * phi1) * e^(i * phi2))

= (r1 * r2) * (e^(i * phi1 + i * phi2))

= (r1 * r2) * (e^(i * (phi1 + phi2)))

Hence:

r3 = r1 * r2

phi3 = phi1 + phi2 mod angle range
Post by b***@gmail.com
Welcome to type inclusion. You can express it in set
theory as the subset relation, R subset C.
Of cours the details are more trickier, typically
there is an embedding involved,
x --> (x,0)
[...]
Fwiw, I wrote some quick code to gain the n-ary roots of a complex
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/comp.lang.c++/05XwgswUnDg/discussion
;^)
Chris M. Thomasson
2017-04-11 19:26:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
I still don't understand how rotation, and thereby the structure
(metric) of our physical environment, emerges in complex arithmetic.
z = r * e^(i * phi)
r = modulus
phi = argument
z1 * z2 = (r1 * e^(i * phi1)) * (r2 * e^(i * phi2))
= (r1 * r2) * (e^(i * phi1) * e^(i * phi2))
= (r1 * r2) * (e^(i * phi1 + i * phi2))
= (r1 * r2) * (e^(i * (phi1 + phi2)))
r3 = r1 * r2
phi3 = phi1 + phi2 mod angle range
Post by b***@gmail.com
Welcome to type inclusion. You can express it in set
theory as the subset relation, R subset C.
Of cours the details are more trickier, typically
there is an embedding involved,
x --> (x,0)
[...]
Fwiw, I wrote some quick code to gain the n-ary roots of a complex
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/comp.lang.c++/05XwgswUnDg/discussion
;^)
You responded here by accident. We have a discussion going on over in
comp.lang.c++. Can you please re-post your answer there, or a link to
your answer over there? Also, please try to keep some context in the link.

Thanks Jan.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-12 14:10:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I still don't understand how rotation, and thereby the structure
(metric) of our physical environment, emerges in complex arithmetic.
[snip the garbage, for sure]

BK
b***@gmail.com
2017-04-12 14:46:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Are smoke rings coming out of your ass, from the clownshoe?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
I still don't understand how rotation, and thereby the structure
(metric) of our physical environment, emerges in complex arithmetic.
[snip the garbage, for sure]
BK
Chris M. Thomasson
2017-04-13 20:41:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I still don't understand how rotation, and thereby the structure
(metric) of our physical environment, emerges in complex arithmetic.
[...]

Fwiw, check this out Jan:

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/comp.lang.c++/bB1wA4wvoFc/discussion

storing n-ary data in the roots! Imvho, this is pretty neat.

Any thoughts? Thanks.
b***@gmail.com
2017-04-13 21:19:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I am more a Prolog guy, not a C++ guy. I recently implemented
log and exp in Prolog for complex numbers. See here:

Complex numbers via Prolog object orientation. (Jekejeke)
https://plus.google.com/+JekejekeCh/posts/ippcnCKy74z

And here:

Open Source: Package complex
https://gist.github.com/jburse/95bdf8c13fff9edba4251a7af29d94ca#file-complex-p

But I should combine it with my multi-precission package,
my polynomial package and my matrice package.
Did not yet get my head around how to do it, and last
but not least didn't have enough time for it recently.

But here are some roots, the code still wurks, the
3-rd roots of 1, i.e. all of 1^(1/3), it is. The error
is mainly due to the pi arithmetic, which is already
sufficiently large to make everything look ugly:

Jekejeke Prolog 2, Runtime Library 1.2.1
(c) 1985-2017, XLOG Technologies GmbH, Switzerland

?- X is exp(i*2*pi/3*0).
X = 1.0
?- X is exp(i*2*pi/3*1).
X is -0.4999999999999998+i*0.8660254037844387
?- X is exp(i*2*pi/3*2).
X is -0.5000000000000004-i*0.8660254037844385

But you see the same uglyness here:
https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/complex-number-calculator.html
(The Java Script error is even worse, since it shows in one
case 0.8660254037844384, and we can use for example the new
nice Windows 10 built-in calculator, which has now a lot of digits
and thus gives: -0.86602540378443864676372317075294 , so they are
already more than one ULP away)

Concerning fractal encryption and things like that,
I image you can code anything countable into a single real,
and maybe also obsfuscate suffciently to make it difficult
to reverse engineer whats in it, without some extra info.

Maybe some of your C++ efforts, can be better explained
mathematially here, than in the comp group.
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
I still don't understand how rotation, and thereby the structure
(metric) of our physical environment, emerges in complex arithmetic.
[...]
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/comp.lang.c++/bB1wA4wvoFc/discussion
storing n-ary data in the roots! Imvho, this is pretty neat.
Any thoughts? Thanks.
Chris M. Thomasson
2017-04-15 00:42:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
I am more a Prolog guy, not a C++ guy. I recently implemented
Complex numbers via Prolog object orientation. (Jekejeke)
https://plus.google.com/+JekejekeCh/posts/ippcnCKy74z
Open Source: Package complex
https://gist.github.com/jburse/95bdf8c13fff9edba4251a7af29d94ca#file-complex-p
But I should combine it with my multi-precission package,
my polynomial package and my matrice package.
Did not yet get my head around how to do it, and last
but not least didn't have enough time for it recently.
But here are some roots, the code still wurks, the
3-rd roots of 1, i.e. all of 1^(1/3), it is. The error
is mainly due to the pi arithmetic, which is already
Jekejeke Prolog 2, Runtime Library 1.2.1
(c) 1985-2017, XLOG Technologies GmbH, Switzerland
?- X is exp(i*2*pi/3*0).
X = 1.0
?- X is exp(i*2*pi/3*1).
X is -0.4999999999999998+i*0.8660254037844387
?- X is exp(i*2*pi/3*2).
X is -0.5000000000000004-i*0.8660254037844385
https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/complex-number-calculator.html
(The Java Script error is even worse, since it shows in one
case 0.8660254037844384, and we can use for example the new
nice Windows 10 built-in calculator, which has now a lot of digits
and thus gives: -0.86602540378443864676372317075294 , so they are
already more than one ULP away)
Concerning fractal encryption and things like that,
I image you can code anything countable into a single real,
and maybe also obsfuscate suffciently to make it difficult
to reverse engineer whats in it, without some extra info.
Maybe some of your C++ efforts, can be better explained
mathematially here, than in the comp group.
Yes, agreed. Will have some more time tonight or tomorrow. Need some
help wrt the mathematical description. Mapping a n-ary symbol table to
the n roots generated by (z-c)^(1/n), or the simple z^(1/n) in the code
wrt the c++ groups.

Also, I have never used Prolog! I am more of a C guy than C++, but the
later has some nice features. Jan, can you help me refine the
mathematical definition of my n-ary fractal encryption? I am not a
mathematician, and can use any help available. Thank you for the
interest, I really do appreciate it.

:^)
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
I still don't understand how rotation, and thereby the structure
(metric) of our physical environment, emerges in complex arithmetic.
[...]
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/comp.lang.c++/bB1wA4wvoFc/discussion
storing n-ary data in the roots! Imvho, this is pretty neat.
Any thoughts? Thanks.
Chris M. Thomasson
2017-05-11 20:55:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by b***@gmail.com
I am more a Prolog guy, not a C++ guy. I recently implemented
Complex numbers via Prolog object orientation. (Jekejeke)
https://plus.google.com/+JekejekeCh/posts/ippcnCKy74z
Open Source: Package complex
https://gist.github.com/jburse/95bdf8c13fff9edba4251a7af29d94ca#file-complex-p
But I should combine it with my multi-precission package,
my polynomial package and my matrice package.
Did not yet get my head around how to do it, and last
but not least didn't have enough time for it recently.
But here are some roots, the code still wurks, the
3-rd roots of 1, i.e. all of 1^(1/3), it is. The error
is mainly due to the pi arithmetic, which is already
Jekejeke Prolog 2, Runtime Library 1.2.1
(c) 1985-2017, XLOG Technologies GmbH, Switzerland
?- X is exp(i*2*pi/3*0).
X = 1.0
?- X is exp(i*2*pi/3*1).
X is -0.4999999999999998+i*0.8660254037844387
?- X is exp(i*2*pi/3*2).
X is -0.5000000000000004-i*0.8660254037844385
https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/complex-number-calculator.html
(The Java Script error is even worse, since it shows in one
case 0.8660254037844384, and we can use for example the new
nice Windows 10 built-in calculator, which has now a lot of digits
and thus gives: -0.86602540378443864676372317075294 , so they are
already more than one ULP away)
Concerning fractal encryption and things like that,
I image you can code anything countable into a single real,
and maybe also obsfuscate suffciently to make it difficult
to reverse engineer whats in it, without some extra info.
Maybe some of your C++ efforts, can be better explained
mathematially here, than in the comp group.
Yes, agreed. Will have some more time tonight or tomorrow. Need some
help wrt the mathematical description. Mapping a n-ary symbol table to
the n roots generated by (z-c)^(1/n), or the simple z^(1/n) in the code
wrt the c++ groups.
[...]

Will post it here, just need a little more time. My technique works and,
imvvho, is interesting.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-12 14:59:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
So funny, nobody had suggested a suitable drawing yet, for sure

Nobody wanted to play the time concept too, wonder

But it is really so funny, when you corner those perpetual imbeciles to the obvious facts, that mirror images are not any reals, but fictions for sure

BK
konyberg
2017-04-12 18:10:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
So funny, nobody had suggested a suitable drawing yet, for sure
Nobody wanted to play the time concept too, wonder
But it is really so funny, when you corner those perpetual imbeciles to the obvious facts, that mirror images are not any reals, but fictions for sure
BK
Use red card for positive and a blue for negative. Now switch the cards as you multiply with a negative or positive. I know this is very low grade, but it might help you!

KON
konyberg
2017-04-12 18:21:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
So funny, nobody had suggested a suitable drawing yet, for sure
Nobody wanted to play the time concept too, wonder
But it is really so funny, when you corner those perpetual imbeciles to the obvious facts, that mirror images are not any reals, but fictions for sure
BK
Not completely true.
I have suggested a = b. It solves it.
KON
konyberg
2017-04-12 18:25:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by konyberg
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
So funny, nobody had suggested a suitable drawing yet, for sure
Nobody wanted to play the time concept too, wonder
But it is really so funny, when you corner those perpetual imbeciles to the obvious facts, that mirror images are not any reals, but fictions for sure
BK
Not completely true.
I have suggested a = b. It solves it.
KON
And |a| = |b| is even better.

KON
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-12 19:25:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by konyberg
Post by konyberg
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
So funny, nobody had suggested a suitable drawing yet, for sure
Nobody wanted to play the time concept too, wonder
But it is really so funny, when you corner those perpetual imbeciles to the obvious facts, that mirror images are not any reals, but fictions for sure
BK
Not completely true.
I have suggested a = b. It solves it.
KON
And |a| = |b| is even better.
KON
You still can not understand that those imaginary or complex numbers were not any real discovery as the case of sqrt(n), but only invention based on silly simple illogical and sick imaginations, not so different from decision making, and whatever they do, nothing would save them from being fictitious numbers for sure

BK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-17 19:35:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
And nobody could draw it, nor even draw a correct obvious conclusion for sure

That is to say, all are still suffering in that Big Fools Closed Box, for sure, wonder!

BK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-05-11 16:50:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
And this particular one would play as a very good tool for discovering absolute foolishness, for sure

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-07-30 09:53:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
07/30/2017
bassam king karzeddin
2017-08-05 12:16:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
*
bassam king karzeddin
2017-09-13 16:11:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
Repetition would teach the ...key, (sure)
BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-09-20 18:47:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
It seems that nobody like to draw something that he doesn't like, for sure
BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-12-19 17:24:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
And so strangely, everybody (mathematicians) had almost given up drawing anything that he wouldn't like to see, for sure
BKK
Serg io
2017-12-19 17:36:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
And so strangely, everybody (mathematicians) had almost given up drawing anything that he wouldn't like to see, for sure
BKK
show they are orthogonal.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-12-19 18:52:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Serg io
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
And so strangely, everybody (mathematicians) had almost given up drawing anything that he wouldn't like to see, for sure
BKK
show they are orthogonal.
It is you (not necessarily only yourself) but you who believes in a fictional and meaningless numbers as (i = sqrt(-1)) who had to show that, and definitely not me who exposed such a huge scandals more than ever, for sure

And me would stand enjoying seeing the nonsense fictional mathematics being surrounded by the King's so sharp sword, for sure
BKK
Serg io
2017-12-19 20:14:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Serg io
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
And so strangely, everybody (mathematicians) had almost given up drawing anything that he wouldn't like to see, for sure
BKK
show they are orthogonal.
It is you (not necessarily only yourself) but you who believes in a fictional and meaningless numbers as (i = sqrt(-1)) who had to show that, and definitely not me who exposed such a huge scandals more than ever, for sure
And me would stand enjoying seeing the nonsense fictional mathematics being surrounded by the King's so sharp sword, for sure
BKK
you use so many words just to say, "I can't".
bassam king karzeddin
2018-01-06 14:21:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Serg io
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Serg io
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
And so strangely, everybody (mathematicians) had almost given up drawing anything that he wouldn't like to see, for sure
BKK
show they are orthogonal.
It is you (not necessarily only yourself) but you who believes in a fictional and meaningless numbers as (i = sqrt(-1)) who had to show that, and definitely not me who exposed such a huge scandals more than ever, for sure
And me would stand enjoying seeing the nonsense fictional mathematics being surrounded by the King's so sharp sword, for sure
BKK
you use so many words just to say, "I can't".
Actually, you can't For sure
BKK
e***@gmail.com
2018-01-06 15:13:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit
2 2
3 0 3
4 4
5 5
6
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any suggestions are welcomed
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
bassam king karzeddin
2018-02-12 14:00:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you draw two complex orthogonal vectors (a + ib), and (b - ai), where (a, b) are nonzero real constructible numbers and (i = sqrt(-1)), the imaginary unit?
Any suggestions are welcomed
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
6th, Nov., 2016
Still can't draw it? wonder!

BKK

Loading...