Discussion:
You can tell a fake mythmatician from a real mathematician by this simple question: Is 0.999... equal to 1?
(too old to reply)
John Gabriel
2015-07-27 18:02:08 UTC
Permalink
If the person answers YES, then he is a fake.

See link for more proof:

http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/math/4507-0-999-equal-one-950.html
Dan Christensen
2015-07-27 18:06:11 UTC
Permalink
If the person...
Speaking of fakes...

What newcomers to sci.math should know about Psycho Troll John Gabriel, in his own words as posted here at sci.math:

JG's God Complex:

"I am the Creator of this galaxy."
-- March 19, 2015

"I am the last word on everything."
-- May 6, 2015

"Whatever I imagine is real because whatever I imagine is well defined."
-- March 26, 2015

"Unless I think it's logic, it's not... There are no rules in mathematics... As I have repeatedly stated, if there were to be rules, I'd be making the rules."
-- March 17, 2015


JG's Final Solution:

"Hitler was a genius and a very talented artist... As from a moral point of view, again his actions can't be judged, because his morals are different." (Like JG's morals?)
-- March 18, 2015

"I will point out a few facts about Hitler that most of you arrogant idiots didn't know or refused to acknowledge because your Jewish overlords do not allow you...

"Unfortunately, Hitler's henchmen got the wrong Jews...

(Note: When repeatedly asked if they should have gotten Jews like Albert Einstein, JG has refused to comment. You figure it out, folks.)

"It would be a very good idea to round up all the academic idiots, gas them and incinerate the useless lot. Only those that pass John Gabriel's exam should be allowed to live."
-- July 13, 2014

"All those who don't accept New Calculus, you better say goodbye to your kids... Because John Gabriel is coming." (Charming fellow.)
-- July 9, 2014


JG's Just Plain Stupid:

"1/0 is not undefined."
-- May 19, 2015

"1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that"
-- February 8, 2015

"The square root of 2 and pi are NOT numbers."
-- May 28, 2015

"By definition, a line is the distance between two points."
-- April 13, 2015

"So, 'is a member of' = 'is a subset of.'"
-- May 16, 2015

"There is no such thing as a continuous real number line."
-- March 24, 2015

"Indeed, there is no such thing as an instantaneous speed -- certainly not with respect to the calculus." (Note: Instantaneous speed is indicated by the speedometer in a car. Another Jewish conspiracy, JG?)
-- March 17, 2015

"Proofs had nothing to do with calculus."
-- May 30, 2015


In his wacky system, JG cannot even prove that 2+2=4. It seems unlikely he would have anything worthwhile to say about mathematics. On the contrary, it seems he is deliberately trying to mislead and confuse any newcomers here.

A special word of caution to students: Do not attempt to use JG's "system" in any course work in any high school, college or university on the planet. You will fail miserably. His system is certainly no "shortcut" to success in mathematics. It is truly a dead-end.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
a***@gmail.com
2015-07-27 18:22:20 UTC
Permalink
chicken****;
you cannot defy Stevin, not for creating a)
the decimals, and b)
what ever his hydraulics may have been
Ulrich D i e z
2015-07-28 13:31:11 UTC
Permalink
You can tell a fake mythmatician from a real mathematician
by this simple question: Is 0.999... equal to 1?
Of course 0.999... is not a number.

0.999... is a sequence of eight g l y p h s.

Glyph 1: "0"
Glyph 2: "."
Glyph 3: "9"
Glyph 4: "9"
Glyph 5: "9"
Glyph 6: "."
Glyph 7: "."
Glyph 8: "."

That sequence of glyphs is applied as a means of depicting
something in a way where the depiction is d e t e c t a b l e
b y those s e n s o r y o r g a n s that are related
to the visual sense (eyes).

The depiction detected by the organs of visual sensory in turn
is apperceived by the mind as the attempt of
r e p r e s e n t i n g in the context of
"written communication" an abstract/innate/absolute/empirical/
whatsoever c o n c e p t whereby the concept in question
- either is already known to the mind
- or is recognized by the mind as something currently unknown so
that clarification is needed
- or is about to be introduced to the mind by applying a method
of clarification.
(Methods of clarification are, e.g., explication, expatiation,
exposition, definition, declaration.)

The concept in turn is a means for r e f e r r i n g t o
an i t e m o f c o g n i z a n c e.

Methods of clarification are applied for assigning concepts to
items of cognizance. So that, e.g., in communication, the
concepts can be applied for referring to items of cognizance or
for introducing items of cognizance to communication partners.

During communication the concepts need to be "depicted" in a way
where the communication partners can detect the "depictions" by
means of their sensory organs. Concepts can, e.g., be "depicted"
in a way detectably by organs of acoustic sensory, e.g., by
means of sound waves denoting Morse code, by means of sound
waves denoting acoustic signals of alarm bells or sirens, e.g.,
by means of sound waves denoting spoken words in a specific
language. Concepts can, e.g., be "depicted" in a way detectably
by organs of visual sensory, e.g., by means of gestures, by
means of flares/luminous signals (traffic lights), by means of
glyphs representing letters of an alphabet, by means of glyphs
depicting visual symbols. ( E.g., the English-language-word
"scissors", the French-language-word "ciseaux", the
German-language-word "Schere" depict the same concept -- be
these words written or spoken. The same concept can also be
depicted by means of glyph number 34 (decimal) of the WingDings
font...)


In your postings you apply the sequence of glyphs "0.999..." in
order to convey some of your insights to the readers of the
newsgroup.

From the statements of some of the readers of the newsgroup one
can deduce that those readers do not agree with you.


Are you sure that the concepts depicted by you by
typing/applying the visually perceptible glyph-sequence
"0.999..." are the same concepts that are depicted by others when
they apply the same sequence of glyphs?

Are you sure that the concepts depicted by you by
typing/applying the visually perceptible glyph-sequence
"0.999..." do refer to exactly the same "item of cognizance" as
those concepts that are depicted by others when they apply the
same sequence of glyphs?

Ulrich
a***@gmail.com
2015-07-28 20:58:10 UTC
Permalink
thanks, glYphOn
Post by Ulrich D i e z
Are you sure that the concepts depicted by you by
typing/applying the visually perceptible glyph-sequence
"0.999..." do refer to exactly the same "item of cognizance" as
those concepts that are depicted by others when they apply the
same sequence of glyphs?
Ulrich
Maple Hall
2015-07-28 14:27:21 UTC
Permalink
Shut up, idiot.

"John Gabriel" wrote in message news:2318bf97-b2ae-41f9-812a-***@googlegroups.com...

<blither>
"Blither"
</blither>
Loading...