*Post by b***@gmail.com*Hi,

L * L = L

L * R = L right?

R * L = L right?

R * R = R

L * L = R

L * R = L

R * L = L

R * R = R

Because otherwise the distributive law, doesn't work.

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

If you don't have the above usuabl table, it breaks,

namely take as an example A= -1, B=2, C=-3

-1 * (2 + -3) = -1 * -1 = -1 (in your logic)

-1 * 2 + -1 * -3 = -2 + -3 = -5 (in your logic,

it depends how you defin the two rows

L * R = and R * L = )

If you define the two rows L * R = and R * L =

differently I will be maybe able to give you yet

another counter example.

Before you can argue about square roots, you need

to have sound multiplication and addition. With your

definition L * L = L, this is not yet the case.

Nobody will take you seriously without sound

multiplication

and addition, where at least the following rules

Commutativity+: A+B = B+A

Associativity*: A+(B+C) = (A+B)+C

Commutativity*: A*B = B*A

Associativity*: A*(B*C) = (A*B)*C

Distributivity: A*(B+C) = A*B + A*C

Distributivity is one of the laws that connects

multiplication

and addition. You have to especially keep an eye on

this law,

if you modify multiplication, and don't do the

standard.

Distributivity is derived from finger and toe

counting. Just

imagine the lower level school explanation of

multiplication,

which is for a positive n and m integers aka natural

n*m = m + ... + m

--- n times ---

(p+q)*m = m + ... + m

--- p+q times ---

= m + ... + m + m + ... + m

--- p times --- --- q times ---

= p*m + q*m

But distributivity is found respectively desired in

much more domains. Including the reals, the complex

numbers,

matrices (they are not commutative though) etc..

Bye

Am Donnerstag, 13. April 2017 08:57:36 UTC+2 schrieb

On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 9:41:43 AM UTC+3,

*Post by b***@gmail.com*You could also use the marker L,

so what is 1L * 1L = ?

Very easy brain burr..

(1L)*(1L) = (1L), and more to it

(5L)*(7L) = (35L), but

(5R)*(7R) = (35R), for sure

Where (R) is the right direction of X-axis, and

(L) is the left direction of the X-axis from a start

point of space coordination (0, 0, 0)

Hence, no illegal double square root operation,

for sur

This is only the actual existing physical

coordination of space around your tiny head for sure

But still you won't accept it for sure

BK

*Post by b***@gmail.com*Can you answer this mister fish?

Am Donnerstag, 13. April 2017 08:38:14 UTC+2

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:36:04 PM

*Post by b***@gmail.com*He cant count with negative numbers, this

BKK, as if he

(-10..-1) and

*Post by b***@gmail.com*So, why don't you moron simply denote your

left toes as (10L, 1L), INSTEAD of (-10, -1)

*Post by b***@gmail.com**Post by b***@gmail.com*right hand and right toes (0..9). Maybe he is

a fish.

*Post by b***@gmail.com*BK

*Post by b***@gmail.com*Am Mittwoch, 12. April 2017 21:00:05 UTC+2

vast majority

for teachers

*Post by b***@gmail.com**Post by b***@gmail.com**Post by bassam king karzeddin**Post by bassam king karzeddin*s for sure

Regards

Bassam King Karzeddin

12 th, April, 2017

The same similar question that can be asked

What is the least rational number that is

greater than (Pi)?

trivial to conclude that no rational number exists as

a solution,

found for (pi))?

(pi) that is less than (pi), but definitely not the

largest in question

exists in our minds only and clearly from its mere

definition, but it exists also between two non

existing numbers, beside being impossible

construction exactly, which implies directly its own

non existence and for sure

simplest logic for any constructible numbers, since

they are the only real existing numbers and exactly

located without that their endless rational

APPROXIMATIONS

that no real numbers exists with endless decimal

representation, or no real number exists with endless

terms

represented by (.) is not a magical tool that can

convert immediately any meaningless integer number

with endless sequence of digits to very meaningful

number once you place your point decimal (.) in a

proper place from the left side of that meaning less

endless integer with infinite sequence of digits

transcendental and algebraic numbers and the endless

decimal representations of any constructible numbers

unreal numbers for sure

See how expert you are in diverting the original issue to another bothering you issue about the fact of fectious and flowed complex numbers, but it does not matter

And do not think this new vision of mine is that easy you can conclude whatever you like

So, if we define (L*L = L), and (R*R = R), It needs to be more careful about (L*R = ?)

May be Tim Golden Band Tech.com can be reviewed carefully in this regard at this link:

I am also working independently to see what can be logically eventual in this issue

Note Here we do not need negative operation, but for Multiplication still more to it, or may be you or anyone interested can contribute to this new field

The whole issue is a matter of directions, with mainly two operations (addition and multiplications)