Discussion:
What is the largest rational number that is less than (Pi)?
(too old to reply)
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-12 16:13:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students

But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
konyberg
2017-04-12 18:32:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
It is pi - t.
Can you give me t?
I guess you think so, but in vain?

KON
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-12 18:54:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers
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)?

Of course in both questions it is too trivial to conclude that no rational number exists as a solution,

But what are those (13 trillion digits found for (pi))?

Naturally only rational approximation to (pi) that is less than (pi), but definitely not the largest in question

So, we see clearly see that our (pi) 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

But it is too stupid also to apply this simplest logic for any constructible numbers, since they are the only real existing numbers and exactly located without that their endless rational APPROXIMATIONS

So, the ever simplest lesson in the end is that no real numbers exists with endless decimal representation, or no real number exists with endless terms

And the fact that the decimal dot 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

So, the same can be said about all transcendental and algebraic numbers and the endless decimal representations of any constructible numbers

They are all fake non existent, and unreal numbers for sure

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12th, April, 2017
b***@gmail.com
2017-04-12 20:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
He cant count with negative numbers, this BKK, as if he

wouldn't have a left hand and left toes (-10..-1) and

right hand and right toes (0..9). Maybe he is a fish.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers
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)?
Of course in both questions it is too trivial to conclude that no rational number exists as a solution,
But what are those (13 trillion digits found for (pi))?
Naturally only rational approximation to (pi) that is less than (pi), but definitely not the largest in question
So, we see clearly see that our (pi) 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
But it is too stupid also to apply this simplest logic for any constructible numbers, since they are the only real existing numbers and exactly located without that their endless rational APPROXIMATIONS
So, the ever simplest lesson in the end is that no real numbers exists with endless decimal representation, or no real number exists with endless terms
And the fact that the decimal dot 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
So, the same can be said about all transcendental and algebraic numbers and the endless decimal representations of any constructible numbers
They are all fake non existent, and unreal numbers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12th, April, 2017
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-13 06:38:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
He cant count with negative numbers, this BKK, as if he
wouldn't have a left hand and left toes (-10..-1) and
So, why don't you moron simply denote your left toes as (10L, 1L), INSTEAD of (-10, -1)
Post by b***@gmail.com
right hand and right toes (0..9). Maybe he is a fish.
BK
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers
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)?
Of course in both questions it is too trivial to conclude that no rational number exists as a solution,
But what are those (13 trillion digits found for (pi))?
Naturally only rational approximation to (pi) that is less than (pi), but definitely not the largest in question
So, we see clearly see that our (pi) 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
But it is too stupid also to apply this simplest logic for any constructible numbers, since they are the only real existing numbers and exactly located without that their endless rational APPROXIMATIONS
So, the ever simplest lesson in the end is that no real numbers exists with endless decimal representation, or no real number exists with endless terms
And the fact that the decimal dot 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
So, the same can be said about all transcendental and algebraic numbers and the endless decimal representations of any constructible numbers
They are all fake non existent, and unreal numbers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12th, April, 2017
b***@gmail.com
2017-04-13 06:41:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
You could also use the marker L,

so what is 1L * 1L = ?

Can you answer this mister fish?
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
He cant count with negative numbers, this BKK, as if he
wouldn't have a left hand and left toes (-10..-1) and
So, why don't you moron simply denote your left toes as (10L, 1L), INSTEAD of (-10, -1)
Post by b***@gmail.com
right hand and right toes (0..9). Maybe he is a fish.
BK
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers
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)?
Of course in both questions it is too trivial to conclude that no rational number exists as a solution,
But what are those (13 trillion digits found for (pi))?
Naturally only rational approximation to (pi) that is less than (pi), but definitely not the largest in question
So, we see clearly see that our (pi) 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
But it is too stupid also to apply this simplest logic for any constructible numbers, since they are the only real existing numbers and exactly located without that their endless rational APPROXIMATIONS
So, the ever simplest lesson in the end is that no real numbers exists with endless decimal representation, or no real number exists with endless terms
And the fact that the decimal dot 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
So, the same can be said about all transcendental and algebraic numbers and the endless decimal representations of any constructible numbers
They are all fake non existent, and unreal numbers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12th, April, 2017
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-13 06:57:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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?
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
He cant count with negative numbers, this BKK, as if he
wouldn't have a left hand and left toes (-10..-1) and
So, why don't you moron simply denote your left toes as (10L, 1L), INSTEAD of (-10, -1)
Post by b***@gmail.com
right hand and right toes (0..9). Maybe he is a fish.
BK
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers
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)?
Of course in both questions it is too trivial to conclude that no rational number exists as a solution,
But what are those (13 trillion digits found for (pi))?
Naturally only rational approximation to (pi) that is less than (pi), but definitely not the largest in question
So, we see clearly see that our (pi) 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
But it is too stupid also to apply this simplest logic for any constructible numbers, since they are the only real existing numbers and exactly located without that their endless rational APPROXIMATIONS
So, the ever simplest lesson in the end is that no real numbers exists with endless decimal representation, or no real number exists with endless terms
And the fact that the decimal dot 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
So, the same can be said about all transcendental and algebraic numbers and the endless decimal representations of any constructible numbers
They are all fake non existent, and unreal numbers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12th, April, 2017
b***@gmail.com
2017-04-13 07:41:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi,

Well you are proposing:

L * L = L
L * R = L right?
R * L = L right?
R * R = R

But the usual convention is:

L * L = R
L * R = L
R * L = L
R * R = R

Because otherwise the distributive law, doesn't work.
The distributive law is:

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)

But then:

-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 hold:

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 numbers:

n*m = m + ... + m
--- n times ---

Distributivity is then the simple idea:

(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
Post by bassam king karzeddin
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?
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
He cant count with negative numbers, this BKK, as if he
wouldn't have a left hand and left toes (-10..-1) and
So, why don't you moron simply denote your left toes as (10L, 1L), INSTEAD of (-10, -1)
Post by b***@gmail.com
right hand and right toes (0..9). Maybe he is a fish.
BK
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers
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)?
Of course in both questions it is too trivial to conclude that no rational number exists as a solution,
But what are those (13 trillion digits found for (pi))?
Naturally only rational approximation to (pi) that is less than (pi), but definitely not the largest in question
So, we see clearly see that our (pi) 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
But it is too stupid also to apply this simplest logic for any constructible numbers, since they are the only real existing numbers and exactly located without that their endless rational APPROXIMATIONS
So, the ever simplest lesson in the end is that no real numbers exists with endless decimal representation, or no real number exists with endless terms
And the fact that the decimal dot 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
So, the same can be said about all transcendental and algebraic numbers and the endless decimal representations of any constructible numbers
They are all fake non existent, and unreal numbers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12th, April, 2017
bert
2017-04-13 09:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
So, we see clearly that our (pi) exists . . .
between two non existing numbers. . .
Yes, there is no largest rational less than (pi), and no
smallest rational greater than it; but so what? There is
also no largest rational which is smaller than any given
rational (because, whatever smaller rational you choose,
there is another larger one still smaller than the target)
and likewise no smallest rational which is larger than it;
so every rational also "exists between two non-existing
numbers." What can you possibly conclude from that?
--
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-13 14:40:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bert
So, we see clearly that our (pi) exists . . .
between two non existing numbers. . .
Yes, there is no largest rational less than (pi), and no
smallest rational greater than it; but so what? There is
also no largest rational which is smaller than any given
rational (because, whatever smaller rational you choose,
there is another larger one still smaller than the target)
and likewise no smallest rational which is larger than it;
so every rational also "exists between two non-existing
numbers." What can you possibly conclude from that?
--
But we had explained this point in my given post above, a rational number or generally a constructible number exists with exactly with unique location on a number line, and also with unique factorization for rational numbers and with unique factorization but under the square root or multi square root operation for irrational numbers (that are only constructible),

So, it is completely meaningless trying to construct or find them exactly from their endless rational decimal representation, which is valid for comparison for little practical problem solution of our needed carpentry works

But here the issue is all those non constructible numbers which are fiction non existing and fake numbers that are causing unnecessary most of our unsolved problems or puzzles, because we simply are deceived by those as real numbers

So, this is the subtil point in the whole issue that is more than important, since it uncovers all types of cheating that had been practiced over many centuries just for the sake of really little talented people to produce so much huge volumes of fake mathematics

I know this seems so unbelievable issue, but this the fact for sure

BK
s***@googlemail.com
2017-04-13 15:10:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bert
So, we see clearly that our (pi) exists . . .
between two non existing numbers. . .
Yes, there is no largest rational less than (pi), and no
smallest rational greater than it; but so what? There is
also no largest rational which is smaller than any given
rational (because, whatever smaller rational you choose,
there is another larger one still smaller than the target)
and likewise no smallest rational which is larger than it;
so every rational also "exists between two non-existing
numbers." What can you possibly conclude from that?
--
But we had explained this point in my given post above, a rational number or generally a constructible number exists with exactly with unique location on a number line, and also with unique factorization for rational numbers and with unique factorization but under the square root or multi square root operation for irrational numbers (that are only constructible),
So, it is completely meaningless trying to construct or find them exactly from their endless rational decimal representation, which is valid for comparison for little practical problem solution of our needed carpentry works
But here the issue is all those non constructible numbers which are fiction non existing and fake numbers that are causing unnecessary most of our unsolved problems or puzzles, because we simply are deceived by those as real numbers
So, this is the subtil point in the whole issue that is more than important, since it uncovers all types of cheating that had been practiced over many centuries just for the sake of really little talented people to produce so much huge volumes of fake mathematics
I know this seems so unbelievable issue, but this the fact for sure
BK
What you are saying usuall is not even coherent, leave alone factual.
Python
2017-04-13 20:38:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bert
So, we see clearly that our (pi) exists . . .
between two non existing numbers. . .
Yes, there is no largest rational less than (pi), and no
smallest rational greater than it; but so what? There is
also no largest rational which is smaller than any given
rational (because, whatever smaller rational you choose,
there is another larger one still smaller than the target)
and likewise no smallest rational which is larger than it;
so every rational also "exists between two non-existing
numbers." What can you possibly conclude from that?
--
[bullshit]
BK
You forgot to say "wonder".
s***@googlemail.com
2017-04-12 23:25:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
This question is very easy to everybody with a brain: There is none and noone ever claimed that xcept you.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-13 06:34:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@googlemail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
This question is very easy to everybody with a brain: There is none and noone ever claimed that xcept you.
But still you as many of your alike's would never understand its deep content despite teaching you that quite many times for sure

BK
s***@googlemail.com
2017-04-13 08:59:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by s***@googlemail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
This question is very easy to everybody with a brain: There is none and noone ever claimed that xcept you.
But still you as many of your alike's would never understand its deep content despite teaching you that quite many times for sure
BK
There is no deep content about that, there is mathematics and in this case, mathematics that can be easily understood.
At least by people who are not as confused as you are.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-13 15:09:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
wouldn't have a left hand and left toes
(-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
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the
vast majority
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult
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)?
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Of course in both questions it is too
trivial to conclude that no rational number exists as
a solution,
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But what are those (13 trillion digits
found for (pi))?
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Naturally only rational approximation to
(pi) that is less than (pi), but definitely not the
largest in question
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, we see clearly see that our (pi)
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
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But it is too stupid also to apply this
simplest logic for any constructible numbers, since
they are the only real existing numbers and exactly
located without that their endless rational
APPROXIMATIONS
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, the ever simplest lesson in the end is
that no real numbers exists with endless decimal
representation, or no real number exists with endless
terms
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And the fact that the decimal dot
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
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, the same can be said about all
transcendental and algebraic numbers and the endless
decimal representations of any constructible numbers
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
They are all fake non existent, and
unreal numbers for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12th, April, 2017
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:

http://bandtech.com/PolySigned/

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

But for the Addition operation it is quite easy to decide,

For example (5L + 7R = 5L + 5R + 2R = 0 + 2R = 2R),

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)

BK
b***@gmail.com
2017-04-13 18:44:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If I lookup the below site, I find:

The Product
Product rules exist and work much like the real numbers.
[...]
Here are the sign product rules for three-signed math:
( - 1 ) ( - 1 ) = + 1
[...]
http://bandtech.com/PolySigned/

Now I am going to marvel at maori macrons, they seem more sane.
http://maori.typeit.org/

Let us know when your L,R table for multiplication
is ready, including all 4 cases/rows.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
http://bandtech.com/PolySigned/
s***@googlemail.com
2017-04-14 00:39:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
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
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
wouldn't have a left hand and left toes
(-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
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the
vast majority
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult
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)?
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Of course in both questions it is too
trivial to conclude that no rational number exists as
a solution,
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But what are those (13 trillion digits
found for (pi))?
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Naturally only rational approximation to
(pi) that is less than (pi), but definitely not the
largest in question
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, we see clearly see that our (pi)
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
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But it is too stupid also to apply this
simplest logic for any constructible numbers, since
they are the only real existing numbers and exactly
located without that their endless rational
APPROXIMATIONS
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, the ever simplest lesson in the end is
that no real numbers exists with endless decimal
representation, or no real number exists with endless
terms
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And the fact that the decimal dot
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
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, the same can be said about all
transcendental and algebraic numbers and the endless
decimal representations of any constructible numbers
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
They are all fake non existent, and
unreal numbers for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12th, April, 2017
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 = ?)
http://bandtech.com/PolySigned/
I am also working independently to see what can be logically eventual in this issue
But for the Addition operation it is quite easy to decide,
For example (5L + 7R = 5L + 5R + 2R = 0 + 2R = 2R),
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)
BK
once again, your writings are completely incoherent and without any substance or statements of value
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-15 14:41:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@googlemail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
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
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
wouldn't have a left hand and left toes
(-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
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the
vast majority
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult
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)?
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Of course in both questions it is too
trivial to conclude that no rational number exists as
a solution,
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But what are those (13 trillion digits
found for (pi))?
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Naturally only rational approximation to
(pi) that is less than (pi), but definitely not the
largest in question
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, we see clearly see that our (pi)
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
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But it is too stupid also to apply this
simplest logic for any constructible numbers, since
they are the only real existing numbers and exactly
located without that their endless rational
APPROXIMATIONS
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, the ever simplest lesson in the end is
that no real numbers exists with endless decimal
representation, or no real number exists with endless
terms
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And the fact that the decimal dot
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
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, the same can be said about all
transcendental and algebraic numbers and the endless
decimal representations of any constructible numbers
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
They are all fake non existent, and
unreal numbers for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12th, April, 2017
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 = ?)
http://bandtech.com/PolySigned/
I am also working independently to see what can be logically eventual in this issue
But for the Addition operation it is quite easy to decide,
For example (5L + 7R = 5L + 5R + 2R = 0 + 2R = 2R),
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)
BK
once again, your writings are completely incoherent and without any substance or statements of value
Morro..., you and burr... are experts in diverting issues, but in short I can not give you an a banana that is in the mirror, and a magnet would never rebel from its mirror image

And if you do not get it, you would never get it, and you will not,for sure

BK
s***@googlemail.com
2017-05-09 03:44:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by s***@googlemail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
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
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
wouldn't have a left hand and left toes
(-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
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the
vast majority
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult
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)?
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Of course in both questions it is too
trivial to conclude that no rational number exists as
a solution,
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But what are those (13 trillion digits
found for (pi))?
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Naturally only rational approximation to
(pi) that is less than (pi), but definitely not the
largest in question
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, we see clearly see that our (pi)
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
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But it is too stupid also to apply this
simplest logic for any constructible numbers, since
they are the only real existing numbers and exactly
located without that their endless rational
APPROXIMATIONS
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, the ever simplest lesson in the end is
that no real numbers exists with endless decimal
representation, or no real number exists with endless
terms
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And the fact that the decimal dot
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
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, the same can be said about all
transcendental and algebraic numbers and the endless
decimal representations of any constructible numbers
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
They are all fake non existent, and
unreal numbers for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12th, April, 2017
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 = ?)
http://bandtech.com/PolySigned/
I am also working independently to see what can be logically eventual in this issue
But for the Addition operation it is quite easy to decide,
For example (5L + 7R = 5L + 5R + 2R = 0 + 2R = 2R),
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)
BK
once again, your writings are completely incoherent and without any substance or statements of value
Morro..., you and burr... are experts in diverting issues, but in short I can not give you an a banana that is in the mirror, and a magnet would never rebel from its mirror image
And if you do not get it, you would never get it, and you will not,for sure
BK
What you exspecially cannot do is math.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-19 18:39:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
And still the mentally retarded top professional mathematicians do not want to confess so openly that their endless decimal rational representation of (Pi) is simply that same greatest real number that is less than (pi), which does not exist for sure

The funny part that they shamelessly confess the non existence of the later expression, but deny the first expression which is logically the same

How indeed are so shameful the top professionals mathematicians, wonder!

BK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-22 18:29:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast
majority
Post by bassam king karzeddin
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for
teachers
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
r than (Pi)?
Of course in both questions it is too trivial to
o conclude that no rational number exists as a
solution,
But what are those (13 trillion digits found for
r (pi))?
Naturally only rational approximation to (pi) that
t is less than (pi), but definitely not the largest
in question
So, we see clearly see that our (pi) exists in our
r 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
But it is too stupid also to apply this simplest
t logic for any constructible numbers, since they are
the only real existing numbers and exactly located
without that their endless rational APPROXIMATIONS
So, the ever simplest lesson in the end is that no
o real numbers exists with endless decimal
representation, or no real number exists with endless
terms
And the fact that the decimal dot 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
So, the same can be said about all transcendental
l and algebraic numbers and the endless decimal
representations of any constructible numbers
They are all fake non existent, and unreal numbers
s for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12th, April, 2017
It is so strange that here little attention to such types of a question as this (20 views), but with a little comparison from Quora, for the same question I posted thereafter, where now more than 26000 views, wonder!
What a careless and a clueless group here at sci.math? wonder!
Do the professional mathematicians actually get afraid of such innocent questions by a mature here? wonder!

Or do they feel so embarrassed and so incompetent to a mature question? wonder!

And look there at those many poor and meaningless answers provided by the professionals, where generally they are still struggling hard and contradicting each other's, despite giving them the cure and remedy quite many times and in advance for sure

But laugh and enjoy it for sure at this link:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-largest-rational-number-that-is-less-than-pi

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
22th, April, 2017
conway
2017-04-23 02:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
this has been an excellent read....as well as the link posted by you bassam Thanks!!!!!!
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-24 16:12:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
By the way (any clever student), the mathematics says that such number (the largest rational number that is less than (Pi) does not exist) which is absolutely true for sure

But at the same time, the top mathematicians and so hopelessly still in search for it, wonder!

However, they had obtained around 13 trillion sequence digits (in 10base number system - decimal form) of that (non existing number they confess)

Despite that the maximum scientific needs up to date was around 13 digits only

But the mathematicians had requested their governments for more and more funds to keep getting more of that non existing number (they confess)

And if World governments granted them few more billions of currency to complete their unfinished jobs, they certainly would be more grateful for sure

So, this is an innocent request for the whole world Governments to support the professional mathematicians without any limit, for their rare peculiar talents that is also without limit, Wonder!

They also have not explored in details infinitely many more numbers of (Pi) alike, and once the support is available, then all the top world human problems would eventually be solved for sure

So, please denote for the mathematicians greatest efforts in this regard

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
24th, April, 2017
e***@arcor.de
2017-05-06 16:03:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, please denote for the mathematicians greatest efforts in this regard
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
24th, April, 2017
Did you mean donate instead of denote?
bassam king karzeddin
2017-05-07 07:28:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by e***@arcor.de
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, please denote for the mathematicians greatest efforts in this regard
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
24th, April, 2017
Did you mean donate instead of denote?
Yes, of course, a typo mistale, I meant donate for the mathematickers since the whole world is so desperate waiting many more digits of those endless nonexisting numbers

BK
Barstool Kim Kardashian
2017-05-07 13:15:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Shut up mathforum idiot.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, please denote for the mathematicians greatest efforts in this regard
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
24th, April, 2017
Yes, of course, a typo mistale,
Learn how to spell 'mistake' you retarded faggot.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-05-08 18:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Barstool Kim Kardashian
Shut up mathforum idiot.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, please denote for the mathematicians greatest efforts in this regard
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
24th, April, 2017
Yes, of course, a typo mistale,
Learn how to spell 'mistake' you retarded faggot.
I really admire your rare peculiar talent of correcting spelling, really wonderfuc

Didn't I define you before with given listed number from your few meaningless and empty posts BKK

BK
clementime
2017-04-26 14:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 3:40:07 AM UTC+3,
On Thursday, 13 April 2017 17:30:05 UTC+2, bassam
Post by bassam king karzeddin
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.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
A*(B+C) = A*B+A*C
If you don't have the above usuabl table, it
breaks,
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
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,
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
it depends how you defin the two rows
L * R = and R * L = )
If you define the two rows L * R = and R * L
=
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
differently I will be maybe able to give you
yet
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
another counter example.
Before you can argue about square roots, you
need
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
to have sound multiplication and addition. With
your
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
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
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
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
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
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
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
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
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
much more domains. Including the reals, the
complex
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
numbers,
matrices (they are not commutative though)
etc..
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Bye
Am Donnerstag, 13. April 2017 08:57:36 UTC+2
schrieb
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 9:41:43 AM
UTC+3,
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
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
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
(L) is the left direction of the X-axis from a
start
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
point of space coordination (0, 0, 0)
Hence, no illegal double square root
operation,
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
for sur
This is only the actual existing physical
coordination of space around your tiny head for
sure
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
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
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:36:04
PM
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
He cant count with negative numbers,
this
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
BKK, as if he
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
wouldn't have a left hand and left toes
(-10..-1) and
Post by b***@gmail.com
So, why don't you moron simply denote
your
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
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
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
a fish.
Post by b***@gmail.com
BK
Post by b***@gmail.com
Am Mittwoch, 12. April 2017 21:00:05
UTC+2
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for
the
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
vast majority
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
of clever school students
But most likely would be very
difficult
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
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
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the least rational number
that is
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
greater than (Pi)?
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Of course in both questions it is
too
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
trivial to conclude that no rational number
exists as
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
a solution,
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But what are those (13 trillion
digits
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
found for (pi))?
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Naturally only rational
approximation to
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
(pi) that is less than (pi), but definitely not
the
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
largest in question
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, we see clearly see that our (pi)
exists in our minds only and clearly from its
mere
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
definition, but it exists also between two non
existing numbers, beside being impossible
construction exactly, which implies directly
its own
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
non existence and for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But it is too stupid also to apply
this
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
simplest logic for any constructible numbers,
since
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
they are the only real existing numbers and
exactly
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
located without that their endless rational
APPROXIMATIONS
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, the ever simplest lesson in the
end is
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
that no real numbers exists with endless
decimal
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
representation, or no real number exists with
endless
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
terms
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And the fact that the decimal dot
represented by (.) is not a magical tool that
can
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
convert immediately any meaningless integer
number
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
with endless sequence of digits to very
meaningful
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
number once you place your point decimal (.) in
a
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
proper place from the left side of that meaning
less
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
endless integer with infinite sequence of
digits
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, the same can be said about all
transcendental and algebraic numbers and the
endless
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
decimal representations of any constructible
numbers
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
They are all fake non existent, and
unreal numbers for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12th, April, 2017
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
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And do not think this new vision of mine is that
easy you can conclude whatever you like
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, if we define (L*L = L), and (R*R = R), It
needs to be more careful about (L*R = ?)
Post by bassam king karzeddin
May be Tim Golden Band Tech.com can be reviewed
http://bandtech.com/PolySigned/
I am also working independently to see what can
be logically eventual in this issue
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But for the Addition operation it is quite easy
to decide,
Post by bassam king karzeddin
For example (5L + 7R = 5L + 5R + 2R = 0 + 2R =
2R),
Post by bassam king karzeddin
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
Post by bassam king karzeddin
The whole issue is a matter of directions, with
mainly two operations (addition and multiplications)
Post by bassam king karzeddin
BK
once again, your writings are completely incoherent
and without any substance or statements of value
Morro..., you and burr... are experts in diverting
g issues, but in short I can not give you an a banana
that is in the mirror, and a magnet would never rebel
from its mirror image
And if you do not get it, you would never get it,
, and you will not,for sure
BK
I am impressed with your knowledge.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-05-06 10:23:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by clementime
On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 3:40:07 AM UTC+3,
On Thursday, 13 April 2017 17:30:05 UTC+2, bassam
Post by bassam king karzeddin
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.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
A*(B+C) = A*B+A*C
If you don't have the above usuabl table, it
breaks,
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
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,
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
it depends how you defin the two rows
L * R = and R * L = )
If you define the two rows L * R = and R * L
=
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
differently I will be maybe able to give you
yet
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
another counter example.
Before you can argue about square roots, you
need
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
to have sound multiplication and addition. With
your
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
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
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
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
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
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
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
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
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
much more domains. Including the reals, the
complex
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
numbers,
matrices (they are not commutative though)
etc..
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Bye
Am Donnerstag, 13. April 2017 08:57:36 UTC+2
schrieb
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 9:41:43 AM
UTC+3,
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
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
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
(L) is the left direction of the X-axis from a
start
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
point of space coordination (0, 0, 0)
Hence, no illegal double square root
operation,
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
for sur
This is only the actual existing physical
coordination of space around your tiny head for
sure
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
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
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:36:04
PM
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
He cant count with negative numbers,
this
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
BKK, as if he
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
wouldn't have a left hand and left toes
(-10..-1) and
Post by b***@gmail.com
So, why don't you moron simply denote
your
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
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
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
a fish.
Post by b***@gmail.com
BK
Post by b***@gmail.com
Am Mittwoch, 12. April 2017 21:00:05
UTC+2
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for
the
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
vast majority
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
of clever school students
But most likely would be very
difficult
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
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
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
What is the least rational number
that is
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
greater than (Pi)?
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Of course in both questions it is
too
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
trivial to conclude that no rational number
exists as
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
a solution,
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But what are those (13 trillion
digits
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
found for (pi))?
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Naturally only rational
approximation to
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
(pi) that is less than (pi), but definitely not
the
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
largest in question
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, we see clearly see that our (pi)
exists in our minds only and clearly from its
mere
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
definition, but it exists also between two non
existing numbers, beside being impossible
construction exactly, which implies directly
its own
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
non existence and for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But it is too stupid also to apply
this
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
simplest logic for any constructible numbers,
since
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
they are the only real existing numbers and
exactly
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
located without that their endless rational
APPROXIMATIONS
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, the ever simplest lesson in the
end is
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
that no real numbers exists with endless
decimal
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
representation, or no real number exists with
endless
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
terms
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And the fact that the decimal dot
represented by (.) is not a magical tool that
can
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
convert immediately any meaningless integer
number
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
with endless sequence of digits to very
meaningful
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
number once you place your point decimal (.) in
a
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
proper place from the left side of that meaning
less
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
endless integer with infinite sequence of
digits
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, the same can be said about all
transcendental and algebraic numbers and the
endless
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
decimal representations of any constructible
numbers
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
They are all fake non existent, and
unreal numbers for sure
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12th, April, 2017
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
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And do not think this new vision of mine is that
easy you can conclude whatever you like
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, if we define (L*L = L), and (R*R = R), It
needs to be more careful about (L*R = ?)
Post by bassam king karzeddin
May be Tim Golden Band Tech.com can be reviewed
http://bandtech.com/PolySigned/
I am also working independently to see what can
be logically eventual in this issue
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But for the Addition operation it is quite easy
to decide,
Post by bassam king karzeddin
For example (5L + 7R = 5L + 5R + 2R = 0 + 2R =
2R),
Post by bassam king karzeddin
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
Post by bassam king karzeddin
The whole issue is a matter of directions, with
mainly two operations (addition and multiplications)
Post by bassam king karzeddin
BK
once again, your writings are completely incoherent
and without any substance or statements of value
Morro..., you and burr... are experts in diverting
g issues, but in short I can not give you an a banana
that is in the mirror, and a magnet would never rebel
from its mirror image
And if you do not get it, you would never get it,
, and you will not,for sure
BK
I am impressed with your knowledge.
But, the vast majority are too frustrated, for sure

BK
Dan Christensen
2017-05-06 18:56:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hint: Consider the ever increasing sequence of rational numbers 3.1, 3.14, 3.141, 3.1415, ...

The nth term is pi truncated to n decimal places. It never attains or surpasses the value of pi.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
bassam king karzeddin
2017-05-08 18:22:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers
s for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
And that pitch (Pi), would keep playing joyfully with your tiny skulls until you go mad for sure

BK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-05-13 09:04:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
Maybe this can be asked again with very little modification as:

What is the largest known rational number that is less than (Pi)?

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-05-25 17:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
What is the largest known rational number that is less than (Pi)?
BKK
And the Fools can't comprehend yet that (e/pi) is not any number, for sure

but so oddly they comprehend in full details (e^{pi}}, wonder!

Hint: remove both decimal notations from (e & pi)

And truly, the so tiny decimal notation is not any magical tool that turns a nonsense meaningless (infinite sequence digits) number to really wonderful number, sure

And funnily they are still hoping that one day either (e + pi), or (pi - e) might be a rational number, wonder!

And the hen would never realize that her mirror image would never be any real hen, except in modern mathematics, for sure

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-06-22 11:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
And the biggest joke that alleged top scientist professional mathematicians would never stop searching for that largest rational number that is less than (Pi) as if they can one day say after billions of years would be able to catch it, where they still so unaware that they were chasing an illusion in their tiny heads only, for sure

BKK
Markus Klyver
2017-07-15 15:01:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
And the biggest joke that alleged top scientist professional mathematicians would never stop searching for that largest rational number that is less than (Pi) as if they can one day say after billions of years would be able to catch it, where they still so unaware that they were chasing an illusion in their tiny heads only, for sure
BKK
Well, there isn't one. The real numbers form an Archimedean field.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-07-15 14:19:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
Now, do you know more generalisation to this simple question? wonder!

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-07-29 15:05:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
Oops, did you really learn anything from the question? wonder!

Or you must have learnt, but too shy full to say it for sure

Have a little courage mathematicians, it is so legitimate and so etical for sure
BKK
Markus Klyver
2017-08-01 00:20:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
Oops, did you really learn anything from the question? wonder!
Or you must have learnt, but too shy full to say it for sure
Have a little courage mathematicians, it is so legitimate and so etical for sure
BKK
Your question have already been answered, several times. Why are you answering your own post, with nonsense?
bassam king karzeddin
2017-08-02 17:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
See the very narrow-minded people at (SE) who couldn't tolerate a very simple question about (pi), so funny
It is only one page read it fast before they hide it completely for sure
https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/6371/who-was-the-first-to-prove-that-pi-was-a-real-number

And the clever students can annoy them beyond their limit for sure

They are simply ignorants for more than sure since they foolishly think that deleting or hiding a simple question would ultimately alter the fact

No, every thing is already PUBLISHED where no dirty minds can touch for sure

BKK
b***@gmail.com
2017-08-02 18:30:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
To be precise, π is a transcendental number. The ontology runs as follows:

real
+- rational (5/6, -1, etc..)
+- irrational
+- algebraic (sqrt(2), 2^(1/3), etc..)
+- transcendental (pi, e, etc..)

Legendre conjectured that π is non algebraic,
that is, that π is transcendental.

See also:
I Prefer Pi: A Brief History and Anthology of Articles
in the American Mathematical Monthly,
Jonathan M. Borwein and Scott T. Chapman
American Mathematical Monthly 121:1 February 10, 2015
https://carma.newcastle.edu.au/jon/31415.pdf
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
See the very narrow-minded people at (SE) who couldn't tolerate a very simple question about (pi), so funny
It is only one page read it fast before they hide it completely for sure
https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/6371/who-was-the-first-to-prove-that-pi-was-a-real-number
And the clever students can annoy them beyond their limit for sure
They are simply ignorants for more than sure since they foolishly think that deleting or hiding a simple question would ultimately alter the fact
No, every thing is already PUBLISHED where no dirty minds can touch for sure
BKK
b***@gmail.com
2017-08-02 18:35:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The irrationality of π was first shown by
Lambert in 1761 using continued fractions.
Post by b***@gmail.com
real
+- rational (5/6, -1, etc..)
+- irrational
+- algebraic (sqrt(2), 2^(1/3), etc..)
+- transcendental (pi, e, etc..)
Legendre conjectured that π is non algebraic,
that is, that π is transcendental.
I Prefer Pi: A Brief History and Anthology of Articles
in the American Mathematical Monthly,
Jonathan M. Borwein and Scott T. Chapman
American Mathematical Monthly 121:1 February 10, 2015
https://carma.newcastle.edu.au/jon/31415.pdf
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
See the very narrow-minded people at (SE) who couldn't tolerate a very simple question about (pi), so funny
It is only one page read it fast before they hide it completely for sure
https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/6371/who-was-the-first-to-prove-that-pi-was-a-real-number
And the clever students can annoy them beyond their limit for sure
They are simply ignorants for more than sure since they foolishly think that deleting or hiding a simple question would ultimately alter the fact
No, every thing is already PUBLISHED where no dirty minds can touch for sure
BKK
b***@gmail.com
2017-08-02 18:41:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Legendre was validated when in 1882 Lindemann proved π transcendental.
Post by b***@gmail.com
The irrationality of π was first shown by
Lambert in 1761 using continued fractions.
Post by b***@gmail.com
real
+- rational (5/6, -1, etc..)
+- irrational
+- algebraic (sqrt(2), 2^(1/3), etc..)
+- transcendental (pi, e, etc..)
Legendre conjectured that π is non algebraic,
that is, that π is transcendental.
I Prefer Pi: A Brief History and Anthology of Articles
in the American Mathematical Monthly,
Jonathan M. Borwein and Scott T. Chapman
American Mathematical Monthly 121:1 February 10, 2015
https://carma.newcastle.edu.au/jon/31415.pdf
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
See the very narrow-minded people at (SE) who couldn't tolerate a very simple question about (pi), so funny
It is only one page read it fast before they hide it completely for sure
https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/6371/who-was-the-first-to-prove-that-pi-was-a-real-number
And the clever students can annoy them beyond their limit for sure
They are simply ignorants for more than sure since they foolishly think that deleting or hiding a simple question would ultimately alter the fact
No, every thing is already PUBLISHED where no dirty minds can touch for sure
BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-08-02 19:05:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
real
+- rational (5/6, -1, etc..)
+- irrational
+- algebraic (sqrt(2), 2^(1/3), etc..)
+- transcendental (pi, e, etc..)
Legendre conjectured that π is non algebraic,
that is, that π is transcendental.
I Prefer Pi: A Brief History and Anthology of Articles
in the American Mathematical Monthly,
Jonathan M. Borwein and Scott T. Chapman
American Mathematical Monthly 121:1 February 10, 2015
https://carma.newcastle.edu.au/jon/31415.pdf
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
See the very narrow-minded people at (SE) who couldn't tolerate a very simple question about (pi), so funny
It is only one page read it fast before they hide it completely for sure
https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/6371/who-was-the-first-to-prove-that-pi-was-a-real-number
And the clever students can annoy them beyond their limit for sure
They are simply ignorants for more than sure since they foolishly think that deleting or hiding a simple question would ultimately alter the fact
No, every thing is already PUBLISHED where no dirty minds can touch for sure
BKK
Do You know who just gave you the one only upvote so far at HSE? wonder!
It was me, and not for the sake of your peculiar ignorant answer you posted, but to perpetuate forever your ignorance and also for the sake of protecting my question from removal especially if some few others donate for you few more votes

So, let us pray for you to get more and more upvotes for sure

But hey, don't remove it, please

And there you pretend to not understand anything from my comment, despite so many lectures were given to you especially, wonder!
Of course, I don't want to shift the battle over there since you know the consequences...
BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-08-03 19:26:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
real
+- rational (5/6, -1, etc..)
+- irrational
+- algebraic (sqrt(2), 2^(1/3), etc..)
+- transcendental (pi, e, etc..)
Legendre conjectured that π is non algebraic,
that is, that π is transcendental.
I Prefer Pi: A Brief History and Anthology of Articles
in the American Mathematical Monthly,
Jonathan M. Borwein and Scott T. Chapman
American Mathematical Monthly 121:1 February 10, 2015
https://carma.newcastle.edu.au/jon/31415.pdf
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
See the very narrow-minded people at (SE) who couldn't tolerate a very simple question about (pi), so funny
It is only one page read it fast before they hide it completely for sure
https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/6371/who-was-the-first-to-prove-that-pi-was-a-real-number
And the clever students can annoy them beyond their limit for sure
They are simply ignorants for more than sure since they foolishly think that deleting or hiding a simple question would ultimately alter the fact
No, every thing is already PUBLISHED where no dirty minds can touch for sure
BKK
Do You know who just gave you the one only upvote so far at HSE? wonder!
It was me, and not for the sake of your peculiar ignorant answer you posted, but to perpetuate forever your ignorance and also for the sake of protecting my question from removal especially if some few others donate for you few more votes
So, let us pray for you to get more and more upvotes for sure
But hey, don't remove it, please
And there you pretend to not understand anything from my comment, despite so many lectures were given to you especially, wonder!
Of course, I don't want to shift the battle over there since you know the consequences...
BKK
And most likely, you have downvoted my question, but it doesn't matter, they aren't allowing more annoying questions from me anymore, and the put the question on hold as usual

but the point I was guessing is that there wasn't any historical proof that legalizes (Pi) as a real number, it was only an old so naive conclusion working smoothly up to date, wonder?

Very narrow-minded people for sure

BKK
b***@gmail.com
2017-08-02 18:52:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Archimedes of Syracuse (287–212 BCE) is thought to have been the first (in Measurement of the Circle) to show that the “two possible Pi’s” are the same. For a circle of radius r and diameter d, Area= π1r2 while Perimeter = π2d, but that π1=π2 is not obvious, and is often overlooked.

How is it proved?
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
See the very narrow-minded people at (SE) who couldn't tolerate a very simple question about (pi), so funny
It is only one page read it fast before they hide it completely for sure
https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/6371/who-was-the-first-to-prove-that-pi-was-a-real-number
And the clever students can annoy them beyond their limit for sure
They are simply ignorants for more than sure since they foolishly think that deleting or hiding a simple question would ultimately alter the fact
No, every thing is already PUBLISHED where no dirty minds can touch for sure
BKK
Markus Klyver
2017-08-02 22:08:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
See the very narrow-minded people at (SE) who couldn't tolerate a very simple question about (pi), so funny
It is only one page read it fast before they hide it completely for sure
https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/6371/who-was-the-first-to-prove-that-pi-was-a-real-number
And the clever students can annoy them beyond their limit for sure
They are simply ignorants for more than sure since they foolishly think that deleting or hiding a simple question would ultimately alter the fact
No, every thing is already PUBLISHED where no dirty minds can touch for sure
BKK
Because your question makes no sense. Pi didn't exist until we invented real numbers. Asking who "proved" that pi was real makes no sense, because the inherit properties of real numbers implies pi is real (in this case, that the real numbers are complete). So are you asking who was the first to construct real numbers?
bassam king karzeddin
2017-08-03 19:31:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Markus Klyver
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
See the very narrow-minded people at (SE) who couldn't tolerate a very simple question about (pi), so funny
It is only one page read it fast before they hide it completely for sure
https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/6371/who-was-the-first-to-prove-that-pi-was-a-real-number
And the clever students can annoy them beyond their limit for sure
They are simply ignorants for more than sure since they foolishly think that deleting or hiding a simple question would ultimately alter the fact
No, every thing is already PUBLISHED where no dirty minds can touch for sure
BKK
Because your question makes no sense. Pi didn't exist until we invented real numbers. Asking who "proved" that pi was real makes no sense, because the inherit properties of real numbers implies pi is real (in this case, that the real numbers are complete). So are you asking who was the first to construct real numbers?
It is so clearly more than ever now, I was thinking that there must be a historical proof for (Pi) being a real number where I may be not aware of, but it turns the opposite, there wasn't any proof, only intuitive conclusin that had been inherited up to our date for sure

So, prove its existence if you really can, wonder!

BKK
s***@googlemail.com
2017-08-03 20:42:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
See the very narrow-minded people at (SE) who couldn't tolerate a very simple question about (pi), so funny
It is only one page read it fast before they hide it completely for sure
https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/6371/who-was-the-first-to-prove-that-pi-was-a-real-number
And the clever students can annoy them beyond their limit for sure
They are simply ignorants for more than sure since they foolishly think that deleting or hiding a simple question would ultimately alter the fact
No, every thing is already PUBLISHED where no dirty minds can touch for sure
BKK
Because your question makes no sense. Pi didn't exist until we invented real numbers. Asking who "proved" that pi was real makes no sense, because the inherit properties of real numbers implies pi is real (in this case, that the real numbers are complete). So are you asking who was the first to construct real numbers?
It is so clearly more than ever now, I was thinking that there must be a historical proof for (Pi) being a real number where I may be not aware of, but it turns the opposite, there wasn't any proof, only intuitive conclusin that had been inherited up to our date for sure
So, prove its existence if you really can, wonder!
BKK
There are lots of proofs of pi being irrational, kiddo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_%CF%80_is_irrational
bassam king karzeddin
2017-08-05 11:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@googlemail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Markus Klyver
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
See the very narrow-minded people at (SE) who couldn't tolerate a very simple question about (pi), so funny
It is only one page read it fast before they hide it completely for sure
https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/6371/who-was-the-first-to-prove-that-pi-was-a-real-number
And the clever students can annoy them beyond their limit for sure
They are simply ignorants for more than sure since they foolishly think that deleting or hiding a simple question would ultimately alter the fact
No, every thing is already PUBLISHED where no dirty minds can touch for sure
BKK
Because your question makes no sense. Pi didn't exist until we invented real numbers. Asking who "proved" that pi was real makes no sense, because the inherit properties of real numbers implies pi is real (in this case, that the real numbers are complete). So are you asking who was the first to construct real numbers?
It is so clearly more than ever now, I was thinking that there must be a historical proof for (Pi) being a real number where I may be not aware of, but it turns the opposite, there wasn't any proof, only intuitive conclusin that had been inherited up to our date for sure
So, prove its existence if you really can, wonder!
BKK
There are lots of proofs of pi being irrational, kiddo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_%CF%80_is_irrational
Real Irrational numbers are only those real numbers that belong to the set of constructible numbers, resulting from the only proved square root operation by PT or multi square root operation thus existing exactly in mind and also in the physical reality, whereas other real irrational numbers were concluded in mind only and not in any physical reality, thus fiction numbers as brain fart of some old famous mathematicians for sure
And it doesn't any matter if you really can't still recognize this fact yet, despite so many published proofs
BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-09-13 16:12:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
Yes, this may be too easy for teachers, wonder!
BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-09-30 14:56:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
OK, to facilitate it for you much further in order that hopefully, you get anything, let us reask it the other way

What is the least rational number that is larger than (Pi)? wonder!

BKK
Zelos Malum
2017-10-01 08:34:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
It isn't difficult, cause there is no such number.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-10-01 12:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
It isn't difficult, cause there is no such number.
Do YOu mean then, numbers are isolated? or continuous? wonder!

BKK
Me
2017-10-01 18:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 2:03:19 PM UTC+2, bassam king karzeddin wrote:

"What is the largest rational number that is less than (Pi)?"

Pipi? (engl. wee-wee)
Zelos Malum
2017-10-02 05:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
It isn't difficult, cause there is no such number.
Do YOu mean then, numbers are isolated? or continuous? wonder!
BKK
Numbers can't be continuous, only functions can. As for isolated, depends on the structure and definition.
bassam king karzeddin
2018-02-01 09:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
SO, you are so hopelessly in search of that "the largest rational number that is less or greater than (Pi)" that never exists for sure

Are you still mentally suffering to get it so easily genius professionals? wonder!

But when shall your absolute (Pi) becomes suddenly irrational number? wonder!

Then come back here and announce it loudly and we are waiting you for sure

BKK
Zelos Malum
2018-02-01 09:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
SO, you are so hopelessly in search of that "the largest rational number that is less or greater than (Pi)" that never exists for sure
No one is searching for it because it doesn't exist and its provably so.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But when shall your absolute (Pi) becomes suddenly irrational number? wonder!
It doesn't become it, it IS irrational.
bassam king karzeddin
2018-02-12 10:29:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
***
Zelos Malum
2018-02-12 13:39:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
***
It is trivial for both, they both know it doesn't exist you moron.
bassam king karzeddin
2018-02-12 14:50:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This question must be very easy for the vast majority
of clever school students
But most likely would be very difficult for teachers for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
12 th, April, 2017
***
It is trivial for both, they both know it doesn't exist you moron.
a TYPICAL moron as you don't realize yet that searching the alleged endless digits of (Pi) and in any number system is actually that number you describe as non-existing, since there is always at least one missing digit, but actually many endless digits

But a TROLL as you would remain a Troll, forever and for sure

BKK
Zelos Malum
2018-02-15 07:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
a TYPICAL moron as you don't realize yet that searching the alleged endless digits of (Pi) and in any number system is actually that number you describe as non-existing
No, because you asked for a greatest rational number less than pi, but pi is irrational so it cannot be in the set.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
since there is always at least one missing digit, but actually many endless digits
It has all the digits, you conflate it having a property and us computing the digits, those are different.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But a TROLL as you would remain a Troll, forever and for sure
This is just you trying to avoid the fact that I know more than you.
bassam king karzeddin
2018-02-15 07:49:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
a TYPICAL moron as you don't realize yet that searching the alleged endless digits of (Pi) and in any number system is actually that number you describe as non-existing
No, because you asked for a greatest rational number less than pi, but pi is irrational so it cannot be in the set.
So, it cannot be in the set, nor in any imaginable set, nor anywhere, except of course in your empty skull box, for sure
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
since there is always at least one missing digit, but actually many endless digits
It has all the digits, you conflate it having a property and us computing the digits, those are different.
It has all the digits, (so funny), as if there are all existing, wonder!

or as if there is actually any infinity! wonder!, but of course only in your nutty empty skull box, for sure
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But a TROLL as you would remain a Troll, forever and for sure
This is just you trying to avoid the fact that I know more than you.
You know nothing, it is so obvious only from your words, for sure again

BKK
Zelos Malum
2018-02-16 06:46:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, it cannot be in the set,
Set of rational numbers, correct!
Post by bassam king karzeddin
nor in any imaginable set, nor anywhere, except of course in your empty skull box, for sure
it is in many other sets, complex numbers, real numbers, Q[pi], etc, but not in Q, Z, N and many others. All of which are constructible.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
It has all the digits, (so funny), as if there are all existing, wonder!
Of course they are, from the construction they exist.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
or as if there is actually any infinity! wonder!, but of course only in your nutty empty skull box, for sure
There is an infinity in mathematics, grow up already.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
You know nothing, it is so obvious only from your words, for sure again
I know mathematics, unlike you. That is why you cannot make a mathematical arguement. You can't even prove that the empty set is unique!
bert
2018-02-15 09:38:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Me
What is the largest rational number that is less than (Pi)?
There isn't one, so what does that prove about (Pi)?

What is the largest rational number that is less than 2?

There isn't one, so what does that prove about 2?
--
bassam king karzeddin
2018-02-15 09:49:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bert
Post by Me
What is the largest rational number that is less than (Pi)?
There isn't one, so what does that prove about (Pi)?
What is the largest rational number that is less than 2?
There isn't one, so what does that prove about 2?
--
It proves that rationals are endless, uncountable?!

BKK
Python
2018-02-15 11:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bert
Post by Me
What is the largest rational number that is less than (Pi)?
There isn't one, so what does that prove about (Pi)?
What is the largest rational number that is less than 2?
There isn't one, so what does that prove about 2?
--
It proves that rationals are endless, uncountable?!
Endless? Not quite. But their set is infinite.

Uncountable? No. As a matter of fact they are countable.

Another question, crank?
bassam king karzeddin
2018-02-20 13:56:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bert
Post by Me
What is the largest rational number that is less than (Pi)?
There isn't one, so what does that prove about (Pi)?
What is the largest rational number that is less than 2?
There isn't one, so what does that prove about 2?
--
It proves that rationals are endless, uncountable?!
Endless? Not quite. But their set is infinite.
Uncountable? No. As a matter of fact they are countable.
So, count them, please
Post by Python
Another question, crank?
Not quite a question but a definite answer for sure

(you real crank for sure)

BKK

Bill
2018-02-15 23:26:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bert
Post by Me
What is the largest rational number that is less than (Pi)?
There isn't one, so what does that prove about (Pi)?
What is the largest rational number that is less than 2?
There isn't one, so what does that prove about 2?
Note: For each real number c, the (translation) mapping
x-> x+c
is an isomorphism.
Loading...