Discussion:
A very simple question to secondary school students?
Add Reply
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-08 08:12:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
1) How can you approximate the arithmetical cube root of say (10) without using the decimal notation, (.), in any number system, say simply 10base number system?

2) What ultimately that you must discover about the arithmetical exact cube root of (10) but again without using the decimal notation?

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 08th, 2017
Zelos Malum
2017-11-08 08:52:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) How can you approximate the arithmetical cube root of say (10) without using the decimal notation, (.), in any number system, say simply 10base number system?
2) What ultimately that you must discover about the arithmetical exact cube root of (10) but again without using the decimal notation?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 08th, 2017
Wahts with your fucking obsession about notation?
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-08 10:26:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) How can you approximate the arithmetical cube root of say (10) without using the decimal notation, (.), in any number system, say simply 10base number system?
2) What ultimately that you must discover about the arithmetical exact cube root of (10) but again without using the decimal notation?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 08th, 2017
Wahts with your fucking obsession about notation?
@ the fictional character (Zeros)

Moron, let the school students discover the so amazing facts about the GREAT foundation of their mathematics by themselves first and just before they get completely brainwashed by their brainwashed teachers

After all, we can so easily manage without that decimal notation for sure

BKK
Zelos Malum
2017-11-09 08:41:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) How can you approximate the arithmetical cube root of say (10) without using the decimal notation, (.), in any number system, say simply 10base number system?
2) What ultimately that you must discover about the arithmetical exact cube root of (10) but again without using the decimal notation?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 08th, 2017
Wahts with your fucking obsession about notation?
@ the fictional character (Zeros)
Moron, let the school students discover the so amazing facts about the GREAT foundation of their mathematics by themselves first and just before they get completely brainwashed by their brainwashed teachers
After all, we can so easily manage without that decimal notation for sure
BKK
First of, my name is Zelos you lying sack of shit.
Secondly, stop with your obsession about identity. I go by one identity here and no matter what it really is, which may be Zelos as you would never know!, has no impact on the accuracy of my statement.
Thirdly, no one is brainwashed you moron. Just because YOU are too stupid to understand thigns doesn't that mean others are equally stupid.
Fourthly, we can use whatever notation we want, it doesn't matter what we use as long as it is convinient to us.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
where none exists in any imaginable reality since the cube root operation was never proved in mathematics
That is a lie, first of you don't prove such an operation, you construct it and we have constructed it and shown it satesfies the desired properties.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-09 17:32:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) How can you approximate the arithmetical cube root of say (10) without using the decimal notation, (.), in any number system, say simply 10base number system?
2) What ultimately that you must discover about the arithmetical exact cube root of (10) but again without using the decimal notation?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 08th, 2017
Wahts with your fucking obsession about notation?
@ the fictional character (Zeros)
Moron, let the school students discover the so amazing facts about the GREAT foundation of their mathematics by themselves first and just before they get completely brainwashed by their brainwashed teachers
After all, we can so easily manage without that decimal notation for sure
BKK
First of, my name is Zelos you lying sack of shit.
Secondly, stop with your obsession about identity. I go by one identity here and no matter what it really is, which may be Zelos as you would never know!, has no impact on the accuracy of my statement.
Thirdly, no one is brainwashed you moron. Just because YOU are too stupid to understand thigns doesn't that mean others are equally stupid.
Fourthly, we can use whatever notation we want, it doesn't matter what we use as long as it is convinient to us.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
where none exists in any imaginable reality since the cube root operation was never proved in mathematics
That is a lie, first of you don't prove such an operation, you construct it and we have constructed it and shown it satesfies the desired properties.
********************
A real fictional crank (Zelos) who refuses to learn new matters and also lost his temper and starts biting everyone around that sees things independently from any well-established or fabricated and fake knowledge

So, you claim that you constructed it say for any non-cube integer as 2^{1/3},

Then describe it exactly if you can, I shall give you an illustration example.

The real irrational number sqrt(85) is exactly the length of a diagonal of a rectangle with sides (6, 7) UNITS and NOTHING else, (FINISHED)

So what is your real irrational number say 10^{1/3}, the arithmetical cube root of (10)? Wonder!
Can you describe it exactly the way I did? wonder!

You can have as much space as you like to describe it, also you can have the rest of your life to answer but correctly moron

So, we are waiting, and definitely, neither you nor any moron professional mathematician would like this so simple challenge for sure

So, convey my simple challenge to all mathematicians on earth, and enjoy it forever and for sure

No regards to all stupid and stubborn people, and no wonder too

Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 9th, 2017
Zelos Malum
2017-11-10 07:02:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
A real fictional crank (Zelos) who refuses to learn new matters and also lost his temper and starts biting everyone around that sees things independently from any well-established or fabricated and fake knowledge
Don't project your crankery on me. I do not subscribe to your idiocy.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, you claim that you constructed it say for any non-cube integer as 2^{1/3},
We have, and guess what? It is the same fucking way as the squareroot!
Post by bassam king karzeddin
The real irrational number sqrt(85) is exactly the length of a diagonal of a rectangle with sides (6, 7) UNITS and NOTHING else, (FINISHED)
That is however not constructing it. You have assumed apriori it exists but not shown how you mathematicly construct it as a number.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So what is your real irrational number say 10^{1/3}, the arithmetical cube root of (10)? Wonder!
If you want a geometric thing, the diagonal of a block with 2 by 5 by 1. However to any REAL mathematician, that does NOT constitute a construction of it.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you describe it exactly the way I did? wonder!
Quite trivial but it is increadibly boring way that offers nothing of substance.

If you want to construct the real numbers we do the usual, let C be the set of all cauchy sequences of rational numbers, let I be the ideal of null sequences, then C/I is isomorphic to R when operations are pointwise. And to construct a sequence in the cuberoot equivalence class, we use one of the n'th root algorithms and we have the number.

This is a proper construction, not yoru garbage.
John Gabriel
2017-11-09 18:53:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) How can you approximate the arithmetical cube root of say (10) without using the decimal notation, (.), in any number system, say simply 10base number system?
2) What ultimately that you must discover about the arithmetical exact cube root of (10) but again without using the decimal notation?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 08th, 2017
Wahts with your fucking obsession about notation?
@ the fictional character (Zeros)
Moron, let the school students discover the so amazing facts about the GREAT foundation of their mathematics by themselves first and just before they get completely brainwashed by their brainwashed teachers
After all, we can so easily manage without that decimal notation for sure
BKK
First of, my name is Zelos you lying sack of shit.
The only lying sacks of shit on this forum are you, Jan Burse and your troll King Dan Christensen.

Very sorry, but that is the truth. You are 100% pure troll.
Zelos Malum
2017-11-10 07:02:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) How can you approximate the arithmetical cube root of say (10) without using the decimal notation, (.), in any number system, say simply 10base number system?
2) What ultimately that you must discover about the arithmetical exact cube root of (10) but again without using the decimal notation?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 08th, 2017
Wahts with your fucking obsession about notation?
@ the fictional character (Zeros)
Moron, let the school students discover the so amazing facts about the GREAT foundation of their mathematics by themselves first and just before they get completely brainwashed by their brainwashed teachers
After all, we can so easily manage without that decimal notation for sure
BKK
First of, my name is Zelos you lying sack of shit.
The only lying sacks of shit on this forum are you, Jan Burse and your troll King Dan Christensen.
Very sorry, but that is the truth. You are 100% pure troll.
That would be you projecting again, Gabriel.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-08 09:57:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Den onsdag 8 november 2017 kl. 09:12:45 UTC+1 skrev
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) How can you approximate the arithmetical cube
root of say (10) without using the decimal notation,
(.), in any number system, say simply 10base number
system?
Post by bassam king karzeddin
2) What ultimately that you must discover about
the arithmetical exact cube root of (10) but again
without using the decimal notation?
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 08th, 2017
Wahts with your fucking obsession about notation?
Please don't disturb and divert the SO innocent students from being self-independent thinkers first

Since we know exactly your real bad intention for sure

BKK
Dan Christensen
2017-11-09 18:27:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) How can you approximate the arithmetical cube root of say (10) without using the decimal notation, (.), in any number system, say simply 10base number system?
2) What ultimately that you must discover about the arithmetical exact cube root of (10) but again without using the decimal notation?
There is nothing wrong with decimal notation. Only a crank and a troll like BKK here could take exception. (He actually believes that 40 degree angles don't exist!)

Here is the cube root of 2 to 31 decimal places (32 significant digits):

1.259 921 049 894 873 164 767 210 607 278 2

Cube it and you will get:

1.999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 9

Not close enough? You can get as close as you want, just never precisely 2. Just keep calculating more and more decimal places until the required accuracy is obtained. So, it makes sense to talk about the cube root of 2 as a real number and that you can add, subtract, multiply and divide such numbers.

If you want to know all the details, take a university course in introductory real analysis (a very challenging course, usually in 2nd year of pure math).


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Chris M. Thomasson
2017-11-10 09:02:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) How can you approximate the arithmetical cube root of say (10) without using the decimal notation, (.), in any number system, say simply 10base number system?
2) What ultimately that you must discover about the arithmetical exact cube root of (10) but again without using the decimal notation?
There is nothing wrong with decimal notation. Only a crank and a troll like BKK here could take exception. (He actually believes that 40 degree angles don't exist!)
1.259 921 049 894 873 164 767 210 607 278 2
1.999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 9
Not close enough? You can get as close as you want, just never precisely 2. Just keep calculating more and more decimal places until the required accuracy is obtained. So, it makes sense to talk about the cube root of 2 as a real number and that you can add, subtract, multiply and divide such numbers.
If you want to know all the details, take a university course in introductory real analysis (a very challenging course, usually in 2nd year of pure math).
Imho, there is nothing wrong with n-ary decimal notation, and there is
nothing wrong with n-ary fractional notation.
Peter Percival
2017-11-10 11:57:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) How can you approximate the arithmetical cube root of say (10) without using the decimal notation, (.), in any number system, say simply 10base number system?
Here's a nice problem: what is the continued fraction expansion of the
cube root of x for small integers x? An answer will answer your
question, but I know nothing about the matter. It contrasts with what
is the continued fraction expansion of the square root of x about which
a lot is known.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
2) What ultimately that you must discover about the arithmetical exact cube root of (10) but again without using the decimal notation?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 08th, 2017
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-11 12:26:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) How can you approximate the arithmetical cube root of say (10) without using the decimal notation, (.), in any number system, say simply 10base number system?
2) What ultimately that you must discover about the arithmetical exact cube root of (10) but again without using the decimal notation?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 08th, 2017
So, unfortunately, it seems that school students never or rarely read here, but never mind to prove this again and again for any future interested (but clever) students

Strictly as per the requirement and respect for the OP question above mentioned

We already know how the current modern mathematics can do (in say 10base number system that is not any different from any other number system), where also the ancient mathematician could do approximately in simple fractions as (rational numbers)

so, the arithmetical cube root of say (10), denoted by 10^{1/3} without using the decimal notation, (.), in any number system, say simply 10base number system?

First approximation is clearly 2, thus, 10^{1/3} =/= 2
Second approximation is (21/10), thus, 10^{1/3} =/= 21/10
Third approximtion is (215/100), thus, 10^{1/3} =/= 43/20
Forth approximation is (2154/1000), thus, 10^{1/3} =/= 1077/500
Fifth approximation is (21544/10000), thus, 10^{1/3} =/= 2693/1250
Sixth approximation is (215443/100000), thus, 10^{1/3} =/= 215443/100000
Seventh approximation is (2154434/1000000), thus, 10^{1/3} =/= 1077217/500000
Eight approximation is (21544346/10^7), thus, 10^{1/3} =/= 10772173/5*10^6
Nineth approximation is (215443469/10^8), thus, 10^{1/3} =/= 215443469/10^8
Tenth approximation is (215443469/10^9), thus, 10^{1/3} =/= 215443469/10^9
Eleventh approximation is (215443469/10^10),thus,10^{1/3} =/= 215443469/10^10

Note that inequality is always there because approximation is always in rational numbers that can never equate our irrational number, and generally, it can be always approximated or expressed symbolically as a rational number of this simple and direct form as [N(m)/10^m], where m is non-negative integer, and N(m) is positive integer with (m) digits, therefore the m'th approximation would be the ratio of +ve integer with m digits to an integer equals to

10^{m - 1), where strictly, 10^{1/3} =/= N(m)/10^{m - 1},

No matter if your integer N(m) can fill say only seven trillion galaxies size, where every trillion of digits can be stored only say in one (mm) cube

Since mathematics require both integers tending to infinity, where then this ratio becomes a ratio of two non-existing integers (since this is obviously impossible and forever and for sure), which implies strictly that our 10^{1/3} is purely a fiction and non-existing number, reminding also, it is impossible to construct it or describe its exact existence in geometry, hence a human brain fart number for sure

So, any clever student wouldn't let that simple decimal notation deceive him anymore as many alleged top-most genius mathematicians were badly deceived up to our dates so unfortunately

Nor they must be deceived any more about many alleged big theorems that legalize such real numbers especially after seeing many simple and rigorous proofs

But it must be understood the approximation purpose of our practical needs, for instance, to make a water tank of cube shape and two-meter cube volume

Same thing you may so easily deduce about any alleged real number with infinite sequence of digits or terms after that decimal notation, and regardless whether you know or don't know the pattern of the sequence or repeated digits

Regards
BKK
Zelos Malum
2017-11-11 17:26:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Since mathematics require both integers tending to infinity, where then this ratio becomes a ratio of two non-existing integers (since this is obviously impossible and forever and for sure), which implies strictly that our 10^{1/3} is purely a fiction and non-existing number, reminding also, it is impossible to construct it or describe its exact existence in geometry, hence a human brain fart number for sure
Not at all. Our ability for computers to store it does not make it fictional. We can make integers so large that we cannot store it in the universe, yet you don't say integers are fictional.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-11 18:37:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Since mathematics require both integers tending to infinity, where then this ratio becomes a ratio of two non-existing integers (since this is obviously impossible and forever and for sure), which implies strictly that our 10^{1/3} is purely a fiction and non-existing number, reminding also, it is impossible to construct it or describe its exact existence in geometry, hence a human brain fart number for sure
Not at all. Our ability for computers to store it does not make it fictional. We can make integers so large that we cannot store it in the universe, yet you don't say integers are fictional.
YES, moron, you must choose a rational number for expressing your real irrational algebraic number, nor can you prove its existence geometrically as any other real constructible number, nor there is any other choice, but a stupid would remain a stupid for not getting any hint to what I'm talking about, but a fictional character has nothing to lose by acting fool all the time along just to divert others from this so silly puzzle, sure

BKK
Peter Percival
2017-11-11 19:02:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
YES, moron, ...
Try to be civil. Imagine that you are talking face-to-face with the
person you are replying to. Would you being "Yes, moron"?

This newsgroup is becoming unusable, in part because it is overrun by
cranks and in part because many people seem to be incapable of
exercising good manners.
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-12 07:12:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Percival
YES, moron, ...
Try to be civil. Imagine that you are talking face-to-face with the
person you are replying to. Would you being "Yes, moron"?
This newsgroup is becoming unusable, in part because it is overrun by
cranks and in part because many people seem to be incapable of
exercising good manners.
But if you were fair enough, you would have noticed who usually started the abusing words, I never started using such words nor did I know them before, but I had learnt them here from mainly those many fictional characters who often use them in any very important subject that contradicts the foundations of mathematics just to divert attention to the whole issue point, where generally they lose nothing since they are hiding under many fictional names for a very suspicious purposes, but sometimes they succeed in draging the OP to their low-quality discussion type and hence, covering the so obvious truth with those broken spider's threads, but not forever and for sure

BKK
Post by Peter Percival
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Zelos Malum
2017-11-12 09:01:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
YES, moron, you must choose a rational number for expressing your real irrational algebraic number
No we don't, no where in the definition does it say we have to do that.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
nor can you prove its existence geometrically as any other real constructible number
For any algebraic number, it is trivial, for plenty of trancendental, we can too.

But in all cases, it is irrelevant because it being done geometricly does not determine its existence.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
nor there is any other choice
There are countless ways to construct numbers/objects in mathematics, you are just ignorant of them.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-12 06:58:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) How can you approximate the arithmetical cube root of say (10) without using the decimal notation, (.), in any number system, say simply 10base number system?
2) What ultimately that you must discover about the arithmetical exact cube root of (10) but again without using the decimal notation?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 08th, 2017
So, unfortunately, it seems that school students never or rarely read here, but never mind to prove this again and again for any future interested (but clever) students
Strictly as per the requirement and respect for the OP question above mentioned
We already know how the current modern mathematics can do (in say 10base number system that is not any different from any other number system), where also the ancient mathematician could do approximately in simple fractions as (rational numbers)
so, the arithmetical cube root of say (10), denoted by 10^{1/3} without using the decimal notation, (.), in any number system, say simply 10base number system?
First approximation is clearly 2, thus, 10^{1/3} =/= 2
Second approximation is (21/10), thus, 10^{1/3} =/= 21/10
Third approximtion is (215/100), thus, 10^{1/3} =/= 43/20
Forth approximation is (2154/1000), thus, 10^{1/3} =/= 1077/500
Fifth approximation is (21544/10000), thus, 10^{1/3} =/= 2693/1250
Sixth approximation is (215443/100000), thus, 10^{1/3} =/= 215443/100000
Seventh approximation is (2154434/1000000), thus, 10^{1/3} =/= 1077217/500000
Eight approximation is (21544346/10^7), thus, 10^{1/3} =/= 10772173/5*10^6
Ninth approximation is (215443469/10^8), thus, 10^{1/3} =/= 215443469/10^8
Tenth approximation is (215443469/10^8), thus, 10^{1/3} =/= 215443469/10^8
Eleventh approximation is (215443469/10^8),thus,10^{1/3} =/= 215443469/10^8
Note that inequality is always there because approximation is always in rational numbers that can never equate our irrational number, and generally, it can be always approximated or expressed symbolically as a rational number of this simple and direct form as [N(m)/10^m], where m is non-negative integer, and N(m) is positive integer with (m) digits, therefore the m'th approximation would be the ratio of +ve integer with m digits to an integer equals to
10^{m - 1), where strictly, 10^{1/3} =/= N(m)/10^{m - 1},
No matter if your integer N(m) can fill say only seven trillion galaxies size, where every trillion of digits can be stored only say in one (mm) cube
Since mathematics require both integers tending to infinity, where then this ratio becomes a ratio of two non-existing integers (since this is obviously impossible and forever and for sure), which implies strictly that our 10^{1/3} is purely a fiction and non-existing number, reminding also, it is impossible to construct it or describe its exact existence in geometry, hence a human brain fart number for sure
So, any clever student wouldn't let that simple decimal notation deceive him anymore as many alleged top-most genius mathematicians were badly deceived up to our dates so unfortunately
Nor they must be deceived any more about many alleged big theorems that legalize such real numbers especially after seeing many simple and rigorous proofs
But it must be understood the approximation purpose of our practical needs, for instance, to make a water tank of cube shape and two-meter cube volume
Same thing you may so easily deduce about any alleged real number with infinite sequence of digits or terms after that decimal notation, and regardless whether you know or don't know the pattern of the sequence or repeated digits
Regards
BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-15 19:22:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) How can you approximate the arithmetical cube root of say (10) without using the decimal notation, (.), in any number system, say simply 10base number system?
2) What ultimately that you must discover about the arithmetical exact cube root of (10) but again without using the decimal notation?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 08th, 2017
So, the arithmetical cube root of 10 is eventually a fraction that never exists in any imaginable reality, for sure

But frankly, a little-approximated fraction (generally in rational numbers) is quite good for any practical purposes, exactly like the ancient mathematicians did know how to make it approximately, and frankly, nothing at all is new in any alleged modern maths, that is all the story

So to say, there isn't any exact cube root for any non-cube integer, sure

And this is the true meaning of the truthness of the Fermat's last theorem, that the many provers themselves didn't know or purposely had completely and deliberately forgotten to inform you in order to be so quiet and so happy with proofs that you have exactly zero chance to understand in the rest of your remaining and so meaningless life, for sure

BKK
Zelos Malum
2017-11-16 04:39:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, the arithmetical cube root of 10 is eventually a fraction that never exists in any imaginable reality, for sure
it is not a fraction as it is an irrational number.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-16 06:48:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, the arithmetical cube root of 10 is eventually a fraction that never exists in any imaginable reality, for sure
it is not a fraction as it is an irrational number.
you mean it is an irrational number but in mind, but never anywhere on the real number line which is the ultimate reality for sure

BKK
Zelos Malum
2017-11-16 07:35:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
you mean it is an irrational number but in mind, but never anywhere on the real number line which is the ultimate reality for sure
It is on the real number line very much because the real number line is just a pictorial visualization of the real number set and all roots of positive real numbers exist in real numbers and this is trivial to prove.
bassam king karzeddin
2018-02-13 19:05:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, the arithmetical cube root of 10 is eventually a fraction that never exists in any imaginable reality, for sure
it is not a fraction as it is an irrational number.
irrational only in your mind, other wise get it exactly, show us your irrational number, now

This damn old stuff now, for sure
BKK
John Gabriel
2018-02-13 21:42:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, the arithmetical cube root of 10 is eventually a fraction that never exists in any imaginable reality, for sure
it is not a fraction as it is an irrational number.
irrational only in your mind, other wise get it exactly, show us your irrational number, now
You see Bassam, this is what they cannot understand because they are good little brainwashed soldiers. If it is not a rational number, then what is it?!

It is a magnitude that cannot be measured, i.e. there is no number describing the magnitude and it is therefore called *incommensurable*, because that's what incommensurable means: CANNOT BE MEASURED.

So there is no number that describes such a naughty magnitude like pi, sqrt(2) and e. Not even God/Allah can measure these magnitudes.

But these fools want to punish these naughty magnitudes and associate them with non-existent sets: Dedekind Cuts! That will teach these bad magnitudes a good lesson!

Nice monkey! Nice monkey Zelos Malum. Chuckle.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
This damn old stuff now, for sure
As old as the Greeks over 2000 years ago. There has been ZERO progress in this respect. How can there be? If it were possible to measure pi, e and sqrt(2), the Greeks would have already done it!!! :-)))
Post by bassam king karzeddin
BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-30 18:48:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) How can you approximate the arithmetical cube root of say (10) without using the decimal notation, (.), in any number system, say simply 10base number system?
2) What ultimately that you must discover about the arithmetical exact cube root of (10) but again without using the decimal notation?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 08th, 2017
Still waiting for me to answer it? wonder!

BKK
Zelos Malum
2017-12-01 06:36:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) How can you approximate the arithmetical cube root of say (10) without using the decimal notation, (.), in any number system, say simply 10base number system?
2) What ultimately that you must discover about the arithmetical exact cube root of (10) but again without using the decimal notation?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 08th, 2017
Still waiting for me to answer it? wonder!
BKK
More waiting for you to stop being stupid.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-12-02 09:56:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) How can you approximate the arithmetical cube root of say (10) without using the decimal notation, (.), in any number system, say simply 10base number system?
2) What ultimately that you must discover about the arithmetical exact cube root of (10) but again without using the decimal notation?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 08th, 2017
Still waiting for me to answer it? wonder!
BKK
More waiting for you to stop being stupid.
I know that stupidity, stubbornness, and dishonesty are well-inherited traits of humans, more especially in big issues and with those alleged top most genius professional mathematicians, where also you don't count at all, and for sure

BKK
Python
2017-12-02 10:05:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I know that stupidity, stubbornness, and dishonesty are ...
... defining Bassam Karzeddin very well.

By the way, Mr Karzeddin, what is the value of (-1)*(1) ?
bassam king karzeddin
2017-12-02 11:29:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
I know that stupidity, stubbornness, and dishonesty are ...
... defining Bassam Karzeddin very well.
By the way, Mr Karzeddin, what is the value of (-1)*(1) ?
I had shown in another recent topic that negative integers are truly unreal integers, hence it seems that (-1)*(1) is quite meaningless, but I deliberately claimed that (-1)*(-1) = (-1), just to show the contradiction of considering negative integers as real existing integers

However, the meaning of existence in mathematics is relative description of existing objects in physical reality, exactly the same we when we understand that no solution of existing integers (non-zero) for FLT for instance, and more generally, there are many problems in mathematics that have no solution even in the alleged complex numbers (that also includes the alleged reals), for sure
Example, the alleged polynomial (x^3 - x - 1 = 0), has no existing roots at all, as proved and PUBLISHED earlier by me

I know this seems so ridiculous for mathematicians, but this is the fact if we go and remove all that old invented meaningless fabrication that was pure foolish or devilish decisions with non-existing concepts as imaginary unit, Infinity, ...etc, that was never any real discovery related to any imaginable reality, but purely brain fart fictions for business unnecessary mathematics, for sure
BKK
BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-12-19 18:21:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
I know that stupidity, stubbornness, and dishonesty are ...
... defining Bassam Karzeddin very well.
By the way, Mr Karzeddin, what is the value of (-1)*(1) ?
I had shown in another recent topic that negative integers are truly unreal integers, hence it seems that (-1)*(1) is quite meaningless, but I deliberately claimed that (-1)*(-1) = (-1), just to show the contradiction of considering negative integers as real existing integers
However, the meaning of existence in mathematics is relative description of existing objects in physical reality, exactly the same we when we understand that no solution of existing integers (non-zero) for FLT for instance, and more generally, there are many problems in mathematics that have no solution even in the alleged complex numbers (that also includes the alleged reals), for sure
Example, the alleged polynomial (x^3 - x - 1 = 0), has no existing roots at all, as proved and PUBLISHED earlier by me
I know this seems so ridiculous for mathematicians, but this is the fact if we go and remove all that old invented meaningless fabrication that was pure foolish or devilish decisions with non-existing concepts as imaginary unit, Infinity, ...etc, that was never any real discovery related to any imaginable reality, but purely brain fart fictions for business unnecessary mathematics, for sure
BKK
BKK
And hopefully, it seems that people had arrived finally and most likely very secretly with themselves that the polynomial (x^3 - x - 1 = 0) has no roots at all, but fictional non-existing roots for sure
BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2018-01-07 12:41:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
I know that stupidity, stubbornness, and dishonesty are ...
... defining Bassam Karzeddin very well.
By the way, Mr Karzeddin, what is the value of (-1)*(1) ?
I had shown in another recent topic that negative integers are truly unreal integers, hence it seems that (-1)*(1) is quite meaningless, but I deliberately claimed that (-1)*(-1) = (-1), just to show the contradiction of considering negative integers as real existing integers
However, the meaning of existence in mathematics is relative description of existing objects in physical reality, exactly the same we when we understand that no solution of existing integers (non-zero) for FLT for instance, and more generally, there are many problems in mathematics that have no solution even in the alleged complex numbers (that also includes the alleged reals), for sure
Example, the alleged polynomial (x^3 - x - 1 = 0), has no existing roots at all, as proved and PUBLISHED earlier by me
I know this seems so ridiculous for mathematicians, but this is the fact if we go and remove all that old invented meaningless fabrication that was pure foolish or devilish decisions with non-existing concepts as imaginary unit, Infinity, ...etc, that was never any real discovery related to any imaginable reality, but purely brain fart fictions for business unnecessary mathematics, for sure
BKK
BKK
And hopefully, it seems that people had arrived finally and most likely very secretly with themselves that the polynomial (x^3 - x - 1 = 0) has no roots at all, but fictional non-existing roots for sure
BKK
And, the believers of such alleged existing roots are not objecting anymore after so many lectures with numerical rigorous proofs PUBLISHED in my posts

Otherwise, you would certainly find them here in plenty and with true identities names, for sure

BKK
Zelos Malum
2018-01-24 07:41:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) How can you approximate the arithmetical cube root of say (10) without using the decimal notation, (.), in any number system, say simply 10base number system?
2) What ultimately that you must discover about the arithmetical exact cube root of (10) but again without using the decimal notation?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 08th, 2017
Still waiting for me to answer it? wonder!
BKK
More waiting for you to stop being stupid.
I know that stupidity, stubbornness, and dishonesty are well-inherited traits of humans, more especially in big issues and with those alleged top most genius professional mathematicians, where also you don't count at all, and for sure
BKK
You show all of those traits, you are stupid, stubborn and dishonest.
bassam king karzeddin
2018-01-24 07:35:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) How can you approximate the arithmetical cube root of say (10) without using the decimal notation, (.), in any number system, say simply 10base number system?
2) What ultimately that you must discover about the arithmetical exact cube root of (10) but again without using the decimal notation?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 08th, 2017
Now, you certainly got the easiest elementary lesson in your life and in mathematics, so can't you expand your new acquired insight to apply this new and very easy vision to any alleged existing real number that isn't constructible and conclude so easily the deepest fallacy that had lasted for almost thousands of years in mathematics? wonder!

Sure you can and in just a few minutes only, but you must be too...... shyful to talk about it, and you (common professional mathematicians) know secretly the reasons very well, for sure

But truly, no shame at all in learning any new matters at very late age and even in your own scope area, but the true shame to keep so silent and so afraid to confess the truth that can't be hidden by all your spider's thread anymore, for sure
And my true intention was never to insult your intelligence as you mostly think, but to liberate your mind from all fictions that had been imposed on you so devilishly and without your innocent choice, despite people usually like and get so addicted to whatever things that had been well imposed on them

I know that there would be so many victims of so many current and old famous mathematicians from the history, but that is so irrelevant and so meaningless to hide the absolute facts that must be raised above all, for sure

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Jan. 24th, 2017
bassam king karzeddin
2018-02-08 18:50:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) How can you approximate the arithmetical cube root of say (10) without using the decimal notation, (.), in any number system, say simply 10base number system?
2) What ultimately that you must discover about the arithmetical exact cube root of (10) but again without using the decimal notation?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 08th, 2017
DO IT AGAIN, until you master it, sure

BKK
Python
2018-02-08 20:24:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) How can you approximate the arithmetical cube root of say (10) without using the decimal notation,
(.), in any number system, say simply 10base number system?
No decimal notation, no 10 (or other) base system needed, and
no approximation.

Easy: 10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )

This is EXACT Dedekind pair defining 10^(1/3) in term of sets of
rational numbers.

If you want approximation there are many ways. Do you prefer series or
continuous fractions?

Any other question, crank?
bassam king karzeddin
2018-02-10 08:22:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) How can you approximate the arithmetical cube root of say (10) without using the decimal notation,
(.), in any number system, say simply 10base number system?
No decimal notation, no 10 (or other) base system needed, and
no approximation.
Easy: 10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
This is EXACT Dedekind pair defining 10^(1/3) in term of sets of
rational numbers.
If you want approximation there are many ways. Do you prefer series or
continuous fractions?
Any other question, crank?
What a Trolish Fictional Coword Python you are indeed? wonder!

Exact? wonder forever about such an obvious endless stupidity about "all fiction in modern mathematics", for sure

So, the real irrational number 10^{1/3} equals the rational (p/q) in your doomed EXACT Dedekind cuts? wonder!

If Dedekind was still alive, then he would certainly be so regret, sure

So, what are your pairs of (p, q) you are hallucinating about, since here is a numerical example? wonder!

Read clearly my posts real imbecile, for sure

BKK
Python
2018-02-10 12:10:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Easy: 10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
This is EXACT Dedekind pair defining 10^(1/3) in term of sets of
rational numbers.
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Exact? wonder forever about such an obvious endless stupidity about "all fiction in modern mathematics", for sure
So, the real irrational number 10^{1/3} equals the rational (p/q) in your doomed EXACT Dedekind cuts? wonder!
Pay attention, Mr King-of-Fool-of-Himself. It is not one rational p/q,
but a pair of two sets of rational numbers (Dedeking cut). These two
sets are exactly defined above AND this pair of sets IS 10^(1/3)
bassam king karzeddin
2018-02-11 16:56:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Easy: 10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
This is EXACT Dedekind pair defining 10^(1/3) in term of sets of
rational numbers.
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Exact? wonder forever about such an obvious endless stupidity about "all fiction in modern mathematics", for sure
So, the real irrational number 10^{1/3} equals the rational (p/q) in your doomed EXACT Dedekind cuts? wonder!
Pay attention, Mr King-of-Fool-of-Himself. It is not one rational p/q,
but a pair of two sets of rational numbers (Dedeking cut). These two
sets are exactly defined above AND this pair of sets IS 10^(1/3)
So, tell us frankly Python and directly now what is EXACTLY your Dedekind cut for 10^{1/3}? Wonder!

Dare you? wonder!

BKK
Python
2018-02-11 17:00:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Easy: 10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
This is EXACT Dedekind pair defining 10^(1/3) in term of sets of
rational numbers.
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Exact? wonder forever about such an obvious endless stupidity about "all fiction in modern mathematics", for sure
So, the real irrational number 10^{1/3} equals the rational (p/q) in your doomed EXACT Dedekind cuts? wonder!
Pay attention, Mr King-of-Fool-of-Himself. It is not one rational p/q,
but a pair of two sets of rational numbers (Dedeking cut). These two
sets are exactly defined above AND this pair of sets IS 10^(1/3)
So, tell us frankly Python and directly now what is EXACTLY your Dedekind cut for 10^{1/3}? Wonder!
Dare you? wonder!
Mister Karzeddin, pay attention please, it is written right above.

Here it is again:

( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
bassam king karzeddin
2018-02-11 17:44:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Easy: 10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
This is EXACT Dedekind pair defining 10^(1/3) in term of sets of
rational numbers.
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Exact? wonder forever about such an obvious endless stupidity about "all fiction in modern mathematics", for sure
So, the real irrational number 10^{1/3} equals the rational (p/q) in your doomed EXACT Dedekind cuts? wonder!
Pay attention, Mr King-of-Fool-of-Himself. It is not one rational p/q,
but a pair of two sets of rational numbers (Dedeking cut). These two
sets are exactly defined above AND this pair of sets IS 10^(1/3)
So, tell us frankly Python and directly now what is EXACTLY your Dedekind cut for 10^{1/3}? Wonder!
Dare you? wonder!
Mister Karzeddin, pay attention please, it is written right above.
( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
OK, you used to express it numerically like everybody before

Why not this time only? wonder

But I will make it too easy for you, just tell them what it is exactly?

Or fill the digits (say in 10base number system)

10^{1/3} = ?

Myself, I don't know truly!

but please avoid nearly equal sign, since it doesn't belong to pure maths but to carpentry works, for sure

Everybody is waiting you now and urgently

BKK

BKK
Python
2018-02-11 17:50:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Easy: 10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
This is EXACT Dedekind pair defining 10^(1/3) in term of sets of
rational numbers.
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Exact? wonder forever about such an obvious endless stupidity about "all fiction in modern mathematics", for sure
So, the real irrational number 10^{1/3} equals the rational (p/q) in your doomed EXACT Dedekind cuts? wonder!
Pay attention, Mr King-of-Fool-of-Himself. It is not one rational p/q,
but a pair of two sets of rational numbers (Dedeking cut). These two
sets are exactly defined above AND this pair of sets IS 10^(1/3)
So, tell us frankly Python and directly now what is EXACTLY your Dedekind cut for 10^{1/3}? Wonder!
Dare you? wonder!
Mister Karzeddin, pay attention please, it is written right above.
( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
OK, you used to express it numerically like everybody before
Why not this time only? wonder
Not this time only, other and I have answered to your question with
such answers before. EXACT answer, not as digital expansion.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But I will make it too easy for you, just tell them what it is exactly?
You don't know what is a pair? What is a set of rationnal? Well...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Or fill the digits (say in 10base number system)
10^{1/3} = ?
Myself, I don't know truly!
For once you are right in not knowing something, as there is no exact
decimal (finite) expansion. So what? Learn. Here you are again:

10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
Post by bassam king karzeddin
but please avoid nearly equal sign, since it doesn't belong to pure
maths but to carpentry works, for sure
A carpenter not as silly as you are (and more aren't as they are working
properly) can use my answer to state a suitable approximation. They
won't spent hours spitting nonsense on Usenet as you are.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Everybody is waiting you now and urgently
For answering precisely again with the same answer? Go figure...
bassam king karzeddin
2018-02-11 18:06:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Easy: 10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
This is EXACT Dedekind pair defining 10^(1/3) in term of sets of
rational numbers.
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Exact? wonder forever about such an obvious endless stupidity about "all fiction in modern mathematics", for sure
So, the real irrational number 10^{1/3} equals the rational (p/q) in your doomed EXACT Dedekind cuts? wonder!
Pay attention, Mr King-of-Fool-of-Himself. It is not one rational p/q,
but a pair of two sets of rational numbers (Dedeking cut). These two
sets are exactly defined above AND this pair of sets IS 10^(1/3)
So, tell us frankly Python and directly now what is EXACTLY your Dedekind cut for 10^{1/3}? Wonder!
Dare you? wonder!
Mister Karzeddin, pay attention please, it is written right above.
( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
OK, you used to express it numerically like everybody before
Why not this time only? wonder
Not this time only, other and I have answered to your question with
such answers before. EXACT answer, not as digital expansion.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But I will make it too easy for you, just tell them what it is exactly?
You don't know what is a pair? What is a set of rationnal? Well...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Or fill the digits (say in 10base number system)
10^{1/3} = ?
Myself, I don't know truly!
For once you are right in not knowing something, as there is no exact
10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
Post by bassam king karzeddin
but please avoid nearly equal sign, since it doesn't belong to pure
maths but to carpentry works, for sure
A carpenter not as silly as you are (and more aren't as they are working
properly) can use my answer to state a suitable approximation. They
won't spent hours spitting nonsense on Usenet as you are.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Everybody is waiting you now and urgently
For answering precisely again with the same answer? Go figure...
Oops, I figured it out IMMEDIATELY, there are indeed endless pairs of (p, q), where they grew indefinitely forever, but the exact one (we are after) never exists in any imaginable reality since they are ENDLESS, so how to manage with it? WONDER!

Can you suggest a suitable MAGICAL pair of (p, q) that would be EXACT? wonder

BKK
Python
2018-02-11 18:12:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Easy: 10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
This is EXACT Dedekind pair defining 10^(1/3) in term of sets of
rational numbers.
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Exact? wonder forever about such an obvious endless stupidity about "all fiction in modern mathematics", for sure
So, the real irrational number 10^{1/3} equals the rational (p/q) in your doomed EXACT Dedekind cuts? wonder!
Pay attention, Mr King-of-Fool-of-Himself. It is not one rational p/q,
but a pair of two sets of rational numbers (Dedeking cut). These two
sets are exactly defined above AND this pair of sets IS 10^(1/3)
So, tell us frankly Python and directly now what is EXACTLY your Dedekind cut for 10^{1/3}? Wonder!
Dare you? wonder!
Mister Karzeddin, pay attention please, it is written right above.
( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
OK, you used to express it numerically like everybody before
Why not this time only? wonder
Not this time only, other and I have answered to your question with
such answers before. EXACT answer, not as digital expansion.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But I will make it too easy for you, just tell them what it is exactly?
You don't know what is a pair? What is a set of rationnal? Well...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Or fill the digits (say in 10base number system)
10^{1/3} = ?
Myself, I don't know truly!
For once you are right in not knowing something, as there is no exact
10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
Post by bassam king karzeddin
but please avoid nearly equal sign, since it doesn't belong to pure
maths but to carpentry works, for sure
A carpenter not as silly as you are (and more aren't as they are working
properly) can use my answer to state a suitable approximation. They
won't spent hours spitting nonsense on Usenet as you are.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Everybody is waiting you now and urgently
For answering precisely again with the same answer? Go figure...
Oops, I figured it out IMMEDIATELY, there are indeed endless pairs of (p, q),
where they grew indefinitely forever, but the exact one (we are after) never
exists in any imaginable reality since they are ENDLESS, so how to manage with
it? WONDER!
God, you are dense Mr King-of-Silliness. I just did, everything is
EXACTLY defined about these two sets. If you can manage such simple
definition of sets, you're lost for mathematics (you actually are).
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you suggest a suitable MAGICAL pair of (p, q) that would be EXACT?
There is not, this is the whole point of defining numbers which are not
rationals.
John Gabriel
2018-02-11 18:17:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Easy: 10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
This is EXACT Dedekind pair defining 10^(1/3) in term of sets of
rational numbers.
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Exact? wonder forever about such an obvious endless stupidity about "all fiction in modern mathematics", for sure
So, the real irrational number 10^{1/3} equals the rational (p/q) in your doomed EXACT Dedekind cuts? wonder!
Pay attention, Mr King-of-Fool-of-Himself. It is not one rational p/q,
but a pair of two sets of rational numbers (Dedeking cut). These two
sets are exactly defined above AND this pair of sets IS 10^(1/3)
So, tell us frankly Python and directly now what is EXACTLY your Dedekind cut for 10^{1/3}? Wonder!
Dare you? wonder!
Mister Karzeddin, pay attention please, it is written right above.
( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
OK, you used to express it numerically like everybody before
Why not this time only? wonder
Not this time only, other and I have answered to your question with
such answers before. EXACT answer, not as digital expansion.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But I will make it too easy for you, just tell them what it is exactly?
You don't know what is a pair? What is a set of rationnal? Well...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Or fill the digits (say in 10base number system)
10^{1/3} = ?
Myself, I don't know truly!
For once you are right in not knowing something, as there is no exact
10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
Post by bassam king karzeddin
but please avoid nearly equal sign, since it doesn't belong to pure
maths but to carpentry works, for sure
A carpenter not as silly as you are (and more aren't as they are working
properly) can use my answer to state a suitable approximation. They
won't spent hours spitting nonsense on Usenet as you are.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Everybody is waiting you now and urgently
For answering precisely again with the same answer? Go figure...
Oops, I figured it out IMMEDIATELY, there are indeed endless pairs of (p, q),
where they grew indefinitely forever, but the exact one (we are after) never
exists in any imaginable reality since they are ENDLESS, so how to manage with
it? WONDER!
God, you are dense Mr King-of-Silliness. I just did, everything is
EXACTLY defined about these two sets.
Those two sets are meaningless nonsense. There is no such thing as an infinite set. Since you cannot identify _ALL_ of the rational numbers in those sets, they are myth. Chuckle.
Post by Python
If you can manage such simple
definition of sets, you're lost for mathematics (you actually are).
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you suggest a suitable MAGICAL pair of (p, q) that would be EXACT?
There is not, this is the whole point of defining numbers which are not
rationals.
John Gabriel
2018-02-11 18:19:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Easy: 10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
This is EXACT Dedekind pair defining 10^(1/3) in term of sets of
rational numbers.
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Exact? wonder forever about such an obvious endless stupidity about "all fiction in modern mathematics", for sure
So, the real irrational number 10^{1/3} equals the rational (p/q) in your doomed EXACT Dedekind cuts? wonder!
Pay attention, Mr King-of-Fool-of-Himself. It is not one rational p/q,
but a pair of two sets of rational numbers (Dedeking cut). These two
sets are exactly defined above AND this pair of sets IS 10^(1/3)
So, tell us frankly Python and directly now what is EXACTLY your Dedekind cut for 10^{1/3}? Wonder!
Dare you? wonder!
Mister Karzeddin, pay attention please, it is written right above.
( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
OK, you used to express it numerically like everybody before
Why not this time only? wonder
Not this time only, other and I have answered to your question with
such answers before. EXACT answer, not as digital expansion.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But I will make it too easy for you, just tell them what it is exactly?
You don't know what is a pair? What is a set of rationnal? Well...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Or fill the digits (say in 10base number system)
10^{1/3} = ?
Myself, I don't know truly!
For once you are right in not knowing something, as there is no exact
10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
Post by bassam king karzeddin
but please avoid nearly equal sign, since it doesn't belong to pure
maths but to carpentry works, for sure
A carpenter not as silly as you are (and more aren't as they are working
properly) can use my answer to state a suitable approximation. They
won't spent hours spitting nonsense on Usenet as you are.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Everybody is waiting you now and urgently
For answering precisely again with the same answer? Go figure...
Oops, I figured it out IMMEDIATELY, there are indeed endless pairs of (p, q),
where they grew indefinitely forever, but the exact one (we are after) never
exists in any imaginable reality since they are ENDLESS, so how to manage with
it? WONDER!
God, you are dense Mr King-of-Silliness. I just did, everything is
EXACTLY defined about these two sets.
Those two sets are meaningless nonsense. There is no such thing as an infinite set. Since you cannot identify _ALL_ of the rational numbers in those sets, they are myth. Chuckle.
Post by Python
If you can manage such simple
definition of sets, you're lost for mathematics (you actually are).
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you suggest a suitable MAGICAL pair of (p, q) that would be EXACT?
There is not, this is the whole point of defining numbers which are not
rationals.
And even if you could, it would be useless because:

***A number is the measure of a magnitude***

As much as you hate this, it is what the brilliant Ancient Greeks thought.
You moron!
Python
2018-02-11 18:20:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Those two sets are meaningless nonsense. There is no such thing as an infinite set.
Since you cannot identify _ALL_ of the rational numbers in those sets, they are myth.
Mr Gabriel, everybody know that you completely missed the point. There
is no need for you to recall this.
Python
2018-02-11 18:27:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
Those two sets are meaningless nonsense. There is no such thing as an infinite set.
Since you cannot identify _ALL_ of the rational numbers in those sets, they are myth.
Mr Gabriel, everybody know that you completely missed the point. There
is no need for you to recall this.
An interesting point, nevertheless, is this assertion of Mr Gabriel:
"you cannot identify _ALL_ of the rational numbers in those sets"

As a matter of fact I can. If I couldn't, Mr Gabriel would be able to
express at least one rational number which I wouldn't be able to
identify as a member, or not, of either set.
John Gabriel
2018-02-11 18:30:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
Those two sets are meaningless nonsense. There is no such thing as an infinite set.
Since you cannot identify _ALL_ of the rational numbers in those sets, they are myth.
Mr Gabriel, everybody know that you completely missed the point. There
is no need for you to recall this.
"you cannot identify _ALL_ of the rational numbers in those sets"
As a matter of fact I can. If I couldn't, Mr Gabriel would be able to
express at least one rational number which I wouldn't be able to
identify as a member, or not, of either set.
As a matter of fact, you CANNOT you fucking moron. You would have to list ALL the rational numbers. Did you ever understand the least upper bound property? It is the first thing you learn in real analysis you piece of shit!!! LOL
John Gabriel
2018-02-11 18:33:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
Those two sets are meaningless nonsense. There is no such thing as an infinite set.
Since you cannot identify _ALL_ of the rational numbers in those sets, they are myth.
Mr Gabriel, everybody know that you completely missed the point. There
is no need for you to recall this.
"you cannot identify _ALL_ of the rational numbers in those sets"
As a matter of fact I can. If I couldn't, Mr Gabriel would be able to
express at least one rational number which I wouldn't be able to
identify as a member, or not, of either set.
Even if you could hypothetically list ALL of them, it still does not make 10^1/3 a number you moron!! But you can't list ALL of them, so there is nothing else to discuss.
Python
2018-02-11 18:41:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
Those two sets are meaningless nonsense. There is no such thing as an infinite set.
Since you cannot identify _ALL_ of the rational numbers in those sets, they are myth.
Mr Gabriel, everybody know that you completely missed the point. There
is no need for you to recall this.
"you cannot identify _ALL_ of the rational numbers in those sets"
As a matter of fact I can. If I couldn't, Mr Gabriel would be able to
express at least one rational number which I wouldn't be able to
identify as a member, or not, of either set.
Even if you could hypothetically list ALL of them, it still does not make
10^1/3 a number you moron!! But you can't list ALL of them, so there is
nothing else to discuss.
Usual John Gabriel's pathetic silly escape road:

"You cannot identify all of these rational numbers!"

(then he realized that I actually can)

"You cannot list of all them"

(then he realized that I actually can)

"Even if you could, it is still not a number because I said so!"

Dealing with a toddler shitting in his pants... is like arguing with
Mr Gabriel.

Except that the toddler will eventually grow up, while Mr Gabriel
will die miserable, leaving the memory of a Star of Internet Crackpotry.
John Gabriel
2018-02-11 19:40:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
Those two sets are meaningless nonsense. There is no such thing as an
infinite set.
Since you cannot identify _ALL_ of the rational numbers in those sets,
they are myth.
Mr Gabriel, everybody know that you completely missed the point. There
is no need for you to recall this.
"you cannot identify _ALL_ of the rational numbers in those sets"
As a matter of fact I can. If I couldn't, Mr Gabriel would be able to
express at least one rational number which I wouldn't be able to
identify as a member, or not, of either set.
Even if you could hypothetically list ALL of them, it still does not make
10^1/3 a number you moron!! But you can't list ALL of them, so there is
nothing else to discuss.
"You cannot identify all of these rational numbers!"
(then he realized that I actually can)
In your dreams maybe?
Post by Python
"You cannot list of all them"
(then he realized that I actually can)
In your dreams maybe?
Post by Python
"Even if you could, it is still not a number because I said so!"
Liar. At least try to quote me correctly.
Post by Python
Dealing with a toddler shitting in his pants... is like arguing with me.
You got that right!
Post by Python
will die miserable, leaving the memory of a Star of Internet Crackpotry.
You could at least learn to spell you imbecile. What is Crackpotry? Chuckle.
bassam king karzeddin
2018-02-12 07:44:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
Those two sets are meaningless nonsense. There is no such thing as an infinite set.
Since you cannot identify _ALL_ of the rational numbers in those sets, they are myth.
Mr Gabriel, everybody know that you completely missed the point. There
is no need for you to recall this.
Mr. Python, everybody knows now that you are completely missing the point, There is no need for you to recall this nonsense

And never think that we are here to win a very silly discussion, but certainly to save you and get you completely healed from the phobia settled illegally in your mind and with minimum requirements that we mentioned earlier in other topics

Note that from my earlier posts that many many delusioned professionals mostly with masked characters as you are, used to argue with me with full denying about the same similar issues with much more tense cases than you do appear, but slowly slowly and with so much tolerance from me they got completely cured, where then they disappeared completely and without even bothering to apologize or be grateful for someone who indeed taught them a very big lesson in their life and in their profession as well, and most likely many of them would be involved now in writing secretly what did they had learnt from me and maybe from others as well, but they would present it more professionally and officially for publications, as if it was their own rare so peculiar brilliance discoveries, and you would hear that in the near future (if not already happening nowadays) for sure

So, you are not any exceptional case to miss the very clear and so obvious point that truly too elementary to comprehend it completely beyond any little doubt and in few minutes only, unless of course you do indeed realize it now and pretending otherwise for hidden agenda that are out of scope especially that you hide under a fake name as many many others

So, your Dedekind cut (p/q)^3 < 10, implies strictly that you are searching the largest rational cube number that is less than 10, which of course never exists even in your so elementary mathematics, for sure

And this so simple case is too similar to the same elementary question as "what is the largest natural integer" , answer: doesn't exist (FINISHED)

However, many other so elementary proofs were also PUBLISHED, in so many posts of mine, and in other's people references as well

So, this maybe the last chance for you to recover to normality unless you stubbornly don't prefer, then this would be your doomed choice forever

So, get it immediately and help many others to be liberated before it is too late, and make sure that the KING is here to save you and not otherwise, for sure

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Feb. 12th, 2018
Python
2018-02-12 18:55:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, your Dedekind cut (p/q)^3 < 10, implies strictly that you are searching the largest rational
cube number that is less than 10
No. You are lying.

The pair of rational sets DEFINES what the cube root is.

Go back to school, and learn.
John Gabriel
2018-02-12 20:51:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, your Dedekind cut (p/q)^3 < 10, implies strictly that you are searching the largest rational
cube number that is less than 10
No. You are lying.
The pair of rational sets DEFINES what the cube root is.
No. The one who is delusional and a psychopath is YOU. Writing a function to denote the number does not tell us anything about the number.

Moreover, it tells us NOTHING about p/q, only that if we CUBE it, then it will be less than 10. In fact, Bassam is 100% correct that it tells you NOTHING about the cube root. p/q is presumably the cube root or one of the rational number approximations in the lower set. An inequality is of ZERO use in determining what is the number.
Post by Python
Go back to school, and learn.
But how can you know, you are a crank! Every one knows you are a psychopathic troll and a fool.
Python
2018-02-12 21:37:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, your Dedekind cut (p/q)^3 < 10, implies strictly that you are searching the largest rational
cube number that is less than 10
No. You are lying.
The pair of rational sets DEFINES what the cube root is.
No. The one who is delusional and a psychopath is YOU.
Writing a function to denote the number does not tell
us anything about the number.
It is not a function, it a pair of sets. Pay attention, Mr Gabriel.
John Gabriel
2018-02-12 22:56:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, your Dedekind cut (p/q)^3 < 10, implies strictly that you are searching the largest rational
cube number that is less than 10
No. You are lying.
The pair of rational sets DEFINES what the cube root is.
No. The one who is delusional and a psychopath is YOU.
Writing a function to denote the number does not tell
us anything about the number.
It is not a function, it a pair of sets. Pay attention, Mr Gabriel.
It is an inequality (p/q)^3 < 10 which is formed from a function y=x^(1/3).

Learn moron. Learn. I see you have not addressed any of my refutations. Oh, but that's because you can't. Chuckle.
Python
2018-02-12 23:02:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, your Dedekind cut (p/q)^3 < 10, implies strictly that you are searching the largest rational
cube number that is less than 10
No. You are lying.
The pair of rational sets DEFINES what the cube root is.
No. The one who is delusional and a psychopath is YOU.
Writing a function to denote the number does not tell
us anything about the number.
It is not a function, it a pair of sets. Pay attention, Mr Gabriel.
It is an inequality (p/q)^3 < 10 which is formed from a function y=x^(1/3).
Irrelevant, and quite meaningless in the first place. The cut is
a pair of two sets. These sets are exactly defined by the
property of their members. Period.
Post by John Gabriel
Learn moron. Learn. I see you have not addressed any of my refutations
Refutations? This is how you call your arithmetic mistakes, lies and
confusion.
John Gabriel
2018-02-13 01:13:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, your Dedekind cut (p/q)^3 < 10, implies strictly that you are searching the largest rational
cube number that is less than 10
No. You are lying.
The pair of rational sets DEFINES what the cube root is.
No. The one who is delusional and a psychopath is YOU.
Writing a function to denote the number does not tell
us anything about the number.
It is not a function, it a pair of sets. Pay attention, Mr Gabriel.
It is an inequality (p/q)^3 < 10 which is formed from a function y=x^(1/3).
Irrelevant, and quite meaningless in the first place.
Not at all Frenchie. You don't get to decide whether or not it is meaningless. It has much relevance and meaning because it proves that Dedekind Cuts are invalid nonsense.
Post by Python
The cut is a pair of two sets.
No one disputes this, except that such sets are not possible because there is no such thing as an infinite set and more importantly, numbers are not sets, nor can numbers be derived from sets, because set theory is fundamentally flawed.
Post by Python
These sets are exactly defined by the property of their members. Period.
Chuckle. Which of the infinitely many members you moron?!!! Think you imbecile. Try to think for once in your life. The sets are NOT exactly defined by any stretch of the imagination. The sets are defined by inequalities which tell one NOTHING about the "number", only the operation on the number which falls into one of the sets. PERIOD.
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
Learn moron. Learn. I see you have not addressed any of my refutations
Refutations? This is how you call your arithmetic mistakes, lies and
confusion.
So now try to address these refutations and stop making an ass of yourself all the time. Even better, just try to understand first.

When you get on here, your agenda is to push your opinions (which are usually wrong), you don't even try to understand the comments of others. In reality, you have a soldier mentality, not a scout mentality.

Shut up and think for once. Don't blurt out things that you have memorised like a parrot.
John Gabriel
2018-02-12 22:58:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, your Dedekind cut (p/q)^3 < 10, implies strictly that you are searching the largest rational
cube number that is less than 10
No. You are lying.
The pair of rational sets DEFINES what the cube root is.
No. The one who is delusional and a psychopath is YOU. Writing a function to denote the number does not tell us anything about the number.
Moreover, it tells us NOTHING about p/q, only that if we CUBE it, then it will be less than 10. In fact, Bassam is 100% correct that it tells you NOTHING about the cube root. p/q is presumably the cube root or one of the rational number approximations in the lower set. An inequality is of ZERO use in determining what is the number.
Post by Python
Go back to school, and learn.
But how can you know, you are a crank! Every one knows you are a psychopathic troll and a fool.
Python
2018-02-12 23:10:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by John Gabriel
Moreover, it tells us NOTHING about p/q, only that if we CUBE it,
then it will be less than 10.
It says far more than that. It is precise enough to transfer all
basic operation from Q to R, to compare values, to get rational
approximation at any precision, to define functions, derivative,
integrals properly. Not bad, one should say. While your wacky
stupid self-incoherent "new calculus" is not even able to get
the derivative of a linear function or at an inflection point.

The guy who failed in writing properly 1/3 + 0.01 as a fraction,
I mean you, Mr Gabriel, is not really in a good position to
have a opinion on Dedekind cuts...
John Gabriel
2018-02-13 01:18:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
Post by John Gabriel
Moreover, it tells us NOTHING about p/q, only that if we CUBE it,
then it will be less than 10.
It says far more than that.
Bullshit. That's all it says.
Post by Python
It is precise enough to transfer all basic operation from Q to R,
Huh? You don't have R yet you moron!!!! That is the reason you try to validate D. Cuts.
Post by Python
to compare values, to get rational
approximation at any precision, to define functions, derivative,
integrals properly.
Idiot. Just parroting crap you've memorised again and you don't understand any of it.
Post by Python
Not bad, one should say. While your wacky
stupid self-incoherent "new calculus" is not even able to get
the derivative of a linear function or at an inflection point.
Liar. The New Calculus is the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus.
Post by Python
The guy who failed in writing properly 1/3 + 0.01 as a fraction,
I wrote it perfectly you vile creep. You made a mistake and still have not admitted your mistake you piece of shit.
Post by Python
I mean you, Mr Gabriel, is not really in a good position to
have a opinion on Dedekind cuts...
That doesn't make you look smart. It just shows that you are insecure and don't know what you are talking about. Assertions are a dime a dozen. You can just hold onto them or shove them up your arse. No one cares about your opinion.
bassam king karzeddin
2018-02-13 07:41:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
Those two sets are meaningless nonsense. There is no such thing as an infinite set.
Since you cannot identify _ALL_ of the rational numbers in those sets, they are myth.
Mr Gabriel, everybody know that you completely missed the point. There
is no need for you to recall this.
Mr. Python, everybody knows now that you are completely missing the point, There is no need for you to recall this nonsense
And never think that we are here to win a very silly discussion, but certainly to save you and get you completely healed from the phobia settled illegally in your mind and with minimum requirements that we mentioned earlier in other topics
Note that from my earlier posts that many many delusioned professionals mostly with masked characters as you are, used to argue with me with full denying about the same similar issues with much more tense cases than you do appear, but slowly slowly and with so much tolerance from me they got completely cured, where then they disappeared completely and without even bothering to apologize or be grateful for someone who indeed taught them a very big lesson in their life and in their profession as well, and most likely many of them would be involved now in writing secretly what did they had learnt from me and maybe from others as well, but they would present it more professionally and officially for publications, as if it was their own rare so peculiar brilliance discoveries, and you would hear that in the near future (if not already happening nowadays) for sure
So, you are not any exceptional case to miss the very clear and so obvious point that truly too elementary to comprehend it completely beyond any little doubt and in few minutes only, unless of course you do indeed realize it now and pretending otherwise for hidden agenda that are out of scope especially that you hide under a fake name as many many others
So, your Dedekind cut (p/q)^3 < 10, implies strictly that you are searching the largest rational cube number that is less than 10, which of course never exists even in your so elementary mathematics, for sure
And this so simple case is too similar to the same elementary question as "what is the largest natural integer" , answer: doesn't exist (FINISHED)
However, many other so elementary proofs were also PUBLISHED, in so many posts of mine, and in other's people references as well
So, this maybe the last chance for you to recover to normality unless you stubbornly don't prefer, then this would be your doomed choice forever
So, get it immediately and help many others to be liberated before it is too late, and make sure that the KING is here to save you and not otherwise, for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Feb. 12th, 2018
?No. You are lying.
The pair of rational sets DEFINES what the cube root is.
Go back to school, and learn.
*********************
Don't plugh yourself again and again, can't you do it with numerical example? wonder!

I know that you are supporting your wrong beliefs with that alleged well-established knowledge and mainstream academic bileafs as well, but all that wouldn't count against the absolute fact that a little school kid can comprehend if not spoiled by those many well-established fictions in mathematics

Tell me please, whether this perpetual INEQUALITY isn't so clear for you yet, wonder!
The INEQUALITY of Dedekind : (p/q)^3 < 10, hence, (p/q)^3 =/= 10

So, what that shameful infamous cut implies that you can go forever in approximating the arithmetic cube root of 10, but since the approximation process are endless, then you must conclude immediately that you are searching aimlessly and hopelessly for something exist only in your mind as a real number, where as the fact that no such number exists in any imaginable reality, and what do you have in hand always a rational number and never that irrational number decided strictly and wrongly in mind

but you would never attain absolute equality, it is indeed too elementary in number theory for such unsolvable Diophantine Equation (p^3 = 10q^3), where (p, q) are the whole positive integers

We know also that wasn't at all your fault basically, but too old fabricated
fake mathematics, where we are exposing globally now

Note also, that alleged real number was proven impossible construction (to be legalized as a real existing number as with case sqrt(13) for instance),

And similar to the cube root of two (Ref. the famous impossible construction problem of doubling the cube raised by the ancient Greeks), where the proverbs themselves didn't understand yet the actual truly reason behind such an impossibility of non-existence of such numbers, which gave rise to so many other alleged and well established methods of fake constructions, and mind deceiving methods of constructing such impossibilities, as (marked ruler, Origami, paper folding, carpenter's square, ...etc, etc)

But all fictions in mathematics are almost exposed, for sure

So, don't miss the chance and see it clearly and numerically before your big eyes and mind as well

You ought to apologize OPENLY for JG also, for sure

BKK
Chris M. Thomasson
2018-02-13 07:58:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
Those two sets are meaningless nonsense. There is no such thing as an infinite set.
Since you cannot identify _ALL_ of the rational numbers in those sets, they are myth.
Mr Gabriel, everybody know that you completely missed the point. There
is no need for you to recall this.
Mr. Python, everybody knows now that you are completely missing the point, There is no need for you to recall this nonsense
And never think that we are here to win a very silly discussion, but certainly to save you and get you completely healed from the phobia settled illegally in your mind and with minimum requirements that we mentioned earlier in other topics
Note that from my earlier posts that many many delusioned professionals mostly with masked characters as you are, used to argue with me with full denying about the same similar issues with much more tense cases than you do appear, but slowly slowly and with so much tolerance from me they got completely cured, where then they disappeared completely and without even bothering to apologize or be grateful for someone who indeed taught them a very big lesson in their life and in their profession as well, and most likely many of them would be involved now in writing secretly what did they had learnt from me and maybe from others as well, but they would present it more professionally and officially for publications, as if it was their own rare so peculiar brilliance discoveries, and you would hear that in the near future (if not already happening nowadays) for sure
So, you are not any exceptional case to miss the very clear and so obvious point that truly too elementary to comprehend it completely beyond any little doubt and in few minutes only, unless of course you do indeed realize it now and pretending otherwise for hidden agenda that are out of scope especially that you hide under a fake name as many many others
So, your Dedekind cut (p/q)^3 < 10, implies strictly that you are searching the largest rational cube number that is less than 10, which of course never exists even in your so elementary mathematics, for sure
And this so simple case is too similar to the same elementary question as "what is the largest natural integer" , answer: doesn't exist (FINISHED)
However, many other so elementary proofs were also PUBLISHED, in so many posts of mine, and in other's people references as well
So, this maybe the last chance for you to recover to normality unless you stubbornly don't prefer, then this would be your doomed choice forever
So, get it immediately and help many others to be liberated before it is too late, and make sure that the KING is here to save you and not otherwise, for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Feb. 12th, 2018
?No. You are lying.
The pair of rational sets DEFINES what the cube root is.
Go back to school, and learn.
*********************
Don't plugh yourself again and again, can't you do it with numerical example? wonder!
I know that you are supporting your wrong beliefs with that alleged well-established knowledge and mainstream academic bileafs as well, but all that wouldn't count against the absolute fact that a little school kid can comprehend if not spoiled by those many well-established fictions in mathematics
Tell me please, whether this perpetual INEQUALITY isn't so clear for you yet, wonder!
The INEQUALITY of Dedekind : (p/q)^3 < 10, hence, (p/q)^3 =/= 10
So, what that shameful infamous cut implies that you can go forever in approximating the arithmetic cube root of 10, but since the approximation process are endless, then you must conclude immediately that you are searching aimlessly and hopelessly for something exist only in your mind as a real number, where as the fact that no such number exists in any imaginable reality, and what do you have in hand always a rational number and never that irrational number decided strictly and wrongly in mind
but you would never attain absolute equality, it is indeed too elementary in number theory for such unsolvable Diophantine Equation (p^3 = 10q^3), where (p, q) are the whole positive integers
We know also that wasn't at all your fault basically, but too old fabricated
fake mathematics, where we are exposing globally now
Note also, that alleged real number was proven impossible construction (to be legalized as a real existing number as with case sqrt(13) for instance),
And similar to the cube root of two (Ref. the famous impossible construction problem of doubling the cube raised by the ancient Greeks), where the proverbs themselves didn't understand yet the actual truly reason behind such an impossibility of non-existence of such numbers, which gave rise to so many other alleged and well established methods of fake constructions, and mind deceiving methods of constructing such impossibilities, as (marked ruler, Origami, paper folding, carpenter's square, ...etc, etc)
But all fictions in mathematics are almost exposed, for sure
So, don't miss the chance and see it clearly and numerically before your big eyes and mind as well
You ought to apologize OPENLY for JG also, for sure
BKK
Sometimes I wonder if BKK is JG?
bassam king karzeddin
2018-02-13 08:27:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
Those two sets are meaningless nonsense. There is no such thing as an infinite set.
Since you cannot identify _ALL_ of the rational numbers in those sets, they are myth.
Mr Gabriel, everybody know that you completely missed the point. There
is no need for you to recall this.
Mr. Python, everybody knows now that you are completely missing the point, There is no need for you to recall this nonsense
And never think that we are here to win a very silly discussion, but certainly to save you and get you completely healed from the phobia settled illegally in your mind and with minimum requirements that we mentioned earlier in other topics
Note that from my earlier posts that many many delusioned professionals mostly with masked characters as you are, used to argue with me with full denying about the same similar issues with much more tense cases than you do appear, but slowly slowly and with so much tolerance from me they got completely cured, where then they disappeared completely and without even bothering to apologize or be grateful for someone who indeed taught them a very big lesson in their life and in their profession as well, and most likely many of them would be involved now in writing secretly what did they had learnt from me and maybe from others as well, but they would present it more professionally and officially for publications, as if it was their own rare so peculiar brilliance discoveries, and you would hear that in the near future (if not already happening nowadays) for sure
So, you are not any exceptional case to miss the very clear and so obvious point that truly too elementary to comprehend it completely beyond any little doubt and in few minutes only, unless of course you do indeed realize it now and pretending otherwise for hidden agenda that are out of scope especially that you hide under a fake name as many many others
So, your Dedekind cut (p/q)^3 < 10, implies strictly that you are searching the largest rational cube number that is less than 10, which of course never exists even in your so elementary mathematics, for sure
And this so simple case is too similar to the same elementary question as "what is the largest natural integer" , answer: doesn't exist (FINISHED)
However, many other so elementary proofs were also PUBLISHED, in so many posts of mine, and in other's people references as well
So, this maybe the last chance for you to recover to normality unless you stubbornly don't prefer, then this would be your doomed choice forever
So, get it immediately and help many others to be liberated before it is too late, and make sure that the KING is here to save you and not otherwise, for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Feb. 12th, 2018
?No. You are lying.
The pair of rational sets DEFINES what the cube root is.
Go back to school, and learn.
*********************
Don't plugh yourself again and again, can't you do it with numerical example? wonder!
I know that you are supporting your wrong beliefs with that alleged well-established knowledge and mainstream academic bileafs as well, but all that wouldn't count against the absolute fact that a little school kid can comprehend if not spoiled by those many well-established fictions in mathematics
Tell me please, whether this perpetual INEQUALITY isn't so clear for you yet, wonder!
The INEQUALITY of Dedekind : (p/q)^3 < 10, hence, (p/q)^3 =/= 10
So, what that shameful infamous cut implies that you can go forever in approximating the arithmetic cube root of 10, but since the approximation process are endless, then you must conclude immediately that you are searching aimlessly and hopelessly for something exist only in your mind as a real number, where as the fact that no such number exists in any imaginable reality, and what do you have in hand always a rational number and never that irrational number decided strictly and wrongly in mind
but you would never attain absolute equality, it is indeed too elementary in number theory for such unsolvable Diophantine Equation (p^3 = 10q^3), where (p, q) are the whole positive integers
We know also that wasn't at all your fault basically, but too old fabricated
fake mathematics, where we are exposing globally now
Note also, that alleged real number was proven impossible construction (to be legalized as a real existing number as with case sqrt(13) for instance),
And similar to the cube root of two (Ref. the famous impossible construction problem of doubling the cube raised by the ancient Greeks), where the proverbs themselves didn't understand yet the actual truly reason behind such an impossibility of non-existence of such numbers, which gave rise to so many other alleged and well established methods of fake constructions, and mind deceiving methods of constructing such impossibilities, as (marked ruler, Origami, paper folding, carpenter's square, ...etc, etc)
But all fictions in mathematics are almost exposed, for sure
So, don't miss the chance and see it clearly and numerically before your big eyes and mind as well
You ought to apologize OPENLY for JG also, for sure
BKK
Sometimes I wonder if BKK is JG?
No, we are different persons, despite many common facts that we had realized so independently that contradicts strictly the old mainstream mathematicians beliefs, but also not all the facts are in common, for sure

BKK
John Gabriel
2018-02-13 16:32:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
Those two sets are meaningless nonsense. There is no such thing as an infinite set.
Since you cannot identify _ALL_ of the rational numbers in those sets, they are myth.
Mr Gabriel, everybody know that you completely missed the point. There
is no need for you to recall this.
Mr. Python, everybody knows now that you are completely missing the point, There is no need for you to recall this nonsense
And never think that we are here to win a very silly discussion, but certainly to save you and get you completely healed from the phobia settled illegally in your mind and with minimum requirements that we mentioned earlier in other topics
Note that from my earlier posts that many many delusioned professionals mostly with masked characters as you are, used to argue with me with full denying about the same similar issues with much more tense cases than you do appear, but slowly slowly and with so much tolerance from me they got completely cured, where then they disappeared completely and without even bothering to apologize or be grateful for someone who indeed taught them a very big lesson in their life and in their profession as well, and most likely many of them would be involved now in writing secretly what did they had learnt from me and maybe from others as well, but they would present it more professionally and officially for publications, as if it was their own rare so peculiar brilliance discoveries, and you would hear that in the near future (if not already happening nowadays) for sure
So, you are not any exceptional case to miss the very clear and so obvious point that truly too elementary to comprehend it completely beyond any little doubt and in few minutes only, unless of course you do indeed realize it now and pretending otherwise for hidden agenda that are out of scope especially that you hide under a fake name as many many others
So, your Dedekind cut (p/q)^3 < 10, implies strictly that you are searching the largest rational cube number that is less than 10, which of course never exists even in your so elementary mathematics, for sure
And this so simple case is too similar to the same elementary question as "what is the largest natural integer" , answer: doesn't exist (FINISHED)
However, many other so elementary proofs were also PUBLISHED, in so many posts of mine, and in other's people references as well
So, this maybe the last chance for you to recover to normality unless you stubbornly don't prefer, then this would be your doomed choice forever
So, get it immediately and help many others to be liberated before it is too late, and make sure that the KING is here to save you and not otherwise, for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Feb. 12th, 2018
?No. You are lying.
The pair of rational sets DEFINES what the cube root is.
Go back to school, and learn.
*********************
Don't plugh yourself again and again, can't you do it with numerical example? wonder!
I know that you are supporting your wrong beliefs with that alleged well-established knowledge and mainstream academic bileafs as well, but all that wouldn't count against the absolute fact that a little school kid can comprehend if not spoiled by those many well-established fictions in mathematics
Tell me please, whether this perpetual INEQUALITY isn't so clear for you yet, wonder!
The INEQUALITY of Dedekind : (p/q)^3 < 10, hence, (p/q)^3 =/= 10
So, what that shameful infamous cut implies that you can go forever in approximating the arithmetic cube root of 10, but since the approximation process are endless, then you must conclude immediately that you are searching aimlessly and hopelessly for something exist only in your mind as a real number, where as the fact that no such number exists in any imaginable reality, and what do you have in hand always a rational number and never that irrational number decided strictly and wrongly in mind
but you would never attain absolute equality, it is indeed too elementary in number theory for such unsolvable Diophantine Equation (p^3 = 10q^3), where (p, q) are the whole positive integers
We know also that wasn't at all your fault basically, but too old fabricated
fake mathematics, where we are exposing globally now
Note also, that alleged real number was proven impossible construction (to be legalized as a real existing number as with case sqrt(13) for instance),
And similar to the cube root of two (Ref. the famous impossible construction problem of doubling the cube raised by the ancient Greeks), where the proverbs themselves didn't understand yet the actual truly reason behind such an impossibility of non-existence of such numbers, which gave rise to so many other alleged and well established methods of fake constructions, and mind deceiving methods of constructing such impossibilities, as (marked ruler, Origami, paper folding, carpenter's square, ...etc, etc)
But all fictions in mathematics are almost exposed, for sure
So, don't miss the chance and see it clearly and numerically before your big eyes and mind as well
You ought to apologize OPENLY for JG also, for sure
BKK
Sometimes I wonder if BKK is JG?
Just goes to show what an ignorant moron you are. Even the dullest of the dull can see a vast difference in the way we write. I write better than someone whose home language is English, whilst BK's home language is not English but Arabic, which by the way, a retard like you wouldn't have the brain capacity to learn.
John Gabriel
2018-02-13 16:39:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
Those two sets are meaningless nonsense. There is no such thing as an infinite set.
Since you cannot identify _ALL_ of the rational numbers in those sets, they are myth.
Mr Gabriel, everybody know that you completely missed the point. There
is no need for you to recall this.
Mr. Python, everybody knows now that you are completely missing the point, There is no need for you to recall this nonsense
And never think that we are here to win a very silly discussion, but certainly to save you and get you completely healed from the phobia settled illegally in your mind and with minimum requirements that we mentioned earlier in other topics
Note that from my earlier posts that many many delusioned professionals mostly with masked characters as you are, used to argue with me with full denying about the same similar issues with much more tense cases than you do appear, but slowly slowly and with so much tolerance from me they got completely cured, where then they disappeared completely and without even bothering to apologize or be grateful for someone who indeed taught them a very big lesson in their life and in their profession as well, and most likely many of them would be involved now in writing secretly what did they had learnt from me and maybe from others as well, but they would present it more professionally and officially for publications, as if it was their own rare so peculiar brilliance discoveries, and you would hear that in the near future (if not already happening nowadays) for sure
So, you are not any exceptional case to miss the very clear and so obvious point that truly too elementary to comprehend it completely beyond any little doubt and in few minutes only, unless of course you do indeed realize it now and pretending otherwise for hidden agenda that are out of scope especially that you hide under a fake name as many many others
So, your Dedekind cut (p/q)^3 < 10, implies strictly that you are searching the largest rational cube number that is less than 10, which of course never exists even in your so elementary mathematics, for sure
That's the hilarious part about D. Cuts - they say a lot of nothing about the cut itself, which is purportedly some "real" number.

It's like the claim that a straight line function has a derivative.

f(x) = kx + c

f'(x) = lim {h -> 0} kh / h

As h -> 0, it must follow that 1 = 0/0. But nothing is changing anywhere. h is not even relevant in the case of the straight line because every straight line has a slope which is only called a derivative if that line is tangent to another non-linear function.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And this so simple case is too similar to the same elementary question as "what is the largest natural integer" , answer: doesn't exist (FINISHED)
However, many other so elementary proofs were also PUBLISHED, in so many posts of mine, and in other's people references as well
So, this maybe the last chance for you to recover to normality unless you stubbornly don't prefer, then this would be your doomed choice forever
So, get it immediately and help many others to be liberated before it is too late, and make sure that the KING is here to save you and not otherwise, for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Feb. 12th, 2018
?No. You are lying.
The pair of rational sets DEFINES what the cube root is.
Go back to school, and learn.
*********************
Don't plugh yourself again and again, can't you do it with numerical example? wonder!
I know that you are supporting your wrong beliefs with that alleged well-established knowledge and mainstream academic bileafs as well, but all that wouldn't count against the absolute fact that a little school kid can comprehend if not spoiled by those many well-established fictions in mathematics
Tell me please, whether this perpetual INEQUALITY isn't so clear for you yet, wonder!
The INEQUALITY of Dedekind : (p/q)^3 < 10, hence, (p/q)^3 =/= 10
So, what that shameful infamous cut implies that you can go forever in approximating the arithmetic cube root of 10, but since the approximation process are endless, then you must conclude immediately that you are searching aimlessly and hopelessly for something exist only in your mind as a real number, where as the fact that no such number exists in any imaginable reality, and what do you have in hand always a rational number and never that irrational number decided strictly and wrongly in mind
but you would never attain absolute equality, it is indeed too elementary in number theory for such unsolvable Diophantine Equation (p^3 = 10q^3), where (p, q) are the whole positive integers
We know also that wasn't at all your fault basically, but too old fabricated
fake mathematics, where we are exposing globally now
Note also, that alleged real number was proven impossible construction (to be legalized as a real existing number as with case sqrt(13) for instance),
And similar to the cube root of two (Ref. the famous impossible construction problem of doubling the cube raised by the ancient Greeks), where the proverbs themselves didn't understand yet the actual truly reason behind such an impossibility of non-existence of such numbers, which gave rise to so many other alleged and well established methods of fake constructions, and mind deceiving methods of constructing such impossibilities, as (marked ruler, Origami, paper folding, carpenter's square, ...etc, etc)
But all fictions in mathematics are almost exposed, for sure
So, don't miss the chance and see it clearly and numerically before your big eyes and mind as well
You ought to apologize OPENLY for JG also, for sure
BKK
Python
2018-02-13 17:12:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Tell me please, whether this perpetual INEQUALITY isn't so clear for you yet, wonder!
The INEQUALITY of Dedekind : (p/q)^3 < 10, hence, (p/q)^3 =/= 10
You are dense Mr King-of-idiots. Please pay attention, the
cube root of 10 is defined as the Dedekind cut, that is
a PAIR of SETS of rational numbers:

( { p/q : (p/q)^3 < 10 } , { p/q : (p/q)^3 >! 10 } )

See the form: ( { ... } , { ... } )

Which is NOT the same thing as a SINGLE given rational p/q.

You (BKK, JG) are so blatantly lying and unable to let a single
idea enter your skulls...
bassam king karzeddin
2018-02-13 17:29:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Tell me please, whether this perpetual INEQUALITY isn't so clear for you yet, wonder!
The INEQUALITY of Dedekind : (p/q)^3 < 10, hence, (p/q)^3 =/= 10
You are dense Mr King-of-idiots. Please pay attention, the
cube root of 10 is defined as the Dedekind cut, that is
( { p/q : (p/q)^3 < 10 } , { p/q : (p/q)^3 >! 10 } )
See the form: ( { ... } , { ... } )
Which is NOT the same thing as a SINGLE given rational p/q.
You (BKK, JG) are so blatantly lying and unable to let a single
idea enter your skulls...
Oops, I thought you came back for announcing apology, but it seems that you are so difficult case to be cured like so many others, who are certainly laughing at you now, wonder!

So, please take the full topic with all written argument as it is, and consult a doctor specialist and come back again here with your doctor please

You see also no doctor in mathematics around the world dares to help you openly here in the presence of me and JG, and you must CONCLUDE it alone, why such abnormal situation, where no body else can help you to recover except us, for sure

So, still you have the last chance to understand it clearly and apologize to us, if you are really a victim of rusted old education

And I hope you succeed and cross this devilish mind barriers, for sure

BKK
John Gabriel
2018-02-13 18:42:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Tell me please, whether this perpetual INEQUALITY isn't so clear for you yet, wonder!
The INEQUALITY of Dedekind : (p/q)^3 < 10, hence, (p/q)^3 =/= 10
You are dense Mr King-of-idiots. Please pay attention, the
cube root of 10 is defined as the Dedekind cut, that is
( { p/q : (p/q)^3 < 10 } , { p/q : (p/q)^3 >! 10 } )
See the form: ( { ... } , { ... } )
Which is NOT the same thing as a SINGLE given rational p/q.
Clearly BK did not claim it is a single given rational number p/q. This is why it is important for you to learn how to read properly. I recommend reading more than once to improve your comprehension.

The sets do not tell one anything about the imaginary cut which I have proved is an ill-formed concept:

http://youtu.be/LSWIFXP2r14

Using your very own crap machinery (real analysis), I proved that a D. Cut is an illusion. Watch the video several times to understand.
Post by Python
You (BKK, JG) are so blatantly lying and unable to let a single
idea enter your skulls...
John Gabriel
2018-02-13 18:48:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Tell me please, whether this perpetual INEQUALITY isn't so clear for you yet, wonder!
The INEQUALITY of Dedekind : (p/q)^3 < 10, hence, (p/q)^3 =/= 10
You are dense Mr King-of-idiots. Please pay attention, the
cube root of 10 is defined as the Dedekind cut, that is
( { p/q : (p/q)^3 < 10 } , { p/q : (p/q)^3 >! 10 } )
See the form: ( { ... } , { ... } )
Which is NOT the same thing as a SINGLE given rational p/q.
You (BKK, JG) are so blatantly lying and unable to let a single
idea enter your skulls...
You have yet to show me at what point or after which rational number, the cuts for 10^(1/3) and 10^(1/3 + 0.01) differ. Chuckle.
Python
2018-02-14 00:37:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Tell me please, whether this perpetual INEQUALITY isn't so clear for you yet, wonder!
The INEQUALITY of Dedekind : (p/q)^3 < 10, hence, (p/q)^3 =/= 10
You are dense Mr King-of-idiots. Please pay attention, the
cube root of 10 is defined as the Dedekind cut, that is
( { p/q : (p/q)^3 < 10 } , { p/q : (p/q)^3 >! 10 } )
See the form: ( { ... } , { ... } )
Which is NOT the same thing as a SINGLE given rational p/q.
You (BKK, JG) are so blatantly lying and unable to let a single
idea enter your skulls...
You have yet to show me at what point or after which rational number, the cuts
for 10^(1/3) and 10^(1/3 + 0.01) differ. Chuckle.
10^(1/3) = ( { p/q : (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q : (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
= ( L1, R1)

10^(1/3+0.01) = 10^(103/300) =
( { p/q : (p/q)^103 < 10^300 } , { p/q : (p/q)^103 >= 10^300 } )
= ( L2, R2 )

r = 217/100

r is in R1 ( because 217^3 = 10218313 >= 10000000 = 10*100^3)
and r in not in L1

r is not in R2 ( because 277^103 =
4522229371789031073358595682408010137590206868732569997646222512322799489139163147144216525859319743916930836423703535485074207252517033214699778679065738607724732383007587514195597600746944981616396571578086547526351566218057227439621302313
< 100*10^300 )
and r is in L2

the the pairs (covering Q) ( L1,R1 ) and ( L2,R2 ) are different
(sets L1 and L2 are different, set R1 and R2 are different)

Another question, Mr Gabriel?

John Gabriel
2018-02-11 18:29:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Easy: 10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
This is EXACT Dedekind pair defining 10^(1/3) in term of sets of
rational numbers.
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Exact? wonder forever about such an obvious endless stupidity about "all fiction in modern mathematics", for sure
So, the real irrational number 10^{1/3} equals the rational (p/q) in your doomed EXACT Dedekind cuts? wonder!
Pay attention, Mr King-of-Fool-of-Himself. It is not one rational p/q,
but a pair of two sets of rational numbers (Dedeking cut). These two
sets are exactly defined above AND this pair of sets IS 10^(1/3)
So, tell us frankly Python and directly now what is EXACTLY your Dedekind cut for 10^{1/3}? Wonder!
Dare you? wonder!
Mister Karzeddin, pay attention please, it is written right above.
( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
OK, you used to express it numerically like everybody before
Why not this time only? wonder
Not this time only, other and I have answered to your question with
such answers before. EXACT answer, not as digital expansion.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But I will make it too easy for you, just tell them what it is exactly?
You don't know what is a pair? What is a set of rationnal? Well...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Or fill the digits (say in 10base number system)
10^{1/3} = ?
Myself, I don't know truly!
For once you are right in not knowing something, as there is no exact
10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
Post by bassam king karzeddin
but please avoid nearly equal sign, since it doesn't belong to pure
maths but to carpentry works, for sure
A carpenter not as silly as you are (and more aren't as they are working
properly) can use my answer to state a suitable approximation. They
won't spent hours spitting nonsense on Usenet as you are.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Everybody is waiting you now and urgently
For answering precisely again with the same answer? Go figure...
Oops, I figured it out IMMEDIATELY, there are indeed endless pairs of (p, q), where they grew indefinitely forever, but the exact one (we are after) never exists in any imaginable reality since they are ENDLESS, so how to manage with it? WONDER!
Can you suggest a suitable MAGICAL pair of (p, q) that would be EXACT? wonder
BKK
If you ask Mr. Penis Messager what is the Dedekind Cut for 10^(1/3 + 0.01), he will give you:

10^(1/3+0.01) = ( { r, r^(103/300) < 10 }, { r, r^(103/100) >= 10 } )

Then ask him how to differentiate between the two cuts

10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )

10^(1/3+0.01) = ( { r, r^(103/300) < 10 }, { r, r^(103/100) >= 10 } )

Their sets are almost equal and there is only a very small set including the both the magnitudes which is different. He won't be able to tell you where the lower set ends in relation to the other set. Again, it will only be specified as
r^(1/3) < 10 which really means nothing.

The tiny set is (10^1/3, 10^103/300). That is where the sets overlap. Chuckle.

Dedekind was a fucking moron just like his disciple merde Penis Messager.
John Gabriel
2018-02-11 18:14:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Easy: 10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
This is EXACT Dedekind pair defining 10^(1/3) in term of sets of
rational numbers.
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Exact? wonder forever about such an obvious endless stupidity about "all fiction in modern mathematics", for sure
So, the real irrational number 10^{1/3} equals the rational (p/q) in your doomed EXACT Dedekind cuts? wonder!
Pay attention, Mr King-of-Fool-of-Himself. It is not one rational p/q,
but a pair of two sets of rational numbers (Dedeking cut). These two
sets are exactly defined above AND this pair of sets IS 10^(1/3)
So, tell us frankly Python and directly now what is EXACTLY your Dedekind cut for 10^{1/3}? Wonder!
Dare you? wonder!
Mister Karzeddin, pay attention please, it is written right above.
( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
OK, you used to express it numerically like everybody before
Why not this time only? wonder
But I will make it too easy for you, just tell them what it is exactly?
Or fill the digits (say in 10base number system)
10^{1/3} = ?
Ha, ha. The fucking idiot doesn't have a clue what it means to be a number.

Penis Messager might say 2.1544... Chuckle.

You won't get very far with this type. It is a stupid, arrogant French piece of shit. When he smells his arse, he thinks it is snails with garlic.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Myself, I don't know truly!
but please avoid nearly equal sign, since it doesn't belong to pure maths but to carpentry works, for sure
Everybody is waiting you now and urgently
BKK
BKK
John Gabriel
2018-02-11 18:11:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
Easy: 10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
This is EXACT Dedekind pair defining 10^(1/3) in term of sets of
rational numbers.
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Exact? wonder forever about such an obvious endless stupidity about "all fiction in modern mathematics", for sure
So, the real irrational number 10^{1/3} equals the rational (p/q) in your doomed EXACT Dedekind cuts? wonder!
Pay attention, Mr King-of-Fool-of-Himself. It is not one rational p/q,
but a pair of two sets of rational numbers (Dedeking cut). These two
sets are exactly defined above AND this pair of sets IS 10^(1/3)
So, tell us frankly Python and directly now what is EXACTLY your Dedekind cut for 10^{1/3}? Wonder!
Dare you? wonder!
BKK
I am laughing my arse off at the delusional nutcase Messager:

10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )

That is clearly wrong! But even if I correct it, it still does not represent 10^(1/3). Chuckle.
John Gabriel
2018-02-11 18:34:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) How can you approximate the arithmetical cube root of say (10) without using the decimal notation, (.), in any number system, say simply 10base number system?
2) What ultimately that you must discover about the arithmetical exact cube root of (10) but again without using the decimal notation?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 08th, 2017
No valid construction of "real numbers" for absolute morons:


bassam king karzeddin
2018-02-11 19:09:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) How can you approximate the arithmetical cube root of say (10) without using the decimal notation, (.), in any number system, say simply 10base number system?
2) What ultimately that you must discover about the arithmetical exact cube root of (10) but again without using the decimal notation?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 08th, 2017
http://youtu.be/LSWIFXP2r14
It seems that no matter whatever huge work you did for them to accept it clearly that a cube root of a non-cube rational number is not actually any existing real number but a merely mind illusion, despite the practical needs for little works that can be satisfied by little approximation generally in rational numbers

Also, same applies for me since many years by so elementary proofs based basically on number theory (but all in my posts only)

So, the issue is that because they need a cube root of a number then it must be considered as a unique number even illegally, same old story of deceptive (Pi) itself

And the issue now isn't the lack of intelligence, since they had seen many elementary proofs from you, from me, from others, ...etc

The issue is purely physiological, how can few others mistaking them in their peculiar and rare understanding, and later became a kind of stubbornness that grows stronger by the time, exactly the way that was happening in old centuries, since people are the same inhabitants of those old centuries

They indeed now understand it fully, but they keep pretending and denying, especially if they put up that mask where they can avoid apparently to be shamed despite they are actually shamed with it forever

So, the main issue is that contradicting the mainstream old wrong beliefs about the true meaning of existing real numbers, where this applies to highest authorities in mathematics, a real tragedy indeed, but it will take its limited time of this fast world, for sure

BKK
John Gabriel
2018-02-11 19:37:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by John Gabriel
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) How can you approximate the arithmetical cube root of say (10) without using the decimal notation, (.), in any number system, say simply 10base number system?
2) What ultimately that you must discover about the arithmetical exact cube root of (10) but again without using the decimal notation?
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 08th, 2017
http://youtu.be/LSWIFXP2r14
It seems that no matter whatever huge work you did for them to accept it clearly that a cube root of a non-cube rational number is not actually any existing real number but a merely mind illusion, despite the practical needs for little works that can be satisfied by little approximation generally in rational numbers
Also, same applies for me since many years by so elementary proofs based basically on number theory (but all in my posts only)
So, the issue is that because they need a cube root of a number then it must be considered as a unique number even illegally, same old story of deceptive (Pi) itself
And the issue now isn't the lack of intelligence, since they had seen many elementary proofs from you, from me, from others, ...etc
The issue is purely physiological, how can few others mistaking them in their peculiar and rare understanding, and later became a kind of stubbornness that grows stronger by the time, exactly the way that was happening in old centuries, since people are the same inhabitants of those old centuries
They indeed now understand it fully, but they keep pretending and denying, especially if they put up that mask where they can avoid apparently to be shamed despite they are actually shamed with it forever
So, the main issue is that contradicting the mainstream old wrong beliefs about the true meaning of existing real numbers, where this applies to highest authorities in mathematics, a real tragedy indeed, but it will take its limited time of this fast world, for sure
BKK
You see, when I presented him with a challenge to identify where the following two cuts are different, he could not.

10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )

10^(1/3+0.01) = ( { r, r^(300/103) < 10 }, { r, r^(300/103) >= 10 } )

He does not understand that the very concept of Dedekind Cuts are flawed. But this is the least of his worries ... he does not understand what it means to be a number, that there is no real number line, that there is no such thing as an infinite set. Everything he spews out is mythology which he was taught to believe and memorise. He is what you might call a total idiot.
Python
2018-02-11 19:56:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
John Gabriel wrote:
...
Post by John Gabriel
You see, when I presented him with a challenge to identify where the following two cuts are different, he could not.
10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
10^(1/3+0.01) = ( { r, r^(300/103) < 10 }, { r, r^(300/103) >= 10 } )
This is so silly, Mr Gabriel, that I thought you were kidding. Even
you should be able to sort this out. Apparently you cannot.

Well, you made a big mistake above, Mr Gabriel, usual sloppiness on
your part, I'd guess:

1/3+0.01 is not 300/103 but 103/300, you know?

So I would ask you first to check you basic rational arithmetic before
asking any question about Dedekind's cut.

Then, you may want to learn how it is quite easy to show that
rational intervals with different bounds contains different
elements. Even find actual rational numbers in one of such
sets not being in the other one is trivial.
John Gabriel
2018-02-11 20:26:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
...
Post by John Gabriel
You see, when I presented him with a challenge to identify where the following two cuts are different, he could not.
10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
10^(1/3+0.01) = ( { r, r^(300/103) < 10 }, { r, r^(300/103) >= 10 } )
This is so silly, Mr Gabriel, that I thought you were kidding. Even
you should be able to sort this out. Apparently you cannot.
Well, you made a big mistake above, Mr Gabriel, usual sloppiness on
1/3+0.01 is not 300/103 but 103/300, you know?
No idiot. I made a mistake in the first comment and you did not notice it. Chuckle. I corrected it in this comment.

Read again idiot. You are always making mistakes.
Post by Python
So I would ask you first to check you basic rational arithmetic before
asking any question about Dedekind's cut.
Then, you may want to learn how it is quite easy to show that
rational intervals with different bounds contains different
elements. Even find actual rational numbers in one of such
sets not being in the other one is trivial.
John Gabriel
2018-02-11 20:28:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
...
Post by John Gabriel
You see, when I presented him with a challenge to identify where the following two cuts are different, he could not.
10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
10^(1/3+0.01) = ( { r, r^(300/103) < 10 }, { r, r^(300/103) >= 10 } )
This is so silly, Mr Gabriel, that I thought you were kidding. Even
you should be able to sort this out. Apparently you cannot.
Well, you made a big mistake above, Mr Gabriel, usual sloppiness on
1/3+0.01 is not 300/103 but 103/300, you know?
Of course stupid! That's why I corrected my last comment. Now let me see you admit that you are wrong!!!! Bwaaa haaaa haaaa.

No chance of that ever happening...
Post by Python
So I would ask you first to check you basic rational arithmetic before
asking any question about Dedekind's cut.
Then, you may want to learn how it is quite easy to show that
rational intervals with different bounds contains different
elements. Even find actual rational numbers in one of such
sets not being in the other one is trivial.
John Gabriel
2018-02-11 20:31:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
...
Post by John Gabriel
You see, when I presented him with a challenge to identify where the following two cuts are different, he could not.
10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
10^(1/3+0.01) = ( { r, r^(300/103) < 10 }, { r, r^(300/103) >= 10 } )
This is so silly, Mr Gabriel, that I thought you were kidding. Even
you should be able to sort this out. Apparently you cannot.
Well, you made a big mistake above, Mr Gabriel, usual sloppiness on
1/3+0.01 is not 300/103 but 103/300, you know?
Of course stupid! That's why I corrected my last comment. Now let me see you admit that you are wrong!!!! Bwaaa haaaa haaaa.
No chance of that ever happening...
Post by Python
So I would ask you first to check you basic rational arithmetic before
asking any question about Dedekind's cut.
Then, you may want to learn how it is quite easy to show that
rational intervals with different bounds contains different
elements. Even find actual rational numbers in one of such
sets not being in the other one is trivial.
Let me see you admit you are wrong (again)! Chuckle.
Python
2018-02-11 20:42:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
...
Post by John Gabriel
You see, when I presented him with a challenge to identify where the following two cuts are different, he could not.
10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
10^(1/3+0.01) = ( { r, r^(300/103) < 10 }, { r, r^(300/103) >= 10 } )
This is so silly, Mr Gabriel, that I thought you were kidding. Even
you should be able to sort this out. Apparently you cannot.
Well, you made a big mistake above, Mr Gabriel, usual sloppiness on
1/3+0.01 is not 300/103 but 103/300, you know?
Of course stupid! That's why I corrected my last comment. Now let me see you
admit that you are wrong!!!! Bwaaa haaaa haaaa.
Sigh... This is your last comment that I am quoting above, and the
mistake is there. Finding silly excuses for your own mistakes is
still your favorite childish game, I see...

Nevertheless, you really cannot spot how to find out one rational number
which is in the left set of a given cut ( { r^a < 10 } , { r^a >= 10 } )
and not in the left set of another one ( { r^b < 10 } , { r^b >= 10 } ),
when a <> b? Really Mr Gabriel?
John Gabriel
2018-02-11 21:40:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
...
Post by John Gabriel
You see, when I presented him with a challenge to identify where the following two cuts are different, he could not.
10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
10^(1/3+0.01) = ( { r, r^(300/103) < 10 }, { r, r^(300/103) >= 10 } )
This is so silly, Mr Gabriel, that I thought you were kidding. Even
you should be able to sort this out. Apparently you cannot.
Well, you made a big mistake above, Mr Gabriel, usual sloppiness on
1/3+0.01 is not 300/103 but 103/300, you know?
Of course stupid! That's why I corrected my last comment. Now let me see you
admit that you are wrong!!!! Bwaaa haaaa haaaa.
Sigh... This is your last comment that I am quoting above, and the
mistake is there. Finding silly excuses for your own mistakes is
still your favorite childish game, I see...
Nevertheless, you really cannot spot how to find out one rational number
which is in the left set of a given cut ( { r^a < 10 } , { r^a >= 10 } )
and not in the left set of another one ( { r^b < 10 } , { r^b >= 10 } ),
when a <> b? Really Mr Gabriel?
Sigh. Let me help you:



10^(1/3) -> p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10

10^(103/300) -> r, r^( ???? ) < 10

See if you can fill in the question marks. Chuckle. Stupid, stupid, very stupid Frenchie. Tsk, tsk.
Python
2018-02-11 22:29:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
10^(1/3) -> p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10
10^(103/300) -> r, r^( ???? ) < 10
See if you can fill in the question marks.
So far so good, so now that you've corrected your own mistake about
1/3+0.01, the two Dedekind's cuts to consider, you having fixed your
confusion, are:

10^(1/3) = ( { r^3 < 10 }, { r^3 >= 10 } )

and

10^(103/300) = ( { r^300 < 10^103 }, { r^300 >= 10^103 } )

It wasn't that difficult, see?
John Gabriel
2018-02-12 00:38:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
10^(1/3) -> p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10
10^(103/300) -> r, r^( ???? ) < 10
See if you can fill in the question marks.
So far so good, so now that you've corrected your own mistake about
1/3+0.01, the two Dedekind's cuts to consider, you having fixed your
10^(1/3) = ( { r^3 < 10 }, { r^3 >= 10 } )
and
10^(103/300) = ( { r^300 < 10^103 }, { r^300 >= 10^103 } )
It's the same thing you idiot. LMAO.

See, that wasn't so difficult?
Post by Python
It wasn't that difficult, see?
Python
2018-02-12 00:49:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
10^(1/3) -> p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10
10^(103/300) -> r, r^( ???? ) < 10
See if you can fill in the question marks.
So far so good, so now that you've corrected your own mistake about
1/3+0.01, the two Dedekind's cuts to consider, you having fixed your
10^(1/3) = ( { r^3 < 10 }, { r^3 >= 10 } )
and
10^(103/300) = ( { r^300 < 10^103 }, { r^300 >= 10^103 } )
It's the same thing you idiot. LMAO.
Python
2018-02-12 00:50:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
10^(1/3) -> p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10
10^(103/300) -> r, r^( ???? ) < 10
See if you can fill in the question marks.
So far so good, so now that you've corrected your own mistake about
1/3+0.01, the two Dedekind's cuts to consider, you having fixed your
10^(1/3) = ( { r^3 < 10 }, { r^3 >= 10 } )
and
10^(103/300) = ( { r^300 < 10^103 }, { r^300 >= 10^103 } )
It's the same thing you idiot. LMAO.
See, that wasn't so difficult?
As usual you completely missed the point. The first one makes sense
amongst rational numbers (with, may I recall you, are where Dedekind
cuts are taken), while the second doesn't.

Now that we (apparently) more or less agree on the Dedekind cut
defining 10^(1/3) and 10^(103/300):

10^(1/3) = ( { r^3 < 10 }, { r^3 >= 10 } )

10^(103/300) = ( { r^300 < 10^103 }, { r^300 >= 10^103 } )

What do you find difficult, John, in finding a way to distinguish
them in term of rational numbers being part of the left term (for
one of them) and the right term (for the other one)?
Python
2018-02-12 00:24:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
10^(1/3+0.01) = ( { r, r^(300/103) < 10 }, { r, r^(300/103) >= 10 } )
For the record, the expression Mr Gabriel wrote above does not define
at all a Dedekind's cut, let alone a cut for 10^(103/300), the correct
one is:

10^(103/300) = ( { r^300 < 10^103 }, { r^300 >= 10^103 } )
Post by John Gabriel
He does not understand that the very concept of Dedekind Cuts are flawed.
What you, John, confuse with Dedekind Cuts is, as most of your own
personal silly concepts, is flawed. The real Dedekind Cuts are not
flawed at all.
John Gabriel
2018-02-12 00:39:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
10^(1/3+0.01) = ( { r, r^(300/103) < 10 }, { r, r^(300/103) >= 10 } )
For the record, the expression Mr Gabriel wrote above does not define
at all a Dedekind's cut, let alone a cut for 10^(103/300), the correct
10^(103/300) = ( { r^300 < 10^103 }, { r^300 >= 10^103 } )
Post by John Gabriel
He does not understand that the very concept of Dedekind Cuts are flawed.
What you, John, confuse with Dedekind Cuts is, as most of your own
personal silly concepts, is flawed. The real Dedekind Cuts are not
flawed at all.
Tsk, tsk. Still don't admit you are wrong eh? See, this is why I call you the biggest piece of vile shit, because that is what you are!
John Gabriel
2018-02-12 00:41:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
10^(1/3+0.01) = ( { r, r^(300/103) < 10 }, { r, r^(300/103) >= 10 } )
For the record, the expression Mr Gabriel wrote above does not define
at all a Dedekind's cut, let alone a cut for 10^(103/300), the correct
10^(103/300) = ( { r^300 < 10^103 }, { r^300 >= 10^103 } )
Post by John Gabriel
He does not understand that the very concept of Dedekind Cuts are flawed.
What you, John, confuse with Dedekind Cuts is, as most of your own
personal silly concepts, is flawed. The real Dedekind Cuts are not
flawed at all.
Tsk, tsk. Still don't admit you are wrong eh? See, this is why I call you the biggest piece of vile shit, because that is what you are!
The idiot Jean Penis Messager thinks the following two inequalities are different:

r^300 < 10^103

r^(300/103) < 10

What a moron.
Python
2018-02-12 00:49:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
r^300 < 10^103
r^(300/103) < 10
As usual you completely missed the point. The first one makes sense
amongst rational numbers (with, may I recall you, are where Dedekind
cuts are taken), while the second doesn't.

Now that we (apparently) more or less agree on the Dedekind cut
defining 10^(1/3) and 10^(103/300):

10^(1/3) = ( { r^3 < 10 }, { r^3 >= 10 } )

10^(103/300) = ( { r^300 < 10^103 }, { r^300 >= 10^103 } )

What do you find difficult, John, in finding a way to distinguish
them in term of rational numbers being part of the left term (for
one of them) and the right term (for the other one)?
John Gabriel
2018-02-12 01:20:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
Post by Python
r^300 < 10^103
r^(300/103) < 10
As usual you completely missed the point.
Idiot. The only one who misses the point is YOU (always).
Post by Python
The first one makes sense amongst rational numbers (with, may I recall you, are where Dedekind cuts are taken), while the second doesn't.
Nonsense. They are exactly the same you moron.
Post by Python
Now that we (apparently) more or less agree on the Dedekind cut
We don't agree on anything you stupid jerk. Just admit you are wrong (again!).
Python
2018-02-12 01:48:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
Post by Python
r^300 < 10^103
r^(300/103) < 10
As usual you completely missed the point.
Idiot. The only one who misses the point is YOU (always).
Post by Python
The first one makes sense amongst rational numbers (with, may I recall you, are where Dedekind cuts are taken), while the second doesn't.
Nonsense. They are exactly the same you moron.
No, because when you consider only rational numbers you cannot
give a sense to r^(300/103) for any r, while you can for
r^300 and compare it to 10^103. THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT OF
DEDEKING CONSTRUCTION.
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
Now that we (apparently) more or less agree on the Dedekind cut
We don't agree on anything you stupid jerk. Just admit you are
wrong (again!).
Your words was that Dedekind cuts for 10^(1/3) and
10^(103/300) = 10^(1/3+0.01) couldn't be distinguished.

10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )

10^(1/3+0.01) = ( { r^300 < 10^103 }, { r^300 >= 10^103 } )

will you find yourself a way to identify where the following two cuts
are different or do you need some help, John?
John Gabriel
2018-02-12 04:22:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
Post by Python
r^300 < 10^103
r^(300/103) < 10
As usual you completely missed the point.
Idiot. The only one who misses the point is YOU (always).
Post by Python
The first one makes sense amongst rational numbers (with, may I recall you, are where Dedekind cuts are taken), while the second doesn't.
Nonsense. They are exactly the same you moron.
No, because when you consider only rational numbers you cannot
give a sense to r^(300/103) for any r, while you can for
r^300 and compare it to 10^103. THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT OF
DEDEKING CONSTRUCTION.
There is no point in Dedekind constructions - they are invalid as I proved in my YT video.
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
Now that we (apparently) more or less agree on the Dedekind cut
We don't agree on anything you stupid jerk. Just admit you are wrong (again!).
Your words was that Dedekind cuts for 10^(1/3) and
10^(103/300) = 10^(1/3+0.01) couldn't be distinguished.
Rubbish. I claimed that they have almost the same lower and upper sets and that the closer the cuts get, the more indistinguishable they become.

The proof that D. Cuts are invalid is old news:

http://youtu.be/LSWIFXP2r14
Python
2018-02-12 18:43:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
Post by Python
r^300 < 10^103
r^(300/103) < 10
As usual you completely missed the point.
Idiot. The only one who misses the point is YOU (always).
Post by Python
The first one makes sense amongst rational numbers (with, may I recall you, are where Dedekind cuts are taken), while the second doesn't.
Nonsense. They are exactly the same you moron.
No, because when you consider only rational numbers you cannot
give a sense to r^(300/103) for any r, while you can for
r^300 and compare it to 10^103. THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT OF
DEDEKING CONSTRUCTION.
There is no point in Dedekind constructions - they are invalid as I proved in my YT video.
You don't understand at all what they are, and your video and papers
are complete bullshit, Mr Gabriel.
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
Now that we (apparently) more or less agree on the Dedekind cut
We don't agree on anything you stupid jerk. Just admit you are wrong (again!).
Your words was that Dedekind cuts for 10^(1/3) and
10^(103/300) = 10^(1/3+0.01) couldn't be distinguished.
Rubbish. I claimed that they have almost the same lower and upper sets and that
the closer the cuts get, the more indistinguishable they become.
Closer? How come they are moving now? They are pairs of fixed set of
rational number! "almost" the same lower? So not the same, hence it
is easy to find a rational number which is in the left side of one
cut and in the right side of the other one. Conclusion: they are
different, your stupid argument failed.
Python
2018-02-12 18:58:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
Your words was that Dedekind cuts for 10^(1/3) and
10^(103/300) = 10^(1/3+0.01) couldn't be distinguished.
Rubbish. I claimed that they have almost the same
... a challenge to identify where the following two cuts are different, he could not.
10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
10^(1/3+0.01) = ( { r, r^(300/103) < 10 }, { r, r^(300/103) >= 10 } )
John Gabriel
2018-02-12 20:54:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
Your words was that Dedekind cuts for 10^(1/3) and
10^(103/300) = 10^(1/3+0.01) couldn't be distinguished.
Rubbish. I claimed that they have almost the same
... a challenge to identify where the following two cuts are different, he could not.
10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
10^(1/3+0.01) = ( { r, r^(300/103) < 10 }, { r, r^(300/103) >= 10 } )
You piece of French shit psychopath, I piss and shit on you. Do you know what this means? Chuckle. You are a MORON. Nothing you say is correct and when you get the arithmetic right, you still don't have a clue what the logic means.

Clearly, you have never understood Dedekind Cuts and you shall never understand that I have proved these to be invalid.
Python
2018-02-12 21:38:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
...
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
Your words was that Dedekind cuts for 10^(1/3) and
10^(103/300) = 10^(1/3+0.01) couldn't be distinguished.
Rubbish. I claimed that they have almost the same
... a challenge to identify where the following two cuts are different, he could not.
10^(1/3) = ( { p/q, (p/q)^3 < 10 }, { p/q, (p/q)^3 >= 10 } )
10^(1/3+0.01) = ( { r, r^(300/103) < 10 }, { r, r^(300/103) >= 10 } )
You piece of French shit psychopath, I piss and shit
Sure, Mr Gabriel. We all already know than when you are proven wrong,
or proven a liar, or both (like here) you piss and shit in your pants.
Python
2018-02-12 00:49:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Python
Post by John Gabriel
10^(1/3+0.01) = ( { r, r^(300/103) < 10 }, { r, r^(300/103) >= 10 } )
For the record, the expression Mr Gabriel wrote above does not define
at all a Dedekind's cut, let alone a cut for 10^(103/300), the correct
10^(103/300) = ( { r^300 < 10^103 }, { r^300 >= 10^103 } )
Post by John Gabriel
He does not understand that the very concept of Dedekind Cuts are flawed.
What you, John, confuse with Dedekind Cuts is, as most of your own
personal silly concepts, is flawed. The real Dedekind Cuts are not
flawed at all.
Tsk, tsk. Still don't admit you are wrong eh? See, this is why I call you the biggest piece of vile shit, because that is what you are!
As usual you completely missed the point. The first one makes sense
amongst rational numbers (with, may I recall you, are where Dedekind
cuts are taken), while the second doesn't.

Now that we (apparently) more or less agree on the Dedekind cut
defining 10^(1/3) and 10^(103/300):

10^(1/3) = ( { r^3 < 10 }, { r^3 >= 10 } )

10^(103/300) = ( { r^300 < 10^103 }, { r^300 >= 10^103 } )

What do you find difficult, John, in finding a way to distinguish
them in term of rational numbers being part of the left term (for
one of them) and the right term (for the other one)?
Loading...