Discussion:
To school students (be aware of huge fictions in mathematics)
Add Reply
bassam king karzeddin
2017-03-06 18:02:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis

Consider the infinite decimal representation of numbers that includes the following sets of illegal numbers

1) The transcendental numbers as for (pi), or (e)
2) The algebraic numbers as for (2^ {1/3}), or more generally (q^ {1/p}), where (p) is odd prime, and (q) is prime number
3) The infinite decimal representation for a constructible numbers as for (6/7) or sqrt(2)

All those described above are unreal numbers (for sure)

The easiest proof:

Since all those described numbers above numbers are defined with endless digits (not terminating with infinite sequence of zero digits, then you may notify them with this simple notation in any number system as (N.M), where (N) is finite integer, and (M) is integer with infinite sequence of digits in any base number system, where the decimal notation is the dot (.)

Then consider ONLY the integer (M), after the decimal notation,

With its infinite sequence of digits in any base number system you adopt as denoted by the infinite sequence of digits as

0.M = 0. (d_1)(d_2)(d_3) … (d_n), where (n) tends to infinity

And for more simplicity for students, consider the infinite representation of the arithmetical cube root of two denoted as (\sqrt[3]{2}), or (2^{1/3}), and in 10base number system for clarity

Of course everybody knows that (2^{1/3} = 1.2599210498…), where actually this is forever as absolute rational approximations that never ends, which implies the non existence of such number (proved rigorously in my recent posts), thus (2^(1/3), and its infinite decimal representation are both nonexistent numbers (fiction numbers in mathematics), they have no proof of being existent but only intuitively or foolishly were concluded, or devilishly established as real numbers for a narrow purposes of showing unnecessary talents of few famous Jugglers from old centuries

But it should be understood that if a carpenter was asked to make a cubic tank that contains two meter cube, then no harm to use any approximation for practical purpose, it is so easy task for a carpenter by trial or error calculation which is the same as the alleged modern mathematics of approximations

Once you analyze those approximations step by step then you must understand the whole concept, and no harm if you go and convince your teacher in mathematics about it, before you become as a victim of those wrong concepts about the real numbers

So, let us do it together, by writing the decimal or fractional representation as a rational number only

First approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2 = 12/10 = 6/5)
Second approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25 = 125/100 = 5/4)
Third approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259 = 1259/1000)
Forth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599 = 12599/10000)
Fifth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25992 = 125992/10^5)
Sixth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259921 = 1259921/10^6)
Seventh approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210/10^7) = Sixth approximation!*

The tenth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210498/10^10)

Then what is the (n) digit approximation, it is simply denoted by a rational number (M/10^n), where (M) is integer with (n + 1) number of sequent digits in 10base number system

But our whole number is at infinity as by the definition, then you require both (n) and (M) to be with infinite sequence of digits, where this is not acceptable nor defined in the holy grail principles of mathematics, and also IMPOSSIBLE to attain (for sure), there for our alleged number is a fool number, that exists in the paradise of the fools and so Big Stupid’s minds (so unfortunately),

Thus our alleged number is fake, nonexistent number (for sure)

But, it is no harm if we rename it as (unreal number) for practical purposes only

Same simple logic applies for any number with infinite sequence of digits as described above

But be careful about the surd form of sqrt(2), that does indeed exist independently from it is fake decimal representation which is good for comparison only

And be careful about (pi) too, which exist in two dimensions only as a closed line surrounding a maximum area, but never on a straight line which is only the number

I posted this also in math.forum, but since they take long time to post it, then I post it here again for the protection of all school students minds

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
06th, March, 2017
b***@gmail.com
2017-03-06 19:04:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Hey Queeny, they are not called unreal numbers.
Their name is Unicon numbers, for sure for sure.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
All those described above are unreal numbers (for sure)
b***@gmail.com
2017-03-06 19:08:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
If you don't believe me, watch this video,
by mathbff Nancy explaining Unicorn numbers:

❤︎² Basic Numbers... Why? (mathbff)

Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey Queeny, they are not called unreal numbers.
Their name is Unicon numbers, for sure for sure.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
All those described above are unreal numbers (for sure)
Dan Christensen
2017-03-06 21:48:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Any clever student...
Unlike the snake oil being peddled by various math cranks (like BKK) here, mathematics as we know it actually works. It is basis of nearly all modern science and technology. The cranks would have you go back to counting your fingers and toes, back to living in a cave with no phones or internet. Does that sound like fun, boys and girls?

Dan
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-03-06 22:44:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Start a journal dedicated to publishing errors of mainstream math
b***@gmail.com
2017-03-06 23:02:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Would actually make more sense than spamming sci.math. A
fake crank board of directors, a fake crank reviewing team,
all welcoming fake cranks to publish their "views".

Since we are not anymore in the internet stone age, self
publishing should be damned easy. Ask WM how it is done,
and JG has tons of disorganzied PDFs about 0.999.. <> 1.

Volume 1 No 1 should be already pret. You know life is short,
and internet posts dont have an ISBN, you will newer have
the same success as WM if you dont get organized.

So say no to oblivion. But please do us a favor, reduce the
spamming to a once per quarter abstract on the new number
in the current volume.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Start a journal dedicated to publishing errors of mainstream math
bassam king karzeddin
2017-03-07 08:21:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Would actually make more sense than spamming sci.math. A
fake crank board of directors, a fake crank reviewing team,
all welcoming fake cranks to publish their "views".
Since we are not anymore in the internet stone age, self
publishing should be damned easy. Ask WM how it is done,
and JG has tons of disorganzied PDFs about 0.999.. <> 1.
Volume 1 No 1 should be already pret. You know life is short,
and internet posts dont have an ISBN, you will newer have
the same success as WM if you dont get organized.
So say no to oblivion. But please do us a favor, reduce the
spamming to a once per quarter abstract on the new number
in the current volume.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Start a journal dedicated to publishing errors of mainstream math
This is better explained here for you only


Post by b***@gmail.com
122 million views > 76 million views
BK
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-03-06 23:12:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Have the journal headquartered in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait which gives it added prestige, for it was the Arabs who were so smart as to give us the decimal system of numbers and Europe too dumb to invent the decimal system.

Have the journal split into three journals-- errors in High School math, errors in College math-- errors made by professors of math.

For example, the error of where nearly 90% of math professors in an AP survey could not do a valid proof of Euclid Infinitude of Primes would go in the College Errors because doing math proofs comes not in High School but College.

Publishing the error that angles above 360degrees is a fiction, would go in the High School Error math journal, where this stupid notion of a angle greater than 360 is inculcated.

Have the journal in the Middle East where money is not a problem for the journal, and shielded from mainstream nerds who would want to suppress the journal.

At the moment the world has only sci.math where true math can be seen and published.

AP
b***@gmail.com
2017-03-06 23:19:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
But sci.math is NOT a journal. Its a NEWSGROUP. Do you
understand the difference? Probably not.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
At the moment the world has only sci.math where true math can be seen and published.
b***@gmail.com
2017-03-06 23:24:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Anyway no use to talk we a complete imbecile like AP who
has a brain reaction time that is 100 time slower than

for normal people. What his brain should hsve recognized
20-40 years ago, at Dartmouth during internet stonge age

never happened. Still no clue what a newsgroup is. We new
calculoose/clueless from JG, and AP total atomic clueless.
Post by b***@gmail.com
But sci.math is NOT a journal. Its a NEWSGROUP. Do you
understand the difference? Probably not.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
At the moment the world has only sci.math where true math can be seen and published.
b***@gmail.com
2017-03-06 23:37:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Or to make it simple: Not everything you can type in
letters with a keyboard is an electronic journal.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Anyway no use to talk we a complete imbecile like AP who
has a brain reaction time that is 100 time slower than
for normal people. What his brain should hsve recognized
20-40 years ago, at Dartmouth during internet stonge age
never happened. Still no clue what a newsgroup is. We new
calculoose/clueless from JG, and AP total atomic clueless.
Post by b***@gmail.com
But sci.math is NOT a journal. Its a NEWSGROUP. Do you
understand the difference? Probably not.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
At the moment the world has only sci.math where true math can be seen and published.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-03-07 09:00:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
But sci.math is NOT a journal. Its a NEWSGROUP. Do you
So SCIENCE math is not a place for publishing, or introducing new concepts OR new ideas, or solving any considerable problem, it is only for fun (right?)

And any new theorems must be A jOKE if stated here, but the same content if published in Journals would make the greatest difference, wonder!

And people are so easily allowed by this down morals of the professionals to steal any idea, make videos from amateurs good ideas and efforts, shamelessly as their own talent, too wonderful!

Just because they write in a professional manners

No, the fact that the professionals feels so insulted when a mature is so superior to them in their own fields of study,

They had forgotten that lesson from the history, when a mature had been torturing them for many centuries even after a proof, Wonder!(Fermat)

And it is news group also, but what news, the news only not for your alike people even if you make seven miracles on earth together, the news for the skilled football players boys and in full front colourful pages of the WHOLE WORLD news papers, and for Singers as I provided you with millions of appreciations and certainly not anything for your miracle intellectual solutions, this is completely nonsense and must be hidden, till some one in power decide to make use of it in other century, and not for the sake of your black eyes (for sure)
Post by b***@gmail.com
understand the difference? Probably not.
The difference is well understood, only Journals can produce new maths with authority stamp,

And the hired people of your alike have to maintain this rules forever, so the whole issue is only business

And all the efforts of the true mathematicians who are mainly professionals in other branches of science stream or engineering (whom are behind technology progress as internet, had gone fruitless with those empty skulls who can not see a finger a head, such rules were suitable in the past, but not any more
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
At the moment the world has only sci.math where true math can be seen and published.
If sci.math can not produce any maths science, then shame for ever upon the top mathematicians and also the dwarfs

Since in the past and with relatively zero communication facilities , and from the history as written, they had found the greatest ever theorems, written in scratch handwriting rusty papers (did not thy?)

But it is forbidden in our days (is not it?)

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
07/03/17
bassam king karzeddin
2017-03-07 14:47:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Have the journal headquartered in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait which gives it added prestige, for it was the Arabs who were so smart as to give us the decimal system of numbers and Europe too dumb to invent the decimal system.
I know that most humans suffer with this subject called mathematics, also the whole accumulated knowledge is a result of all humans on earth, and the decimal system gifted to others just to facilitate the calculations and not to make legendary fairy stories at the fake paradise, called infinity, where simply any Juggler with too tiny talent in numbers can so easily make many theorems beyond beliefs

So the suffering and damaging of human minds was basically those Jugglers, whom they are incapable to discover any new maths, but too artistics to invent it as they like (so unbelievable, even up to our days)

The published facts are just published, and in front of the whole world, it must not make any difference for the wise people where it was first published, it is the duty of the top professionals and the keen historians to recognize immediately what is new and useful and what is not, it is also the duty of philosophers and the physicians and the logicians and many other branches of sciences to recognise the truth once published freely and for all in that respective dates, but it seems there is none existing or up to that level of challenge, so the whole matter is mainly corruption and very bad traits of human noticeable ego problem

And the biggest problem are those wide range whom they are in need of urgent healing to be completely cured, such as common professional mathematicians, just for their soooo tiny and unnoticible ego to be taught by a mature
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Have the journal split into three journals-- errors in High School math, errors in College math-- errors made by professors of math.
Those are very good ideas for anyone wanting to be a future revolutionary leader in this field

Also your ideas about the world council should be considered globally
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
For example, the error of where nearly 90% of math professors in an AP survey could not do a valid proof of Euclid Infinitude of Primes would go in the College Errors because doing math proofs comes not in High School but College.
Publishing the error that angles above 360degrees is a fiction, would go in the High School Error math journal, where this stupid notion of a angle greater than 360 is inculcated.
Have the journal in the Middle East where money is not a problem for the journal, and shielded from mainstream nerds who would want to suppress the journal.
At the moment the world has only sci.math where true math can be seen and published.
AP
I do not think that they would leave sci.math freely expressible, you easily recognized so many dirty agents to collapse this site or force it into being under control site as most of the sites

So, knowledge must be accepted only from authority stamp, other wise ignoring it deliberately or making use of it but with too much fabrications to hide its true origin

In the middle east, they generally follow what had been published elsewhere as they do not have independent way yet, also the area of maths is not considered any importance, since generally all the higher score students who can not get admissions in higher required branches as engineering or medical studies, are forced then to study any thing left as languages or maths or sports,... etc

I really can correct many other concepts in maths, but the problem is always the time is so limited


BK
b***@gmail.com
2017-03-07 15:38:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Ha Ha, you didn't get the joke with the video link,
don't you. Its one of the few infinite memes...

Here is an explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickrolling

Am Dienstag, 7. März 2017 15:47:54 UTC+1 schrieb bassam king karzeddin:
b***@gmail.com
2017-03-07 15:49:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Ok, I try the rickroll again. Hey bassam when you want
a stamp on math, there is already an office for that. Its
call the confederated science council for proper math.

This council was founded from two nobel laureates, Alfred
E. Neumann and Polinsca Polinscou. During the Washington
Affair Archimedes Plutonium was also in the council, but

only for a short time of period. The council certifies
proper infinity free math by giving out special ISBN numbers.
So if you have a math book, you only have to check the

ISBN number, if it ends either on 98, 71 or 56 its proper
kosher math without infinity in it. Some schools use only
such books, but these schools are usually more expensive

for the parents. During the great plague of the infinity
worm, mostly only such schools survived, this was just after
the 30 years war in Europe. You find a video describing

the origization here, you can also sign up as a sponsor:
http://youtu.be/oHg5SJYRHA0
Post by b***@gmail.com
Ha Ha, you didn't get the joke with the video link,
don't you. Its one of the few infinite memes...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickrolling
bassam king karzeddin
2017-03-07 16:04:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Ha Ha, you didn't get the joke with the video link,
don't you. Its one of the few infinite memes...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickrolling
You and your strangely up to date references are quite boring, just to divert the whole issue (tooooooooo.... little concept), with so many tons of (toooooo.... many references), what a fabrications to a very simple idea that needs only few minutes to be comprehended by ANY CLEVER school student

But, so shamelessly no enough courage to admit it for their (tooooo... tiny unnoticible ego problem)

Although, it must be understood that I am not stating any big discovery but discovering a very big scandal made deliberately by your grand mathematickers for a business purpose mainly

Get it moron, it is more than enough, but I guess they won't pay you if you do not do well to hide the issue

Here, you can so simply report abuse (easily permitted by Google), but never you can hide the content permanently

Here it is not like those controlled sites SE or Quora or Wikipedia, where dirty minds and hands can do toooo... little

Here is a free expressible site, here is actual freedom for ever (hopefully)

Or do you prefer salvation anymore!wonder!

BK
Jan
2017-03-07 00:27:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
Find yourself a different hobby. I mean it. What you wrote above is incorrect.

--
Jan
a***@gmail.com
2017-03-07 01:18:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
0nly sh0w the sec0nr00t p0wer 0f the sec0ndr00t 0f t00,
but n0 digits but t00, if yu0 like
bassam king karzeddin
2017-03-07 14:01:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
0nly sh0w the sec0nr00t p0wer 0f the sec0ndr00t 0f t00,
but n0 digits but t00, if yu0 like
Can not you once in your life express clearly what do you want in a plain explicit notation like any other normal student?Wonder!

BK
a***@gmail.com
2017-03-07 20:10:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
show (2^(1/2))^(2^(1/2))
0nly sh0w the sec0ndr00t p0wer 0f the sec0ndr00t 0f t00,
bassam king karzeddin
2017-03-07 20:13:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
show (2^(1/2))^(2^(1/2))
0nly sh0w the sec0ndr00t p0wer 0f the sec0ndr00t 0f t00,
This really needs stop, I have so much to say, but unfortunately I do not have time now, but I will come back to it, but from unexpected angle!

BK
a***@gmail.com
2017-03-08 21:07:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
it was garbage (un mot francaise) so I deleted it,
although I could have tried to read it.

I do not have a calculator, I do not program,
I use pencil or pen & paper, but I am a geometer

what you did not notice is that
one typically uses 2-digit approximants for most calculations,
til gotten to the stage of engineering requirements:
the r00t of t00 is a)
1.4, or b)
7/5, and which 2-digit approximant is a matter of experiment.
Post by a***@gmail.com
show (2^(1/2))^(2^(1/2))
or, 2 times itself 1.4 times,
multiplied by itself 2^(7/5) times;
(2^(7/5))^(2^(7/5)) =
And so innocently you believed your obvious juggling with fiction numbers, just because your dump calculator gives you a line of digits, where you so simply think the whole number which starts on earth would settle finally in your alleged paradise called (infinity) - right?,
a***@gmail.com
2017-03-10 20:33:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
one over 31/10 is 0.32, in base_ten e.g;
pi_3 is a palindrome to 4 digits;
23_ten is the first nontrivial nontwinprime, but
it has other values in bases four through infinity.
a***@gmail.com
2017-03-11 05:55:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
so, evaluants of pi are many & diverse, but
31/10 is g00d in any base at least four,
depending upon your application ... oh, sorry
bassam king karzeddin
2017-03-11 08:57:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
so, evaluants of pi are many & diverse, but
31/10 is g00d in any base at least four,
depending upon your application ... oh, sorry
Why don't you understand that mathematics is absolute exactness and never any degree of approximations, those are called carpentry works (for sure!)

BK
a***@gmail.com
2017-03-11 16:10:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
in most cases, one only needs t00 places of decimation --
especialy in base_ten; hence,
pi is 22/7 in at least base_8 maybe up to base_twelve or so. see,
til you have learnt hte LITTLE theorem of modular arithmetic,
you are stuck without a paddle, up a famous creek
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Why don't you understand that mathematics is absolute exactness and never any degree of approximations, those are called carpentry works
yeah, carpenters are c00l
bassam king karzeddin
2017-03-07 08:01:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
Find yourself a different hobby. I mean it. What you wrote above is incorrect.
--
Jan
Do not put words in my mouth, just talk in the language of mathematics if you are a true mathematician

I would take the pain to explain you the obvious concept drop by drop

Can you deny openly that (e) or (pi) or (100)^(1/5) or for instance, can be expressed approximately as a rational number (M(n)/10^n) to any desired degree of accuracy, where (n) is positive integer for the degree of accuracy required, and M(n) is positive integer with (n + 1) digits

I also assume that you understand the meaning of degree of accuracy (right?)

It does not mean any equality for any chosen finite integer (n), even that finite integer can fill say only (one trillion galaxy size, where each one trillion digit can be stored only in one mm cube)

Because the LHS is defined as irrational number where as the RHS is still rational number (is not it?)

Then you or the current mathematics says, (n) must be infinite in order to achieve the irrationality

But the holy grail principle of mathematics does not define integers with infinite sequence of digits, nor their division ratio for (M(n)/10^n), when (n) is infinite, (Does it?)

Adding to that a genious reason, is it possible one day to find all those digits which completes the missing number supposedly (of course It is IMPOSSIBLE), (Is not it?)

I also assume that you do understand the rigorous proof of impossibility of constructing those chosen above numbers EXACTLY, in order to be considered as real numbers as any constructible number (Do not you?)

So, for ever you would have ONLY APPROXIMATIONS (would not you?)

So, by consideration or APPROXIMATION to invent huge unnecessary volumes of mathematics, they had been illegally define as real numbers, just to create unnecessary Jobs for your alikes, whereas they are also forbidden at your dream paradise called infinity (are not they?)

And do you think that any clever student can not comprehend this obvious too simple trick, probably he might need only few minutes to understand this whole scandal about real numbers (Do not you too?), or do you need toooo advanced tools to be convinced yet!Wonder!

So, please answer those questions honestly, then I would be gladly pick up another hobby, rather than disturbing the professional mathematicians mood!

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
07/03/17
Post by Jan
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
Find yourself a different hobby. I mean it. What you wrote above is incorrect.
--
Jan
Ross A. Finlayson
2017-03-07 08:22:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Jan
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
Find yourself a different hobby. I mean it. What you wrote above is incorrect.
--
Jan
Do not put words in my mouth, just talk in the language of mathematics if you are a true mathematician
I would take the pain to explain you the obvious concept drop by drop
Can you deny openly that (e) or (pi) or (100)^(1/5) or for instance, can be expressed approximately as a rational number (M(n)/10^n) to any desired degree of accuracy, where (n) is positive integer for the degree of accuracy required, and M(n) is positive integer with (n + 1) digits
I also assume that you understand the meaning of degree of accuracy (right?)
It does not mean any equality for any chosen finite integer (n), even that finite integer can fill say only (one trillion galaxy size, where each one trillion digit can be stored only in one mm cube)
Because the LHS is defined as irrational number where as the RHS is still rational number (is not it?)
Then you or the current mathematics says, (n) must be infinite in order to achieve the irrationality
But the holy grail principle of mathematics does not define integers with infinite sequence of digits, nor their division ratio for (M(n)/10^n), when (n) is infinite, (Does it?)
Adding to that a genious reason, is it possible one day to find all those digits which completes the missing number supposedly (of course It is IMPOSSIBLE), (Is not it?)
I also assume that you do understand the rigorous proof of impossibility of constructing those chosen above numbers EXACTLY, in order to be considered as real numbers as any constructible number (Do not you?)
So, for ever you would have ONLY APPROXIMATIONS (would not you?)
So, by consideration or APPROXIMATION to invent huge unnecessary volumes of mathematics, they had been illegally define as real numbers, just to create unnecessary Jobs for your alikes, whereas they are also forbidden at your dream paradise called infinity (are not they?)
And do you think that any clever student can not comprehend this obvious too simple trick, probably he might need only few minutes to understand this whole scandal about real numbers (Do not you too?), or do you need toooo advanced tools to be convinced yet!Wonder!
So, please answer those questions honestly, then I would be gladly pick up another hobby, rather than disturbing the professional mathematicians mood!
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
07/03/17
Post by Jan
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
Find yourself a different hobby. I mean it. What you wrote above is incorrect.
--
Jan
An approximation, as a numerical method, is not perfect.
It has an error term.

An identity, or formula, is perfect. It has no error term.

Initial segments of infinite series are roughly approximations.

Infinite series as identities are not approximations, they're
perfect (where that their identities are validities).

So, reading out some initial segment, of an infinite series,
is ignorant of the induction that so follows for the rest of
the terms.


About there really being an infinity for the numbers,
besides just an infinity of the numbers (because there's
no less because of induction and deduction), there's
really an infinity of the numbers.

There are various approaches to the continuous from the discrete,
they combine to be an overall approach, not erase each other.

So, there's more to the finite, and the infinite, than what
was there, and more besides.

Don't be a retro-finitist because it's obsolete for 2500 years
(or, more), and always will be. Finitism can be a cave painting,
retro-finitism is cave-dwelling (and knuckle-dragging).

Identities (or formulas), often with infinite series, or as
of generating functions: are validities, for formalized
symbolic manipulation, as of their values as numbers, or
"numerical methods" in "mathematics".
Blortard
2017-03-07 02:25:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Shut up you boring idiot.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-03-07 08:16:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
If you don't believe me, watch this video,
❤︎² Basic Numbers... Why? (mathbff)
http://youtu.be/oHg5SJYRHA0
Am Montag, 6. März 2017 20:04:32 UTC+1 schrieb
Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey Queeny, they are not called unreal numbers.
Their name is Unicon numbers, for sure for sure.
Am Montag, 6. März 2017 19:02:46 UTC+1 schrieb
Post by bassam king karzeddin
All those described above are unreal numbers (for
sure)
This might be better explained

http://youtu.be/ROhKkih6Z8Y

only > 122 million views

BK
s***@googlemail.com
2017-03-07 19:16:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
Consider the infinite decimal representation of numbers that includes the following sets of illegal numbers
1) The transcendental numbers as for (pi), or (e)
2) The algebraic numbers as for (2^ {1/3}), or more generally (q^ {1/p}), where (p) is odd prime, and (q) is prime number
3) The infinite decimal representation for a constructible numbers as for (6/7) or sqrt(2)
All those described above are unreal numbers (for sure)
Since all those described numbers above numbers are defined with endless digits (not terminating with infinite sequence of zero digits, then you may notify them with this simple notation in any number system as (N.M), where (N) is finite integer, and (M) is integer with infinite sequence of digits in any base number system, where the decimal notation is the dot (.)
Then consider ONLY the integer (M), after the decimal notation,
With its infinite sequence of digits in any base number system you adopt as denoted by the infinite sequence of digits as
0.M = 0. (d_1)(d_2)(d_3) … (d_n), where (n) tends to infinity
And for more simplicity for students, consider the infinite representation of the arithmetical cube root of two denoted as (\sqrt[3]{2}), or (2^{1/3}), and in 10base number system for clarity
Of course everybody knows that (2^{1/3} = 1.2599210498…), where actually this is forever as absolute rational approximations that never ends, which implies the non existence of such number (proved rigorously in my recent posts), thus (2^(1/3), and its infinite decimal representation are both nonexistent numbers (fiction numbers in mathematics), they have no proof of being existent but only intuitively or foolishly were concluded, or devilishly established as real numbers for a narrow purposes of showing unnecessary talents of few famous Jugglers from old centuries
But it should be understood that if a carpenter was asked to make a cubic tank that contains two meter cube, then no harm to use any approximation for practical purpose, it is so easy task for a carpenter by trial or error calculation which is the same as the alleged modern mathematics of approximations
Once you analyze those approximations step by step then you must understand the whole concept, and no harm if you go and convince your teacher in mathematics about it, before you become as a victim of those wrong concepts about the real numbers
So, let us do it together, by writing the decimal or fractional representation as a rational number only
First approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2 = 12/10 = 6/5)
Second approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25 = 125/100 = 5/4)
Third approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259 = 1259/1000)
Forth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599 = 12599/10000)
Fifth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25992 = 125992/10^5)
Sixth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259921 = 1259921/10^6)
Seventh approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210/10^7) = Sixth approximation!*
The tenth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210498/10^10)
Then what is the (n) digit approximation, it is simply denoted by a rational number (M/10^n), where (M) is integer with (n + 1) number of sequent digits in 10base number system
But our whole number is at infinity as by the definition, then you require both (n) and (M) to be with infinite sequence of digits, where this is not acceptable nor defined in the holy grail principles of mathematics, and also IMPOSSIBLE to attain (for sure), there for our alleged number is a fool number, that exists in the paradise of the fools and so Big Stupid’s minds (so unfortunately),
Thus our alleged number is fake, nonexistent number (for sure)
But, it is no harm if we rename it as (unreal number) for practical purposes only
Same simple logic applies for any number with infinite sequence of digits as described above
But be careful about the surd form of sqrt(2), that does indeed exist independently from it is fake decimal representation which is good for comparison only
And be careful about (pi) too, which exist in two dimensions only as a closed line surrounding a maximum area, but never on a straight line which is only the number
I posted this also in math.forum, but since they take long time to post it, then I post it here again for the protection of all school students minds
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
06th, March, 2017
Once again, your post is full of errors.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-03-07 19:22:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@googlemail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
Consider the infinite decimal representation of numbers that includes the following sets of illegal numbers
1) The transcendental numbers as for (pi), or (e)
2) The algebraic numbers as for (2^ {1/3}), or more generally (q^ {1/p}), where (p) is odd prime, and (q) is prime number
3) The infinite decimal representation for a constructible numbers as for (6/7) or sqrt(2)
All those described above are unreal numbers (for sure)
Since all those described numbers above numbers are defined with endless digits (not terminating with infinite sequence of zero digits, then you may notify them with this simple notation in any number system as (N.M), where (N) is finite integer, and (M) is integer with infinite sequence of digits in any base number system, where the decimal notation is the dot (.)
Then consider ONLY the integer (M), after the decimal notation,
With its infinite sequence of digits in any base number system you adopt as denoted by the infinite sequence of digits as
0.M = 0. (d_1)(d_2)(d_3) … (d_n), where (n) tends to infinity
And for more simplicity for students, consider the infinite representation of the arithmetical cube root of two denoted as (\sqrt[3]{2}), or (2^{1/3}), and in 10base number system for clarity
Of course everybody knows that (2^{1/3} = 1.2599210498…), where actually this is forever as absolute rational approximations that never ends, which implies the non existence of such number (proved rigorously in my recent posts), thus (2^(1/3), and its infinite decimal representation are both nonexistent numbers (fiction numbers in mathematics), they have no proof of being existent but only intuitively or foolishly were concluded, or devilishly established as real numbers for a narrow purposes of showing unnecessary talents of few famous Jugglers from old centuries
But it should be understood that if a carpenter was asked to make a cubic tank that contains two meter cube, then no harm to use any approximation for practical purpose, it is so easy task for a carpenter by trial or error calculation which is the same as the alleged modern mathematics of approximations
Once you analyze those approximations step by step then you must understand the whole concept, and no harm if you go and convince your teacher in mathematics about it, before you become as a victim of those wrong concepts about the real numbers
So, let us do it together, by writing the decimal or fractional representation as a rational number only
First approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2 = 12/10 = 6/5)
Second approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25 = 125/100 = 5/4)
Third approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259 = 1259/1000)
Forth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599 = 12599/10000)
Fifth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25992 = 125992/10^5)
Sixth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259921 = 1259921/10^6)
Seventh approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210/10^7) = Sixth approximation!*
The tenth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210498/10^10)
Then what is the (n) digit approximation, it is simply denoted by a rational number (M/10^n), where (M) is integer with (n + 1) number of sequent digits in 10base number system
But our whole number is at infinity as by the definition, then you require both (n) and (M) to be with infinite sequence of digits, where this is not acceptable nor defined in the holy grail principles of mathematics, and also IMPOSSIBLE to attain (for sure), there for our alleged number is a fool number, that exists in the paradise of the fools and so Big Stupid’s minds (so unfortunately),
Thus our alleged number is fake, nonexistent number (for sure)
But, it is no harm if we rename it as (unreal number) for practical purposes only
Same simple logic applies for any number with infinite sequence of digits as described above
But be careful about the surd form of sqrt(2), that does indeed exist independently from it is fake decimal representation which is good for comparison only
And be careful about (pi) too, which exist in two dimensions only as a closed line surrounding a maximum area, but never on a straight line which is only the number
I posted this also in math.forum, but since they take long time to post it, then I post it here again for the protection of all school students minds
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
06th, March, 2017
Once again, your post is full of errors.
And of course if you are incapable to say only one of them, then your post is full of nonsense, and for sure

But you won't dare because you would be caught guilty again

BK
s***@googlemail.com
2017-03-07 19:27:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by s***@googlemail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
Consider the infinite decimal representation of numbers that includes the following sets of illegal numbers
1) The transcendental numbers as for (pi), or (e)
2) The algebraic numbers as for (2^ {1/3}), or more generally (q^ {1/p}), where (p) is odd prime, and (q) is prime number
3) The infinite decimal representation for a constructible numbers as for (6/7) or sqrt(2)
All those described above are unreal numbers (for sure)
Since all those described numbers above numbers are defined with endless digits (not terminating with infinite sequence of zero digits, then you may notify them with this simple notation in any number system as (N.M), where (N) is finite integer, and (M) is integer with infinite sequence of digits in any base number system, where the decimal notation is the dot (.)
Then consider ONLY the integer (M), after the decimal notation,
With its infinite sequence of digits in any base number system you adopt as denoted by the infinite sequence of digits as
0.M = 0. (d_1)(d_2)(d_3) … (d_n), where (n) tends to infinity
And for more simplicity for students, consider the infinite representation of the arithmetical cube root of two denoted as (\sqrt[3]{2}), or (2^{1/3}), and in 10base number system for clarity
Of course everybody knows that (2^{1/3} = 1.2599210498…), where actually this is forever as absolute rational approximations that never ends, which implies the non existence of such number (proved rigorously in my recent posts), thus (2^(1/3), and its infinite decimal representation are both nonexistent numbers (fiction numbers in mathematics), they have no proof of being existent but only intuitively or foolishly were concluded, or devilishly established as real numbers for a narrow purposes of showing unnecessary talents of few famous Jugglers from old centuries
But it should be understood that if a carpenter was asked to make a cubic tank that contains two meter cube, then no harm to use any approximation for practical purpose, it is so easy task for a carpenter by trial or error calculation which is the same as the alleged modern mathematics of approximations
Once you analyze those approximations step by step then you must understand the whole concept, and no harm if you go and convince your teacher in mathematics about it, before you become as a victim of those wrong concepts about the real numbers
So, let us do it together, by writing the decimal or fractional representation as a rational number only
First approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2 = 12/10 = 6/5)
Second approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25 = 125/100 = 5/4)
Third approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259 = 1259/1000)
Forth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599 = 12599/10000)
Fifth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25992 = 125992/10^5)
Sixth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259921 = 1259921/10^6)
Seventh approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210/10^7) = Sixth approximation!*
The tenth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210498/10^10)
Then what is the (n) digit approximation, it is simply denoted by a rational number (M/10^n), where (M) is integer with (n + 1) number of sequent digits in 10base number system
But our whole number is at infinity as by the definition, then you require both (n) and (M) to be with infinite sequence of digits, where this is not acceptable nor defined in the holy grail principles of mathematics, and also IMPOSSIBLE to attain (for sure), there for our alleged number is a fool number, that exists in the paradise of the fools and so Big Stupid’s minds (so unfortunately),
Thus our alleged number is fake, nonexistent number (for sure)
But, it is no harm if we rename it as (unreal number) for practical purposes only
Same simple logic applies for any number with infinite sequence of digits as described above
But be careful about the surd form of sqrt(2), that does indeed exist independently from it is fake decimal representation which is good for comparison only
And be careful about (pi) too, which exist in two dimensions only as a closed line surrounding a maximum area, but never on a straight line which is only the number
I posted this also in math.forum, but since they take long time to post it, then I post it here again for the protection of all school students minds
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
06th, March, 2017
Once again, your post is full of errors.
And of course if you are incapable to say only one of them, then your post is full of nonsense, and for sure
But you won't dare because you would be caught guilty again
BK
last time we spoke i showed you a lot of errors in your posts and then you just ran away.
How come, bassam?
bassam king karzeddin
2017-03-07 19:50:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@googlemail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by s***@googlemail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
Consider the infinite decimal representation of numbers that includes the following sets of illegal numbers
1) The transcendental numbers as for (pi), or (e)
2) The algebraic numbers as for (2^ {1/3}), or more generally (q^ {1/p}), where (p) is odd prime, and (q) is prime number
3) The infinite decimal representation for a constructible numbers as for (6/7) or sqrt(2)
All those described above are unreal numbers (for sure)
Since all those described numbers above numbers are defined with endless digits (not terminating with infinite sequence of zero digits, then you may notify them with this simple notation in any number system as (N.M), where (N) is finite integer, and (M) is integer with infinite sequence of digits in any base number system, where the decimal notation is the dot (.)
Then consider ONLY the integer (M), after the decimal notation,
With its infinite sequence of digits in any base number system you adopt as denoted by the infinite sequence of digits as
0.M = 0. (d_1)(d_2)(d_3) … (d_n), where (n) tends to infinity
And for more simplicity for students, consider the infinite representation of the arithmetical cube root of two denoted as (\sqrt[3]{2}), or (2^{1/3}), and in 10base number system for clarity
Of course everybody knows that (2^{1/3} = 1.2599210498…), where actually this is forever as absolute rational approximations that never ends, which implies the non existence of such number (proved rigorously in my recent posts), thus (2^(1/3), and its infinite decimal representation are both nonexistent numbers (fiction numbers in mathematics), they have no proof of being existent but only intuitively or foolishly were concluded, or devilishly established as real numbers for a narrow purposes of showing unnecessary talents of few famous Jugglers from old centuries
But it should be understood that if a carpenter was asked to make a cubic tank that contains two meter cube, then no harm to use any approximation for practical purpose, it is so easy task for a carpenter by trial or error calculation which is the same as the alleged modern mathematics of approximations
Once you analyze those approximations step by step then you must understand the whole concept, and no harm if you go and convince your teacher in mathematics about it, before you become as a victim of those wrong concepts about the real numbers
So, let us do it together, by writing the decimal or fractional representation as a rational number only
First approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2 = 12/10 = 6/5)
Second approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25 = 125/100 = 5/4)
Third approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259 = 1259/1000)
Forth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599 = 12599/10000)
Fifth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25992 = 125992/10^5)
Sixth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259921 = 1259921/10^6)
Seventh approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210/10^7) = Sixth approximation!*
The tenth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210498/10^10)
Then what is the (n) digit approximation, it is simply denoted by a rational number (M/10^n), where (M) is integer with (n + 1) number of sequent digits in 10base number system
But our whole number is at infinity as by the definition, then you require both (n) and (M) to be with infinite sequence of digits, where this is not acceptable nor defined in the holy grail principles of mathematics, and also IMPOSSIBLE to attain (for sure), there for our alleged number is a fool number, that exists in the paradise of the fools and so Big Stupid’s minds (so unfortunately),
Thus our alleged number is fake, nonexistent number (for sure)
But, it is no harm if we rename it as (unreal number) for practical purposes only
Same simple logic applies for any number with infinite sequence of digits as described above
But be careful about the surd form of sqrt(2), that does indeed exist independently from it is fake decimal representation which is good for comparison only
And be careful about (pi) too, which exist in two dimensions only as a closed line surrounding a maximum area, but never on a straight line which is only the number
I posted this also in math.forum, but since they take long time to post it, then I post it here again for the protection of all school students minds
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
06th, March, 2017
Once again, your post is full of errors.
And of course if you are incapable to say only one of them, then your post is full of nonsense, and for sure
But you won't dare because you would be caught guilty again
BK
last time we spoke i showed you a lot of errors in your posts and then you just ran away.
How come, bassam?
Did you see the previous page where I removed the decimal dot (before you report them), so un intentional error I already knew about it, but it does not the core content meaning,

What are you fishing, Wonder!, OR most likely diverting the whole issue to seem nonsense,

Did not see how others kept so silent when I faced them directly with many facts, or do not you notice anything else but may be a spelling or grammar or a dot notation (.),

But avoid the mathematics of course, SO GET A POINT

BK



BK
s***@googlemail.com
2017-03-07 21:48:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by s***@googlemail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by s***@googlemail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
Consider the infinite decimal representation of numbers that includes the following sets of illegal numbers
1) The transcendental numbers as for (pi), or (e)
2) The algebraic numbers as for (2^ {1/3}), or more generally (q^ {1/p}), where (p) is odd prime, and (q) is prime number
3) The infinite decimal representation for a constructible numbers as for (6/7) or sqrt(2)
All those described above are unreal numbers (for sure)
Since all those described numbers above numbers are defined with endless digits (not terminating with infinite sequence of zero digits, then you may notify them with this simple notation in any number system as (N.M), where (N) is finite integer, and (M) is integer with infinite sequence of digits in any base number system, where the decimal notation is the dot (.)
Then consider ONLY the integer (M), after the decimal notation,
With its infinite sequence of digits in any base number system you adopt as denoted by the infinite sequence of digits as
0.M = 0. (d_1)(d_2)(d_3) … (d_n), where (n) tends to infinity
And for more simplicity for students, consider the infinite representation of the arithmetical cube root of two denoted as (\sqrt[3]{2}), or (2^{1/3}), and in 10base number system for clarity
Of course everybody knows that (2^{1/3} = 1.2599210498…), where actually this is forever as absolute rational approximations that never ends, which implies the non existence of such number (proved rigorously in my recent posts), thus (2^(1/3), and its infinite decimal representation are both nonexistent numbers (fiction numbers in mathematics), they have no proof of being existent but only intuitively or foolishly were concluded, or devilishly established as real numbers for a narrow purposes of showing unnecessary talents of few famous Jugglers from old centuries
But it should be understood that if a carpenter was asked to make a cubic tank that contains two meter cube, then no harm to use any approximation for practical purpose, it is so easy task for a carpenter by trial or error calculation which is the same as the alleged modern mathematics of approximations
Once you analyze those approximations step by step then you must understand the whole concept, and no harm if you go and convince your teacher in mathematics about it, before you become as a victim of those wrong concepts about the real numbers
So, let us do it together, by writing the decimal or fractional representation as a rational number only
First approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2 = 12/10 = 6/5)
Second approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25 = 125/100 = 5/4)
Third approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259 = 1259/1000)
Forth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599 = 12599/10000)
Fifth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25992 = 125992/10^5)
Sixth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259921 = 1259921/10^6)
Seventh approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210/10^7) = Sixth approximation!*
The tenth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210498/10^10)
Then what is the (n) digit approximation, it is simply denoted by a rational number (M/10^n), where (M) is integer with (n + 1) number of sequent digits in 10base number system
But our whole number is at infinity as by the definition, then you require both (n) and (M) to be with infinite sequence of digits, where this is not acceptable nor defined in the holy grail principles of mathematics, and also IMPOSSIBLE to attain (for sure), there for our alleged number is a fool number, that exists in the paradise of the fools and so Big Stupid’s minds (so unfortunately),
Thus our alleged number is fake, nonexistent number (for sure)
But, it is no harm if we rename it as (unreal number) for practical purposes only
Same simple logic applies for any number with infinite sequence of digits as described above
But be careful about the surd form of sqrt(2), that does indeed exist independently from it is fake decimal representation which is good for comparison only
And be careful about (pi) too, which exist in two dimensions only as a closed line surrounding a maximum area, but never on a straight line which is only the number
I posted this also in math.forum, but since they take long time to post it, then I post it here again for the protection of all school students minds
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
06th, March, 2017
Once again, your post is full of errors.
And of course if you are incapable to say only one of them, then your post is full of nonsense, and for sure
But you won't dare because you would be caught guilty again
BK
last time we spoke i showed you a lot of errors in your posts and then you just ran away.
How come, bassam?
Did you see the previous page where I removed the decimal dot (before you report them), so un intentional error I already knew about it, but it does not the core content meaning,
What are you fishing, Wonder!, OR most likely diverting the whole issue to seem nonsense,
Did not see how others kept so silent when I faced them directly with many facts, or do not you notice anything else but may be a spelling or grammar or a dot notation (.),
But avoid the mathematics of course, SO GET A POINT
BK
BK
tbh i mostly avoid your gibberish because it is insanely incoherent and i think you might have mental problems.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-03-08 17:18:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@googlemail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
tbh i mostly avoid your gibberish because it is insanely incoherent and i think you might have mental problems.
so this is the type of replies of a professional to a mature, when he can not face it, so I would repeat my same question to Jan above, and learn how did he hide not being able to face the bitter truth, nor being able to announce obedience to the absolute truth, so unlike you at least he kept so silent and run away realizing again the so bitter truth about all those fiction numbers.

So the same question again for you in order to save you

Do not put words in my mouth, just talk in the language of mathematics if you are a true mathematician

I would take the pain to explain you the obvious concept drop by drop

1) Can you deny openly that (e) or (pi) or (100)^(1/5) or for instance, can be expressed approximately as a rational number (M(n)/10^n) to any desired degree of accuracy, where (n) is positive integer for the degree of accuracy required, and M(n) is positive integer with (n + 1) digits?

2) I also assume that you understand the meaning of degree of accuracy (right?)

It does not mean any equality for any chosen finite integer (n), even that finite integer can fill say only (one trillion galaxy size, where each one trillion digit can be stored only in one mm cube)

Because the LHS is defined as irrational number whereas the RHS is still rational number (is not it?)

Then you or the current mathematics says, (n) must be infinite in order to achieve the irrationality

3) But the holy grail principle of mathematics does not define integers with infinite sequence of digits, nor their division ratio for (M(n)/10^n), when (n) is infinite, (Does it?)

4) Adding to that a genious reason, is it possible one day to find all those digits which completes the missing number supposedly (of course It is IMPOSSIBLE), (Is not it?)

5) I also assume that you do understand the rigorous proof of impossibility of constructing those chosen above numbers EXACTLY, in order to be considered as real numbers as any constructible number (Do not you?)

6) So, for ever you would have ONLY APPROXIMATIONS (would not you?)

7) So, by consideration or APPROXIMATION to invent huge unnecessary volumes of mathematics, they had been illegally define as real numbers, just to create unnecessary Jobs for your alikes, whereas they are also forbidden at your dream paradise called infinity (are not they?)

8) And do you think that any clever student can not comprehend this obvious too simple trick, probably he might need only few minutes to understand this whole scandal about real numbers (Do not you too?), or do you need toooo advanced tools to be convinced yet!Wonder!?

So, please answer those questions honestly, then I would be gladly pick up another hobby, rather than disturbing the professional mathematicians mood!

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
08/03/17
bassam king karzeddin
2017-03-11 09:07:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by s***@googlemail.com
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
tbh i mostly avoid your gibberish because it is insanely incoherent and i think you might have mental problems.
so this is the type of replies of a professional to a mature, when he can not face it, so I would repeat my same question to Jan above, and learn how did he hide not being able to face the bitter truth, nor being able to announce obedience to the absolute truth, so unlike you at least he kept so silent and run away realizing again the so bitter truth about all those fiction numbers.
So the same question again for you in order to save you
Do not put words in my mouth, just talk in the language of mathematics if you are a true mathematician
I would take the pain to explain you the obvious concept drop by drop
1) Can you deny openly that (e) or (pi) or (100)^(1/5) or for instance, can be expressed approximately as a rational number (M(n)/10^n) to any desired degree of accuracy, where (n) is positive integer for the degree of accuracy required, and M(n) is positive integer with (n + 1) digits?
2) I also assume that you understand the meaning of degree of accuracy (right?)
It does not mean any equality for any chosen finite integer (n), even that finite integer can fill say only (one trillion galaxy size, where each one trillion digit can be stored only in one mm cube)
Because the LHS is defined as irrational number whereas the RHS is still rational number (is not it?)
Then you or the current mathematics says, (n) must be infinite in order to achieve the irrationality
3) But the holy grail principle of mathematics does not define integers with infinite sequence of digits, nor their division ratio for (M(n)/10^n), when (n) is infinite, (Does it?)
4) Adding to that a genious reason, is it possible one day to find all those digits which completes the missing number supposedly (of course It is IMPOSSIBLE), (Is not it?)
5) I also assume that you do understand the rigorous proof of impossibility of constructing those chosen above numbers EXACTLY, in order to be considered as real numbers as any constructible number (Do not you?)
6) So, for ever you would have ONLY APPROXIMATIONS (would not you?)
7) So, by consideration or APPROXIMATION to invent huge unnecessary volumes of mathematics, they had been illegally define as real numbers, just to create unnecessary Jobs for your alikes, whereas they are also forbidden at your dream paradise called infinity (are not they?)
8) And do you think that any clever student can not comprehend this obvious too simple trick, probably he might need only few minutes to understand this whole scandal about real numbers (Do not you too?), or do you need toooo advanced tools to be convinced yet!Wonder!?
So, please answer those questions honestly, then I would be gladly pick up another hobby, rather than disturbing the professional mathematicians mood!
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
08/03/17
So, Shinon had most likely realized the truth as Jan did, it is toooooooooo Simple and beyond believe, but why don't you say it so openly to others,wonder!

And do you think really it is painful to understand this toooooo eeeee easy by any clever student

And for those with deepest thought. Do you know what does this mean?wonder!

Ignore those who are parking day and night from a distance for a very bad purpose

BK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-03-07 19:24:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
Consider the infinite decimal representation of numbers that includes the following sets of illegal numbers
1) The transcendental numbers as for (pi), or (e)
2) The algebraic numbers as for (2^ {1/3}), or more generally (q^ {1/p}), where (p) is odd prime, and (q) is prime number
3) The infinite decimal representation for a constructible numbers as for (6/7) or sqrt(2)
All those described above are unreal numbers (for sure)
Since all those described numbers above numbers are defined with endless digits (not terminating with infinite sequence of zero digits, then you may notify them with this simple notation in any number system as (N.M), where (N) is finite integer, and (M) is integer with infinite sequence of digits in any base number system, where the decimal notation is the dot (.)
Then consider ONLY the integer (M), after the decimal notation,
With its infinite sequence of digits in any base number system you adopt as denoted by the infinite sequence of digits as
0.M = 0. (d_1)(d_2)(d_3) … (d_n), where (n) tends to infinity
And for more simplicity for students, consider the infinite representation of the arithmetical cube root of two denoted as (\sqrt[3]{2}), or (2^{1/3}), and in 10base number system for clarity
Of course everybody knows that (2^{1/3} = 1.2599210498…), where actually this is forever as absolute rational approximations that never ends, which implies the non existence of such number (proved rigorously in my recent posts), thus (2^(1/3), and its infinite decimal representation are both nonexistent numbers (fiction numbers in mathematics), they have no proof of being existent but only intuitively or foolishly were concluded, or devilishly established as real numbers for a narrow purposes of showing unnecessary talents of few famous Jugglers from old centuries
But it should be understood that if a carpenter was asked to make a cubic tank that contains two meter cube, then no harm to use any approximation for practical purpose, it is so easy task for a carpenter by trial or error calculation which is the same as the alleged modern mathematics of approximations
Once you analyze those approximations step by step then you must understand the whole concept, and no harm if you go and convince your teacher in mathematics about it, before you become as a victim of those wrong concepts about the real numbers
So, let us do it together, by writing the decimal or fractional representation as a rational number only
First approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2 = 12/10 = 6/5)
Second approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25 = 125/100 = 5/4)
Third approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259 = 1259/1000)
Forth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599 = 12599/10000)
Fifth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25992 = 125992/10^5)
Sixth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259921 = 1259921/10^6)
Seventh approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (12599210/10^7) = Sixth approximation!*
The tenth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (12599210498/10^10)
Then what is the (n) digit approximation, it is simply denoted by a rational number (M/10^n), where (M) is integer with (n + 1) number of sequent digits in 10base number system
But our whole number is at infinity as by the definition, then you require both (n) and (M) to be with infinite sequence of digits, where this is not acceptable nor defined in the holy grail principles of mathematics, and also IMPOSSIBLE to attain (for sure), there for our alleged number is a fool number, that exists in the paradise of the fools and so Big Stupid’s minds (so unfortunately),
Thus our alleged number is fake, nonexistent number (for sure)
But, it is no harm if we rename it as (unreal number) for practical purposes only
Same simple logic applies for any number with infinite sequence of digits as described above
But be careful about the surd form of sqrt(2), that does indeed exist independently from it is fake decimal representation which is good for comparison only
And be careful about (pi) too, which exist in two dimensions only as a closed line surrounding a maximum area, but never on a straight line which is only the number
I posted this also in math.forum, but since they take long time to post it, then I post it here again for the protection of all school students minds
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
06th, March, 2017
7/03/17
bassam king karzeddin
2017-03-11 12:49:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
Consider the infinite decimal representation of numbers that includes the following sets of illegal numbers
1) The transcendental numbers as for (pi), or (e)
2) The algebraic numbers as for (2^ {1/3}), or more generally (q^ {1/p}), where (p) is odd prime, and (q) is prime number
3) The infinite decimal representation for a constructible numbers as for (6/7) or sqrt(2)
All those described above are unreal numbers (for sure)
Since all those described numbers above numbers are defined with endless digits (not terminating with infinite sequence of zero digits, then you may notify them with this simple notation in any number system as (N.M), where (N) is finite integer, and (M) is integer with infinite sequence of digits in any base number system, where the decimal notation is the dot (.)
Then consider ONLY the integer (M), after the decimal notation,
With its infinite sequence of digits in any base number system you adopt as denoted by the infinite sequence of digits as
0.M = 0. (d_1)(d_2)(d_3) … (d_n), where (n) tends to infinity
And for more simplicity for students, consider the infinite representation of the arithmetical cube root of two denoted as (\sqrt[3]{2}), or (2^{1/3}), and in 10base number system for clarity
Of course everybody knows that (2^{1/3} = 1.2599210498…), where actually this is forever as absolute rational approximations that never ends, which implies the non existence of such number (proved rigorously in my recent posts), thus (2^(1/3), and its infinite decimal representation are both nonexistent numbers (fiction numbers in mathematics), they have no proof of being existent but only intuitively or foolishly were concluded, or devilishly established as real numbers for a narrow purposes of showing unnecessary talents of few famous Jugglers from old centuries
But it should be understood that if a carpenter was asked to make a cubic tank that contains two meter cube, then no harm to use any approximation for practical purpose, it is so easy task for a carpenter by trial or error calculation which is the same as the alleged modern mathematics of approximations
Once you analyze those approximations step by step then you must understand the whole concept, and no harm if you go and convince your teacher in mathematics about it, before you become as a victim of those wrong concepts about the real numbers
So, let us do it together, by writing the decimal or fractional representation as a rational number only
First approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2 = 12/10 = 6/5)
Second approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25 = 125/100 = 5/4)
Third approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259 = 1259/1000)
Forth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599 = 12599/10000)
Fifth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25992 = 125992/10^5)
Sixth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259921 = 1259921/10^6)
Seventh approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (12599210/10^7) = Sixth approximation!*
The tenth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (12599210498/10^10)
Then what is the (n) digit approximation, it is simply denoted by a rational number (M/10^n), where (M) is integer with (n + 1) number of sequent digits in 10base number system
But our whole number is at infinity as by the definition, then you require both (n) and (M) to be with infinite sequence of digits, where this is not acceptable nor defined in the holy grail principles of mathematics, and also IMPOSSIBLE to attain (for sure), there for our alleged number is a fool number, that exists in the paradise of the fools and so Big Stupid’s minds (so unfortunately),
Thus our alleged number is fake, nonexistent number (for sure)
But, it is no harm if we rename it as (unreal number) for practical purposes only
Same simple logic applies for any number with infinite sequence of digits as described above
But be careful about the surd form of sqrt(2), that does indeed exist independently from it is fake decimal representation which is good for comparison only
And be careful about (pi) too, which exist in two dimensions only as a closed line surrounding a maximum area, but never on a straight line which is only the number
I posted this also in math.forum, but since they take long time to post it, then I post it here again for the protection of all school students minds
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
06th, March, 2017
7/03/17
Can anyone confirm the visibility of this link at Quora
https://www.quora.com/What-does-this-self-proven-Diophantine-inequality-Iff-m-q-p*-10-nq-m-+-1-q-prove-to-you-immediately-in-mathematics/answer/Bassam-Karzeddin-1

BK
b***@gmail.com
2017-03-11 15:43:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Do you use IFF for "if and only if". Did you know that iff
is used in the following sentence form:

__LHS__ iff __RHS__

What is your LHS and what is you RHS? Here is an example of
the use of iff in the integer:

x >= y iff x+1 > y

BTW: Here is the correct computation of the error power 3
(up to 30 digits it was done):

0.272
0.046875
0.004383021
0.000100242201
0.000004999808512
2.37609513039E-7
2.37609513039E-7
4.7121395842459136E-8
4.261567806361919351E-9
4.5180528463104597401E-10
2.320700063356369089E-11
4.15818801003217625E-12
3.4842548531135903E-13
1.507126439805734E-14
7.8465493034358E-16
3.0843461475312E-16
2.270242539884E-17
3.65361277522E-18
3.2007056609E-19
3.433837674E-20

Its getting smaller and smaller. What you are showing is not
the error power 3, but the error power 3 scaled geometrically.

Am Samstag, 11. März 2017 13:49:34 UTC+1 schrieb bassam king karzeddin:
b***@gmail.com
2017-03-11 15:54:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I was using the following Prolog code:

?- use_module(library(decimal/multi)).
% 7 consults and 0 unloads in 161 ms.
Yes

?- N=2, X is mp(2**(1/3), 30), Y is integer(X*10^N), Z is mp(2-Y^3/10^(N*3),90).
N = 2,
X = 0d1.25992104989487316476721060728,
Y = 125,
Z = 0d0.046875

We can actually compute the error power 3 more precise:

?- use_module(library(advanced/arith)).
% 1 consults and 0 unloads in 5 ms.
Yes

?- between(1,20,N), X is mp(2**(1/3), 30), Y is integer(X*10^N), Z is mp(2-Y^3/10^(N*3),90), write(Z), nl, fail; true.
0.272
0.046875
0.004383021
0.000100242201
0.000004999808512
2.37609513039E-7
2.37609513039E-7
4.7121395842459136E-8
4.261567806361919351E-9
4.51805284631045974008E-10
2.3207000633563690886331E-11
4.158188010032176247791016E-12
3.48425485311359029588252608E-13
1.5071264398057335419695075697E-14
7.84654930343577901484257683383E-16
3.08434614753118145817320680698109E-16
2.2702425398842256131432242114829504E-17
3.653612775223862518086979890014965056E-18
3.20070566090643623316138238210022622977E-19
3.4338376736367717877708897001123194101824E-20
Yes
Post by b***@gmail.com
Do you use IFF for "if and only if". Did you know that iff
__LHS__ iff __RHS__
What is your LHS and what is you RHS? Here is an example of
x >= y iff x+1 > y
BTW: Here is the correct computation of the error power 3
0.272
0.046875
0.004383021
0.000100242201
0.000004999808512
2.37609513039E-7
2.37609513039E-7
4.7121395842459136E-8
4.261567806361919351E-9
4.5180528463104597401E-10
2.320700063356369089E-11
4.15818801003217625E-12
3.4842548531135903E-13
1.507126439805734E-14
7.8465493034358E-16
3.0843461475312E-16
2.270242539884E-17
3.65361277522E-18
3.2007056609E-19
3.433837674E-20
Its getting smaller and smaller. What you are showing is not
the error power 3, but the error power 3 scaled geometrically.
b***@gmail.com
2017-03-11 16:05:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
But who cares about Diophantine and the error power 3?
This is only a means to and end. The end here computing

a decimal representation, the means here number theory.
But when we look at a decimal representation, not the

error power 3 interests, but the error itself. Here is
an estimate of the approximation error:

?- between(1,20,N), X is mp(2**(1/3), 30), Y is integer(X*10^N), Z is mp(X-Y/10^N,30), write(Z), nl, fail; true.
0.05992104989487316476721060728
0.00992104989487316476721060728
0.00092104989487316476721060728
0.00002104989487316476721060728
0.00000104989487316476721060728
4.989487316476721060728E-8
4.989487316476721060728E-8
9.89487316476721060728E-9
8.9487316476721060728E-10
9.487316476721060728E-11
4.87316476721060728E-12
8.7316476721060728E-13
7.316476721060728E-14
3.16476721060728E-15
1.6476721060728E-16
6.476721060728E-17
4.76721060728E-18
7.6721060728E-19
6.721060728E-20
7.21060728E-21

But we know this already, since for a decimal
representation we always have the following upper

bound D-D_n =< 1/10^n for the error.

Am Samstag, 11. März 2017 16:54:36 UTC+1 schrieb ***@gmail.com:
b***@gmail.com
2017-03-11 17:29:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
BKK wrote:
"Note that I am not a professional mathematician to
waste the content issue (rigorous so simple proof),
based on playing with words, Yes I mean (if and only if),
because it is so direct that (mq≠p∗(10)nq≠(m+1)q, this
is called INEQUALITY"

Here is my response:
You cannot use "iff" as exclamation mark, to somehow
increase the force of your theorem. "iff" was invented
from mathematicians for mathematicians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if#Origin_of_iff
"Usage of the abbreviation "iff" first appeared in
print in John L. Kelley's 1955 book General Topology.
Its invention is often credited to Paul Halmos, who
wrote "I invented 'iff,' for 'if and only if'—but I
could never believe I was really its first inventor."

So what I wrote is correct, if you follow the
wikipedia article, you need a LHS and RHS:

__LHS__ iff __RHS__ /* this is ok */

But you cannot use it like this:

iff __RHS__ /* this is not ok */

The later form just doesn't make sense, what should
it mean and why would you use "iff"?
Post by b***@gmail.com
Do you use IFF for "if and only if". Did you know that iff
__LHS__ iff __RHS__
What is your LHS and what is you RHS? Here is an example of
x >= y iff x+1 > y
BTW: Here is the correct computation of the error power 3
0.272
0.046875
0.004383021
0.000100242201
0.000004999808512
2.37609513039E-7
2.37609513039E-7
4.7121395842459136E-8
4.261567806361919351E-9
4.5180528463104597401E-10
2.320700063356369089E-11
4.15818801003217625E-12
3.4842548531135903E-13
1.507126439805734E-14
7.8465493034358E-16
3.0843461475312E-16
2.270242539884E-17
3.65361277522E-18
3.2007056609E-19
3.433837674E-20
Its getting smaller and smaller. What you are showing is not
the error power 3, but the error power 3 scaled geometrically.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-03-11 17:37:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Do you use IFF for "if and only if". Did you know that iff
__LHS__ iff __RHS__
What is your LHS and what is you RHS? Here is an example of
x >= y iff x+1 > y
BTW: Here is the correct computation of the error power 3
0.272
0.046875
0.004383021
0.000100242201
0.000004999808512
2.37609513039E-7
2.37609513039E-7
4.7121395842459136E-8
4.261567806361919351E-9
4.5180528463104597401E-10
2.320700063356369089E-11
4.15818801003217625E-12
3.4842548531135903E-13
1.507126439805734E-14
7.8465493034358E-16
3.0843461475312E-16
2.270242539884E-17
3.65361277522E-18
3.2007056609E-19
3.433837674E-20
Its getting smaller and smaller. What you are showing is not
the error power 3, but the error power 3 scaled geometrically.
So error in your answer would remain forever (can you deny that so openly and NOW)?

you still can not understand or ignore for a very dirty reason in mind that whatever digits you happily and so foolishly get, the remaining digits are always infinite, are not they BIG STUPID?

So, if I redefine the accuracy based on number of digits obtained instead of the magnitude then obviously your score would be always greater than zero, is not it moron?, BUT so negligible (for sure)

I understand very well your GRAND MATHEMATICIANS carpentry works of endless hopeless approximations, BY HOOK OR ROCK you want to justify the existence of cube root (2) as a real number, by talking about the error size, and then neglecting that PERMANENT ERROR!, but still the error is perpetual where you cannot deny it, AND NOW?

K(n) =/= 0, D(n)^3 + K(n) = 2*(10)^{3n}

and for ever, and even you set it as zero, then again D(n) =/= 2(10^n)^3,

Do you want to provoke this also just to justify the existence of cube root of two as any real number

And still keep denying as always as ever, (by the way, it is not only you who denies my proofs, but the vast majorities of the alleged top mathematicians too, and the reason is so exposed widely, (the so tiny negligible and unnoticible ego and mentally retardation and psychological severe problems for the consequences) and never for the shining truth

You cannot (for sure), but we understand those carpentry works (for sure)

This proof is based on INTEGER analysis and not your foraged real analysis (also for sure)

Can not see yourself here how the clever student understood it immediately for it is obvious implication and so simplicity

I also provided you with answer at Quora you joined immediately, just to hide the absolute so simple truths, so follow me everywhere, here at sci.math, at SE and at QUORA, but never the less you would never win, because there are plenty of your alike, and because I have the simplest truth

And it is not at all my problem, if your employers do not pay you if you are not successful in your dirty mission of dumping the so innocent students for the sake of well established huge ignorance

And for sure, this would not change your little mind, because you are a carpenter and never a true mathematician, and being a carpenter or a farmer for instance is never any shame but a pride if you confess it so openly

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
I1th, March, 2017
b***@gmail.com
2017-03-11 17:48:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
There are at least two errors in your Quora post:
- Wrong use of "iff", its not grammatical "iff __RHS__".
- The error D-D_n gets smaller and smaller, it doesn't grow.

If you don't want to get criticised, dont post
Quora links on sci.math. Its very easy.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Do you use IFF for "if and only if". Did you know that iff
__LHS__ iff __RHS__
What is your LHS and what is you RHS? Here is an example of
x >= y iff x+1 > y
BTW: Here is the correct computation of the error power 3
0.272
0.046875
0.004383021
0.000100242201
0.000004999808512
2.37609513039E-7
2.37609513039E-7
4.7121395842459136E-8
4.261567806361919351E-9
4.5180528463104597401E-10
2.320700063356369089E-11
4.15818801003217625E-12
3.4842548531135903E-13
1.507126439805734E-14
7.8465493034358E-16
3.0843461475312E-16
2.270242539884E-17
3.65361277522E-18
3.2007056609E-19
3.433837674E-20
Its getting smaller and smaller. What you are showing is not
the error power 3, but the error power 3 scaled geometrically.
b***@gmail.com
2017-03-11 17:55:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Probably you are confusing number of digits with
magnitude of a number. For example:

A = 0.125
B = 0.12345678

A has 3 digita, B has 8 digits. This doesn't mean B
is bigger than A. If fact A is bigger than B.
Post by b***@gmail.com
- Wrong use of "iff", its not grammatical "iff __RHS__".
- The error D-D_n gets smaller and smaller, it doesn't grow.
If you don't want to get criticised, dont post
Quora links on sci.math. Its very easy.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Do you use IFF for "if and only if". Did you know that iff
__LHS__ iff __RHS__
What is your LHS and what is you RHS? Here is an example of
x >= y iff x+1 > y
BTW: Here is the correct computation of the error power 3
0.272
0.046875
0.004383021
0.000100242201
0.000004999808512
2.37609513039E-7
2.37609513039E-7
4.7121395842459136E-8
4.261567806361919351E-9
4.5180528463104597401E-10
2.320700063356369089E-11
4.15818801003217625E-12
3.4842548531135903E-13
1.507126439805734E-14
7.8465493034358E-16
3.0843461475312E-16
2.270242539884E-17
3.65361277522E-18
3.2007056609E-19
3.433837674E-20
Its getting smaller and smaller. What you are showing is not
the error power 3, but the error power 3 scaled geometrically.
b***@gmail.com
2017-03-11 17:58:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The confusion applies to the error D-D_n.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Probably you are confusing number of digits with
A = 0.125
B = 0.12345678
A has 3 digita, B has 8 digits. This doesn't mean B
is bigger than A. If fact A is bigger than B.
Post by b***@gmail.com
- Wrong use of "iff", its not grammatical "iff __RHS__".
- The error D-D_n gets smaller and smaller, it doesn't grow.
If you don't want to get criticised, dont post
Quora links on sci.math. Its very easy.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Do you use IFF for "if and only if". Did you know that iff
__LHS__ iff __RHS__
What is your LHS and what is you RHS? Here is an example of
x >= y iff x+1 > y
BTW: Here is the correct computation of the error power 3
0.272
0.046875
0.004383021
0.000100242201
0.000004999808512
2.37609513039E-7
2.37609513039E-7
4.7121395842459136E-8
4.261567806361919351E-9
4.5180528463104597401E-10
2.320700063356369089E-11
4.15818801003217625E-12
3.4842548531135903E-13
1.507126439805734E-14
7.8465493034358E-16
3.0843461475312E-16
2.270242539884E-17
3.65361277522E-18
3.2007056609E-19
3.433837674E-20
Its getting smaller and smaller. What you are showing is not
the error power 3, but the error power 3 scaled geometrically.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-03-11 18:21:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Do you use IFF for "if and only if". Did you know that iff
__LHS__ iff __RHS__
What is your LHS and what is you RHS? Here is an example of
x >= y iff x+1 > y
BTW: Here is the correct computation of the error power 3
0.272
0.046875
0.004383021
0.000100242201
0.000004999808512
2.37609513039E-7
2.37609513039E-7
4.7121395842459136E-8
4.261567806361919351E-9
4.5180528463104597401E-10
2.320700063356369089E-11
4.15818801003217625E-12
3.4842548531135903E-13
1.507126439805734E-14
7.8465493034358E-16
3.0843461475312E-16
2.270242539884E-17
3.65361277522E-18
3.2007056609E-19
3.433837674E-20
Its getting smaller and smaller. What you are showing is not
the error power 3, but the error power 3 scaled geometrically.
So error in your answer would remain forever (can you deny that so openly and NOW)?
you still can not understand or ignore for a very dirty reason in mind that whatever digits you happily and so foolishly get, the remaining digits are always infinite, are not they BIG STUPID?
So, if I redefine the accuracy based on number of digits obtained instead of the magnitude then obviously your score would be always greater than zero, is not it moron?, BUT so negligible (for sure)
I understand very well your GRAND MATHEMATICIANS carpentry works of endless hopeless approximations, BY HOOK OR ROCK you want to justify the existence of cube root (2) as a real number, by talking about the error size, and then neglecting that PERMANENT ERROR!, but still the error is perpetual where you cannot deny it, AND NOW?
K(n) =/= 0, D(n)^3 + K(n) = 2*(10)^{3n}
and for ever, and even you set it as zero, then again
D(n)^3 =/= 2(10^n)^3,
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Do you want to provoke this also just to justify ILLEGALLY the existence of cube root of two as any real number
then construct it exactly if you can, and you or anyone (INCLUDING myself) can not (fore sure)!
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And still keep denying as always as ever, (by the way, it is not only you who denies my proofs, but the vast majorities of the alleged top mathematicians too, and the reason is so exposed widely, (the so tiny negligible and unnoticible ego and mentally retardation and psychological severe problems for the consequences) and never for the shining truth
You cannot (for sure), but we understand those carpentry works (for sure)
This proof is based on INTEGER analysis and not your foraged real analysis (also for sure)
Can not see yourself here how the clever student understood it immediately for it is obvious implication and so simplicity
I also provided you with answer at Quora you joined immediately, just to hide the absolute so simple truths, so follow me everywhere, here at sci.math, at SE and at QUORA, but never the less you would never win, because there are plenty of your alike, and because I have the simplest truth
And it is not at all my problem, if your employers do not pay you if you are not successful in your dirty mission of dumping the so innocent students for the sake of well established huge ignorance
And for sure, this would not change your little mind, because you are a carpenter and never a true mathematician, and being a carpenter or a farmer for instance is never any shame but a pride if you confess it so openly
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
I1th, March, 2017
BK
Mr Sawat Layuheem
2017-03-11 16:13:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
thanks....teacher bassam king karzeddin

i learning from you problem......i understandings.....Your problem...easy style for amatu er likes me.....and you donot minds...my crazy answers..

i thanks...so much...i will learning from your-problem
bassam king karzeddin
2017-03-11 18:31:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mr Sawat Layuheem
thanks....teacher bassam king karzeddin
i learning from you problem......i understandings.....Your problem...easy style for amatu er likes me.....and you donot minds...my crazy answers..
i thanks...so much...i will learning from your-problem
Glad you got it exactly before those BIG STUPID MORONS, they still argue about IFF, or a coma might be missed, so to invalidate the proof, as if any professionals can not make it in standard Journals writing (so big task for them indeed, actually it is more than impossible, because this is basically against their existence, so this is the whole problem, and not IFF or (if and only if), as a big moron trying hard to nullify all my effort into this silly issue)

And naturally a Bigger moron would take his so silly reasoning

They simply can not tolerate a mature superior to them (for sure)

May be your english language is inadequate, but if it is Arabic, then I would explain it in Arabic

BK
b***@gmail.com
2017-03-11 18:38:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Feel free to post in arabic on a mainly arabic spoken site, no
need to post here or in Quora in English, if you don't like english.

Its your fault, if you borrow terms, such as "iff", and use them
wrongly. Why did you borrow it in the first place?

Wikipedia does a good job in explaining many terms, for example
"iff" has a whole article dedicated to it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if

iff is the biconditional (<->), with the following truth table:

A B A <-> B A XOR B
0 0 1 0
0 1 0 1
1 0 0 1
1 1 1 0

As you can see, its the negation of the exclusive or (xor).

Am Samstag, 11. März 2017 19:31:57 UTC+1 schrieb bassam king karzeddin:
bassam king karzeddin
2017-03-11 18:59:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Feel free to post in arabic on a mainly arabic spoken site, no
need to post here or in Quora in English, if you don't like english.
I do not accept any dictation or any suggestions from any stupid, as in which language I should write or where to write, because I know for sure everything I write must be translated to all languages including the Arabic language, which is indeed the richest expressible language and not because it is my mother tongue language, but because it is the oldest spoken language on a very large scale, beside been taught in so many countries too, it is perpetual language, and lucky who knows it, because he simply can read what was written even thousands of years back
Post by b***@gmail.com
Its your fault, if you borrow terms, such as "iff", and use them
wrongly. Why did you borrow it in the first place?
So, hopelessly trying to divert the simplest issue

What about a missed coma or full stop BIG MORON, they would invalidate the proof for sure, WONDER!
Post by b***@gmail.com
Wikipedia does a good job in explaining many terms, for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if
A B A <-> B A XOR B
0 0 1 0
0 1 0 1
1 0 0 1
1 1 1 0
As you can see, its the negation of the exclusive or (xor).
So, can not you comprehend it, and claim it is yours, we need urgently many people to steal it, and NOW?
What a modern fake immoral mathematicians, indeed, beyond belief

Permanent shame upon you and your LOGICAL nonsense mathematics (prostitutional mathematicians) - for sure

BK
Jane Gabriel
2017-03-11 21:12:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Shut up idiot.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-03-12 09:20:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jane Gabriel
Shut up idiot.
Another moron trying to mimic the real JG, with only his one post, and hopefully the last

Did you notice how many had been identified by me from their first few post until now, may be around 10

So, what can you hope from those morons, and what forces them to register just to say nonsense, be careful, those are the spoilers and (for sure)

BK
Pancho Valvejob
2017-03-12 15:56:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Idiot: shut up.
a***@gmail.com
2017-03-19 23:13:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
j.g cannot bother with any arithmetical properties of secondr00ts e.g,
for no known reason, although you (Bassam) have at least tried to,
I suppose
bassam king karzeddin
2018-01-17 08:33:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mr Sawat Layuheem
thanks....teacher bassam king karzeddin
i learning from you problem......i understandings.....Your problem...easy style for amatu er likes me.....and you donot minds...my crazy answers..
i thanks...so much...i will learning from your-problem
Every one must learn the obvious truth after all, for sure

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2018-01-20 18:55:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Mr Sawat Layuheem
thanks....teacher bassam king karzeddin
i learning from you problem......i understandings.....Your problem...easy style for amatu er likes me.....and you donot minds...my crazy answers..
i thanks...so much...i will learning from your-problem
Every one must learn the obvious truth after all, for sure
BKK
And those topics had already become as daily talks in so many sites as well, and the professionals are becoming more careful of repeating all their old nonsense they usually used to believe in, so let them enjoy it more for a LITTLE while only, for sure
BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2018-02-13 09:09:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Mr Sawat Layuheem
thanks....teacher bassam king karzeddin
i learning from you problem......i understandings.....Your problem...easy style for amatu er likes me.....and you donot minds...my crazy answers..
i thanks...so much...i will learning from your-problem
Every one must learn the obvious truth after all, for sure
BKK
And those topics had already become as daily talks in so many sites as well, and the professionals are becoming more careful of repeating all their old nonsense they usually used to believe in, so let them enjoy it more for a LITTLE while only, for sure
BKK
In fact, and if you can notice that nobody dares nowadays to talk about such an old rusted and refuted concepts, since they were just a mere foolish and so devilish decisions

But, at the same time if you can notice that nobody dares nowadays to talk about such a new golden facts that were rigorously well-proved, since they were just a mere simple and so obvious facts as well!wonder!

But for every generalization, there are rare exceptions, for sure

BKK
Zelos Malum
2018-02-16 11:41:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Mr Sawat Layuheem
thanks....teacher bassam king karzeddin
i learning from you problem......i understandings.....Your problem...easy style for amatu er likes me.....and you donot minds...my crazy answers..
i thanks...so much...i will learning from your-problem
Every one must learn the obvious truth after all, for sure
BKK
And those topics had already become as daily talks in so many sites as well, and the professionals are becoming more careful of repeating all their old nonsense they usually used to believe in, so let them enjoy it more for a LITTLE while only, for sure
BKK
In fact, and if you can notice that nobody dares nowadays to talk about such an old rusted and refuted concepts, since they were just a mere foolish and so devilish decisions
But, at the same time if you can notice that nobody dares nowadays to talk about such a new golden facts that were rigorously well-proved, since they were just a mere simple and so obvious facts as well!wonder!
But for every generalization, there are rare exceptions, for sure
BKK
Uh we talk about it all because your refutations are all invalid and stupid.
bassam king karzeddin
2018-02-17 07:35:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Mr Sawat Layuheem
thanks....teacher bassam king karzeddin
i learning from you problem......i understandings.....Your problem...easy style for amatu er likes me.....and you donot minds...my crazy answers..
i thanks...so much...i will learning from your-problem
Every one must learn the obvious truth after all, for sure
BKK
And those topics had already become as daily talks in so many sites as well, and the professionals are becoming more careful of repeating all their old nonsense they usually used to believe in, so let them enjoy it more for a LITTLE while only, for sure
BKK
In fact, and if you can notice that nobody dares nowadays to talk about such an old rusted and refuted concepts, since they were just a mere foolish and so devilish decisions
But, at the same time if you can notice that nobody dares nowadays to talk about such a new golden facts that were rigorously well-proved, since they were just a mere simple and so obvious facts as well!wonder!
But for every generalization, there are rare exceptions, for sure
BKK
Uh we talk about it all because your refutations are all invalid and stupid.
The so elementary number theory proofs are invalid for a moron of your typo, and you want proofs from that so SH*TY theory that you claim to be well-acquainted with, so need indeed to any alleged advance refutations since we have the so elementary ones, hence, go back to your elementary school, for sure

BKK
Zelos Malum
2018-02-17 14:10:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
The so elementary number theory proofs are invalid for a moron of your typo
No, they are logically invalid because they operate not within the axiomatic system that they are tryign to adress.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
and you want proofs from that so SH*TY theory that you claim to be well-acquainted with, so need indeed to any alleged advance refutations since we have the so elementary ones, hence, go back to your elementary school, for sure
I want you to show your ability to write a formal proof, which clearly can be seen is non-existent.
Gabriel you moron, a number is just a label for certain elements of certain structures, it is entirely arbitrary, we can call them potatos if we so want it changes nothing.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
How can students understand mathematics if they don't understand the foundation, which is 'number'?
That is not the foundation, thanks for trying!
bassam king karzeddin
2018-02-18 09:04:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mr Sawat Layuheem
thanks....teacher bassam king karzeddin
i learning from you problem......i understandings.....Your problem...easy style for amatu er likes me.....and you donot minds...my crazy answers..
i thanks...so much...i will learning from your-problem
Yes this is a fact, my way is so easy style for armatures and school students, but so hard for those many alleged top most genius professional mathematicians imbeciles for sure, and the main reason is that they are truly imbeciles beyond beliefs, beside so many other incurable physiological inherited diseases and too unnoticeable and so negligible egoistic problems as well, for sure

BKK
Zelos Malum
2018-02-18 12:01:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It is easy when you don't care about rigor, we all agree on that. But that makes your idiocy shit.
John Gabriel
2018-02-18 14:08:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Mr Sawat Layuheem
thanks....teacher bassam king karzeddin
i learning from you problem......i understandings.....Your problem...easy style for amatu er likes me.....and you donot minds...my crazy answers..
i thanks...so much...i will learning from your-problem
Yes this is a fact, my way is so easy style for armatures and school students, but so hard for those many alleged top most genius professional mathematicians imbeciles for sure, and the main reason is that they are truly imbeciles beyond beliefs, beside so many other incurable physiological inherited diseases and too unnoticeable and so negligible egoistic problems as well, for sure
If it is simple, the mythmaticians don't get it.
If it is complicated, they don't understand it and will say it is wrong.
If you show them their arguments are incorrect, they will do as the Jews do - go directly back to the first argument which you refuted days ago and then start all over again.

It's a lost cause.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
BKK
Dan Christensen
2017-03-11 18:17:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Students, you should be aware that there cranks and trolls infesting sci.math who are trying to mislead you with huge fictions. It's hard to tell whether they are just lonely social outcasts, something more malicious, or just plain stupid.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
a***@gmail.com
2017-03-12 15:33:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
he\they are not st00pid, but
they never tried to read ShakespearE til future encounters
with travelers in the canonical scalar quantum, time --
going against the flow, as it were.

the other factor appear to be quite common:
they are also illitereate in their birthlanguage -- less or more!
a***@gmail.com
2017-03-12 16:18:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
hey, but I noticed that a.p tossed in a couple of words
of German, or some thing, so, at least, he made an effort; me,
I am quite monolingual, except for years of French in sch00l ... < four.y
Post by a***@gmail.com
they are also illitereate in their birthlanguage -- less or more!
bassam king karzeddin
2017-03-11 17:10:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
But who cares about Diophantine and the error power
3?
This is only a means to and end. The end here
computing
a decimal representation, the means here number
theory.
But when we look at a decimal representation, not the
error power 3 interests, but the error itself. Here
is
?- between(1,20,N), X is mp(2**(1/3), 30), Y is
integer(X*10^N), Z is mp(X-Y/10^N,30), write(Z), nl,
fail; true.
0.05992104989487316476721060728
0.00992104989487316476721060728
0.00092104989487316476721060728
0.00002104989487316476721060728
0.00000104989487316476721060728
4.989487316476721060728E-8
4.989487316476721060728E-8
9.89487316476721060728E-9
8.9487316476721060728E-10
9.487316476721060728E-11
4.87316476721060728E-12
8.7316476721060728E-13
7.316476721060728E-14
3.16476721060728E-15
1.6476721060728E-16
6.476721060728E-17
4.76721060728E-18
7.6721060728E-19
6.721060728E-20
7.21060728E-21
But we know this already, since for a decimal
representation we always have the following upper
bound D-D_n =< 1/10^n for the error.
Am Samstag, 11. März 2017 16:54:36 UTC+1 schrieb
I understand very well your carpentry works of endless hopeless approximations, BY HOOK OR ROCK you want to justify the existence of cube root (2) as a real number, by talking about the error size, but still the error is perpetual where you cannot deny it,
K(n) =/= 0, D(n)^3 + K(n) = 2*(10)^{3n}

and for ever, and even you set it as zero, then again D(n) =/= 2(10^n)^3,

Do you want to provoke this also just to justify the existence of cube root of two as any real number

You cannot (for sure), but we understand those carpentry works (for sure)

This proof is based on INTEGER analysis and not your foraged real analysis (also for sure)

Can not see yourself here how the clever student understood it immediately for it is obvious implication

I also provided you with answer at Quora you joined immediately, just to hide the absolute so simple truths

And for sure, this would not change your little mind, because you are a carpenter and never a true mathematician, and being a carpenter or a farmer for instance is never a shame but a pride if you confess it so openly

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
I1th, March, 2017
a***@gmail.com
2017-03-11 20:43:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
the minimium of comprehension of "reals,"
only requires that you normalize the 1,2,3 of the measure
of the hexahedron,
which is usually portrayed as r00t(0ne), r00t(tw0), r00t(thrEE),
for edge, face-diameter and body-diameter,
to r00t(0ne third), r00t(tw0 thirds), r00t(thrEE thirds);
it is simply what artihmetic properties that one can achieve,
using secondr00ts -- and it really has only a little
to do with the regular tetragon (skwair)
Post by bassam king karzeddin
K(n) =/= 0, D(n)^3 + K(n) = 2*(10)^{3n}
and for ever, and even you set it as zero, then again D(n) =/= 2(10^n)^3,
a***@gmail.com
2017-03-12 01:58:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
but, the network of tetraga is self-dual, just
as is (also, infinite) network of regular hexahedra (or
octa-astera .-)

there is no network of face-bound tetrahedra, but
the edge-bound net is the same as the edge-bounded net
of octahedra (a.k.a i.v.m in BuckylanD)
Post by a***@gmail.com
to r00t(0ne third), r00t(tw0 thirds), r00t(thrEE thirds);
it is simply what artihmetic properties that one can achieve,
using secondr00ts -- and it really has only a little
to do with the regular tetragon (skwair)
Post by bassam king karzeddin
K(n) =/= 0, D(n)^3 + K(n) = 2*(10)^{3n}
bassam king karzeddin
2017-04-19 19:40:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
Consider the infinite decimal representation of numbers that includes the following sets of illegal numbers
1) The transcendental numbers as for (pi), or (e)
2) The algebraic numbers as for (2^ {1/3}), or more generally (q^ {1/p}), where (p) is odd prime, and (q) is prime number
3) The infinite decimal representation for a constructible numbers as for (6/7) or sqrt(2)
All those described above are unreal numbers (for sure)
Since all those described numbers above numbers are defined with endless digits (not terminating with infinite sequence of zero digits, then you may notify them with this simple notation in any number system as (N.M), where (N) is finite integer, and (M) is integer with infinite sequence of digits in any base number system, where the decimal notation is the dot (.)
Then consider ONLY the integer (M), after the decimal notation,
With its infinite sequence of digits in any base number system you adopt as denoted by the infinite sequence of digits as
0.M = 0. (d_1)(d_2)(d_3) … (d_n), where (n) tends to infinity
And for more simplicity for students, consider the infinite representation of the arithmetical cube root of two denoted as (\sqrt[3]{2}), or (2^{1/3}), and in 10base number system for clarity
Of course everybody knows that (2^{1/3} = 1.2599210498…), where actually this is forever as absolute rational approximations that never ends, which implies the non existence of such number (proved rigorously in my recent posts), thus (2^(1/3), and its infinite decimal representation are both nonexistent numbers (fiction numbers in mathematics), they have no proof of being existent but only intuitively or foolishly were concluded, or devilishly established as real numbers for a narrow purposes of showing unnecessary talents of few famous Jugglers from old centuries
But it should be understood that if a carpenter was asked to make a cubic tank that contains two meter cube, then no harm to use any approximation for practical purpose, it is so easy task for a carpenter by trial or error calculation which is the same as the alleged modern mathematics of approximations
Once you analyze those approximations step by step then you must understand the whole concept, and no harm if you go and convince your teacher in mathematics about it, before you become as a victim of those wrong concepts about the real numbers
So, let us do it together, by writing the decimal or fractional representation as a rational number only
First approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2 = 12/10 = 6/5)
Second approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25 = 125/100 = 5/4)
Third approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259 = 1259/1000)
Forth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599 = 12599/10000)
Fifth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25992 = 125992/10^5)
Sixth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259921 = 1259921/10^6)
Seventh approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210/10^7) = Sixth approximation!*
The tenth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210498/10^10)
Then what is the (n) digit approximation, it is simply denoted by a rational number (M/10^n), where (M) is integer with (n + 1) number of sequent digits in 10base number system
But our whole number is at infinity as by the definition, then you require both (n) and (M) to be with infinite sequence of digits, where this is not acceptable nor defined in the holy grail principles of mathematics, and also IMPOSSIBLE to attain (for sure), there for our alleged number is a fool number, that exists in the paradise of the fools and so Big Stupid’s minds (so unfortunately),
Thus our alleged number is fake, nonexistent number (for sure)
But, it is no harm if we rename it as (unreal number) for practical purposes only
Same simple logic applies for any number with infinite sequence of digits as described above
But be careful about the surd form of sqrt(2), that does indeed exist independently from it is fake decimal representation which is good for comparison only
And be careful about (pi) too, which exist in two dimensions only as a closed line surrounding a maximum area, but never on a straight line which is only the number
I posted this also in math.forum, but since they take long time to post it, then I post it here again for the protection of all school students minds
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
06th, March, 2017
And truly speaking school students must be aware of their own teachers abilities!

And teachers must be more honest for sure

BK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-05-10 13:05:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
Consider the infinite decimal representation of numbers that includes the following sets of illegal numbers
1) The transcendental numbers as for (pi), or (e)
2) The algebraic numbers as for (2^ {1/3}), or more generally (q^ {1/p}), where (p) is odd prime, and (q) is prime number
3) The infinite decimal representation for a constructible numbers as for (6/7) or sqrt(2)
All those described above are unreal numbers (for sure)
Since all those described numbers above numbers are defined with endless digits (not terminating with infinite sequence of zero digits, then you may notify them with this simple notation in any number system as (N.M), where (N) is finite integer, and (M) is integer with infinite sequence of digits in any base number system, where the decimal notation is the dot (.)
Then consider ONLY the integer (M), after the decimal notation,
With its infinite sequence of digits in any base number system you adopt as denoted by the infinite sequence of digits as
0.M = 0. (d_1)(d_2)(d_3) … (d_n), where (n) tends to infinity
And for more simplicity for students, consider the infinite representation of the arithmetical cube root of two denoted as (\sqrt[3]{2}), or (2^{1/3}), and in 10base number system for clarity
Of course everybody knows that (2^{1/3} = 1.2599210498…), where actually this is forever as absolute rational approximations that never ends, which implies the non existence of such number (proved rigorously in my recent posts), thus (2^(1/3), and its infinite decimal representation are both nonexistent numbers (fiction numbers in mathematics), they have no proof of being existent but only intuitively or foolishly were concluded, or devilishly established as real numbers for a narrow purposes of showing unnecessary talents of few famous Jugglers from old centuries
But it should be understood that if a carpenter was asked to make a cubic tank that contains two meter cube, then no harm to use any approximation for practical purpose, it is so easy task for a carpenter by trial or error calculation which is the same as the alleged modern mathematics of approximations
Once you analyze those approximations step by step then you must understand the whole concept, and no harm if you go and convince your teacher in mathematics about it, before you become as a victim of those wrong concepts about the real numbers
So, let us do it together, by writing the decimal or fractional representation as a rational number only
First approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2 = 12/10 = 6/5)
Second approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25 = 125/100 = 5/4)
Third approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259 = 1259/1000)
Forth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599 = 12599/10000)
Fifth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25992 = 125992/10^5)
Sixth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259921 = 1259921/10^6)
Seventh approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210/10^7) = Sixth approximation!*
The tenth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210498/10^10)
Then what is the (n) digit approximation, it is simply denoted by a rational number (M/10^n), where (M) is integer with (n + 1) number of sequent digits in 10base number system
But our whole number is at infinity as by the definition, then you require both (n) and (M) to be with infinite sequence of digits, where this is not acceptable nor defined in the holy grail principles of mathematics, and also IMPOSSIBLE to attain (for sure), there for our alleged number is a fool number, that exists in the paradise of the fools and so Big Stupid’s minds (so unfortunately),
Thus our alleged number is fake, nonexistent number (for sure)
But, it is no harm if we rename it as (unreal number) for practical purposes only
Same simple logic applies for any number with infinite sequence of digits as described above
But be careful about the surd form of sqrt(2), that does indeed exist independently from it is fake decimal representation which is good for comparison only
And be careful about (pi) too, which exist in two dimensions only as a closed line surrounding a maximum area, but never on a straight line which is only the number
I posted this also in math.forum, but since they take long time to post it, then I post it here again for the protection of all school students minds
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
06th, March, 2017
SEE here some more of the arts of many talented fiction makers and their silly talents from the history of nobles for sure

To school students mainly, so, kids, let us see together how the top mathematicians from the sacred history of mathematics, were simply juggling and betraying the Queen that was feeding them since they were considered as the true honest guards of the Queen of science

Consider this simple Diophantine equation

n^3 = m^3 + nm^2
Where (n, m) are coprime integers

So what are the integer solutions?

Any average student would immediately notice that (n = 0), and (m = 0) is the only solution, so we can drop this solution for being helpless case

Otherwise, factor the equation, you get:

(n - m)(n^2 + nm + m^2) = nm^2
And since we have gcd(n, m) = 1, then let (n - m = k), where k is integer prime to both (n & m)

So k divides exactly the LHS of the equation, but k does not divide the RHS of the same equation, which implies not even a single solution exists in the whole set of nonzero integers for sure (really too... easy for kids)

But let us see how the top scientist professional mathematicians create deliberately a real solution for this problem, and naturally with very long talks and so many definitions or decisions they fakely adopt and so smartly convince the innocent kids of their fake generosity for sure

So here you observe carefully their endless lies as their endless numbers

A genius professional mathematicians would immediately suggest to divide the whole equation by (m^3), where (m =/= 0), since division by zero isn't defined in mathematics

So, the Diophantine equation provided above (n^3 = m^3 + nm^2) would become so simply as the following:

(n/m)^3 - (n/m) - 1 = 0, (try it yourself kids, since it is too ... easy)

And further, the peculiar genius from the history of mathematics, reduce the problem by simplifying it more, where he let the unknown (n/m) as x, and then substitute, you get the following WONDERFUL cubic polynomial:

(X^3 - X - 1 = 0), Where this must have three roots or solutions (in our damn modern mathematics), such that one of them at least must be real solution since this invented polynomial (out of nothing), of odd degree, (of course irrational real solution, with endless digits), all that to satisfy the baseless Fundamental Theorem Of al Gebra, so wonderful trick indeed

So, you had just seen the fabricated fake solution from nonsolvable Diophantine equations

And believe it that no Journals on earth would accept to publish this scandal for only too silly reasons of madness and meaningless egoistic personal problems mainly with top professional mathematicians for sure

Not only that but the cubic FORMULA of (Able - Ruffini, and Galois theorems) gives that same real solution too, which makes it fake and not general anymore

Had you ever seen a Big Scandal than This one, wonder

There are Bigger scandals than that for sure

Spread this scandal please, if you still have any little honesty or little common sense

And one thing everyone must realize that whenever a solution for any problem in mathematics is dragging you to that (FOOLS Paradise - Infinity), either in sum or multiplication operation, then make sure that is not a real solution but a symptom of a solution for an invented problem in mind only, for sure

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
10 May 2017
Mahapple
2017-05-10 13:14:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"bassam king karzeddin"

A shit post every day.

Shitty shit shit

Shit-o-rama

Shit.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-05-10 13:27:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mahapple
"bassam king karzeddin"
A shit post every day.
Shitty shit shit
Shit-o-rama
Shit.
burr... or shio...sheep wonder! with multi allies also for sure

Or maybe another imbecilic number (21) with few posts here for a dirty reason for sure
or maybe got so frustrated by the rigorous proofs

I thought really you came with a reputation, wonder!

Do not come again moron,

BKK
Mahapple
2017-05-10 13:43:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Shitty shitty shit-post
google-posting twat
bassam king karzeddin
2017-09-30 10:44:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mahapple
Shitty shitty shit-post
google-posting twat
I had just noticed you Mahpole, but you are so funny for sure

BKK
b***@gmail.com
2017-05-10 13:21:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Still no solution for constructible number GCD(*):

gcd(sqrt(18)-4,8-sqrt(50)) ?

You running away from something troll boy BKK?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatest_common_divisor
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And one thing everyone must realize that whenever a solution for any problem in mathematics is dragging you to that (FOOLS Paradise - Infinity), either in sum or multiplication operation, then make sure that is not a real solution but a symptom of a solution for an invented problem in mind only, for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
10 May 2017
bassam king karzeddin
2017-05-11 14:31:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
Consider the infinite decimal representation of numbers that includes the following sets of illegal numbers
1) The transcendental numbers as for (pi), or (e)
2) The algebraic numbers as for (2^ {1/3}), or more generally (q^ {1/p}), where (p) is odd prime, and (q) is prime number
3) The infinite decimal representation for a constructible numbers as for (6/7) or sqrt(2)
All those described above are unreal numbers (for sure)
Since all those described numbers above numbers are defined with endless digits (not terminating with infinite sequence of zero digits, then you may notify them with this simple notation in any number system as (N.M), where (N) is finite integer, and (M) is integer with infinite sequence of digits in any base number system, where the decimal notation is the dot (.)
Then consider ONLY the integer (M), after the decimal notation,
With its infinite sequence of digits in any base number system you adopt as denoted by the infinite sequence of digits as
0.M = 0. (d_1)(d_2)(d_3) … (d_n), where (n) tends to infinity
And for more simplicity for students, consider the infinite representation of the arithmetical cube root of two denoted as (\sqrt[3]{2}), or (2^{1/3}), and in 10base number system for clarity
Of course everybody knows that (2^{1/3} = 1.2599210498…), where actually this is forever as absolute rational approximations that never ends, which implies the non existence of such number (proved rigorously in my recent posts), thus (2^(1/3), and its infinite decimal representation are both nonexistent numbers (fiction numbers in mathematics), they have no proof of being existent but only intuitively or foolishly were concluded, or devilishly established as real numbers for a narrow purposes of showing unnecessary talents of few famous Jugglers from old centuries
But it should be understood that if a carpenter was asked to make a cubic tank that contains two meter cube, then no harm to use any approximation for practical purpose, it is so easy task for a carpenter by trial or error calculation which is the same as the alleged modern mathematics of approximations
Once you analyze those approximations step by step then you must understand the whole concept, and no harm if you go and convince your teacher in mathematics about it, before you become as a victim of those wrong concepts about the real numbers
So, let us do it together, by writing the decimal or fractional representation as a rational number only
First approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2 = 12/10 = 6/5)
Second approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25 = 125/100 = 5/4)
Third approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259 = 1259/1000)
Forth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599 = 12599/10000)
Fifth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25992 = 125992/10^5)
Sixth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259921 = 1259921/10^6)
Seventh approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210/10^7) = Sixth approximation!*
The tenth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210498/10^10)
Then what is the (n) digit approximation, it is simply denoted by a rational number (M/10^n), where (M) is integer with (n + 1) number of sequent digits in 10base number system
But our whole number is at infinity as by the definition, then you require both (n) and (M) to be with infinite sequence of digits, where this is not acceptable nor defined in the holy grail principles of mathematics, and also IMPOSSIBLE to attain (for sure), there for our alleged number is a fool number, that exists in the paradise of the fools and so Big Stupid’s minds (so unfortunately),
Thus our alleged number is fake, nonexistent number (for sure)
But, it is no harm if we rename it as (unreal number) for practical purposes only
Same simple logic applies for any number with infinite sequence of digits as described above
But be careful about the surd form of sqrt(2), that does indeed exist independently from it is fake decimal representation which is good for comparison only
And be careful about (pi) too, which exist in two dimensions only as a closed line surrounding a maximum area, but never on a straight line which is only the number
I posted this also in math.forum, but since they take long time to post it, then I post it here again for the protection of all school students minds
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
06th, March, 2017
SEE here some more of the arts of many talented fiction makers and their silly talents from the history of nobles for sure
To school students mainly, so, kids, let us see together how the top mathematicians from the sacred history of mathematics, were simply juggling and betraying the Queen that was feeding them since they were considered as the true honest guards of the Queen of science
Consider this simple Diophantine equation
n^3 = m^3 + nm^2
Where (n, m) are coprime integers
So what are the integer solutions?
Any average student would immediately notice that (n = 0), and (m = 0) is the only solution, so we can drop this solution for being helpless case
(n - m)(n^2 + nm + m^2) = nm^2
And since we have gcd(n, m) = 1, then let (n - m = k), where k is integer prime to both (n & m)
So k divides exactly the LHS of the equation, but k does not divide the RHS of the same equation, which implies not even a single solution exists in the whole set of nonzero integers for sure (really too... easy for kids)
But let us see how the top scientist professional mathematicians create deliberately a real solution for this problem, and naturally with very long talks and so many definitions or decisions they fakely adopt and so smartly convince the innocent kids of their fake generosity for sure
So here you observe carefully their endless lies as their endless numbers
A genius professional mathematicians would immediately suggest to divide the whole equation by (m^3), where (m =/= 0), since division by zero isn't defined in mathematics
(n/m)^3 - (n/m) - 1 = 0, (try it yourself kids, since it is too ... easy)
(X^3 - X - 1 = 0), Where this must have three roots or solutions (in our damn modern mathematics), such that one of them at least must be real solution since this invented polynomial (out of nothing), of odd degree, (of course irrational real solution, with endless digits), all that to satisfy the baseless Fundamental Theorem Of al Gebra, so wonderful trick indeed
So, you had just seen the fabricated fake solution from nonsolvable Diophantine equations
And believe it that no Journals on earth would accept to publish this scandal for only too silly reasons of madness and meaningless egoistic personal problems mainly with top professional mathematicians for sure
Not only that but the cubic FORMULA of (Able - Ruffini, and Galois theorems) gives that same real solution too, which makes it fake and not general anymore
Had you ever seen a Big Scandal than This one, wonder
There are Bigger scandals than that for sure
Spread this scandal please, if you still have any little honesty or little common sense
And one thing everyone must realize that whenever a solution for any problem in mathematics is dragging you to that (FOOLS Paradise - Infinity), either in sum or multiplication operation, then make sure that is not a real solution but a symptom of a solution for an invented problem in mind only, for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
10 May 2017
We should note here that this article implies the refutation of the famous Cardano formula for cubic polynomials solutions provided in (1545), but to be precise and more than honest, the formula would hold true always in very rare cases only (whenever the roots of cubic are merely real constructible numbers) for sure

And the ever simplest reason of this fact that there isn't any existing real number that is not constructible number for more than hundreds sure

since those alleged roots are expressed generally as a ratio of two large integers (rationals), but each ultimately with an infinite sequence of digits in any number system, as the decimal case [N(m) / 10^{m + k}], where N(m) is integer with (m) sequence digits, k is integer, and (m) is large integer tending to infinity, which makes it finally illegal, and not defined operation beside impossible task, wonder!, thus non-existing for sure

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-05-13 09:36:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
Consider the infinite decimal representation of numbers that includes the following sets of illegal numbers
1) The transcendental numbers as for (pi), or (e)
2) The algebraic numbers as for (2^ {1/3}), or more generally (q^ {1/p}), where (p) is odd prime, and (q) is prime number
3) The infinite decimal representation for a constructible numbers as for (6/7) or sqrt(2)
All those described above are unreal numbers (for sure)
Since all those described numbers above numbers are defined with endless digits (not terminating with infinite sequence of zero digits, then you may notify them with this simple notation in any number system as (N.M), where (N) is finite integer, and (M) is integer with infinite sequence of digits in any base number system, where the decimal notation is the dot (.)
Then consider ONLY the integer (M), after the decimal notation,
With its infinite sequence of digits in any base number system you adopt as denoted by the infinite sequence of digits as
0.M = 0. (d_1)(d_2)(d_3) … (d_n), where (n) tends to infinity
And for more simplicity for students, consider the infinite representation of the arithmetical cube root of two denoted as (\sqrt[3]{2}), or (2^{1/3}), and in 10base number system for clarity
Of course everybody knows that (2^{1/3} = 1.2599210498…), where actually this is forever as absolute rational approximations that never ends, which implies the non existence of such number (proved rigorously in my recent posts), thus (2^(1/3), and its infinite decimal representation are both nonexistent numbers (fiction numbers in mathematics), they have no proof of being existent but only intuitively or foolishly were concluded, or devilishly established as real numbers for a narrow purposes of showing unnecessary talents of few famous Jugglers from old centuries
But it should be understood that if a carpenter was asked to make a cubic tank that contains two meter cube, then no harm to use any approximation for practical purpose, it is so easy task for a carpenter by trial or error calculation which is the same as the alleged modern mathematics of approximations
Once you analyze those approximations step by step then you must understand the whole concept, and no harm if you go and convince your teacher in mathematics about it, before you become as a victim of those wrong concepts about the real numbers
So, let us do it together, by writing the decimal or fractional representation as a rational number only
First approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2 = 12/10 = 6/5)
Second approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25 = 125/100 = 5/4)
Third approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259 = 1259/1000)
Forth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599 = 12599/10000)
Fifth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25992 = 125992/10^5)
Sixth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259921 = 1259921/10^6)
Seventh approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210/10^7) = Sixth approximation!*
The tenth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210498/10^10)
Then what is the (n) digit approximation, it is simply denoted by a rational number (M/10^n), where (M) is integer with (n + 1) number of sequent digits in 10base number system
But our whole number is at infinity as by the definition, then you require both (n) and (M) to be with infinite sequence of digits, where this is not acceptable nor defined in the holy grail principles of mathematics, and also IMPOSSIBLE to attain (for sure), there for our alleged number is a fool number, that exists in the paradise of the fools and so Big Stupid’s minds (so unfortunately),
Thus our alleged number is fake, nonexistent number (for sure)
But, it is no harm if we rename it as (unreal number) for practical purposes only
Same simple logic applies for any number with infinite sequence of digits as described above
But be careful about the surd form of sqrt(2), that does indeed exist independently from it is fake decimal representation which is good for comparison only
And be careful about (pi) too, which exist in two dimensions only as a closed line surrounding a maximum area, but never on a straight line which is only the number
I posted this also in math.forum, but since they take long time to post it, then I post it here again for the protection of all school students minds
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
06th, March, 2017
To shool student, kindly be aware of my recent prize and recent irrefutable proofs so far, and for sure

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-07-29 15:22:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
Consider the infinite decimal representation of numbers that includes the following sets of illegal numbers
1) The transcendental numbers as for (pi), or (e)
2) The algebraic numbers as for (2^ {1/3}), or more generally (q^ {1/p}), where (p) is odd prime, and (q) is prime number
3) The infinite decimal representation for a constructible numbers as for (6/7) or sqrt(2)
All those described above are unreal numbers (for sure)
Since all those described numbers above numbers are defined with endless digits (not terminating with infinite sequence of zero digits, then you may notify them with this simple notation in any number system as (N.M), where (N) is finite integer, and (M) is integer with infinite sequence of digits in any base number system, where the decimal notation is the dot (.)
Then consider ONLY the integer (M), after the decimal notation,
With its infinite sequence of digits in any base number system you adopt as denoted by the infinite sequence of digits as
0.M = 0. (d_1)(d_2)(d_3) … (d_n), where (n) tends to infinity
And for more simplicity for students, consider the infinite representation of the arithmetical cube root of two denoted as (\sqrt[3]{2}), or (2^{1/3}), and in 10base number system for clarity
Of course everybody knows that (2^{1/3} = 1.2599210498…), where actually this is forever as absolute rational approximations that never ends, which implies the non existence of such number (proved rigorously in my recent posts), thus (2^(1/3), and its infinite decimal representation are both nonexistent numbers (fiction numbers in mathematics), they have no proof of being existent but only intuitively or foolishly were concluded, or devilishly established as real numbers for a narrow purposes of showing unnecessary talents of few famous Jugglers from old centuries
But it should be understood that if a carpenter was asked to make a cubic tank that contains two meter cube, then no harm to use any approximation for practical purpose, it is so easy task for a carpenter by trial or error calculation which is the same as the alleged modern mathematics of approximations
Once you analyze those approximations step by step then you must understand the whole concept, and no harm if you go and convince your teacher in mathematics about it, before you become as a victim of those wrong concepts about the real numbers
So, let us do it together, by writing the decimal or fractional representation as a rational number only
First approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2 = 12/10 = 6/5)
Second approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25 = 125/100 = 5/4)
Third approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259 = 1259/1000)
Forth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599 = 12599/10000)
Fifth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25992 = 125992/10^5)
Sixth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259921 = 1259921/10^6)
Seventh approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210/10^7) = Sixth approximation!*
The tenth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210498/10^10)
Then what is the (n) digit approximation, it is simply denoted by a rational number (M/10^n), where (M) is integer with (n + 1) number of sequent digits in 10base number system
But our whole number is at infinity as by the definition, then you require both (n) and (M) to be with infinite sequence of digits, where this is not acceptable nor defined in the holy grail principles of mathematics, and also IMPOSSIBLE to attain (for sure), there for our alleged number is a fool number, that exists in the paradise of the fools and so Big Stupid’s minds (so unfortunately),
Thus our alleged number is fake, nonexistent number (for sure)
But, it is no harm if we rename it as (unreal number) for practical purposes only
Same simple logic applies for any number with infinite sequence of digits as described above
But be careful about the surd form of sqrt(2), that does indeed exist independently from it is fake decimal representation which is good for comparison only
And be careful about (pi) too, which exist in two dimensions only as a closed line surrounding a maximum area, but never on a straight line which is only the number
I posted this also in math.forum, but since they take long time to post it, then I post it here again for the protection of all school students minds
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
06th, March, 2017
And truly, students all over the world have the full rights be freed very soon from all the fictions legendary stories in mathematics, for sure

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-09-20 18:07:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
Consider the infinite decimal representation of numbers that includes the following sets of illegal numbers
1) The transcendental numbers as for (pi), or (e)
2) The algebraic numbers as for (2^ {1/3}), or more generally (q^ {1/p}), where (p) is odd prime, and (q) is prime number
3) The infinite decimal representation for a constructible numbers as for (6/7) or sqrt(2)
All those described above are unreal numbers (for sure)
Since all those described numbers above numbers are defined with endless digits (not terminating with infinite sequence of zero digits, then you may notify them with this simple notation in any number system as (N.M), where (N) is finite integer, and (M) is integer with infinite sequence of digits in any base number system, where the decimal notation is the dot (.)
Then consider ONLY the integer (M), after the decimal notation,
With its infinite sequence of digits in any base number system you adopt as denoted by the infinite sequence of digits as
0.M = 0. (d_1)(d_2)(d_3) … (d_n), where (n) tends to infinity
And for more simplicity for students, consider the infinite representation of the arithmetical cube root of two denoted as (\sqrt[3]{2}), or (2^{1/3}), and in 10base number system for clarity
Of course everybody knows that (2^{1/3} = 1.2599210498…), where actually this is forever as absolute rational approximations that never ends, which implies the non existence of such number (proved rigorously in my recent posts), thus (2^(1/3), and its infinite decimal representation are both nonexistent numbers (fiction numbers in mathematics), they have no proof of being existent but only intuitively or foolishly were concluded, or devilishly established as real numbers for a narrow purposes of showing unnecessary talents of few famous Jugglers from old centuries
But it should be understood that if a carpenter was asked to make a cubic tank that contains two meter cube, then no harm to use any approximation for practical purpose, it is so easy task for a carpenter by trial or error calculation which is the same as the alleged modern mathematics of approximations
Once you analyze those approximations step by step then you must understand the whole concept, and no harm if you go and convince your teacher in mathematics about it, before you become as a victim of those wrong concepts about the real numbers
So, let us do it together, by writing the decimal or fractional representation as a rational number only
First approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2 = 12/10 = 6/5)
Second approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25 = 125/100 = 5/4)
Third approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259 = 1259/1000)
Forth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599 = 12599/10000)
Fifth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25992 = 125992/10^5)
Sixth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259921 = 1259921/10^6)
Seventh approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210/10^7) = Sixth approximation!*
The tenth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210498/10^10)
Then what is the (n) digit approximation, it is simply denoted by a rational number (M/10^n), where (M) is integer with (n + 1) number of sequent digits in 10base number system
But our whole number is at infinity as by the definition, then you require both (n) and (M) to be with infinite sequence of digits, where this is not acceptable nor defined in the holy grail principles of mathematics, and also IMPOSSIBLE to attain (for sure), there for our alleged number is a fool number, that exists in the paradise of the fools and so Big Stupid’s minds (so unfortunately),
Thus our alleged number is fake, nonexistent number (for sure)
But, it is no harm if we rename it as (unreal number) for practical purposes only
Same simple logic applies for any number with infinite sequence of digits as described above
But be careful about the surd form of sqrt(2), that does indeed exist independently from it is fake decimal representation which is good for comparison only
And be careful about (pi) too, which exist in two dimensions only as a closed line surrounding a maximum area, but never on a straight line which is only the number
I posted this also in math.forum, but since they take long time to post it, then I post it here again for the protection of all school students minds
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
06th, March, 2017
And truly, students all over the world have the full rights be freed very soon from all the fictions legendary stories in mathematics, for sure
BKK
And the world goverments ultimatly would realize the fictions established in mathematics, and would help the studenyts to be freed from all fictions for sure

BKK
Dan Christensen
2017-09-20 18:19:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 2:08:39 PM UTC-4, bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
06th, March, 2017
And truly, students all over the world have the full rights be freed very soon from all the fictions legendary stories in mathematics, for sure
BKK
And the world goverments ultimatly would realize the fictions established in mathematics, and would help the studenyts to be freed from all fictions for sure
BKK
Recycling another of your failed arguments, BKK? Running out of new ones?

See my first posting in this thread. BKK was speechless.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Zelos Malum
2017-09-28 10:17:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Since all those described numbers above numbers are defined with endless digits (not terminating with infinite sequence of zero digits, then you may notify them with this simple notation in any number system as (N.M), where (N) is finite integer, and (M) is integer with infinite sequence of digits in any base number system, where the decimal notation is the dot (.)
Already here you are wrong, it is not defined by endless digits, endless digits can be used notationally to refer to real numbers, but does not DEFINE them. And there is no such thing as an integer with infinite digits. This is why you are a laughing stock.
Me
2017-09-30 10:59:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Zelos Malum
Already here you are wrong, it is not defined by endless digits, endless digits
can be used notationally to refer to real numbers, but does not DEFINE them.
There *is* an approach where the real numbers are defined (introduced) as infinite sequences of digits. (But it's not the usual "standard approach", I guess.)

This is done in this book for example:
http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/raut/GdA/public.pdf

Just some hints:
https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/decimals.html
bassam king karzeddin
2017-09-30 12:13:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Me
Post by Zelos Malum
Already here you are wrong, it is not defined by endless digits, endless digits
can be used notationally to refer to real numbers, but does not DEFINE them.
There *is* an approach where the real numbers are defined (introduced) as infinite sequences of digits. (But it's not the usual "standard approach", I guess.)
http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/raut/GdA/public.pdf
https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/decimals.html
The references mentioned above are quite useless and very old known maths

Note that the decimal rational representation APPROXIMATION of sqrt(2) as a nonsolvable Diophantine Eqn. (n^2 = 2m^2), where (n,m) are non-zero integers

Comes as a solution of this simplest solvable Diophantine Eqn.

(n^2 = 2m^2 + 1),

For relatively large solution since this has infinitely many solutions (n/m)

But note that you can never find a ratio of two integers where each of them consists of infinite sequence of digits that are required for Sqrt(2), and even you assume them as distinct infinities (in mind), still, they can't form a right angle triangle, thus Sqrt(2) exists independently by its own, geometrically as a diagonal of a square with unity side

I call them, the first layer of rational numbers that are under the only valid square root operation, where sqrt(2) is not an equivalent class or cut or so...

It is the double play of the unity (one) by a measured rational and measured angle too

And who is there that can create a real existing number except for the chosen unity(ONE), wonder!

Ask bursegan about its APPROXIMATION, since he posted it in sci.math

BKK
Zelos Malum
2017-10-02 06:01:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Me
Post by Zelos Malum
Already here you are wrong, it is not defined by endless digits, endless digits
can be used notationally to refer to real numbers, but does not DEFINE them.
There *is* an approach where the real numbers are defined (introduced) as infinite sequences of digits. (But it's not the usual "standard approach", I guess.)
http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/raut/GdA/public.pdf
https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/decimals.html
The references mentioned above are quite useless and very old known maths
Note that the decimal rational representation APPROXIMATION of sqrt(2) as a nonsolvable Diophantine Eqn. (n^2 = 2m^2), where (n,m) are non-zero integers
Comes as a solution of this simplest solvable Diophantine Eqn.
(n^2 = 2m^2 + 1),
For relatively large solution since this has infinitely many solutions (n/m)
But note that you can never find a ratio of two integers where each of them consists of infinite sequence of digits that are required for Sqrt(2), and even you assume them as distinct infinities (in mind), still, they can't form a right angle triangle, thus Sqrt(2) exists independently by its own, geometrically as a diagonal of a square with unity side
I call them, the first layer of rational numbers that are under the only valid square root operation, where sqrt(2) is not an equivalent class or cut or so...
It is the double play of the unity (one) by a measured rational and measured angle too
And who is there that can create a real existing number except for the chosen unity(ONE), wonder!
Ask bursegan about its APPROXIMATION, since he posted it in sci.math
BKK
The decimal expansion of squareroot of 2 is exact, it has no approximation in it. Any finite number of digits is an approximation however.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-10-11 16:34:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
Consider the infinite decimal representation of numbers that includes the following sets of illegal numbers
1) The transcendental numbers as for (pi), or (e)
2) The algebraic numbers as for (2^ {1/3}), or more generally (q^ {1/p}), where (p) is odd prime, and (q) is prime number
3) The infinite decimal representation for a constructible numbers as for (6/7) or sqrt(2)
All those described above are unreal numbers (for sure)
Since all those described numbers above numbers are defined with endless digits (not terminating with infinite sequence of zero digits, then you may notify them with this simple notation in any number system as (N.M), where (N) is finite integer, and (M) is integer with infinite sequence of digits in any base number system, where the decimal notation is the dot (.)
Then consider ONLY the integer (M), after the decimal notation,
With its infinite sequence of digits in any base number system you adopt as denoted by the infinite sequence of digits as
0.M = 0. (d_1)(d_2)(d_3) … (d_n), where (n) tends to infinity
And for more simplicity for students, consider the infinite representation of the arithmetical cube root of two denoted as (\sqrt[3]{2}), or (2^{1/3}), and in 10base number system for clarity
Of course everybody knows that (2^{1/3} = 1.2599210498…), where actually this is forever as absolute rational approximations that never ends, which implies the non existence of such number (proved rigorously in my recent posts), thus (2^(1/3), and its infinite decimal representation are both nonexistent numbers (fiction numbers in mathematics), they have no proof of being existent but only intuitively or foolishly were concluded, or devilishly established as real numbers for a narrow purposes of showing unnecessary talents of few famous Jugglers from old centuries
But it should be understood that if a carpenter was asked to make a cubic tank that contains two meter cube, then no harm to use any approximation for practical purpose, it is so easy task for a carpenter by trial or error calculation which is the same as the alleged modern mathematics of approximations
Once you analyze those approximations step by step then you must understand the whole concept, and no harm if you go and convince your teacher in mathematics about it, before you become as a victim of those wrong concepts about the real numbers
So, let us do it together, by writing the decimal or fractional representation as a rational number only
First approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2 = 12/10 = 6/5)
Second approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25 = 125/100 = 5/4)
Third approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259 = 1259/1000)
Forth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599 = 12599/10000)
Fifth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25992 = 125992/10^5)
Sixth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259921 = 1259921/10^6)
Seventh approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210/10^7) = Sixth approximation!*
The tenth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210498/10^10)
Then what is the (n) digit approximation, it is simply denoted by a rational number (M/10^n), where (M) is integer with (n + 1) number of sequent digits in 10base number system
But our whole number is at infinity as by the definition, then you require both (n) and (M) to be with infinite sequence of digits, where this is not acceptable nor defined in the holy grail principles of mathematics, and also IMPOSSIBLE to attain (for sure), there for our alleged number is a fool number, that exists in the paradise of the fools and so Big Stupid’s minds (so unfortunately),
Thus our alleged number is fake, nonexistent number (for sure)
But, it is no harm if we rename it as (unreal number) for practical purposes only
Same simple logic applies for any number with infinite sequence of digits as described above
But be careful about the surd form of sqrt(2), that does indeed exist independently from it is fake decimal representation which is good for comparison only
And be careful about (pi) too, which exist in two dimensions only as a closed line surrounding a maximum area, but never on a straight line which is only the number
I posted this also in math.forum, but since they take long time to post it, then I post it here again for the protection of all school students minds
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
06th, March, 2017
So unbelievable, many scandals must explode about the fictional genius horses of mathematics, sure

BKK
Zelos Malum
2017-10-12 11:51:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Is this where you get your idea of "approximations" from? That because any finite number of digits is an approximation, therefore it all is? That is absolutely absurd.

Just because a finite digit is an approximation doesn't that mean the object itself is an approximation!
bassam king karzeddin
2017-10-14 12:25:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Zelos Malum
Is this where you get your idea of "approximations" from? That because any finite number of digits is an approximation, therefore it all is? That is absolutely absurd.
Just because a finite digit is an approximation doesn't that mean the object itself is an approximation!
Try to understand the simplest basic thing about mathematics being only perfection level, and being not perfect isn't any mathematics, call it something else but name it correctly for the purpose of it (for instance: how can we best APPROXIMATE the circle area in our constructible numbers in few terms for our carpentry works or else)

And this science of approximations is generally opened for all laypersons

BKK
Zelos Malum
2017-10-16 06:05:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Try to understand the simplest basic thing about mathematics being only perfection level, and being not perfect isn't any mathematics, call it something else but name it correctly for the purpose of it (for instance: how can we best APPROXIMATE the circle area in our constructible numbers in few terms for our carpentry works or else)
Mathematics doesn't deal with approximations, it can come with tools that gives us method to approximate anything but that isn't what it does.

It would tell us that the limit of a sequence function is (for example) the area of a circle, that is 100% accurate, no approximations.

However that at the sametime means we can use said functions to get as close to the value as we want. But the original statement, which was the relevant to mathematics, had no approximations in it.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-19 18:13:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
Consider the infinite decimal representation of numbers that includes the following sets of illegal numbers
1) The transcendental numbers as for (pi), or (e)
2) The algebraic numbers as for (2^ {1/3}), or more generally (q^ {1/p}), where (p) is odd prime, and (q) is prime number
3) The infinite decimal representation for a constructible numbers as for (6/7) or sqrt(2)
All those described above are unreal numbers (for sure)
Since all those described numbers above numbers are defined with endless digits (not terminating with infinite sequence of zero digits, then you may notify them with this simple notation in any number system as (N.M), where (N) is finite integer, and (M) is integer with infinite sequence of digits in any base number system, where the decimal notation is the dot (.)
Then consider ONLY the integer (M), after the decimal notation,
With its infinite sequence of digits in any base number system you adopt as denoted by the infinite sequence of digits as
0.M = 0. (d_1)(d_2)(d_3) … (d_n), where (n) tends to infinity
And for more simplicity for students, consider the infinite representation of the arithmetical cube root of two denoted as (\sqrt[3]{2}), or (2^{1/3}), and in 10base number system for clarity
Of course everybody knows that (2^{1/3} = 1.2599210498…), where actually this is forever as absolute rational approximations that never ends, which implies the non existence of such number (proved rigorously in my recent posts), thus (2^(1/3), and its infinite decimal representation are both nonexistent numbers (fiction numbers in mathematics), they have no proof of being existent but only intuitively or foolishly were concluded, or devilishly established as real numbers for a narrow purposes of showing unnecessary talents of few famous Jugglers from old centuries
But it should be understood that if a carpenter was asked to make a cubic tank that contains two meter cube, then no harm to use any approximation for practical purpose, it is so easy task for a carpenter by trial or error calculation which is the same as the alleged modern mathematics of approximations
Once you analyze those approximations step by step then you must understand the whole concept, and no harm if you go and convince your teacher in mathematics about it, before you become as a victim of those wrong concepts about the real numbers
So, let us do it together, by writing the decimal or fractional representation as a rational number only
First approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2 = 12/10 = 6/5)
Second approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25 = 125/100 = 5/4)
Third approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259 = 1259/1000)
Forth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599 = 12599/10000)
Fifth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25992 = 125992/10^5)
Sixth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259921 = 1259921/10^6)
Seventh approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210/10^7) = Sixth approximation!*
The tenth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210498/10^10)
Then what is the (n) digit approximation, it is simply denoted by a rational number (M/10^n), where (M) is integer with (n + 1) number of sequent digits in 10base number system
But our whole number is at infinity as by the definition, then you require both (n) and (M) to be with infinite sequence of digits, where this is not acceptable nor defined in the holy grail principles of mathematics, and also IMPOSSIBLE to attain (for sure), there for our alleged number is a fool number, that exists in the paradise of the fools and so Big Stupid’s minds (so unfortunately),
Thus our alleged number is fake, nonexistent number (for sure)
But, it is no harm if we rename it as (unreal number) for practical purposes only
Same simple logic applies for any number with infinite sequence of digits as described above
But be careful about the surd form of sqrt(2), that does indeed exist independently from it is fake decimal representation which is good for comparison only
And be careful about (pi) too, which exist in two dimensions only as a closed line surrounding a maximum area, but never on a straight line which is only the number
I posted this also in math.forum, but since they take long time to post it, then I post it here again for the protection of all school students minds
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
06th, March, 2017
Now, it must be the suitable time to throw away all that crap manufactured mathematics by few old humans mainly for their own narrow purposes that was unnecessarily imposed on the poor school and college students that had been refuted quite many times mainly at sci.math google here for the so peculiar freedom it provides where it doesn't fully authorise any human opinion on another human opinion (the way current mathematics is cooked up)

However, that doesn't mean to abandon the mathematics itself, but to recreate it with true understanding than before, where this would provide many great opportunities for many talented and thousands of new uprising generations to rebuild it again but more correctly, where mainly sci.math would be the first main references for all those new proved facts made by few people here

And the time for so many unsolved problems or great old puzzles must be near once you can recognize easily the true mathematics (which is a mere discovery) from the fictional or manufactured mathematics (which isn't any discovery at all but mainly a pure mind easy game that is useless in most cases)

It should be noted also that many alleged unsolved problems had been sourced mainly from the manufactured mathematics itself, i.e they aren't any problem at all, but a mind phobia resulting FROM our wrong mathematics

I may explain many of them once I get free time for sure

BKK
Serg io
2017-11-20 02:07:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
Consider the infinite decimal representation of numbers that includes the following sets of illegal numbers
1) The transcendental numbers as for (pi), or (e)
2) The algebraic numbers as for (2^ {1/3}), or more generally (q^ {1/p}), where (p) is odd prime, and (q) is prime number
3) The infinite decimal representation for a constructible numbers as for (6/7) or sqrt(2)
All those described above are unreal numbers (for sure)
Since all those described numbers above numbers are defined with endless digits (not terminating with infinite sequence of zero digits, then you may notify them with this simple notation in any number system as (N.M), where (N) is finite integer, and (M) is integer with infinite sequence of digits in any base number system, where the decimal notation is the dot (.)
Then consider ONLY the integer (M), after the decimal notation,
With its infinite sequence of digits in any base number system you adopt as denoted by the infinite sequence of digits as
0.M = 0. (d_1)(d_2)(d_3) … (d_n), where (n) tends to infinity
And for more simplicity for students, consider the infinite representation of the arithmetical cube root of two denoted as (\sqrt[3]{2}), or (2^{1/3}), and in 10base number system for clarity
Of course everybody knows that (2^{1/3} = 1.2599210498…), where actually this is forever as absolute rational approximations that never ends, which implies the non existence of such number (proved rigorously in my recent posts), thus (2^(1/3), and its infinite decimal representation are both nonexistent numbers (fiction numbers in mathematics), they have no proof of being existent but only intuitively or foolishly were concluded, or devilishly established as real numbers for a narrow purposes of showing unnecessary talents of few famous Jugglers from old centuries
But it should be understood that if a carpenter was asked to make a cubic tank that contains two meter cube, then no harm to use any approximation for practical purpose, it is so easy task for a carpenter by trial or error calculation which is the same as the alleged modern mathematics of approximations
Once you analyze those approximations step by step then you must understand the whole concept, and no harm if you go and convince your teacher in mathematics about it, before you become as a victim of those wrong concepts about the real numbers
So, let us do it together, by writing the decimal or fractional representation as a rational number only
First approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2 = 12/10 = 6/5)
Second approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25 = 125/100 = 5/4)
Third approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259 = 1259/1000)
Forth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599 = 12599/10000)
Fifth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25992 = 125992/10^5)
Sixth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259921 = 1259921/10^6)
Seventh approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210/10^7) = Sixth approximation!*
The tenth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210498/10^10)
Then what is the (n) digit approximation, it is simply denoted by a rational number (M/10^n), where (M) is integer with (n + 1) number of sequent digits in 10base number system
But our whole number is at infinity as by the definition, then you require both (n) and (M) to be with infinite sequence of digits, where this is not acceptable nor defined in the holy grail principles of mathematics, and also IMPOSSIBLE to attain (for sure), there for our alleged number is a fool number, that exists in the paradise of the fools and so Big Stupid’s minds (so unfortunately),
Thus our alleged number is fake, nonexistent number (for sure)
But, it is no harm if we rename it as (unreal number) for practical purposes only
Same simple logic applies for any number with infinite sequence of digits as described above
But be careful about the surd form of sqrt(2), that does indeed exist independently from it is fake decimal representation which is good for comparison only
And be careful about (pi) too, which exist in two dimensions only as a closed line surrounding a maximum area, but never on a straight line which is only the number
I posted this also in math.forum, but since they take long time to post it, then I post it here again for the protection of all school students minds
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
06th, March, 2017
Now, it must be the suitable time to throw away all that crap manufactured mathematics by few old humans mainly for their own narrow purposes that was unnecessarily imposed on the poor school and college students that had been refuted quite many times mainly at sci.math google here for the so peculiar freedom it provides where it doesn't fully authorise any human opinion on another human opinion (the way current mathematics is cooked up)
However, that doesn't mean to abandon the mathematics itself, but to recreate it with true understanding than before, where this would provide many great opportunities for many talented and thousands of new uprising generations to rebuild it again but more correctly, where mainly sci.math would be the first main references for all those new proved facts made by few people here
And the time for so many unsolved problems or great old puzzles must be near once you can recognize easily the true mathematics (which is a mere discovery) from the fictional or manufactured mathematics (which isn't any discovery at all but mainly a pure mind easy game that is useless in most cases)
It should be noted also that many alleged unsolved problems had been sourced mainly from the manufactured mathematics itself, i.e they aren't any problem at all, but a mind phobia resulting FROM our wrong mathematics
I may explain many of them once I get free time for sure
BKK
BKK => now approching *PLONK* speed
Zelos Malum
2017-11-20 03:20:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Now, it must be the suitable time to throw away all that crap manufactured mathematics by few old humans mainly for their own narrow purposes that was unnecessarily imposed on the poor school and college students that had been refuted quite many times mainly at sci.math google here for the so peculiar freedom it provides where it doesn't fully authorise any human opinion on another human opinion (the way current mathematics is cooked up)
Being ignorant is not a refutation you moron.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-21 18:03:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
Consider the infinite decimal representation of numbers that includes the following sets of illegal numbers
1) The transcendental numbers as for (pi), or (e)
2) The algebraic numbers as for (2^ {1/3}), or more generally (q^ {1/p}), where (p) is odd prime, and (q) is prime number
3) The infinite decimal representation for a constructible numbers as for (6/7) or sqrt(2)
All those described above are unreal numbers (for sure)
Since all those described numbers above numbers are defined with endless digits (not terminating with infinite sequence of zero digits, then you may notify them with this simple notation in any number system as (N.M), where (N) is finite integer, and (M) is integer with infinite sequence of digits in any base number system, where the decimal notation is the dot (.)
Then consider ONLY the integer (M), after the decimal notation,
With its infinite sequence of digits in any base number system you adopt as denoted by the infinite sequence of digits as
0.M = 0. (d_1)(d_2)(d_3) … (d_n), where (n) tends to infinity
And for more simplicity for students, consider the infinite representation of the arithmetical cube root of two denoted as (\sqrt[3]{2}), or (2^{1/3}), and in 10base number system for clarity
Of course everybody knows that (2^{1/3} = 1.2599210498…), where actually this is forever as absolute rational approximations that never ends, which implies the non existence of such number (proved rigorously in my recent posts), thus (2^(1/3), and its infinite decimal representation are both nonexistent numbers (fiction numbers in mathematics), they have no proof of being existent but only intuitively or foolishly were concluded, or devilishly established as real numbers for a narrow purposes of showing unnecessary talents of few famous Jugglers from old centuries
But it should be understood that if a carpenter was asked to make a cubic tank that contains two meter cube, then no harm to use any approximation for practical purpose, it is so easy task for a carpenter by trial or error calculation which is the same as the alleged modern mathematics of approximations
Once you analyze those approximations step by step then you must understand the whole concept, and no harm if you go and convince your teacher in mathematics about it, before you become as a victim of those wrong concepts about the real numbers
So, let us do it together, by writing the decimal or fractional representation as a rational number only
First approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2 = 12/10 = 6/5)
Second approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25 = 125/100 = 5/4)
Third approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259 = 1259/1000)
Forth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599 = 12599/10000)
Fifth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25992 = 125992/10^5)
Sixth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259921 = 1259921/10^6)
Seventh approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210/10^7) = Sixth approximation!*
The tenth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210498/10^10)
Then what is the (n) digit approximation, it is simply denoted by a rational number (M/10^n), where (M) is integer with (n + 1) number of sequent digits in 10base number system
But our whole number is at infinity as by the definition, then you require both (n) and (M) to be with infinite sequence of digits, where this is not acceptable nor defined in the holy grail principles of mathematics, and also IMPOSSIBLE to attain (for sure), there for our alleged number is a fool number, that exists in the paradise of the fools and so Big Stupid’s minds (so unfortunately),
Thus our alleged number is fake, nonexistent number (for sure)
But, it is no harm if we rename it as (unreal number) for practical purposes only
Same simple logic applies for any number with infinite sequence of digits as described above
But be careful about the surd form of sqrt(2), that does indeed exist independently from it is fake decimal representation which is good for comparison only
And be careful about (pi) too, which exist in two dimensions only as a closed line surrounding a maximum area, but never on a straight line which is only the number
I posted this also in math.forum, but since they take long time to post it, then I post it here again for the protection of all school students minds
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
06th, March, 2017
It seems that stupidity with stupid maths is universal, for sure

And the main problem that it isn't only one hole that we can focus in, but so many holes in modern mathematics foundation that had to be considered together which make it almost impossible for people to get cured

So, this is really the whole tragedy

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2018-01-09 18:10:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
Consider the infinite decimal representation of numbers that includes the following sets of illegal numbers
1) The transcendental numbers as for (pi), or (e)
2) The algebraic numbers as for (2^ {1/3}), or more generally (q^ {1/p}), where (p) is odd prime, and (q) is prime number
3) The infinite decimal representation for a constructible numbers as for (6/7) or sqrt(2)
All those described above are unreal numbers (for sure)
Since all those described numbers above numbers are defined with endless digits (not terminating with infinite sequence of zero digits, then you may notify them with this simple notation in any number system as (N.M), where (N) is finite integer, and (M) is integer with infinite sequence of digits in any base number system, where the decimal notation is the dot (.)
Then consider ONLY the integer (M), after the decimal notation,
With its infinite sequence of digits in any base number system you adopt as denoted by the infinite sequence of digits as
0.M = 0. (d_1)(d_2)(d_3) … (d_n), where (n) tends to infinity
And for more simplicity for students, consider the infinite representation of the arithmetical cube root of two denoted as (\sqrt[3]{2}), or (2^{1/3}), and in 10base number system for clarity
Of course everybody knows that (2^{1/3} = 1.2599210498…), where actually this is forever as absolute rational approximations that never ends, which implies the non existence of such number (proved rigorously in my recent posts), thus (2^(1/3), and its infinite decimal representation are both nonexistent numbers (fiction numbers in mathematics), they have no proof of being existent but only intuitively or foolishly were concluded, or devilishly established as real numbers for a narrow purposes of showing unnecessary talents of few famous Jugglers from old centuries
But it should be understood that if a carpenter was asked to make a cubic tank that contains two meter cube, then no harm to use any approximation for practical purpose, it is so easy task for a carpenter by trial or error calculation which is the same as the alleged modern mathematics of approximations
Once you analyze those approximations step by step then you must understand the whole concept, and no harm if you go and convince your teacher in mathematics about it, before you become as a victim of those wrong concepts about the real numbers
So, let us do it together, by writing the decimal or fractional representation as a rational number only
First approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2 = 12/10 = 6/5)
Second approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25 = 125/100 = 5/4)
Third approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259 = 1259/1000)
Forth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599 = 12599/10000)
Fifth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25992 = 125992/10^5)
Sixth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259921 = 1259921/10^6)
Seventh approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210/10^7) = Sixth approximation!*
The tenth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210498/10^10)
Then what is the (n) digit approximation, it is simply denoted by a rational number (M/10^n), where (M) is integer with (n + 1) number of sequent digits in 10base number system
But our whole number is at infinity as by the definition, then you require both (n) and (M) to be with infinite sequence of digits, where this is not acceptable nor defined in the holy grail principles of mathematics, and also IMPOSSIBLE to attain (for sure), there for our alleged number is a fool number, that exists in the paradise of the fools and so Big Stupid’s minds (so unfortunately),
Thus our alleged number is fake, nonexistent number (for sure)
But, it is no harm if we rename it as (unreal number) for practical purposes only
Same simple logic applies for any number with infinite sequence of digits as described above
But be careful about the surd form of sqrt(2), that does indeed exist independently from it is fake decimal representation which is good for comparison only
And be careful about (pi) too, which exist in two dimensions only as a closed line surrounding a maximum area, but never on a straight line which is only the number
I posted this also in math.forum, but since they take long time to post it, then I post it here again for the protection of all school students minds
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
06th, March, 2017
So, how can school students be aware of such many fictions if nobody teaches them what is going on with their masters? wonder!
BKK
Zelos Malum
2018-01-11 11:47:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
Consider the infinite decimal representation of numbers that includes the following sets of illegal numbers
1) The transcendental numbers as for (pi), or (e)
2) The algebraic numbers as for (2^ {1/3}), or more generally (q^ {1/p}), where (p) is odd prime, and (q) is prime number
3) The infinite decimal representation for a constructible numbers as for (6/7) or sqrt(2)
All those described above are unreal numbers (for sure)
Since all those described numbers above numbers are defined with endless digits (not terminating with infinite sequence of zero digits, then you may notify them with this simple notation in any number system as (N.M), where (N) is finite integer, and (M) is integer with infinite sequence of digits in any base number system, where the decimal notation is the dot (.)
Then consider ONLY the integer (M), after the decimal notation,
With its infinite sequence of digits in any base number system you adopt as denoted by the infinite sequence of digits as
0.M = 0. (d_1)(d_2)(d_3) … (d_n), where (n) tends to infinity
And for more simplicity for students, consider the infinite representation of the arithmetical cube root of two denoted as (\sqrt[3]{2}), or (2^{1/3}), and in 10base number system for clarity
Of course everybody knows that (2^{1/3} = 1.2599210498…), where actually this is forever as absolute rational approximations that never ends, which implies the non existence of such number (proved rigorously in my recent posts), thus (2^(1/3), and its infinite decimal representation are both nonexistent numbers (fiction numbers in mathematics), they have no proof of being existent but only intuitively or foolishly were concluded, or devilishly established as real numbers for a narrow purposes of showing unnecessary talents of few famous Jugglers from old centuries
But it should be understood that if a carpenter was asked to make a cubic tank that contains two meter cube, then no harm to use any approximation for practical purpose, it is so easy task for a carpenter by trial or error calculation which is the same as the alleged modern mathematics of approximations
Once you analyze those approximations step by step then you must understand the whole concept, and no harm if you go and convince your teacher in mathematics about it, before you become as a victim of those wrong concepts about the real numbers
So, let us do it together, by writing the decimal or fractional representation as a rational number only
First approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2 = 12/10 = 6/5)
Second approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25 = 125/100 = 5/4)
Third approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259 = 1259/1000)
Forth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599 = 12599/10000)
Fifth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25992 = 125992/10^5)
Sixth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259921 = 1259921/10^6)
Seventh approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210/10^7) = Sixth approximation!*
The tenth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210498/10^10)
Then what is the (n) digit approximation, it is simply denoted by a rational number (M/10^n), where (M) is integer with (n + 1) number of sequent digits in 10base number system
But our whole number is at infinity as by the definition, then you require both (n) and (M) to be with infinite sequence of digits, where this is not acceptable nor defined in the holy grail principles of mathematics, and also IMPOSSIBLE to attain (for sure), there for our alleged number is a fool number, that exists in the paradise of the fools and so Big Stupid’s minds (so unfortunately),
Thus our alleged number is fake, nonexistent number (for sure)
But, it is no harm if we rename it as (unreal number) for practical purposes only
Same simple logic applies for any number with infinite sequence of digits as described above
But be careful about the surd form of sqrt(2), that does indeed exist independently from it is fake decimal representation which is good for comparison only
And be careful about (pi) too, which exist in two dimensions only as a closed line surrounding a maximum area, but never on a straight line which is only the number
I posted this also in math.forum, but since they take long time to post it, then I post it here again for the protection of all school students minds
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
06th, March, 2017
So, how can school students be aware of such many fictions if nobody teaches them what is going on with their masters? wonder!
BKK
Why won''t you ever grow up?
bassam king karzeddin
2018-01-17 08:31:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
Consider the infinite decimal representation of numbers that includes the following sets of illegal numbers
1) The transcendental numbers as for (pi), or (e)
2) The algebraic numbers as for (2^ {1/3}), or more generally (q^ {1/p}), where (p) is odd prime, and (q) is prime number
3) The infinite decimal representation for a constructible numbers as for (6/7) or sqrt(2)
All those described above are unreal numbers (for sure)
Since all those described numbers above numbers are defined with endless digits (not terminating with infinite sequence of zero digits, then you may notify them with this simple notation in any number system as (N.M), where (N) is finite integer, and (M) is integer with infinite sequence of digits in any base number system, where the decimal notation is the dot (.)
Then consider ONLY the integer (M), after the decimal notation,
With its infinite sequence of digits in any base number system you adopt as denoted by the infinite sequence of digits as
0.M = 0. (d_1)(d_2)(d_3) … (d_n), where (n) tends to infinity
And for more simplicity for students, consider the infinite representation of the arithmetical cube root of two denoted as (\sqrt[3]{2}), or (2^{1/3}), and in 10base number system for clarity
Of course everybody knows that (2^{1/3} = 1.2599210498…), where actually this is forever as absolute rational approximations that never ends, which implies the non existence of such number (proved rigorously in my recent posts), thus (2^(1/3), and its infinite decimal representation are both nonexistent numbers (fiction numbers in mathematics), they have no proof of being existent but only intuitively or foolishly were concluded, or devilishly established as real numbers for a narrow purposes of showing unnecessary talents of few famous Jugglers from old centuries
But it should be understood that if a carpenter was asked to make a cubic tank that contains two meter cube, then no harm to use any approximation for practical purpose, it is so easy task for a carpenter by trial or error calculation which is the same as the alleged modern mathematics of approximations
Once you analyze those approximations step by step then you must understand the whole concept, and no harm if you go and convince your teacher in mathematics about it, before you become as a victim of those wrong concepts about the real numbers
So, let us do it together, by writing the decimal or fractional representation as a rational number only
First approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2 = 12/10 = 6/5)
Second approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25 = 125/100 = 5/4)
Third approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259 = 1259/1000)
Forth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599 = 12599/10000)
Fifth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25992 = 125992/10^5)
Sixth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259921 = 1259921/10^6)
Seventh approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210/10^7) = Sixth approximation!*
The tenth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210498/10^10)
Then what is the (n) digit approximation, it is simply denoted by a rational number (M/10^n), where (M) is integer with (n + 1) number of sequent digits in 10base number system
But our whole number is at infinity as by the definition, then you require both (n) and (M) to be with infinite sequence of digits, where this is not acceptable nor defined in the holy grail principles of mathematics, and also IMPOSSIBLE to attain (for sure), there for our alleged number is a fool number, that exists in the paradise of the fools and so Big Stupid’s minds (so unfortunately),
Thus our alleged number is fake, nonexistent number (for sure)
But, it is no harm if we rename it as (unreal number) for practical purposes only
Same simple logic applies for any number with infinite sequence of digits as described above
But be careful about the surd form of sqrt(2), that does indeed exist independently from it is fake decimal representation which is good for comparison only
And be careful about (pi) too, which exist in two dimensions only as a closed line surrounding a maximum area, but never on a straight line which is only the number
I posted this also in math.forum, but since they take long time to post it, then I post it here again for the protection of all school students minds
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
06th, March, 2017
So, how can school students be aware of such many fictions if nobody teaches them what is going on with their masters? wonder!
BKK
Why won''t you ever grow up?
Can't you realize yet that you are standing along with a company of few well-known Trolls at sci.math

So, get educated with my posts first

And who is on earth or the sky, who can beat Diophantine Equations? WONDER!

BKK
Zelos Malum
2018-01-17 13:18:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can't you realize yet that you are standing along with a company of few well-known Trolls at sci.math
Trolls? The only trolls here are you guys, the cranks.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, get educated with my posts first
HAHAHAHA! How about YOU get an education first from REAL mathematics!? I will link you too books and much else!
John Gabriel
2018-02-17 12:22:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any clever student can so easily now refute most of the well established illegal numbers in mathematics being considered as real numbers, even without any study to any higher branches of the so called advanced mathematical tools based on real or complex analysis
Consider the infinite decimal representation of numbers that includes the following sets of illegal numbers
1) The transcendental numbers as for (pi), or (e)
2) The algebraic numbers as for (2^ {1/3}), or more generally (q^ {1/p}), where (p) is odd prime, and (q) is prime number
3) The infinite decimal representation for a constructible numbers as for (6/7) or sqrt(2)
All those described above are unreal numbers (for sure)
Since all those described numbers above numbers are defined with endless digits (not terminating with infinite sequence of zero digits, then you may notify them with this simple notation in any number system as (N.M), where (N) is finite integer, and (M) is integer with infinite sequence of digits in any base number system, where the decimal notation is the dot (.)
Then consider ONLY the integer (M), after the decimal notation,
With its infinite sequence of digits in any base number system you adopt as denoted by the infinite sequence of digits as
0.M = 0. (d_1)(d_2)(d_3) … (d_n), where (n) tends to infinity
And for more simplicity for students, consider the infinite representation of the arithmetical cube root of two denoted as (\sqrt[3]{2}), or (2^{1/3}), and in 10base number system for clarity
Of course everybody knows that (2^{1/3} = 1.2599210498…), where actually this is forever as absolute rational approximations that never ends, which implies the non existence of such number (proved rigorously in my recent posts), thus (2^(1/3), and its infinite decimal representation are both nonexistent numbers (fiction numbers in mathematics), they have no proof of being existent but only intuitively or foolishly were concluded, or devilishly established as real numbers for a narrow purposes of showing unnecessary talents of few famous Jugglers from old centuries
But it should be understood that if a carpenter was asked to make a cubic tank that contains two meter cube, then no harm to use any approximation for practical purpose, it is so easy task for a carpenter by trial or error calculation which is the same as the alleged modern mathematics of approximations
Once you analyze those approximations step by step then you must understand the whole concept, and no harm if you go and convince your teacher in mathematics about it, before you become as a victim of those wrong concepts about the real numbers
So, let us do it together, by writing the decimal or fractional representation as a rational number only
First approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2 = 12/10 = 6/5)
Second approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25 = 125/100 = 5/4)
Third approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259 = 1259/1000)
Forth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599 = 12599/10000)
Fifth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.25992 = 125992/10^5)
Sixth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.259921 = 1259921/10^6)
Seventh approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210/10^7) = Sixth approximation!*
The tenth approximation of 2^(1/3) after the decimal notation is (1.2599210498/10^10)
Then what is the (n) digit approximation, it is simply denoted by a rational number (M/10^n), where (M) is integer with (n + 1) number of sequent digits in 10base number system
But our whole number is at infinity as by the definition, then you require both (n) and (M) to be with infinite sequence of digits, where this is not acceptable nor defined in the holy grail principles of mathematics, and also IMPOSSIBLE to attain (for sure), there for our alleged number is a fool number, that exists in the paradise of the fools and so Big Stupid’s minds (so unfortunately),
Thus our alleged number is fake, nonexistent number (for sure)
But, it is no harm if we rename it as (unreal number) for practical purposes only
Same simple logic applies for any number with infinite sequence of digits as described above
But be careful about the surd form of sqrt(2), that does indeed exist independently from it is fake decimal representation which is good for comparison only
And be careful about (pi) too, which exist in two dimensions only as a closed line surrounding a maximum area, but never on a straight line which is only the number
I posted this also in math.forum, but since they take long time to post it, then I post it here again for the protection of all school students minds
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
06th, March, 2017
Well, the biggest problem is that academics don't understand what is a number:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-we-got-numbers-john-gabriel-1

How can students understand mathematics if they don't understand the foundation, which is 'number'?
Loading...