Zero is NOT a number.

[Eram semper recta]

Poor idiot mainstream academics.

A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.

The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r

As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).

A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.

0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.

The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.

0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.

0 is NOT a NUMBER.

Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.

While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.

It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.

Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.

Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.

In fact, ZERO is not required at all in mathematics but it is very useful as I explain in my article:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

[Mostowski Collapse]

Chucky, the terror doll, strikes again.

LoL

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

[bassam karzeddin]

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Chucky, the terror doll, strikes again.
LoL

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Why don't you collapse Mostowski, OR do you prefer to be so drunk about it till you pass away as a Troll

Zero isn't any number anymore, this has been finalized by your new highest legal authorities with many rigorous proofs, and JG is completely right about it, and there are more surprise to you on the way

Go here and see your nonsense no number as a source of Long Troll in every human-like knowledge, and how would you convince the new AI about it, or about your no numbers that end with the most powerful three signs (...) of absolute abnormal human stupidity, when writing for AI Your alleged real numbers say like this (0.142857142857142857...), or that no number like this

(1.4142135623...)? wonders!

How can you convince the artificial new beings that are going to replace you very soon with all your long inherited and very stupid nonsense mythmatics?

Link for your education that you must appreciate

https://www.quora.com/Isnt-there-a-problem-basically-with-zero-or-the-problems-are-basically-with-those-many-like-frac-0-0-0-0-0-0-n-frac-n-0-n-0-1-n-0-0-0-0-etc/answer/Bassam-Karzeddin-1

And tell me please, if the police moderators Trolls would allow you to see it, in order to copy-paste it for your own benefits

Good Luck
BKK

[Sergio]

if 0 is not a number,

why do they use it in 10 ? or 100 ? or 100000 ?

or 0/0 or 70 degree F ?


obviously, 0 IS a number, and JG has his head up Mr Rectum.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Chucky, the terror doll, strikes again.
LoL

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

[FromTheRafters]

JG has provided this:

Q(x,h)= 2.718...^((3.14...)(sqrt(-1))-1

If zero were not a number, the above would not be true.

Post by Sergio
if 0 is not a number,
why do they use it in 10 ? or 100 ? or 100000 ?
or 0/0 or 70 degree F ?
obviously, 0 IS a number, and JG has his head up Mr Rectum.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Chucky, the terror doll, strikes again.
LoL

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other
NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are
measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking
correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form
of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0
in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in
geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived
from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is
strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for
zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this
is ambiguous.
In fact, ZERO is not required at all in mathematics but it is very useful
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

[FromTheRafters]

It happens that FromTheRafters formulated :

Corrected

Q(x,h)= 2.718...^((3.14...)(sqrt(-1))+1
If zero were not a number, the above would not be true.

Post by Sergio
if 0 is not a number,
why do they use it in 10 ? or 100 ? or 100000 ?
or 0/0 or 70 degree F ?
obviously, 0 IS a number, and JG has his head up Mr Rectum.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Chucky, the terror doll, strikes again.
LoL

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other
NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are
measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking
correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak
form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which
means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0
magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived
from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is
strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for
zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but
this is ambiguous.
In fact, ZERO is not required at all in mathematics but it is very useful
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

[Eram semper recta]

Post by Sergio
if 0 is not a number,
why do they use it in 10 ? or 100 ? or 100000 ?

We use the literal 0 to denote a place-holder, you utter crank!

It has been explained to you before.

<snip-crap>

[Mitch Raemsch]

Post by Sergio
if 0 is not a number,
why do they use it in 10 ? or 100 ? or 100000 ?

Do you not know zero's purpose?
It is to set bases...

Mitchell Raemsch

Post by Sergio
or 0/0 or 70 degree F ?
obviously, 0 IS a number, and JG has his head up Mr Rectum.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Chucky, the terror doll, strikes again.
LoL

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Post by Mitch Raemsch

Post by Sergio
if 0 is not a number,
why do they use it in 10 ? or 100 ? or 100000 ?

Do you not know zero's purpose?
It is to set bases...
Mitchell Raemsch

Post by Sergio
or 0/0 or 70 degree F ?
obviously, 0 IS a number, and JG has his head up Mr Rectum.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Chucky, the terror doll, strikes again.
LoL

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Zero is a usual result in modular arithmetic
representing congruence.

Mathematics "needs" zero and infinity too -
those without it are (at, best) not complete.

That goes without saying to most sane people.

(Though, many are bereft "infinity", in their
practice, but, it's always available as an extreme,
and pretty much everybody has a notion of what
"infinity" is, eg "doesn't exist".)

Fighting definition is a "wrong" approach,
refining definition is a "right" approach.

[Mitch Raemsch]

Post by Ross A. Finlayson

Post by Mitch Raemsch

Post by Sergio
if 0 is not a number,
why do they use it in 10 ? or 100 ? or 100000 ?

Do you not know zero's purpose?
It is to set bases...
Mitchell Raemsch

Post by Sergio
or 0/0 or 70 degree F ?
obviously, 0 IS a number, and JG has his head up Mr Rectum.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Chucky, the terror doll, strikes again.
LoL

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Zero is a usual result in modular arithmetic
representing congruence.
Mathematics "needs" zero and infinity too -
those without it are (at, best) not complete.
That goes without saying to most sane people.
(Though, many are bereft "infinity", in their
practice, but, it's always available as an extreme,
and pretty much everybody has a notion of what
"infinity" is, eg "doesn't exist".)
Fighting definition is a "wrong" approach,
refining definition is a "right" approach.

Null is not a quantity. It is a name for no quantity...

[Sergio]

Post by Mitch Raemsch

Post by Ross A. Finlayson

Post by Mitch Raemsch

Post by Sergio
if 0 is not a number,
why do they use it in 10 ? or 100 ? or 100000 ?

Do you not know zero's purpose?
It is to set bases...
Mitchell Raemsch

Post by Sergio
or 0/0 or 70 degree F ?
obviously, 0 IS a number, and JG has his head up Mr Rectum.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Chucky, the terror doll, strikes again.
LoL

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Zero is a usual result in modular arithmetic
representing congruence.
Mathematics "needs" zero and infinity too -
those without it are (at, best) not complete.
That goes without saying to most sane people.
(Though, many are bereft "infinity", in their
practice, but, it's always available as an extreme,
and pretty much everybody has a notion of what
"infinity" is, eg "doesn't exist".)
Fighting definition is a "wrong" approach,
refining definition is a "right" approach.

Null is not a quantity. It is a name for no quantity...

0 is a number, I got a 0 on an Engrlish test once,

0 out of 100

that ment I flunked totally, No points, Zero, 0

[Eram semper recta]

Post by Eram semper recta
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Zero is a usual result in modular arithmetic representing congruence.

We can see that you never actually studied congruences or abstract algebra.

0 is a symbol idiot. You can for example say 7 ≡ 2 mod 5 and all it means is that there is NO REMAINDER when (7-2) is divided by 5. So 0 is a symbol for "NO REMAINDER" - once again confirming it is no number at all.

[Sergio]

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Chucky, the terror doll, strikes again.
LoL

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

JG => show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the
derivative of f(x)=ln(x).

Show us NOW. If you do not, we declare your math phony, fake,
unworkable, discard it totally.

SO show us up, and find f'(x) for f'(x) = ln(x)
and show all the steps.

[Dan Christensen]

Poor idiot internet troll.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.

What "definition" would that be, John? One from which you might be able to finally be able to prove that 2+2=4 in your goofy little system?

NO???? Oh, well...

The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.

Yeah, that's going to sell A LOT of textbooks, John! (HA, HA, HA!!!)

Some free advice: If your "system" does not allow for an additive identity (i.e. zero), it is beyond repair. It is utterly useless. Just scrap it. Free up some disk space and delete it. And never mention it again. You will be healthier and happier.


Even at his advanced age (60+?), John Gabriel is STILL struggling with basic, elementary-school arithmetic. As he has repeatedly posted here:

"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017

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

"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
--October 28, 2017

"Zero is not a number."
-- Dec. 2, 2019

"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017

“There is no such thing as an empty set.”
--Oct. 4, 2019

“3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
--Oct. 22, 2019


No math genius, our JG!


Interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated December 2019) at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Sergio]

Post by Dan Christensen

Poor idiot internet troll.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.

What "definition" would that be, John? One from which you might be able to finally be able to prove that 2+2=4 in your goofy little system?
NO???? Oh, well...

The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.

Yeah, that's going to sell A LOT of textbooks, John! (HA, HA, HA!!!)

JG (AKA rectum, jew hater, chuckles the clown) is now demoted from
moron troll to idiot feeble-minded troll - Monitor of sci.math


Idiot, imbecile, and moron are used in a psychological classification
system, and each one was assigned to a fairly specific range of abilities.

Idiots.—Those so defective that the mental development never exceeds
that or a normal child of about two years.

Imbeciles.—Those whose development is higher than that of an idiot,
but whose intelligence does not exceed that of a normal child of about
seven years.

Morons.—Those whose mental development is above that of an imbecile,
but does not exceed that of a normal child of about twelve years.
— Edmund Burke Huey, Backward and Feeble-Minded Children, 1912

Post by Dan Christensen
Some free advice: If your "system" does not allow for an additive identity (i.e. zero), it is beyond repair. It is utterly useless. Just scrap it. Free up some disk space and delete it. And never mention it again. You will be healthier and happier.
"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017
“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015
"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
--October 28, 2017
"Zero is not a number."
-- Dec. 2, 2019
"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017
“There is no such thing as an empty set.”
--Oct. 4, 2019
“3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
--Oct. 22, 2019
No math genius, our JG!
Interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated December 2019) at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Zelos Malum]

Post by Eram semper recta
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.

That is your pet idea, not mathematics.

[Eram semper recta]

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.

That is your pet idea, not mathematics.

Your pet ideas are the delusions of Peano and set theory.

My ideas come from the those who invented thought.

You fucking moron!

[konyberg]

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.

That is your pet idea, not mathematics.

Your pet ideas are the delusions of Peano and set theory.
My ideas come from the those who invented thought.
You fucking moron!

What do you mean? "...those who invented thought"
Is thinking an invention?
Explain, please. And also tell who invented thinking :)
KON

[Eram semper recta]

Post by konyberg

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.

That is your pet idea, not mathematics.

Your pet ideas are the delusions of Peano and set theory.
My ideas come from the those who invented thought.
You fucking moron!

What do you mean? "...those who invented thought"
Is thinking an invention?
Explain, please. And also tell who invented thinking :)

Kony, you need to shut up because little boys should not get involved in discussions that are best left for adults.

Post by konyberg
KON

[konyberg]

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by konyberg

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.

That is your pet idea, not mathematics.

Your pet ideas are the delusions of Peano and set theory.
My ideas come from the those who invented thought.
You fucking moron!

What do you mean? "...those who invented thought"
Is thinking an invention?
Explain, please. And also tell who invented thinking :)

Kony, you need to shut up because little boys should not get involved in discussions that are best left for adults.

Post by konyberg
KON

I think I am older than you.
My question stands. Answer it!
KON

[Eram semper recta]

Post by konyberg

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by konyberg

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.

That is your pet idea, not mathematics.

Your pet ideas are the delusions of Peano and set theory.
My ideas come from the those who invented thought.
You fucking moron!

What do you mean? "...those who invented thought"
Is thinking an invention?
Explain, please. And also tell who invented thinking :)

Kony, you need to shut up because little boys should not get involved in discussions that are best left for adults.

Post by konyberg
KON

I think I am older than you.
My question stands. Answer it!

You're an idiot and idiots need to be quiet in the presence of adults.

Post by konyberg
KON

[konyberg]

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by konyberg

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by konyberg

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.

That is your pet idea, not mathematics.

Your pet ideas are the delusions of Peano and set theory.
My ideas come from the those who invented thought.
You fucking moron!

What do you mean? "...those who invented thought"
Is thinking an invention?
Explain, please. And also tell who invented thinking :)

Kony, you need to shut up because little boys should not get involved in discussions that are best left for adults.

Post by konyberg
KON

I think I am older than you.
My question stands. Answer it!

You're an idiot and idiots need to be quiet in the presence of adults.

Post by konyberg
KON

And your answer is?
KON

[Sergio]

Post by konyberg

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by konyberg

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by konyberg

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.

That is your pet idea, not mathematics.

Your pet ideas are the delusions of Peano and set theory.
My ideas come from the those who invented thought.
You fucking moron!

What do you mean? "...those who invented thought"
Is thinking an invention?
Explain, please. And also tell who invented thinking :)

Kony, you need to shut up because little boys should not get involved in discussions that are best left for adults.

Post by konyberg
KON

I think I am older than you.
My question stands. Answer it!

You're an idiot and idiots need to be quiet in the presence of adults.

Post by konyberg
KON

And your answer is?
KON

Physo analysis ----


JG, as a little boy, says to Master KON;

"A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison
or measure.
Your pet ideas are the delusions of Peano and set theory.
Not interested in your psycho drivel.
My ideas come from the those who invented thought.
You fucking moron!
you need to shut up because little boys should not get involved in
discussions that are best left for adults.
You're an idiot and idiots need to be quiet in the presence of adults."


Physo analysis continues:
clearly JG is acting out in anger, from his childhood where he was
yelled at quite a lot, probably by his math teacher, for being an
"______" "____" and disrupter in math class.

[Mostowski Collapse]

Zero is 0:1, the ratio of the zero magnitude
and the unit magnitude. Its the same ratio

of bird brains IQ versus the average IQ.

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by konyberg

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by konyberg

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.

That is your pet idea, not mathematics.

Your pet ideas are the delusions of Peano and set theory.
My ideas come from the those who invented thought.
You fucking moron!

What do you mean? "...those who invented thought"
Is thinking an invention?
Explain, please. And also tell who invented thinking :)

Kony, you need to shut up because little boys should not get involved in discussions that are best left for adults.

Post by konyberg
KON

I think I am older than you.
My question stands. Answer it!

You're an idiot and idiots need to be quiet in the presence of adults.

Post by konyberg
KON

[Eram semper recta]

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Zero is 0:1, the ratio of the zero magnitude
and the unit magnitude.

Nope. Because when a ratio means the comparison of two magnitudes. Zero is a non-magnitude. You can't compare nothing to something.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Its the same ratio of bird brains IQ versus the average IQ.

Your IQ is to my IQ, as a gorilla's IQ to a human.

<PLONK>

Post by Mostowski Collapse

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by konyberg

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by konyberg

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.

That is your pet idea, not mathematics.

Your pet ideas are the delusions of Peano and set theory.
My ideas come from the those who invented thought.
You fucking moron!

What do you mean? "...those who invented thought"
Is thinking an invention?
Explain, please. And also tell who invented thinking :)

Kony, you need to shut up because little boys should not get involved in discussions that are best left for adults.

Post by konyberg
KON

I think I am older than you.
My question stands. Answer it!

You're an idiot and idiots need to be quiet in the presence of adults.

Post by konyberg
KON

[Mostowski Collapse]

bird brains IQ is so low, its the IQ of nothing.

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Zero is 0:1, the ratio of the zero magnitude
and the unit magnitude.

Nope. Because when a ratio means the comparison of two magnitudes. Zero is a non-magnitude. You can't compare nothing to something.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Its the same ratio of bird brains IQ versus the average IQ.

Your IQ is to my IQ, as a gorilla's IQ to a human.
<PLONK>

Post by Mostowski Collapse

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by konyberg

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by konyberg

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.

That is your pet idea, not mathematics.

Your pet ideas are the delusions of Peano and set theory.
My ideas come from the those who invented thought.
You fucking moron!

What do you mean? "...those who invented thought"
Is thinking an invention?
Explain, please. And also tell who invented thinking :)

Kony, you need to shut up because little boys should not get involved in discussions that are best left for adults.

Post by konyberg
KON

I think I am older than you.
My question stands. Answer it!

You're an idiot and idiots need to be quiet in the presence of adults.

Post by konyberg
KON

[Sergio]

angry bird brain "a number is a ratio..."

a ratio of what ? two other numbers...

(in JG's mind, tiny tiny loops of self re-enforce random noise which he
calls "thoughts", and thus randomly spew forth, like a potato mumbling.... )

Post by Mostowski Collapse
bird brains IQ is so low, its the IQ of nothing.

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Zero is 0:1, the ratio of the zero magnitude
and the unit magnitude.

Nope. Because when a ratio means the comparison of two magnitudes. Zero is a non-magnitude. You can't compare nothing to something.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Its the same ratio of bird brains IQ versus the average IQ.

Your IQ is to my IQ, as a gorilla's IQ to a human.
<PLONK>

Post by Mostowski Collapse

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by konyberg

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by konyberg

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.

That is your pet idea, not mathematics.

Your pet ideas are the delusions of Peano and set theory.
My ideas come from the those who invented thought.
You fucking moron!

What do you mean? "...those who invented thought"
Is thinking an invention?
Explain, please. And also tell who invented thinking :)

Kony, you need to shut up because little boys should not get involved in discussions that are best left for adults.

Post by konyberg
KON

I think I am older than you.
My question stands. Answer it!

You're an idiot and idiots need to be quiet in the presence of adults.

Post by konyberg
KON

[Eram semper recta]

Post by Sergio
angry bird brain "a number is a ratio..."
a ratio of what ? two other numbers...

A ratio of magnitudes moron.

There is no self-reference you idiot.

The unit is defined as _ : _ where _ is a magnitude chosen as the UNIT magnitude. The number is _ : _.

Then a number is defined as _ _ _ : _ _ : _ : _

Can you tell what number that is crank? Hint: 3/2

Once we establish the unit, we drop the _ : _ and write simply: _ _ _ : _ _

A number is a ratio of a magnitude that is a multiple of the unit to the unit.

M'kay idiot?

Post by Sergio
(in JG's mind, tiny tiny loops of self re-enforce random noise which he
calls "thoughts", and thus randomly spew forth, like a potato mumbling.... )

Post by Mostowski Collapse
bird brains IQ is so low, its the IQ of nothing.

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Zero is 0:1, the ratio of the zero magnitude
and the unit magnitude.

Nope. Because when a ratio means the comparison of two magnitudes. Zero is a non-magnitude. You can't compare nothing to something.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Its the same ratio of bird brains IQ versus the average IQ.

Your IQ is to my IQ, as a gorilla's IQ to a human.
<PLONK>

Post by Mostowski Collapse

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by konyberg

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by konyberg

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.

That is your pet idea, not mathematics.

Your pet ideas are the delusions of Peano and set theory.
My ideas come from the those who invented thought.
You fucking moron!

What do you mean? "...those who invented thought"
Is thinking an invention?
Explain, please. And also tell who invented thinking :)

Kony, you need to shut up because little boys should not get involved in discussions that are best left for adults.

Post by konyberg
KON

I think I am older than you.
My question stands. Answer it!

You're an idiot and idiots need to be quiet in the presence of adults.

Post by konyberg
KON

[Mostowski Collapse]

Why would one need ratios of magnitudes?
You can normalize any ratio of magnitudes,

to an other ratio with a unit, there is
even a geometric construction for that:

x:y = z:1

When you have found z, you don't need x:y
anymore. Thats what modern mathematics

is about. LoL, moron bird brain.

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Sergio
angry bird brain "a number is a ratio..."
a ratio of what ? two other numbers...

A ratio of magnitudes moron.
There is no self-reference you idiot.
The unit is defined as _ : _ where _ is a magnitude chosen as the UNIT magnitude. The number is _ : _.
Then a number is defined as _ _ _ : _ _ : _ : _
Can you tell what number that is crank? Hint: 3/2
Once we establish the unit, we drop the _ : _ and write simply: _ _ _ : _ _
A number is a ratio of a magnitude that is a multiple of the unit to the unit.
M'kay idiot?

Post by Sergio
(in JG's mind, tiny tiny loops of self re-enforce random noise which he
calls "thoughts", and thus randomly spew forth, like a potato mumbling.... )

Post by Mostowski Collapse
bird brains IQ is so low, its the IQ of nothing.

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Zero is 0:1, the ratio of the zero magnitude
and the unit magnitude.

Nope. Because when a ratio means the comparison of two magnitudes. Zero is a non-magnitude. You can't compare nothing to something.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Its the same ratio of bird brains IQ versus the average IQ.

Your IQ is to my IQ, as a gorilla's IQ to a human.
<PLONK>

Post by Mostowski Collapse

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by konyberg

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by konyberg

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.

That is your pet idea, not mathematics.

Your pet ideas are the delusions of Peano and set theory.
My ideas come from the those who invented thought.
You fucking moron!

What do you mean? "...those who invented thought"
Is thinking an invention?
Explain, please. And also tell who invented thinking :)

Kony, you need to shut up because little boys should not get involved in discussions that are best left for adults.

Post by konyberg
KON

I think I am older than you.
My question stands. Answer it!

You're an idiot and idiots need to be quiet in the presence of adults.

Post by konyberg
KON

[Mostowski Collapse]

Define addition and multiplication, via area
rations. Ratios of rectangle areas (for example
product y1 y2 is area of rectangle with

sides y1 and y2):

x1:y1 + x2:y2 = (x1 y2 + x2 y1):(y1 y2)

x1:y1 * x2:y2 = (x1 x2):(y1 y2)

You can define more operations this way.
Now observe if:

x1:y1 = z1:1

x2:y2 = z2:1

Then, with 1 also unit square area for then second equation:

x1:y1 + x2:y2 = (z1+z2):1

x1:y1 * x2:y2 = (z1 z2):1

Homework: Verify the last two equations.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Why would one need ratios of magnitudes?
You can normalize any ratio of magnitudes,
to an other ratio with a unit, there is
x:y = z:1
When you have found z, you don't need x:y
anymore. Thats what modern mathematics
is about. LoL, moron bird brain.

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Sergio
angry bird brain "a number is a ratio..."
a ratio of what ? two other numbers...

A ratio of magnitudes moron.
There is no self-reference you idiot.
The unit is defined as _ : _ where _ is a magnitude chosen as the UNIT magnitude. The number is _ : _.
Then a number is defined as _ _ _ : _ _ : _ : _
Can you tell what number that is crank? Hint: 3/2
Once we establish the unit, we drop the _ : _ and write simply: _ _ _ : _ _
A number is a ratio of a magnitude that is a multiple of the unit to the unit.
M'kay idiot?

Post by Sergio
(in JG's mind, tiny tiny loops of self re-enforce random noise which he
calls "thoughts", and thus randomly spew forth, like a potato mumbling.... )

Post by Mostowski Collapse
bird brains IQ is so low, its the IQ of nothing.

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Zero is 0:1, the ratio of the zero magnitude
and the unit magnitude.

Nope. Because when a ratio means the comparison of two magnitudes. Zero is a non-magnitude. You can't compare nothing to something.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Its the same ratio of bird brains IQ versus the average IQ.

Your IQ is to my IQ, as a gorilla's IQ to a human.
<PLONK>

Post by Mostowski Collapse

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by konyberg

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by konyberg

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.

That is your pet idea, not mathematics.

Your pet ideas are the delusions of Peano and set theory.
My ideas come from the those who invented thought.
You fucking moron!

What do you mean? "...those who invented thought"
Is thinking an invention?
Explain, please. And also tell who invented thinking :)

Kony, you need to shut up because little boys should not get involved in discussions that are best left for adults.

Post by konyberg
KON

I think I am older than you.
My question stands. Answer it!

You're an idiot and idiots need to be quiet in the presence of adults.

Post by konyberg
KON

[Eram semper recta]

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Why would one need ratios of magnitudes?

Because the unit is a ratio of equal magnitudes of which either is the chosen standard of measure.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
You can normalize any ratio of magnitudes,
to an other ratio with a unit, there is
x:y = z:1

And so what idiot? Your point? I see. As usual you don't have one.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
When you have found z, you don't need x:y
anymore.

I said that once we choose the unit ratio, we leave it out birbrain. Maybe learn to read instead of screaming and shouting and showing everyone what a moron you are?

[Mostowski Collapse]

Well once you have learnt how to add
ratios, you can also subtract them:

x1:y1 - x2:y2 = (x1 y2 - x2 y1):(y1 y2)

And then its easy to see what zero is:

x:y - x:y = 0:1

Well you need equality as well, which is
easy to define as:

x1:y1 = x2:y2 :<=> (x1 y2)=(y1 x2)

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Why would one need ratios of magnitudes?

Because the unit is a ratio of equal magnitudes of which either is the chosen standard of measure.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
You can normalize any ratio of magnitudes,
to an other ratio with a unit, there is
x:y = z:1

And so what idiot? Your point? I see. As usual you don't have one.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
When you have found z, you don't need x:y
anymore.

I said that once we choose the unit ratio, we leave it out birbrain. Maybe learn to read instead of screaming and shouting and showing everyone what a moron you are?

[Mostowski Collapse]

What was your school bird brain?
An african slum where you lost

your marbels? LMAO!

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Well once you have learnt how to add
x1:y1 - x2:y2 = (x1 y2 - x2 y1):(y1 y2)
x:y - x:y = 0:1
Well you need equality as well, which is
x1:y1 = x2:y2 :<=> (x1 y2)=(y1 x2)

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Why would one need ratios of magnitudes?

Because the unit is a ratio of equal magnitudes of which either is the chosen standard of measure.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
You can normalize any ratio of magnitudes,
to an other ratio with a unit, there is
x:y = z:1

And so what idiot? Your point? I see. As usual you don't have one.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
When you have found z, you don't need x:y
anymore.

I said that once we choose the unit ratio, we leave it out birbrain. Maybe learn to read instead of screaming and shouting and showing everyone what a moron you are?

[Mostowski Collapse]

You know the geometric construction for (a b + c d),
i.e the sum area of two rectangles.

You can use thales circle to find j^2 = a b and
k^2 = c d, then use pythagoras to find

h^2 = j^2 + k^2. Thats one approach. You can also
convert h^2 into any rectangle of your choice

given one side, using thales circle again.

LoL

Post by Mostowski Collapse
What was your school bird brain?
An african slum where you lost
your marbels? LMAO!

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Well once you have learnt how to add
x1:y1 - x2:y2 = (x1 y2 - x2 y1):(y1 y2)
x:y - x:y = 0:1
Well you need equality as well, which is
x1:y1 = x2:y2 :<=> (x1 y2)=(y1 x2)

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Why would one need ratios of magnitudes?

Because the unit is a ratio of equal magnitudes of which either is the chosen standard of measure.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
You can normalize any ratio of magnitudes,
to an other ratio with a unit, there is
x:y = z:1

And so what idiot? Your point? I see. As usual you don't have one.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
When you have found z, you don't need x:y
anymore.

I said that once we choose the unit ratio, we leave it out birbrain. Maybe learn to read instead of screaming and shouting and showing everyone what a moron you are?

[Mostowski Collapse]

You could use the rectangle reshaping
to for example cancel y1 here:

x1:y1 + x2:y2 = (x1 y2 + x2 y1):(y1 y2)

So that you would get:

x1:y1 + x2:y2 = w:y2

But its probably easier to do the addition
another way geometrically,

just find u such that:

x2:y2 = u:y1

Then:

x1:y1 + x2:y2 = (x1+u):y1

LMAO!

Post by Mostowski Collapse
What was your school bird brain?
An african slum where you lost
your marbels? LMAO!

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Well once you have learnt how to add
x1:y1 - x2:y2 = (x1 y2 - x2 y1):(y1 y2)
x:y - x:y = 0:1
Well you need equality as well, which is
x1:y1 = x2:y2 :<=> (x1 y2)=(y1 x2)

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Why would one need ratios of magnitudes?

Because the unit is a ratio of equal magnitudes of which either is the chosen standard of measure.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
You can normalize any ratio of magnitudes,
to an other ratio with a unit, there is
x:y = z:1

And so what idiot? Your point? I see. As usual you don't have one.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
When you have found z, you don't need x:y
anymore.

I said that once we choose the unit ratio, we leave it out birbrain. Maybe learn to read instead of screaming and shouting and showing everyone what a moron you are?

[Sergio]

JG => show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the
derivative of f(x)=ln(x).

Show us NOW. If you do not, we declare your math phony, fake,
unworkable, discard it totally.

SO show us up, and find f'(x) for f'(x) = ln(x)
and show all the steps.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
What was your school bird brain?
An african slum where you lost
your marbels? LMAO!

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Well once you have learnt how to add
x1:y1 - x2:y2 = (x1 y2 - x2 y1):(y1 y2)
x:y - x:y = 0:1
Well you need equality as well, which is
x1:y1 = x2:y2 :<=> (x1 y2)=(y1 x2)

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Why would one need ratios of magnitudes?

Because the unit is a ratio of equal magnitudes of which either is the chosen standard of measure.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
You can normalize any ratio of magnitudes,
to an other ratio with a unit, there is
x:y = z:1

And so what idiot? Your point? I see. As usual you don't have one.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
When you have found z, you don't need x:y
anymore.

I said that once we choose the unit ratio, we leave it out birbrain. Maybe learn to read instead of screaming and shouting and showing everyone what a moron you are?

[Eram semper recta]

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Well once you have learnt how to add
x1:y1 - x2:y2 = (x1 y2 - x2 y1):(y1 y2)
x:y - x:y = 0:1
Well you need equality as well, which is
x1:y1 = x2:y2 :<=> (x1 y2)=(y1 x2)

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Why would one need ratios of magnitudes?

Because the unit is a ratio of equal magnitudes of which either is the chosen standard of measure.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
You can normalize any ratio of magnitudes,
to an other ratio with a unit, there is
x:y = z:1

And so what idiot? Your point? I see. As usual you don't have one.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
When you have found z, you don't need x:y
anymore.

I said that once we choose the unit ratio, we leave it out birbrain. Maybe learn to read instead of screaming and shouting and showing everyone what a moron you are?

Shut up moron. You are so off-topic and everyone knows you're an idiot. Stop double posting your shit everywhere dumbass jan burse.

[Mostowski Collapse]

Douple posting is nothing to your repeated new
calculoose postings. Dont you have some YT audience?

LMAO!

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Well once you have learnt how to add
x1:y1 - x2:y2 = (x1 y2 - x2 y1):(y1 y2)
x:y - x:y = 0:1
Well you need equality as well, which is
x1:y1 = x2:y2 :<=> (x1 y2)=(y1 x2)

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Why would one need ratios of magnitudes?

Because the unit is a ratio of equal magnitudes of which either is the chosen standard of measure.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
You can normalize any ratio of magnitudes,
to an other ratio with a unit, there is
x:y = z:1

And so what idiot? Your point? I see. As usual you don't have one.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
When you have found z, you don't need x:y
anymore.

I said that once we choose the unit ratio, we leave it out birbrain. Maybe learn to read instead of screaming and shouting and showing everyone what a moron you are?

Shut up moron. You are so off-topic and everyone knows you're an idiot. Stop double posting your shit everywhere dumbass jan burse.

[Zelos Malum]

Post by Eram semper recta
Your pet ideas are the delusions of Peano and set theory.

Given that I didn't come upw ith them and they are the basics in mathematics and taught everywhere, they are not my pet ideas.

Post by Eram semper recta
My ideas come from the those who invented thought.

There was thought logn before the greeks.

It is however your pet idea bceause none uses it anymore. It is a very shitty definition given what we've come to know.

[Eram semper recta]

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta
Your pet ideas are the delusions of Peano and set theory.

Given that I didn't come upw ith them and they are the basics in mathematics and taught everywhere, they are not my pet ideas.

You may as well have come up with them because they are very much in line with the shit for brains that you have. Shit is everywhere in mainstream mathematics, but whatever you choose to call it, it's still shit.

[Earle Jones]

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Problem:

Three people enter an empty building at time t = 0.
The three people leave the building at later time t = 1.

Question: What is the number of people in the building after time t = 1?

earle
*

[FromTheRafters]

Post by Earle Jones

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other
NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are
measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking
correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form
of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in
the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from
geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is
strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes,
we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is
ambiguous.
In fact, ZERO is not required at all in mathematics but it is very useful as
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Three people enter an empty building at time t = 0.
The three people leave the building at later time t = 1.
Question: What is the number of people in the building after time t = 1?
earle
*

If f(x)=e^x then f'(x) is also, leaving Q(x.h) equal to a number he
says is not required in mathematics except as a placeholder. The
function Q(x,h) takes in two variables which it then ignores and
outputs a zero. It is the constant function commonly known as zero.

[bassam karzeddin]

Post by FromTheRafters

Post by Earle Jones

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other
NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are
measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking
correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form
of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in
the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from
geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is
strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes,
we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is
ambiguous.
In fact, ZERO is not required at all in mathematics but it is very useful as
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Three people enter an empty building at time t = 0.
The three people leave the building at later time t = 1.
Question: What is the number of people in the building after time t = 1?
earle
*

If f(x)=e^x then f'(x) is also, leaving Q(x.h) equal to a number he
says is not required in mathematics except as a placeholder. The
function Q(x,h) takes in two variables which it then ignores and
outputs a zero. It is the constant function commonly known as zero.

It was proved and since long ago in a dozen of many elementary ways that no numbers other than real constructible numbers do exist as exact distances relative to any arbitrary existing unity distance, hence real transcendental numbers strictly don't exist, thus f(x) = e^x is no function at all, but gibberish human mad minds and pure insanity, FOR SURE
BKK

[Eram semper recta]

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by FromTheRafters

Post by Earle Jones

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other
NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are
measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking
correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form
of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in
the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from
geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is
strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes,
we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is
ambiguous.
In fact, ZERO is not required at all in mathematics but it is very useful as
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Three people enter an empty building at time t = 0.
The three people leave the building at later time t = 1.
Question: What is the number of people in the building after time t = 1?
earle
*

If f(x)=e^x then f'(x) is also, leaving Q(x.h) equal to a number he
says is not required in mathematics except as a placeholder. The
function Q(x,h) takes in two variables which it then ignores and
outputs a zero. It is the constant function commonly known as zero.

It was proved and since long ago in a dozen of many elementary ways that no numbers other than real constructible numbers do exist as exact distances relative to any arbitrary existing unity distance, hence real transcendental numbers strictly don't exist, thus f(x) = e^x is no function at all, but gibberish human mad minds and pure insanity, FOR SURE
BKK

"real constructible numbers" is just nonsense.

[bassam karzeddin]

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by FromTheRafters

Post by Earle Jones

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or
measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a
number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other
NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are
measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking
correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form
of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in
the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from
geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is
strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes,
we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is
ambiguous.
In fact, ZERO is not required at all in mathematics but it is very useful as
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Three people enter an empty building at time t = 0.
The three people leave the building at later time t = 1.
Question: What is the number of people in the building after time t = 1?
earle
*

If f(x)=e^x then f'(x) is also, leaving Q(x.h) equal to a number he
says is not required in mathematics except as a placeholder. The
function Q(x,h) takes in two variables which it then ignores and
outputs a zero. It is the constant function commonly known as zero.

It was proved and since long ago in a dozen of many elementary ways that no numbers other than real constructible numbers do exist as exact distances relative to any arbitrary existing unity distance, hence real transcendental numbers strictly don't exist, thus f(x) = e^x is no function at all, but gibberish human mad minds and pure insanity, FOR SURE
BKK

"real constructible numbers" is just nonsense.

The distinct constructible number is a distinct existing distance relative to any arbitrary existing unity distance

I have never seen any other numbers where that represent the truly rational and irrational distinct number,

It seems that the oldest historical story with that revolutionary Pythagorean who did discover the true irrational number and was thrown to the sea for his main historical discovery did not finish properly yet and Pythagorian theorem is never truly understood, despite thousands of years

What is truly going on is simply even after that rare historical and true discovery people went back to rational numbers and claiming that they are irrationals with new kinds also like algebraic and transferential with their no number (infinity fiction)

Simply they have spoiled that rare discovery from the roots when they thought wrongly that true irrational numbers can be exactly equated with rationals by invented fiction of infinity (as simple as that)

But can all those methods of approximations like (Dedekind cut, Cauchy sequence, Euler's sum, Limits using delta and epsilon, convergence, Infinity, Infinititusem ..., etc) truly attain uncountable constructible numbers that are strictly less than the diagonal of a square exact existing distance with unity side?

Never, and regardless of any imaginable technology used for computation where the case is a perpetual state

This is the true undeniable story of what a real number is that is before minds and eyes as well

It is not different if asked about distance like

"What is a physical existing distance"?

It is simply a constructible number

BKK




BKK

[Eram semper recta]

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by FromTheRafters

Post by Earle Jones

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or
measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a
number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other
NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are
measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking
correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form
of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in
the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from
geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is
strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes,
we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is
ambiguous.
In fact, ZERO is not required at all in mathematics but it is very useful as
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Three people enter an empty building at time t = 0.
The three people leave the building at later time t = 1.
Question: What is the number of people in the building after time t = 1?
earle
*

If f(x)=e^x then f'(x) is also, leaving Q(x.h) equal to a number he
says is not required in mathematics except as a placeholder. The
function Q(x,h) takes in two variables which it then ignores and
outputs a zero. It is the constant function commonly known as zero.

It was proved and since long ago in a dozen of many elementary ways that no numbers other than real constructible numbers do exist as exact distances relative to any arbitrary existing unity distance, hence real transcendental numbers strictly don't exist, thus f(x) = e^x is no function at all, but gibberish human mad minds and pure insanity, FOR SURE
BKK

"real constructible numbers" is just nonsense.

The distinct constructible number is a distinct existing distance relative to any arbitrary existing unity distance

In which case it is NOT a NUMBER, but a DISTANCE.

A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE MEASURE OF A DISTANCE.

Post by bassam karzeddin
I have never seen any other numbers where that represent the truly rational and irrational distinct number,
It seems that the oldest historical story with that revolutionary Pythagorean who did discover the true irrational number and was thrown to the sea for his main historical discovery did not finish properly yet and Pythagorian theorem is never truly understood, despite thousands of years
What is truly going on is simply even after that rare historical and true discovery people went back to rational numbers and claiming that they are irrationals with new kinds also like algebraic and transferential with their no number (infinity fiction)
Simply they have spoiled that rare discovery from the roots when they thought wrongly that true irrational numbers can be exactly equated with rationals by invented fiction of infinity (as simple as that)
But can all those methods of approximations like (Dedekind cut, Cauchy sequence, Euler's sum, Limits using delta and epsilon, convergence, Infinity, Infinititusem ..., etc) truly attain uncountable constructible numbers that are strictly less than the diagonal of a square exact existing distance with unity side?
Never, and regardless of any imaginable technology used for computation where the case is a perpetual state
This is the true undeniable story of what a real number is that is before minds and eyes as well
It is not different if asked about distance like
"What is a physical existing distance"?
It is simply a constructible number
BKK
BKK

[Eram semper recta]

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by FromTheRafters

Post by Earle Jones

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or
measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a
number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other
NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are
measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking
correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form
of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in
the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from
geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is
strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes,
we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is
ambiguous.
In fact, ZERO is not required at all in mathematics but it is very useful as
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Three people enter an empty building at time t = 0.
The three people leave the building at later time t = 1.
Question: What is the number of people in the building after time t = 1?
earle
*

If f(x)=e^x then f'(x) is also, leaving Q(x.h) equal to a number he
says is not required in mathematics except as a placeholder. The
function Q(x,h) takes in two variables which it then ignores and
outputs a zero. It is the constant function commonly known as zero.

It was proved and since long ago in a dozen of many elementary ways that no numbers other than real constructible numbers do exist as exact distances relative to any arbitrary existing unity distance, hence real transcendental numbers strictly don't exist, thus f(x) = e^x is no function at all, but gibberish human mad minds and pure insanity, FOR SURE
BKK

"real constructible numbers" is just nonsense.

The distinct constructible number is a distinct existing distance relative to any arbitrary existing unity distance

In which case it is NOT a NUMBER, but a DISTANCE.
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE MEASURE OF A DISTANCE.

Magnitude can be distance, area, volume, mass, weight or any other scalar.

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by bassam karzeddin
I have never seen any other numbers where that represent the truly rational and irrational distinct number,
It seems that the oldest historical story with that revolutionary Pythagorean who did discover the true irrational number and was thrown to the sea for his main historical discovery did not finish properly yet and Pythagorian theorem is never truly understood, despite thousands of years
What is truly going on is simply even after that rare historical and true discovery people went back to rational numbers and claiming that they are irrationals with new kinds also like algebraic and transferential with their no number (infinity fiction)
Simply they have spoiled that rare discovery from the roots when they thought wrongly that true irrational numbers can be exactly equated with rationals by invented fiction of infinity (as simple as that)
But can all those methods of approximations like (Dedekind cut, Cauchy sequence, Euler's sum, Limits using delta and epsilon, convergence, Infinity, Infinititusem ..., etc) truly attain uncountable constructible numbers that are strictly less than the diagonal of a square exact existing distance with unity side?
Never, and regardless of any imaginable technology used for computation where the case is a perpetual state
This is the true undeniable story of what a real number is that is before minds and eyes as well
It is not different if asked about distance like
"What is a physical existing distance"?
It is simply a constructible number
BKK
BKK

[bassam karzeddin]

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by FromTheRafters

Post by Earle Jones

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or
measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a
number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other
NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are
measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking
correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form
of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in
the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from
geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is
strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes,
we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is
ambiguous.
In fact, ZERO is not required at all in mathematics but it is very useful as
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Three people enter an empty building at time t = 0.
The three people leave the building at later time t = 1.
Question: What is the number of people in the building after time t = 1?
earle
*

If f(x)=e^x then f'(x) is also, leaving Q(x.h) equal to a number he
says is not required in mathematics except as a placeholder. The
function Q(x,h) takes in two variables which it then ignores and
outputs a zero. It is the constant function commonly known as zero.

It was proved and since long ago in a dozen of many elementary ways that no numbers other than real constructible numbers do exist as exact distances relative to any arbitrary existing unity distance, hence real transcendental numbers strictly don't exist, thus f(x) = e^x is no function at all, but gibberish human mad minds and pure insanity, FOR SURE
BKK

"real constructible numbers" is just nonsense.

The distinct constructible number is a distinct existing distance relative to any arbitrary existing unity distance

In which case it is NOT a NUMBER, but a DISTANCE.
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE MEASURE OF A DISTANCE.

Magnitude can be distance, area, volume, mass, weight or any other scalar.

True under a condition that an existing magnitude must corrospond to an existing "constructible" number, other wise it never exists except in human minds

BKK

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by bassam karzeddin
I have never seen any other numbers where that represent the truly rational and irrational distinct number,
It seems that the oldest historical story with that revolutionary Pythagorean who did discover the true irrational number and was thrown to the sea for his main historical discovery did not finish properly yet and Pythagorian theorem is never truly understood, despite thousands of years
What is truly going on is simply even after that rare historical and true discovery people went back to rational numbers and claiming that they are irrationals with new kinds also like algebraic and transferential with their no number (infinity fiction)
Simply they have spoiled that rare discovery from the roots when they thought wrongly that true irrational numbers can be exactly equated with rationals by invented fiction of infinity (as simple as that)
But can all those methods of approximations like (Dedekind cut, Cauchy sequence, Euler's sum, Limits using delta and epsilon, convergence, Infinity, Infinititusem ..., etc) truly attain uncountable constructible numbers that are strictly less than the diagonal of a square exact existing distance with unity side?
Never, and regardless of any imaginable technology used for computation where the case is a perpetual state
This is the true undeniable story of what a real number is that is before minds and eyes as well
It is not different if asked about distance like
"What is a physical existing distance"?
It is simply a constructible number
BKK
BKK

[q***@gmail.com]

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by bassam karzeddin
It was proved and since long ago in a dozen of many elementary ways that no numbers other than real constructible numbers do exist as exact distances relative to any arbitrary existing unity distance, hence real transcendental numbers strictly don't exist, thus f(x) = e^x is no function at all, but gibberish human mad minds and pure insanity, FOR SURE
BKK

True under a condition that an existing magnitude must corrospond to an existing "constructible" number, other wise it never exists except in human minds
BKK

Post by bassam karzeddin
I have never seen any other numbers where that represent the truly rational and irrational distinct number,
It seems that the oldest historical story with that revolutionary Pythagorean who did discover the true irrational number and was thrown to the sea for his main historical discovery did not finish properly yet and Pythagorian theorem is never truly understood, despite thousands of years
What is truly going on is simply even after that rare historical and true discovery people went back to rational numbers and claiming that they are irrationals with new kinds also like algebraic and transferential with their no number (infinity fiction)
Simply they have spoiled that rare discovery from the roots when they thought wrongly that true irrational numbers can be exactly equated with rationals by invented fiction of infinity (as simple as that)
But can all those methods of approximations like (Dedekind cut, Cauchy sequence, Euler's sum, Limits using delta and epsilon, convergence, Infinity, Infinititusem ..., etc) truly attain uncountable constructible numbers that are strictly less than the diagonal of a square exact existing distance with unity side?
Never, and regardless of any imaginable technology used for computation where the case is a perpetual state
This is the true undeniable story of what a real number is that is before minds and eyes as well
It is not different if asked about distance like
"What is a physical existing distance"?
It is simply a constructible number
BKK

Let us use Bassam's logic:

It is proved that no numbers other than even integers, positive and negative and zero, do exist as exact even distances relative to any arbitrary existing even integer distance, hence rational numbers strictly don't exist, thus f(x) = x/3 is no function at all, but gibberish human mad minds and pure insanity, FOR SURER

This shows that, using the same logic as Bassam, that we can construct an arbitrary set of numbers and impose an arbitrary condition that we claim that any numbers which exist must satisfy and thus no numbers other than our arbitrary numbers exist.

So Bassam, what you have "proven" is:

If you impose conditions that only your cunstructible numbers exist
then only your constructible numbers exist.
Nothing more.
FOR SURERER

Related question.

Days ago you said you were going going to prove your numbers simply existed and this implied constructibility, not that constructibility implied your numbers. You were immediately asked to complete your argument and show exactly what your set of numbers were. I don't believe you have shown that. Exactly what is your set of numbers, completely independent of constructibility? (Please do not say "somewhere in the 3000+ posts that I have made the answer is buried in there somewhere, I can't find it, so you go find it." If you have proven something then point exactly where it is so that it won't be lost forever in your ever increasing pile of posts. Thank you)

Related question.

You claim that the fundamental theorem of algebra is a horrible mistake. But you do not present any detailed logical argument to support your claim. You present no reasoned argument at all to support your claim. Without any supporting argument this is nothing but mindless crank screeching, easy for you to repeat dozens or thousands of times, but without any trace of support. If you are going to claim that something is horribly wrong then put your evidence for your claim on the table and show your evidence logically supports your claim.

Related question.

You have claimed thousands of times that everyone but you are stupid. You have claimed that the numbers which everyone uses is wrong. But it appears, unless I have missed some brilliant argument buried in your 3000+ posts, that all your posts consist of insults and your constructed numbers. But you do not appear to have used your new numbers to have solved any really hard problem. All you appear to have done, hundreds or thousands of times, is say that your numbers mean that problem X has no solution because you claim any number which would be the solution does not exist. Please demonstrate that you can solve ANY REALLY HARD math problem that nobody else has been able to solve and do that in some way that is more than just "no number exists in my world that is a solution."

Related question.

I have asked repeatedly. You have never answered. What happened to your mind that convinced you that you were the only one in the world that understands math. I really do want to know what happened to your mind to convince you of this. The reason I want to know this is so I might be able to tell if it is possible to make this happen to another mind. Or to make this not happen to another mind.

[bassam karzeddin]

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by bassam karzeddin
It was proved and since long ago in a dozen of many elementary ways that no numbers other than real constructible numbers do exist as exact distances relative to any arbitrary existing unity distance, hence real transcendental numbers strictly don't exist, thus f(x) = e^x is no function at all, but gibberish human mad minds and pure insanity, FOR SURE
BKK

True under a condition that an existing magnitude must corrospond to an existing "constructible" number, other wise it never exists except in human minds
BKK

Post by bassam karzeddin
I have never seen any other numbers where that represent the truly rational and irrational distinct number,
It seems that the oldest historical story with that revolutionary Pythagorean who did discover the true irrational number and was thrown to the sea for his main historical discovery did not finish properly yet and Pythagorian theorem is never truly understood, despite thousands of years
What is truly going on is simply even after that rare historical and true discovery people went back to rational numbers and claiming that they are irrationals with new kinds also like algebraic and transferential with their no number (infinity fiction)
Simply they have spoiled that rare discovery from the roots when they thought wrongly that true irrational numbers can be exactly equated with rationals by invented fiction of infinity (as simple as that)
But can all those methods of approximations like (Dedekind cut, Cauchy sequence, Euler's sum, Limits using delta and epsilon, convergence, Infinity, Infinititusem ..., etc) truly attain uncountable constructible numbers that are strictly less than the diagonal of a square exact existing distance with unity side?
Never, and regardless of any imaginable technology used for computation where the case is a perpetual state
This is the true undeniable story of what a real number is that is before minds and eyes as well
It is not different if asked about distance like
"What is a physical existing distance"?
It is simply a constructible number
BKK

It is proved that no numbers other than even integers, positive and negative and zero, do exist as exact even distances relative to any arbitrary existing even integer distance, hence rational numbers strictly don't exist, thus f(x) = x/3 is no function at all, but gibberish human mad minds and pure insanity, FOR SURER

Who did say that nonsense? WonderS!

Post by q***@gmail.com
This shows that, using the same logic as Bassam,

That was never my logic, better quote it as it is instead of fabricating as you like

Post by q***@gmail.com
that we can construct an arbitrary set of numbers and impose an arbitrary condition that we claim that any numbers which exist must satisfy and thus no numbers other than our arbitrary numbers exist.

Irrelevant to all my old and recently proved claimes

Post by q***@gmail.com
If you impose conditions that only your cunstructible numbers exist
then only your constructible numbers exist.
Nothing more.
FOR SURERER
Related question.

And there is no number that is not constructible if you still have any little doubt, show us exactly and only ***ONE*** non-constructible number and not symbolically in mind but numerically to verify it immeadeatly in a few seconds

Post by q***@gmail.com
Days ago you said you were going going to prove your numbers simply existed and this implied constructibility, not that constructibility implied your numbers. You were immediately asked to complete your argument and show exactly what your set of numbers were. I don't believe you have shown that. Exactly what is your set of numbers, completely independent of constructibility? (Please do not say "somewhere in the 3000+ posts that I have made the answer is buried in there somewhere, I can't find it, so you go find it." If you have proven something then point exactly where it is so that it won't be lost forever in your ever increasing pile of posts. Thank you)

It was never any fault of mine that academic mainstream mathematicians and alike pretend deliberately that too simple elementary proofs can't be understood by them when published and one can't reteach everyone alone separately for the matter

Post by q***@gmail.com
Related question.
You claim that the fundamental theorem of algebra is a horrible mistake.

I didn't say that arbitrary since 2006, but with too many pieces of evidence with many public published rigorous proofs that are mid-school level and don't need the minimum peer review, where all it requires from a person are the following as mentioned earlier

1) Age 10 yrs or more

2) Not to be very stupid but with a normal human, stupidity is accepted for the task

3) Not to be as a permanent big lier but at least with one day a month being honest

4) Not being always animal type like nature, but one day a year be as a normal human being we are talking for day and night

5) Not to be so cowered throughout the entire life but once in a lifetime being brave enough to admit the truth that are much bigger than your greatest masters

Post by q***@gmail.com
But you do not present any detailed logical argument to support your claim.

Sat, Deny, Lie, Fart as you like since this wouldn't change anything from the published facts before everyone's own eyes

And I can't do brain surgery operation for every deliberate denier to understand many things like one or two pages rigorous proofs

Post by q***@gmail.com
You present no reasoned argument at all to support your claim. Without any supporting argument this is nothing but mindless crank screeching, easy for you to repeat dozens or thousands of times, but without any trace of support. If you are going to claim that something is horribly wrong then put your evidence for your claim on the table and show your evidence logically supports your claim.

Everything was already put on the tables, but what to do if they disappoint badly all imbeciles that never like any uncovered absolute facts

Post by q***@gmail.com
Related question.
You have claimed thousands of times that everyone but you are stupid. You have claimed that the numbers which everyone uses is wrong. But it appears, unless I have missed some brilliant argument buried in your 3000+ posts, that all your posts consist of insults and your constructed numbers. But you do not appear to have used your new numbers to have solved any really hard problem. All you appear to have done, hundreds or thousands of times, is say that your numbers mean that problem X has no solution because you claim any number which would be the solution does not exist. Please demonstrate that you can solve ANY REALLY HARD math problem that nobody else has been able to solve and do that in some way that is more than just "no number exists in my world that is a solution."

The problem with academic mainstream idiots that they never raise a truth but work so hard to hide it just because it contradicts strictly their own stupid beliefs to a degree of very big historical scandal

Post by q***@gmail.com
Related question.
I have asked repeatedly. You have never answered. What happened to your mind that convinced you that you were the only one in the world that understands math. I really do want to know what happened to your mind to convince you of this. The reason I want to know this is so I might be able to tell if it is possible to make this happen to another mind. Or to make this not happen to another mind.

I have answered all your questions and much more made exactly by very similar people and very repeatedly before, but it was a big waste of time and life too

It is like asking how can you make me start thinking correctly like normal human beings


Even with one thousand elementary proofs, the true intention is not to understand since understanding is a true tragedy once openly confessed for the public sheeple who are at least mid-school levels and far worse than their top-living figures

BKK

[q***@gmail.com]

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam karzeddin
It was proved and since long ago in a dozen of many elementary ways that no numbers other than real constructible numbers do exist as exact distances relative to any arbitrary existing unity distance, hence real transcendental numbers strictly don't exist, thus f(x) = e^x is no function at all, but gibberish human mad minds and pure insanity, FOR SURE
BKK

It is proved that no numbers other than even integers, positive and negative and zero, do exist as exact even distances relative to any arbitrary existing even integer distance, hence rational numbers strictly don't exist, thus f(x) = x/3 is no function at all, but gibberish human mad minds and pure insanity, FOR SURER

Who did say that nonsense? WonderS!

I said that. You know that. You only pretend to ask that. I quoted you where you chose your constructible numbers and then you said that all other numbers must be a constructible distance from these numbers and thus are again constructible numbers so you conclude that only constructible numbers exist.

So, EXACTLY LIKE YOU, I chose even numbers and I say that all other numbers must be an even distance from these numbers and thus are again even numbers so I conclude that only even numbers exist.

I wrote all this using exactly the same steps that you used and exactly the same reasoning that you used. This is to show that your logic does not prove that only the constructible numbers exist. This is to show that your claim is only that constructible+constructible=another constructible, exactly like my claim of even+even=another even. But you can see when you replace constructible with even in your argument that this does not prove no other numbers exist, you are demanding that anyone show you a non constructible number using only your constructible numbers. I asked you to show me a non-even number using only even numbers.

That argument says nothing about constructible+non constructible. But you don't believe in non constructible numbers.

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
This shows that, using the same logic as Bassam,

That was never my logic, better quote it as it is instead of fabricating as you like

Reproduce EXACTLY your argument using even instead of constructible.

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
that we can construct an arbitrary set of numbers and impose an arbitrary condition that we claim that any numbers which exist must satisfy and thus no numbers other than our arbitrary numbers exist.

Irrelevant to all my old and recently proved claimes

Ah yes, when one of your posts is refuted you say the other 3000 posts prove your claim.

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
If you impose conditions that only your cunstructible numbers exist
then only your constructible numbers exist.
Nothing more.
FOR SURERER
Related question.

And there is no number that is not constructible if you still have any little doubt, show us exactly and only ***ONE*** non-constructible number and not symbolically in mind but numerically to verify it immeadeatly in a few seconds

How about

0.12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637
followed by all the obvious digits. That is 1 followed by 2 followed by 3 followed by 4 followed by 5 followed by 6 followed by 7 followed by 8 followed by 9 followed by 10 followed by 11 followed by 12 etc etc etc. That is a somewhat famous number I think. And exactly every digit of the number is clear.

But you will immediately reject any number that doesn't suit your conclusion.

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
Days ago you said you were going going to prove your numbers simply existed and this implied constructibility, not that constructibility implied your numbers. You were immediately asked to complete your argument and show exactly what your set of numbers were. I don't believe you have shown that. Exactly what is your set of numbers, completely independent of constructibility? (Please do not say "somewhere in the 3000+ posts that I have made the answer is buried in there somewhere, I can't find it, so you go find it." If you have proven something then point exactly where it is so that it won't be lost forever in your ever increasing pile of posts. Thank you)

It was never any fault of mine that academic mainstream mathematicians and alike pretend deliberately that too simple elementary proofs can't be understood by them when published and one can't reteach everyone alone separately for the matter

I clearly did not say I pretended to misunderstand. You wrote that mathematicians were backwards and you were going to prove number->constructible instead of constructible->number, but you did not show this. I only asked to see what you claimed. I do not believe you ever published this yet and I asked you to show what you said you were going to do but did not do.

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
Related question.
You claim that the fundamental theorem of algebra is a horrible mistake.

I didn't say that arbitrary since 2006, but with too many pieces of evidence with many public published rigorous proofs that are mid-school level and don't need the minimum peer review, where all it requires from a person are the following as mentioned earlier

You wrote on February 15 2020 in

Post by bassam karzeddin
Message-ID: <7259cf06-982c-4de1-aec4-4847479c0d45 at googlegroups.com>
What is the fundamental theorem of algebra in mathematics?
Algebra was almost quite clean and good before fabricating and adding the fundamental theorem of algebra that was purely a human-invented like mathematics, which was never any true discovery
Hence, the fundamental theorem of algebra is the same fundamental theorem of absolute human stupidity beyond the normal common human stupidity
However, this abnormal human-invented deliberate stupidity is dragging the whole human knowledge to the uncertainty that is damaging the whole physical sciences to all kinds of utter fictions that even any religion would be so ashamed of to include

That seems you did say that only two days ago

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
But you do not present any detailed logical argument to support your claim.

Sat, Deny, Lie, Fart as you like since this wouldn't change anything from the published facts before everyone's own eyes

That message from February 15 has no logical argument supporting your claim.

Post by bassam karzeddin
And I can't do brain surgery operation for every deliberate denier to understand many things like one or two pages rigorous proofs

Providing a correct convincing one or two page rigorous proof would be wonderful. I assume you will not provide that.

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
You present no reasoned argument at all to support your claim. Without any supporting argument this is nothing but mindless crank screeching, easy for you to repeat dozens or thousands of times, but without any trace of support. If you are going to claim that something is horribly wrong then put your evidence for your claim on the table and show your evidence logically supports your claim.

Everything was already put on the tables, but what to do if they disappoint badly all imbeciles that never like any uncovered absolute facts

Post by q***@gmail.com
Related question.
You have claimed thousands of times that everyone but you are stupid. You have claimed that the numbers which everyone uses is wrong. But it appears, unless I have missed some brilliant argument buried in your 3000+ posts, that all your posts consist of insults and your constructed numbers. But you do not appear to have used your new numbers to have solved any really hard problem. All you appear to have done, hundreds or thousands of times, is say that your numbers mean that problem X has no solution because you claim any number which would be the solution does not exist. Please demonstrate that you can solve ANY REALLY HARD math problem that nobody else has been able to solve and do that in some way that is more than just "no number exists in my world that is a solution."

The problem with academic mainstream idiots that they never raise a truth but work so hard to hide it just because it contradicts strictly their own stupid beliefs to a degree of very big historical scandal

I am not hiding anything. I asked you to demonstrate that you can solve any
hard problem without just saying you don't believe the number exists.

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
Related question.
I have asked repeatedly. You have never answered. What happened to your mind that convinced you that you were the only one in the world that understands math. I really do want to know what happened to your mind to convince you of this. The reason I want to know this is so I might be able to tell if it is possible to make this happen to another mind. Or to make this not happen to another mind.

I have answered all your questions and much more made exactly by very similar people and very repeatedly before, but it was a big waste of time and life too

So you are not going to explain how your mind became convinced what no one else in the world believes. And you are not going to even show where you have explained this.

Post by bassam karzeddin
It is like asking how can you make me start thinking correctly like normal human beings

No no. What I asked is very different from that. Read very carefully and see that I did not ask how to repair what was already done to your mind. I understand that is a hopeless task. I clearly asked how it happened, not how to undo what has been done to you.

Post by bassam karzeddin
Even with one thousand elementary proofs, the true intention is not to understand since understanding is a true tragedy once openly confessed for the public sheeple who are at least mid-school levels and far worse than their top-living figures
BKK

Should we take the time to carefully read all your 3000+ posts and count how many are just insults and how many are just you don't believe in that number and how many are rigorous proofs that convince anyone in the world except you?

[bassam karzeddin]

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam karzeddin
It was proved and since long ago in a dozen of many elementary ways that no numbers other than real constructible numbers do exist as exact distances relative to any arbitrary existing unity distance, hence real transcendental numbers strictly don't exist, thus f(x) = e^x is no function at all, but gibberish human mad minds and pure insanity, FOR SURE
BKK

It is proved that no numbers other than even integers, positive and negative and zero, do exist as exact even distances relative to any arbitrary existing even integer distance, hence rational numbers strictly don't exist, thus f(x) = x/3 is no function at all, but gibberish human mad minds and pure insanity, FOR SURER

Who did say that nonsense? WonderS!

I said that. You know that. You only pretend to ask that. I quoted you where you chose your constructible numbers and then you said that all other numbers must be a constructible distance from these numbers and thus are again constructible numbers so you conclude that only constructible numbers exist.
So, EXACTLY LIKE YOU, I chose even numbers and I say that all other numbers must be an even distance from these numbers and thus are again even numbers so I conclude that only even numbers exist.
I wrote all this using exactly the same steps that you used and exactly the same reasoning that you used. This is to show that your logic does not prove that only the constructible numbers exist. This is to show that your claim is only that constructible+constructible=another constructible, exactly like my claim of even+even=another even. But you can see when you replace constructible with even in your argument that this does not prove no other numbers exist, you are demanding that anyone show you a non constructible number using only your constructible numbers. I asked you to show me a non-even number using only even numbers.
That argument says nothing about constructible+non constructible. But you don't believe in non constructible numbers.

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
This shows that, using the same logic as Bassam,

That was never my logic, better quote it as it is instead of fabricating as you like

Reproduce EXACTLY your argument using even instead of constructible.

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
that we can construct an arbitrary set of numbers and impose an arbitrary condition that we claim that any numbers which exist must satisfy and thus no numbers other than our arbitrary numbers exist.

Irrelevant to all my old and recently proved claimes

Ah yes, when one of your posts is refuted you say the other 3000 posts prove your claim.

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
If you impose conditions that only your cunstructible numbers exist
then only your constructible numbers exist.
Nothing more.
FOR SURERER
Related question.

And there is no number that is not constructible if you still have any little doubt, show us exactly and only ***ONE*** non-constructible number and not symbolically in mind but numerically to verify it immeadeatly in a few seconds

How about
0.12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637
followed by all the obvious digits. That is 1 followed by 2 followed by 3 followed by 4 followed by 5 followed by 6 followed by 7 followed by 8 followed by 9 followed by 10 followed by 11 followed by 12 etc etc etc. That is a somewhat famous number I think. And exactly every digit of the number is clear.
But you will immediately reject any number that doesn't suit your conclusion.

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
Days ago you said you were going going to prove your numbers simply existed and this implied constructibility, not that constructibility implied your numbers. You were immediately asked to complete your argument and show exactly what your set of numbers were. I don't believe you have shown that. Exactly what is your set of numbers, completely independent of constructibility? (Please do not say "somewhere in the 3000+ posts that I have made the answer is buried in there somewhere, I can't find it, so you go find it." If you have proven something then point exactly where it is so that it won't be lost forever in your ever increasing pile of posts. Thank you)

It was never any fault of mine that academic mainstream mathematicians and alike pretend deliberately that too simple elementary proofs can't be understood by them when published and one can't reteach everyone alone separately for the matter

I clearly did not say I pretended to misunderstand. You wrote that mathematicians were backwards and you were going to prove number->constructible instead of constructible->number, but you did not show this. I only asked to see what you claimed. I do not believe you ever published this yet and I asked you to show what you said you were going to do but did not do.

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
Related question.
You claim that the fundamental theorem of algebra is a horrible mistake.

I didn't say that arbitrary since 2006, but with too many pieces of evidence with many public published rigorous proofs that are mid-school level and don't need the minimum peer review, where all it requires from a person are the following as mentioned earlier

You wrote on February 15 2020 in

Post by bassam karzeddin
Message-ID: <7259cf06-982c-4de1-aec4-4847479c0d45 at googlegroups.com>
What is the fundamental theorem of algebra in mathematics?
Algebra was almost quite clean and good before fabricating and adding the fundamental theorem of algebra that was purely a human-invented like mathematics, which was never any true discovery
Hence, the fundamental theorem of algebra is the same fundamental theorem of absolute human stupidity beyond the normal common human stupidity
However, this abnormal human-invented deliberate stupidity is dragging the whole human knowledge to the uncertainty that is damaging the whole physical sciences to all kinds of utter fictions that even any religion would be so ashamed of to include

That seems you did say that only two days ago

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
But you do not present any detailed logical argument to support your claim.

Sat, Deny, Lie, Fart as you like since this wouldn't change anything from the published facts before everyone's own eyes

That message from February 15 has no logical argument supporting your claim.

Post by bassam karzeddin
And I can't do brain surgery operation for every deliberate denier to understand many things like one or two pages rigorous proofs

Providing a correct convincing one or two page rigorous proof would be wonderful. I assume you will not provide that.

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
You present no reasoned argument at all to support your claim. Without any supporting argument this is nothing but mindless crank screeching, easy for you to repeat dozens or thousands of times, but without any trace of support. If you are going to claim that something is horribly wrong then put your evidence for your claim on the table and show your evidence logically supports your claim.

Everything was already put on the tables, but what to do if they disappoint badly all imbeciles that never like any uncovered absolute facts

Post by q***@gmail.com
Related question.
You have claimed thousands of times that everyone but you are stupid. You have claimed that the numbers which everyone uses is wrong. But it appears, unless I have missed some brilliant argument buried in your 3000+ posts, that all your posts consist of insults and your constructed numbers. But you do not appear to have used your new numbers to have solved any really hard problem. All you appear to have done, hundreds or thousands of times, is say that your numbers mean that problem X has no solution because you claim any number which would be the solution does not exist. Please demonstrate that you can solve ANY REALLY HARD math problem that nobody else has been able to solve and do that in some way that is more than just "no number exists in my world that is a solution."

The problem with academic mainstream idiots that they never raise a truth but work so hard to hide it just because it contradicts strictly their own stupid beliefs to a degree of very big historical scandal

I am not hiding anything. I asked you to demonstrate that you can solve any
hard problem without just saying you don't believe the number exists.

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
Related question.
I have asked repeatedly. You have never answered. What happened to your mind that convinced you that you were the only one in the world that understands math. I really do want to know what happened to your mind to convince you of this. The reason I want to know this is so I might be able to tell if it is possible to make this happen to another mind. Or to make this not happen to another mind.

I have answered all your questions and much more made exactly by very similar people and very repeatedly before, but it was a big waste of time and life too

So you are not going to explain how your mind became convinced what no one else in the world believes. And you are not going to even show where you have explained this.

Post by bassam karzeddin
It is like asking how can you make me start thinking correctly like normal human beings

No no. What I asked is very different from that. Read very carefully and see that I did not ask how to repair what was already done to your mind. I understand that is a hopeless task. I clearly asked how it happened, not how to undo what has been done to you.

Post by bassam karzeddin
Even with one thousand elementary proofs, the true intention is not to understand since understanding is a true tragedy once openly confessed for the public sheeple who are at least mid-school levels and far worse than their top-living figures
BKK

Should we take the time to carefully read all your 3000+ posts and count how many are just insults and how many are just you don't believe in that number and how many are rigorous proofs that convince anyone in the world except you?

OK, I will retake the pain to repeat the hidden themes in my reasoning to all of my previous seemingly ridiculous claims and without offering you the earlier standing old challenges that I did claim

And let me assume in good faith (despite you are anonymous) that you are very serious and true fact searcher but very clueless and rarely educated about my posts, assuming also that you have the minimum elementary education in number theory and geometry (which is most mathematics about)

And kindly follow the steps in the hope that a sparkling idea might get deep into your own thinking to restart considering maths from its start

And of course, this is only one of many elementary ways to start rediscovering what is the true math and what is the bad math

We have this simple ***UNSOLVABLE*** Diaphontine equation,

[A(n)]^2 = 2*[10^n]^2 ,.... (1)

Where (n) is a natural number and A(n) is natural number say here in base 10, but with (n + 1) digits and

And as mentioned above, there are no existing natural numbers like (n, A(n)) that can ever satisfy Eqn. (1), since that was proved rigorously by the Greeks and in half a page or so and since few thousands of years back

Proof completed, Right? Please object immensely if you don't agree

Then, what about a so innocent academic professional mathematicians who simply didn't notice this unsolvability and wrongly thought that if we divide Eqn. (1) by (10^n), where it becomes like this

2 = [A(n)/10^n]^2, ... (2), AND further assumed (x = A(n)/10^n), where we have (2 = x^2), and taking the absolute value os square root of both sides you get

Sqrt(2) = A(n)/10^n, where n tends to (but never equal) to no number like infinity

So, you have your true irrational number (as distance diagonal of a square with arbitrary existing distance side as unity, and based solely on the Pythagorean theorem and nothing else, being expressed approximated in rational decimal from saying base 10 for simplicity, as below

For (n = 1), A(n) = 14, and first approximation FOR sqer(2) becomes as (14/10 = 1.4), similarly for (n = 2), the seconed approximation becomes

like A(2)/10^2 = 141/100 = 1.41, ..., AND for (n = 10), you have

A(10)/10^10 = 14142135623/10^10 = 1.4142135623

1) *Please note that the decimal notation isn't any magical tool but basically a division notation operation, Right?

2) Also, note that the word "TENDS TO" doesn't strictly mean "equal to" or "greater than" but certainly "Less than", but how less than infinity one can truly go? (ask your self first)

And make sure that when you tend to your no number "infinity" that you are always nearer to "ONE" than that "INFINITY" only in your mind, Right? Wonders

Otherwise, your sqrt(2) would become ultimately like a ratio of two nonexisting natural numbers like this

A(n-->00)/10^{n-->00) = 14142135623.../10000000000...
= No-number/ No number = No number

But one usually gets normally deceived when writing it the same thing with a decimal notation like this
(sqrt(2) = 1.4142135623...) and be happy also!!

But that (14142135623...) isn't any existing number since No (n, A(n)) never exist from that proved Diaophontine equation above, Right?

So, you have a true existing number like sqrt(2) but with no decimal form equivalence but only ***PERPETUAL***APPROXIMATIONS***, Hence

Sqrt(2) =/= 14142135623..., (prof finished)

And in very similar analysis no number ever exists when those three meaningless dots (...) added to it on the wright side

Couldn't you too see yet the very thin line between a shining bitter fact and a very sweet business human mind fallacy? wonders!

Or must that be repeated indefinitely for day and night and forever to understand?

However, this only one of a dozen of more simpler proofs and not only by myself but with many revolutionary independent thinkers like (JG, WM, Kong Dong, AP, David, ...) with some different points of views, who usually described as CRANKS by the vast majorities of Anonymus academic mainstream professional mathematicians and alike

I'm afraid that you didn't learn anything useful yet from this very elementary lesson

And if unexpectedly yes, then prove that nither (pi) nor 2^{1/3} are truly any real existing numbers but solely a human-invented like numbers that never existed as exact distances relative to any existing unity distance

Good luck
Bassam King Karzeddin

[Python]

Le 17/02/2020 à 16:04, bassam karzeddin a écrit :
...

Post by bassam karzeddin
1) *Please note that the decimal notation isn't any magical tool but basically a division notation operation, Right?

Wrong. Decimal notation refers to Cauchy sequences of rational numbers.

Post by bassam karzeddin
2) Also, note that the word "TENDS TO" doesn't strictly mean "equal to" or "greater than" but certainly "Less than", but how less than infinity one can truly go? (ask your self first)

The Cauchy sequence expressed by the decimal extension of sqrt(2) does
not refer to any kind of limit, but to a equivalence class of sequences
which represent sqrt(2) in the set Q^N/~ where ~ is the relation:
u ~ v iff. forall eps > 0, exist N so that n >= N => |u_n - v_n| < eps.

[bassam karzeddin]

Post by Python
...

Post by bassam karzeddin
1) *Please note that the decimal notation isn't any magical tool but basically a division notation operation, Right?

Wrong. Decimal notation refers to Cauchy sequences of rational numbers.

Post by bassam karzeddin
2) Also, note that the word "TENDS TO" doesn't strictly mean "equal to" or "greater than" but certainly "Less than", but how less than infinity one can truly go? (ask your self first)

The Cauchy sequence expressed by the decimal extension of sqrt(2) does
not refer to any kind of limit, but to a equivalence class of sequences
u ~ v iff. forall eps > 0, exist N so that n >= N => |u_n - v_n| < eps.

Again back to the ENDLESS business of epsilon and delta and limit and alike, which is solely engineering tools made basically by engineers for no true mathematical purposes but for earthy problem approximate solutions that never requires the perfection that mathematics strictly requires

Don't hide behind practicality and exposed fiction like infinity, where successful eingineers and computer engineers never need it or use it as you do and claim illegally that their success is the efforts of true idiots

Get a life man

BKK

[Python]

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by Python
...

Post by bassam karzeddin
1) *Please note that the decimal notation isn't any magical tool but basically a division notation operation, Right?

Wrong. Decimal notation refers to Cauchy sequences of rational numbers.

Post by bassam karzeddin
2) Also, note that the word "TENDS TO" doesn't strictly mean "equal to" or "greater than" but certainly "Less than", but how less than infinity one can truly go? (ask your self first)

The Cauchy sequence expressed by the decimal extension of sqrt(2) does
not refer to any kind of limit, but to a equivalence class of sequences
u ~ v iff. forall eps > 0, exist N so that n >= N => |u_n - v_n| < eps.

Again back to the ENDLESS business of epsilon and delta and limit and alike,

You mean all the stuff that you've never manage to understand, Mr King
of Idiots?

Post by bassam karzeddin
which is solely engineering tools made basically by engineers for no true mathematical
purposes but for earthy problem approximate solutions that never requires the perfection
that mathematics strictly requires

Historically wrong. It was made by Cauchy, Weierstraß and Dedekind.

Post by bassam karzeddin
Don't hide behind practicality

I don't. You do.

[bassam karzeddin]

Post by Python

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by Python
...

Post by bassam karzeddin
1) *Please note that the decimal notation isn't any magical tool but basically a division notation operation, Right?

Wrong. Decimal notation refers to Cauchy sequences of rational numbers.

Post by bassam karzeddin
2) Also, note that the word "TENDS TO" doesn't strictly mean "equal to" or "greater than" but certainly "Less than", but how less than infinity one can truly go? (ask your self first)

The Cauchy sequence expressed by the decimal extension of sqrt(2) does
not refer to any kind of limit, but to a equivalence class of sequences
u ~ v iff. forall eps > 0, exist N so that n >= N => |u_n - v_n| < eps.

Again back to the ENDLESS business of epsilon and delta and limit and alike,

You mean all the stuff that you've never manage to understand, Mr King
of Idiots?

Post by bassam karzeddin
which is solely engineering tools made basically by engineers for no true mathematical
purposes but for earthy problem approximate solutions that never requires the perfection
that mathematics strictly requires

Historically wrong. It was made by Cauchy, Weierstraß and Dedekind.

Post by bassam karzeddin
Don't hide behind practicality

I don't. You do.

Then why all those **GOOD**methods of *approximations* like (Dedekind cut, Cauchy sequence, limits with no numbers like infinity, Newton's approximations, WeierstralB, CONVERGENCE, Euler's unfinished sum yet, ..., etc)
are in fact, perpetually incapable to obtain many uncountable existing constructible numbers that are strictly ***LESS THAN*** sqrt(2), and regardless of any imaginable technology of computations used for the purpose of a matter of well-defining a single true irrational number like sqrt(2)? Wonders

Does this need any verification or minimum peer-review to well-understand? No wonders

Answer mathematically and never carpentry I want to hear

BKK

[Python]

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by Python

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by Python
...

Post by bassam karzeddin
1) *Please note that the decimal notation isn't any magical tool but basically a division notation operation, Right?

Wrong. Decimal notation refers to Cauchy sequences of rational numbers.

Post by bassam karzeddin
2) Also, note that the word "TENDS TO" doesn't strictly mean "equal to" or "greater than" but certainly "Less than", but how less than infinity one can truly go? (ask your self first)

The Cauchy sequence expressed by the decimal extension of sqrt(2) does
not refer to any kind of limit, but to a equivalence class of sequences
u ~ v iff. forall eps > 0, exist N so that n >= N => |u_n - v_n| < eps.

Again back to the ENDLESS business of epsilon and delta and limit and alike,

You mean all the stuff that you've never manage to understand, Mr King
of Idiots?

Post by bassam karzeddin
which is solely engineering tools made basically by engineers for no true mathematical
purposes but for earthy problem approximate solutions that never requires the perfection
that mathematics strictly requires

Historically wrong. It was made by Cauchy, Weierstraß and Dedekind.

Post by bassam karzeddin
Don't hide behind practicality

I don't. You do.

Then why all those **GOOD**methods of *approximations* like (Dedekind cut, Cauchy sequence, limits with no numbers like infinity, Newton's approximations, WeierstralB, CONVERGENCE, Euler's unfinished sum yet, ..., etc)
are in fact, perpetually incapable to obtain many uncountable existing constructible numbers that are strictly ***LESS THAN*** sqrt(2), and regardless of any imaginable technology of computations used for the purpose of a matter of well-defining a single true irrational number like sqrt(2)? Wonders
Does this need any verification or minimum peer-review to well-understand? No wonders

All of this is far beyond your stupid brain, idiot. But it is taught
without any glitch for ages to HUNDRED OF THOUSANDS people routinely?

Post by bassam karzeddin
Answer mathematically and never carpentry I want to hear

You are a carpet full of shit Karzeddin INSANE KING OF IDIOTS.

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by Python

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by Python
...

Post by bassam karzeddin
1) *Please note that the decimal notation isn't any magical tool but basically a division notation operation, Right?

Wrong. Decimal notation refers to Cauchy sequences of rational numbers.

Post by bassam karzeddin
2) Also, note that the word "TENDS TO" doesn't strictly mean "equal to" or "greater than" but certainly "Less than", but how less than infinity one can truly go? (ask your self first)

The Cauchy sequence expressed by the decimal extension of sqrt(2) does
not refer to any kind of limit, but to a equivalence class of sequences
u ~ v iff. forall eps > 0, exist N so that n >= N => |u_n - v_n| < eps.

Again back to the ENDLESS business of epsilon and delta and limit and alike,

You mean all the stuff that you've never manage to understand, Mr King
of Idiots?

Post by bassam karzeddin
which is solely engineering tools made basically by engineers for no true mathematical
purposes but for earthy problem approximate solutions that never requires the perfection
that mathematics strictly requires

Historically wrong. It was made by Cauchy, Weierstraß and Dedekind.

Post by bassam karzeddin
Don't hide behind practicality

I don't. You do.

Then why all those **GOOD**methods of *approximations* like (Dedekind cut, Cauchy sequence, limits with no numbers like infinity, Newton's approximations, WeierstralB, CONVERGENCE, Euler's unfinished sum yet, ..., etc)
are in fact, perpetually incapable to obtain many uncountable existing constructible numbers that are strictly ***LESS THAN*** sqrt(2), and regardless of any imaginable technology of computations used for the purpose of a matter of well-defining a single true irrational number like sqrt(2)? Wonders
Does this need any verification or minimum peer-review to well-understand? No wonders
Answer mathematically and never carpentry I want to hear

Don't hold your breath. The French cunt jean pierre messager has no answer, only more hand waving and decrees. Chuckle.

Post by bassam karzeddin
BKK

[Eram semper recta]

Post by Python
...

Post by bassam karzeddin
1) *Please note that the decimal notation isn't any magical tool but basically a division notation operation, Right?

Bassam: Actually it has nothing to do with division. Rather it is a means of representing rational numbers. For example, when you say express 2/5 as a percentage, this means you need a measure for it in base 10 (decimal):

2/5 = 40/100 = 4/10

and now you can write in it decimal: 2/5 = 0.4

This is ALL that decimal notation means.

Post by Python
Wrong. Decimal notation refers to Cauchy sequences of rational numbers.

It is RIGHT you deranged imbecile! "Cauchy sequences..." ???? LMFAO

According to whom you anal wart?!!! Your high priests in the Church of Academia.

Cauchy was a fucking moron Frenchman like YOU! I piss an shit on you idiot.

You should know that you cannot intimidate those who are far more intelligent than you are!

But you don't even understand the very theory you try to defend in your stupidity!

A Cauchy sequence is ALWAYS a sequence of RATIONAL NUMBERS, you fuckwad!!!!!

It cannot be anything else moron!!!!!! LMAO.

Post by Python

Post by bassam karzeddin
2) Also, note that the word "TENDS TO" doesn't strictly mean "equal to" or "greater than" but certainly "Less than", but how less than infinity one can truly go? (ask your self first)

The Cauchy sequence expressed by the decimal extension of sqrt(2) does
not refer to any kind of limit, but to a equivalence class of sequences
u ~ v iff. forall eps > 0, exist N so that n >= N => |u_n - v_n| < eps.

A few serious problems arise with this bullshit. I'll talk about just a couple.

i. Cauchy didn't know whether or not the "limit" he talked about was actually described by any number. According to the well-known historian Boyer:

"Cauchy had stated in his Cours d'analyse that irrational numbers are to be
regarded as the limits of sequences of rational numbers. Since a limit is defined as a number to which the terms of the sequence approach in such a way that ultimately the difference between this number and the terms of the sequence can be made less than any given number, the existence of the irrational number depends, in the definition of limit, upon the known existence, and hence the prior definition, of the very quantity whose definition is being attempted.

That is, one cannot define the number sqrt(2) as the limit of the sequence 1, 1.4, 1.41, 1.414, ... because to prove that this sequence has a limit one must assume, in view of the definitions of limits and convergence, the existence of this number as previously demonstrated or defined. Cauchy appears not to have noticed the circularity of the reasoning in this connection, but tacitly assumed that every sequence converging within itself has a limit."
The History of Calculus and its Conceptual Development' (Page. 281)
Carl B. Boyer

So it is clear that idiot Cauchy ASSUMED that every sequence converging within itself has a "limit" (meaning a NUMBER).

ii. Cauchy being the moron that he was like you, did not understand that a number describes the MEASURE of a magnitude or size.

There is NO such thing as an "irrational number" - it is fictional myth.

Before you make a fool of yourself again, maybe buy this book and study it? Chuckle.

[Python]

John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
...

Post by Eram semper recta
"Cauchy had stated in his Cours d'analyse that irrational numbers are to be
regarded as the limits of sequences of rational numbers. Since a limit is defined as a number to which the terms of the sequence approach in such a way that ultimately the difference between this number and the terms of the sequence can be made less than any given number, the existence of the irrational number depends, in the definition of limit, upon the known existence, and hence the prior definition, of the very quantity whose definition is being attempted.
That is, one cannot define the number sqrt(2) as the limit of the sequence 1, 1.4, 1.41, 1.414, ... because to prove that this sequence has a limit one must assume, in view of the definitions of limits and convergence, the existence of this number as previously demonstrated or defined. Cauchy appears not to have noticed the circularity of the reasoning in this connection, but tacitly assumed that every sequence converging within itself has a limit."
The History of Calculus and its Conceptual Development' (Page. 281)
Carl B. Boyer
So it is clear that idiot Cauchy ASSUMED that every sequence converging within itself has a "limit" (meaning a NUMBER).

You can quote Boyer, but Boyer completely missed the point. He didn't
understand the point of Cauchy's construction, that is to start from
a characterisation of the asymptotic behaviour of sequences of rationals
WITHOUT involving a valued limit (the Cauchy criterium: for all eps>0
exist N so that if n > N and m > N then |u_n - u_m| < eps), then
by collecting all asymptotically equivalent sequences you end up
identifying numbers to set (equivalence classes) of sequences.

There is no circularity there.

[Eram semper recta]

Post by Python
...

Post by Eram semper recta
"Cauchy had stated in his Cours d'analyse that irrational numbers are to be
regarded as the limits of sequences of rational numbers. Since a limit is defined as a number to which the terms of the sequence approach in such a way that ultimately the difference between this number and the terms of the sequence can be made less than any given number, the existence of the irrational number depends, in the definition of limit, upon the known existence, and hence the prior definition, of the very quantity whose definition is being attempted.
That is, one cannot define the number sqrt(2) as the limit of the sequence 1, 1.4, 1.41, 1.414, ... because to prove that this sequence has a limit one must assume, in view of the definitions of limits and convergence, the existence of this number as previously demonstrated or defined. Cauchy appears not to have noticed the circularity of the reasoning in this connection, but tacitly assumed that every sequence converging within itself has a limit."
The History of Calculus and its Conceptual Development' (Page. 281)
Carl B. Boyer
So it is clear that idiot Cauchy ASSUMED that every sequence converging within itself has a "limit" (meaning a NUMBER).

You can quote Boyer, but Boyer completely missed the point.

Psycho jean pierre messager: YOU of all are not remotely qualified to make any such statement. You are not even a mathematician's butthole.

You should first try to understand what Cauchy was driveling before you even try to criticise Boyer who was thousands of times more intelligent than a piece of shit like you.

<PLONK - heavy French shit pissed and shat on.>

[Zelos Malum]

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Python
...

Post by Eram semper recta
"Cauchy had stated in his Cours d'analyse that irrational numbers are to be
regarded as the limits of sequences of rational numbers. Since a limit is defined as a number to which the terms of the sequence approach in such a way that ultimately the difference between this number and the terms of the sequence can be made less than any given number, the existence of the irrational number depends, in the definition of limit, upon the known existence, and hence the prior definition, of the very quantity whose definition is being attempted.
That is, one cannot define the number sqrt(2) as the limit of the sequence 1, 1.4, 1.41, 1.414, ... because to prove that this sequence has a limit one must assume, in view of the definitions of limits and convergence, the existence of this number as previously demonstrated or defined. Cauchy appears not to have noticed the circularity of the reasoning in this connection, but tacitly assumed that every sequence converging within itself has a limit."
The History of Calculus and its Conceptual Development' (Page. 281)
Carl B. Boyer
So it is clear that idiot Cauchy ASSUMED that every sequence converging within itself has a "limit" (meaning a NUMBER).

You can quote Boyer, but Boyer completely missed the point.

Psycho jean pierre messager: YOU of all are not remotely qualified to make any such statement. You are not even a mathematician's butthole.
You should first try to understand what Cauchy was driveling before you even try to criticise Boyer who was thousands of times more intelligent than a piece of shit like you.
<PLONK - heavy French shit pissed and shat on.>

As usual, you never address the actual mathematics because you cannot understand anything above highschool.

[Eram semper recta]

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Python
...

Post by Eram semper recta
"Cauchy had stated in his Cours d'analyse that irrational numbers are to be
regarded as the limits of sequences of rational numbers. Since a limit is defined as a number to which the terms of the sequence approach in such a way that ultimately the difference between this number and the terms of the sequence can be made less than any given number, the existence of the irrational number depends, in the definition of limit, upon the known existence, and hence the prior definition, of the very quantity whose definition is being attempted.
That is, one cannot define the number sqrt(2) as the limit of the sequence 1, 1.4, 1.41, 1.414, ... because to prove that this sequence has a limit one must assume, in view of the definitions of limits and convergence, the existence of this number as previously demonstrated or defined. Cauchy appears not to have noticed the circularity of the reasoning in this connection, but tacitly assumed that every sequence converging within itself has a limit."
The History of Calculus and its Conceptual Development' (Page. 281)
Carl B. Boyer
So it is clear that idiot Cauchy ASSUMED that every sequence converging within itself has a "limit" (meaning a NUMBER).

You can quote Boyer, but Boyer completely missed the point.

Psycho jean pierre messager: YOU of all are not remotely qualified to make any such statement. You are not even a mathematician's butthole.
You should first try to understand what Cauchy was driveling before you even try to criticise Boyer who was thousands of times more intelligent than a piece of shit like you.
<PLONK - heavy French shit pissed and shat on.>

As usual, you never address the actual mathematics because you cannot understand anything above highschool.

You dimwit. Go fuck yourself. You're nothing but an uneducated, stupid piece of shit. I have no interest in ANY of your drivel. You are 100% moron to me.

[Zelos Malum]

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Python
...

Post by Eram semper recta
"Cauchy had stated in his Cours d'analyse that irrational numbers are to be
regarded as the limits of sequences of rational numbers. Since a limit is defined as a number to which the terms of the sequence approach in such a way that ultimately the difference between this number and the terms of the sequence can be made less than any given number, the existence of the irrational number depends, in the definition of limit, upon the known existence, and hence the prior definition, of the very quantity whose definition is being attempted.
That is, one cannot define the number sqrt(2) as the limit of the sequence 1, 1.4, 1.41, 1.414, ... because to prove that this sequence has a limit one must assume, in view of the definitions of limits and convergence, the existence of this number as previously demonstrated or defined. Cauchy appears not to have noticed the circularity of the reasoning in this connection, but tacitly assumed that every sequence converging within itself has a limit."
The History of Calculus and its Conceptual Development' (Page. 281)
Carl B. Boyer
So it is clear that idiot Cauchy ASSUMED that every sequence converging within itself has a "limit" (meaning a NUMBER).

You can quote Boyer, but Boyer completely missed the point.

Psycho jean pierre messager: YOU of all are not remotely qualified to make any such statement. You are not even a mathematician's butthole.
You should first try to understand what Cauchy was driveling before you even try to criticise Boyer who was thousands of times more intelligent than a piece of shit like you.
<PLONK - heavy French shit pissed and shat on.>

As usual, you never address the actual mathematics because you cannot understand anything above highschool.

You dimwit. Go fuck yourself. You're nothing but an uneducated, stupid piece of shit. I have no interest in ANY of your drivel. You are 100% moron to me.

yet you can never respond to any of the mathematics, but I respond to yours and have tried to engage you in yoru claims such as "no real numbers", yet when I try to go step by step, you're not responding to it because admit it, you do not understand how any of it works.

[q***@gmail.com]

Post by bassam karzeddin
OK, I will retake the pain to repeat the hidden themes in my reasoning to all of my previous seemingly ridiculous claims and without offering you the earlier standing old challenges that I did claim
And let me assume in good faith (despite you are anonymous) that you are very serious and true fact searcher but very clueless and rarely educated about my posts, assuming also that you have the minimum elementary education in number theory and geometry (which is most mathematics about)
And kindly follow the steps in the hope that a sparkling idea might get deep into your own thinking to restart considering maths from its start
And of course, this is only one of many elementary ways to start rediscovering what is the true math and what is the bad math
We have this simple ***UNSOLVABLE*** Diaphontine equation,
[A(n)]^2 = 2*[10^n]^2 ,.... (1)
Where (n) is a natural number and A(n) is natural number say here in base 10, but with (n + 1) digits and
And as mentioned above, there are no existing natural numbers like (n, A(n)) that can ever satisfy Eqn. (1), since that was proved rigorously by the Greeks and in half a page or so and since few thousands of years back
Proof completed, Right? Please object immensely if you don't agree

You prove that the square root of 2 is not a rational number of the exact form A(n)/10^n. No one should be surprised by this or reject this. (There is the possibility that because of your history some might reject anything you might claim, but that is a much larger issue to deal with)

Post by bassam karzeddin
Then, what about a so innocent academic professional mathematicians who simply didn't notice this unsolvability and wrongly thought that if we divide Eqn. (1) by (10^n), where it becomes like this

I do not believe that anyone did not notice this or that anyone believed that sqrt(2) == A(n)/10^n is an exact decimal form. If you claim that any careful academic did not notice this then please present documentation showing where they missed this. Raging arguments in sci.math almost certainly do not count. Far too much silliness is here for this to count.

Post by bassam karzeddin
2 = [A(n)/10^n]^2, ... (2), AND further assumed (x = A(n)/10^n), where we have (2 = x^2), and taking the absolute value os square root of both sides you get
Sqrt(2) = A(n)/10^n, where n tends to (but never equal) to no number like infinity
So, you have your true irrational number (as distance diagonal of a square with arbitrary existing distance side as unity, and based solely on the Pythagorean theorem and nothing else, being expressed approximated in rational decimal from saying base 10 for simplicity, as below

I do not understand where absolute value came from, but that does not seem essential.

Approximation is not the issue, that appears to be only a distraction. You are dealing with exact numbers.

Post by bassam karzeddin
For (n = 1), A(n) = 14, and first approximation FOR sqer(2) becomes as (14/10 = 1.4), similarly for (n = 2), the seconed approximation becomes
like A(2)/10^2 = 141/100 = 1.41, ..., AND for (n = 10), you have
A(10)/10^10 = 14142135623/10^10 = 1.4142135623
1) *Please note that the decimal notation isn't any magical tool but basically a division notation operation, Right?
2) Also, note that the word "TENDS TO" doesn't strictly mean "equal to" or "greater than" but certainly "Less than", but how less than infinity one can truly go? (ask your self first)
And make sure that when you tend to your no number "infinity" that you are always nearer to "ONE" than that "INFINITY" only in your mind, Right? Wonders
Otherwise, your sqrt(2) would become ultimately like a ratio of two nonexisting natural numbers like this
A(n-->00)/10^{n-->00) = 14142135623.../10000000000...
= No-number/ No number = No number
But one usually gets normally deceived when writing it the same thing with a decimal notation like this
(sqrt(2) = 1.4142135623...) and be happy also!!
But that (14142135623...) isn't any existing number since No (n, A(n)) never exist from that proved Diaophontine equation above, Right?
So, you have a true existing number like sqrt(2) but with no decimal form equivalence but only ***PERPETUAL***APPROXIMATIONS***, Hence
Sqrt(2) =/= 14142135623..., (prof finished)

If you say there is no FINITE decimal equivalence

Sqrt(2) =/= 1414
or
Sqrt(2) =/= 1414135

then I believe everyone would agree with you. You can go places which have not seen your history of claims and ask if they agree that there is no finite decimal which is exactly the square root of 2 and everyone should instantly agree with you.

But if you instead go to those same places and ask if

Sqrt(2) =/= any infinite stream of decimals

Then I think that no one will agree with you and you are going to need far far more powerful and convincing proofs if you ever expect to convince anyone else of this.

Post by bassam karzeddin
And in very similar analysis no number ever exists when those three meaningless dots (...) added to it on the wright side

Ah, the infinite behaves very differently from the finite. You believe the dots are meaningless, but only to you. To everyone else the dots have well understood meaning.

Post by bassam karzeddin
Couldn't you too see yet the very thin line between a shining bitter fact and a very sweet business human mind fallacy? wonders!

It seems to me that the difference between finite and infinite is much more than a very thin line. The difference is larger than we might imagine.

But let me ask one question before we go on. Perhaps this is not your point of this particular proof, but I want to make certain I understand.

You want to distinguish between the constructible and the non constructible. That seems essential to your thinking. You believe the non constructible are completely different, in fact they do not exist.

Suppose you repeat carefully step by step your above argument using the cube root of 2 instead of the square root of 2. And thus you use cube instead of square.

Since you claim the cube root of 2 does not exist I would think that there should be some fundamental obvious difference at the end of that process. But I do not see any difference. Both square root and cube root are not rational. Both do not have any finite decimal result. Why is there no difference between square root of 2 which is constructible and cube root of 2 which is not constructible?

Post by bassam karzeddin
Or must that be repeated indefinitely for day and night and forever to understand?

If you are claiming there is no finite decimal number for the square root of 2 then I don't think you need to do that even once. I don't think anyone should claim there is a finite decimal value for square root of 2.

If you are claiming there is no infinite decimal number for the square root of 2 then I think you will have to find much more convincing arguments to get anyone else to ever believe you.

A larger claim is that there is no finite decimal number for any constructible irrational number. Everyone would believe that even without your proof.

There are even easier numbers with no finite decimal number. 1/3 or 1/7.

Before we go any further and to any greater questions. What does this proof give you? It does not seem to distinguish constructible from non constructible. It does not distinguish rationals with no finite decimal form from non constructible. All it seems to do is distinguish rationals with a finite decimal form from numbers, constructible or not, without a finite decimal form.

I am only guessing that you want this proof to give you some evidence against decimals, perhaps against all decimals. But it only seems to distinguish between 3 and 1/2 and others with finite decimal form versus 1/3 and 1/7 and square root of 2 and cube root of 2 without finite decimal form.

Unless you have some much more powerful result that I do not see in dividing numbers into these two groups then I do not see what this has accomplished.

Post by bassam karzeddin
However, this only one of a dozen of more simpler proofs and not only by myself but with many revolutionary independent thinkers like (JG, WM, Kong Dong, AP, David, ...) with some different points of views, who usually described as CRANKS by the vast majorities of Anonymus academic mainstream professional mathematicians and alike

I try to focus on ONE proof at a time. Other proofs written other times and many times, I try to focus on one concrete thing at a time and not make mistakes.

Post by bassam karzeddin
I'm afraid that you didn't learn anything useful yet from this very elementary lesson

I learn you prove square root of 2 =/= A(n)/10^n is not a rational number. That is not surprising. Everyone agrees with that. And there is no finite decimal number which is square root of 2. That is not surprising. Everyone agrees with that. And you do not believe in ... or infinite decimals. No one else agrees with that.

If I am supposed to have learned something more than that then please very clearly state what that is.

Post by bassam karzeddin
And if unexpectedly yes, then prove that nither (pi) nor 2^{1/3} are truly any real existing numbers but solely a human-invented like numbers that never existed as exact distances relative to any existing unity distance

Yes. Finally you bring in constructible at your conclusion.

Because you do not believe in infinite decimals you do not seem to believe in any number which is an infinite decimal. These include 1/3 and 1/7 and square root of 2 and pi and cube root of 2 because all those are infinite decimals. But 1/3 and 1/7 and square root of 2 exist as exact constructible distances relative to existing unity distance.

It seems that

You believe only constructible numbers exist. Fine. Begin each of your posts, as I have suggested several times, with "Suppose only numbers which can be constructed with compass and unmarked straight edge exist." Any reader should look at that and expect to work in that domain. But for some reason you desperately do not want to do that.

But what then happens if someone changes "compass and unmarked straight edge" to slightly different tools. Then a different domain exists. You may have to start at the beginning and prove everything about that domain before readers will trust it. If you put one mark on the straight edge then a whole different world of numbers are created. Or if you replace the straight edge with another instrument then another different world of numbers are created.

You do not believe infinite decimals exist. Fine. Then you have to deal with 1/3 and 1/7 and square root of 2 and cube root of 2. Begin each of your posts with "Suppose only numbers with finite decimal values exist." That is an even more restricted domain and not commonly used. You may have to start at the beginning and prove everything about that domain before readers will trust it.

It appears that you are trying to create a world that you can take credit for and is all your own. But rational versus rational+irrational does not seem enough. But finite versus infinite decimal does not seem enough. But constructible versus non constructible does not seem enough. I think you need to find some tool, some basis that everyone else already understands and accepts and that tool or basis is exactly precisely enough to divide the world where everyone else lives from the world where you want to live. I do not believe you have found that tool yet.

I do not think finite versus infinite decimals is going to get you what you need. That does not seem powerful enough to distinguish 1/7 from cube root of 2. So you might consider giving up on your infinite decimals and look for something more precise and powerful.

I do not think constructible versus non constructible is going to get you what you need. I think you need something more powerful and precise than that.

Post by bassam karzeddin
Good luck
Bassam King Karzeddin

Please make your claims more precise and powerful and eliminate everything that is not absolutely essential to a single specific result.

I think you can condense your post to something much simpler. Ask yourself if every reasonable mathematician believes a claim. If so then you need not even mention it or anything about it. But if not a single other person in the world but you believes a claim then you are going to need an astonishingly powerful correct convincing proof of that claim and nothing else.

Good luck
qbwr

[bassam karzeddin]

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam karzeddin
OK, I will retake the pain to repeat the hidden themes in my reasoning to all of my previous seemingly ridiculous claims and without offering you the earlier standing old challenges that I did claim
And let me assume in good faith (despite you are anonymous) that you are very serious and true fact searcher but very clueless and rarely educated about my posts, assuming also that you have the minimum elementary education in number theory and geometry (which is most mathematics about)
And kindly follow the steps in the hope that a sparkling idea might get deep into your own thinking to restart considering maths from its start
And of course, this is only one of many elementary ways to start rediscovering what is the true math and what is the bad math
We have this simple ***UNSOLVABLE*** Diaphontine equation,
[A(n)]^2 = 2*[10^n]^2 ,.... (1)
Where (n) is a natural number and A(n) is natural number say here in base 10, but with (n + 1) digits and
And as mentioned above, there are no existing natural numbers like (n, A(n)) that can ever satisfy Eqn. (1), since that was proved rigorously by the Greeks and in half a page or so and since few thousands of years back
Proof completed, Right? Please object immensely if you don't agree

You prove that the square root of 2 is not a rational number of the exact form A(n)/10^n. No one should be surprised by this or reject this. (There is the possibility that because of your history some might reject anything you might claim, but that is a much larger issue to deal with)

Post by bassam karzeddin
Then, what about a so innocent academic professional mathematicians who simply didn't notice this unsolvability and wrongly thought that if we divide Eqn. (1) by (10^n), where it becomes like this

I do not believe that anyone did not notice this or that anyone believed that sqrt(2) == A(n)/10^n is an exact decimal form. If you claim that any careful academic did not notice this then please present documentation showing where they missed this. Raging arguments in sci.math almost certainly do not count. Far too much silliness is here for this to count.

Post by bassam karzeddin
2 = [A(n)/10^n]^2, ... (2), AND further assumed (x = A(n)/10^n), where we have (2 = x^2), and taking the absolute value os square root of both sides you get
Sqrt(2) = A(n)/10^n, where n tends to (but never equal) to no number like infinity
So, you have your true irrational number (as distance diagonal of a square with arbitrary existing distance side as unity, and based solely on the Pythagorean theorem and nothing else, being expressed approximated in rational decimal from saying base 10 for simplicity, as below

I do not understand where absolute value came from, but that does not seem essential.
Approximation is not the issue, that appears to be only a distraction. You are dealing with exact numbers.

Post by bassam karzeddin
For (n = 1), A(n) = 14, and first approximation FOR sqer(2) becomes as (14/10 = 1.4), similarly for (n = 2), the seconed approximation becomes
like A(2)/10^2 = 141/100 = 1.41, ..., AND for (n = 10), you have
A(10)/10^10 = 14142135623/10^10 = 1.4142135623
1) *Please note that the decimal notation isn't any magical tool but basically a division notation operation, Right?
2) Also, note that the word "TENDS TO" doesn't strictly mean "equal to" or "greater than" but certainly "Less than", but how less than infinity one can truly go? (ask your self first)
And make sure that when you tend to your no number "infinity" that you are always nearer to "ONE" than that "INFINITY" only in your mind, Right? Wonders
Otherwise, your sqrt(2) would become ultimately like a ratio of two nonexisting natural numbers like this
A(n-->00)/10^{n-->00) = 14142135623.../10000000000...
= No-number/ No number = No number
But one usually gets normally deceived when writing it the same thing with a decimal notation like this
(sqrt(2) = 1.4142135623...) and be happy also!!
But that (14142135623...) isn't any existing number since No (n, A(n)) never exist from that proved Diaophontine equation above, Right?
So, you have a true existing number like sqrt(2) but with no decimal form equivalence but only ***PERPETUAL***APPROXIMATIONS***, Hence
Sqrt(2) =/= 14142135623..., (prof finished)

If you say there is no FINITE decimal equivalence
Sqrt(2) =/= 1414
or
Sqrt(2) =/= 1414135
then I believe everyone would agree with you. You can go places which have not seen your history of claims and ask if they agree that there is no finite decimal which is exactly the square root of 2 and everyone should instantly agree with you.
But if you instead go to those same places and ask if
Sqrt(2) =/= any infinite stream of decimals
Then I think that no one will agree with you and you are going to need far far more powerful and convincing proofs if you ever expect to convince anyone else of this.

Post by bassam karzeddin
And in very similar analysis no number ever exists when those three meaningless dots (...) added to it on the wright side

Ah, the infinite behaves very differently from the finite. You believe the dots are meaningless, but only to you. To everyone else the dots have well understood meaning.

Post by bassam karzeddin
Couldn't you too see yet the very thin line between a shining bitter fact and a very sweet business human mind fallacy? wonders!

It seems to me that the difference between finite and infinite is much more than a very thin line. The difference is larger than we might imagine.
But let me ask one question before we go on. Perhaps this is not your point of this particular proof, but I want to make certain I understand.
You want to distinguish between the constructible and the non constructible. That seems essential to your thinking. You believe the non constructible are completely different, in fact they do not exist.
Suppose you repeat carefully step by step your above argument using the cube root of 2 instead of the square root of 2. And thus you use cube instead of square.
Since you claim the cube root of 2 does not exist I would think that there should be some fundamental obvious difference at the end of that process. But I do not see any difference. Both square root and cube root are not rational. Both do not have any finite decimal result. Why is there no difference between square root of 2 which is constructible and cube root of 2 which is not constructible?

Post by bassam karzeddin
Or must that be repeated indefinitely for day and night and forever to understand?

If you are claiming there is no finite decimal number for the square root of 2 then I don't think you need to do that even once. I don't think anyone should claim there is a finite decimal value for square root of 2.
If you are claiming there is no infinite decimal number for the square root of 2 then I think you will have to find much more convincing arguments to get anyone else to ever believe you.
A larger claim is that there is no finite decimal number for any constructible irrational number. Everyone would believe that even without your proof.
There are even easier numbers with no finite decimal number. 1/3 or 1/7.
Before we go any further and to any greater questions. What does this proof give you? It does not seem to distinguish constructible from non constructible. It does not distinguish rationals with no finite decimal form from non constructible. All it seems to do is distinguish rationals with a finite decimal form from numbers, constructible or not, without a finite decimal form.
I am only guessing that you want this proof to give you some evidence against decimals, perhaps against all decimals. But it only seems to distinguish between 3 and 1/2 and others with finite decimal form versus 1/3 and 1/7 and square root of 2 and cube root of 2 without finite decimal form.
Unless you have some much more powerful result that I do not see in dividing numbers into these two groups then I do not see what this has accomplished.

Post by bassam karzeddin
However, this only one of a dozen of more simpler proofs and not only by myself but with many revolutionary independent thinkers like (JG, WM, Kong Dong, AP, David, ...) with some different points of views, who usually described as CRANKS by the vast majorities of Anonymus academic mainstream professional mathematicians and alike

I try to focus on ONE proof at a time. Other proofs written other times and many times, I try to focus on one concrete thing at a time and not make mistakes.

Post by bassam karzeddin
I'm afraid that you didn't learn anything useful yet from this very elementary lesson

I learn you prove square root of 2 =/= A(n)/10^n is not a rational number. That is not surprising. Everyone agrees with that. And there is no finite decimal number which is square root of 2. That is not surprising. Everyone agrees with that. And you do not believe in ... or infinite decimals. No one else agrees with that.
If I am supposed to have learned something more than that then please very clearly state what that is.

Post by bassam karzeddin
And if unexpectedly yes, then prove that nither (pi) nor 2^{1/3} are truly any real existing numbers but solely a human-invented like numbers that never existed as exact distances relative to any existing unity distance

Yes. Finally you bring in constructible at your conclusion.
Because you do not believe in infinite decimals you do not seem to believe in any number which is an infinite decimal. These include 1/3 and 1/7 and square root of 2 and pi and cube root of 2 because all those are infinite decimals. But 1/3 and 1/7 and square root of 2 exist as exact constructible distances relative to existing unity distance.
It seems that
You believe only constructible numbers exist. Fine. Begin each of your posts, as I have suggested several times, with "Suppose only numbers which can be constructed with compass and unmarked straight edge exist." Any reader should look at that and expect to work in that domain. But for some reason you desperately do not want to do that.
But what then happens if someone changes "compass and unmarked straight edge" to slightly different tools. Then a different domain exists. You may have to start at the beginning and prove everything about that domain before readers will trust it. If you put one mark on the straight edge then a whole different world of numbers are created. Or if you replace the straight edge with another instrument then another different world of numbers are created.
You do not believe infinite decimals exist. Fine. Then you have to deal with 1/3 and 1/7 and square root of 2 and cube root of 2. Begin each of your posts with "Suppose only numbers with finite decimal values exist." That is an even more restricted domain and not commonly used. You may have to start at the beginning and prove everything about that domain before readers will trust it.
It appears that you are trying to create a world that you can take credit for and is all your own. But rational versus rational+irrational does not seem enough. But finite versus infinite decimal does not seem enough. But constructible versus non constructible does not seem enough. I think you need to find some tool, some basis that everyone else already understands and accepts and that tool or basis is exactly precisely enough to divide the world where everyone else lives from the world where you want to live. I do not believe you have found that tool yet.
I do not think finite versus infinite decimals is going to get you what you need. That does not seem powerful enough to distinguish 1/7 from cube root of 2. So you might consider giving up on your infinite decimals and look for something more precise and powerful.
I do not think constructible versus non constructible is going to get you what you need. I think you need something more powerful and precise than that.

Post by bassam karzeddin
Good luck
Bassam King Karzeddin

Please make your claims more precise and powerful and eliminate everything that is not absolutely essential to a single specific result.
I think you can condense your post to something much simpler. Ask yourself if every reasonable mathematician believes a claim. If so then you need not even mention it or anything about it. But if not a single other person in the world but you believes a claim then you are going to need an astonishingly powerful correct convincing proof of that claim and nothing else.
Good luck
qbwr

I know it is a complete waste of my precious time to keep arguing aimlessly with clueless people who are generally very symmetrical in their thinking, where I personally don't blame them since I know how exactly what had been well-installed into their heads since early childhood, where it becomes almost impossible to see the truth outside their closed box

But when engaged and daring of challenging others about their discoveries than they become very responsible for whatever they are incapable to understand or their exposed syles to cheat, steal and deny so openly others intellectual properties under many fake names, then it is truly serious since they aren't working to protect any truth but the global common ignorance about the most flawed foundations of the whole mathematics and science as well by all old, cheap and very dirty means that are always associated with devilish actions, pretending, lying, ..., etc, just instead of uprising any new truth or published challenge that is not imposed on them but naturally happening in front of everyone/s own eyes under daylight also

It seems to me also that you don't want to learn anything new from many old issues of mine but having the same well-known tendency among the academic mainstream to destroy them just before they become a serious threat to their own contents, where the absolute facts aren't important at all for them

Of course, I can argue with you on every sentence you said but it is truly a very big waste of my time since you would certainly find your same arguments were made by so many similar people to your thinking with my replies also in many identical topics I did raise or respond

But on any case, I wouldn't be so generous with you to tell you the logical direct proof about the non-existence of those irrational non-constructible numbers like the residential and algebraic numbers

1) Symbolically, they don't mean anything at all except in human minds who assumed them in advance as real numbers upon their needs of very little earthy work like approximating the circle area for example where this type of old art is still going on endlessly even in our days and far in the future without any stop, for reason of non-existence that they still unaware of
Logically proved by infinity, and numerically left, those alleged real numbers are associated strictly with no number like infinity, hence they are no numbers

Second, seeing them as a ratio of two non-existing integers (once you work them without a decimal notation for half an hour only, proof 2

Example: (0.999... = 999.../1000... = No number/No number = NO NUMBER), FOR SURE

Third: they are impossible to exactly construct not only by the rules but also by any means (since basically it is impossible to construct a non-existing mathematical object that is only in human minds like)

4) they are obtained as endless approximations from insolvable Diaophontine equations, contradictions (see many of my relevant answers in this regard)

------

-------

13) You can certainly add your own proof once you get the simplest theme issue that is well-explained on sci. math and not only by myself

Go and learn all those elementary techniques freely and slowly from my profile and never thank me for anything since it doesn't any matter for myself

BKK

[Zelos Malum]

Post by bassam karzeddin
Example: (0.999... = 999.../1000... = No number/No number = NO NUMBER), FOR SURE

No one says that but you you dishonest shit

[bassam karzeddin]

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by bassam karzeddin
Example: (0.999... = 999.../1000... = No number/No number = NO NUMBER), FOR SURE

No one says that but you you dishonest shit

What an academic mathematician sh*t idiot you are "Zelos Malum"

Isn't (0.9 = 9/10, 0.99 = 99/100, 0.999 = 999/1000, ...,

0.999...(n) = 999...(n)...999/10^n), where (0.999...(n)) means the number of repeated digit of 9's after a decimal notation for n integer number of times

And tell me how large your integer you can go for when writing it in repeated digits of 9's like this (999...(n)...999)? wonder!

What is your (n) such that you stop naming it a natural number?

How many centuries do you require to understand something basically needs only a few seconds from a truly intelligent being (if rarely existing among the vast majority of alleged genius academic imbeciles mathematicians and alike)? wonders!

Of course, n can tend to your fiction infinity being always nearer to one than something rotting and badly smelling in your empty skull box, which is sounding very loudly when hit by a tinny hummer

Hence, (0.999... = 999.../1000... = No number/No number = NO NUMBER

But without this fake one (0.999...), no alleged modern maths would ever rise up again

However, this was made purely and solely to legalize the oldest dearest and worshiped no number like *pi*, (Get it correctly, MoronS)

They had never imagined unless recently (and from my posts) that the start geometrical object and most sacred one which is the "Circle" doesn't even exist except of course in many inferior drains like brains

Get over this very old issue of mine, enough global and stubborn stupidity in this very holy subject

Bassam Karzeddin

[Eram semper recta]

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by bassam karzeddin
Example: (0.999... = 999.../1000... = No number/No number = NO NUMBER), FOR SURE

No one says that but you you dishonest shit

What an academic mathematician sh*t idiot you are "Zelos Malum"
Isn't (0.9 = 9/10, 0.99 = 99/100, 0.999 = 999/1000, ...,

In Arabic there is a saying "tall and stupid", but I think it was meant for Malum who is "Swede and stupid". He is an embarrassment to the public education in Sweden.

Post by bassam karzeddin
0.999...(n) = 999...(n)...999/10^n), where (0.999...(n)) means the number of repeated digit of 9's after a decimal notation for n integer number of times
And tell me how large your integer you can go for when writing it in repeated digits of 9's like this (999...(n)...999)? wonder!
What is your (n) such that you stop naming it a natural number?
How many centuries do you require to understand something basically needs only a few seconds from a truly intelligent being (if rarely existing among the vast majority of alleged genius academic imbeciles mathematicians and alike)? wonders!
Of course, n can tend to your fiction infinity being always nearer to one than something rotting and badly smelling in your empty skull box, which is sounding very loudly when hit by a tinny hummer
Hence, (0.999... = 999.../1000... = No number/No number = NO NUMBER
But without this fake one (0.999...), no alleged modern maths would ever rise up again
However, this was made purely and solely to legalize the oldest dearest and worshiped no number like *pi*, (Get it correctly, MoronS)
They had never imagined unless recently (and from my posts) that the start geometrical object and most sacred one which is the "Circle" doesn't even exist except of course in many inferior drains like brains
Get over this very old issue of mine, enough global and stubborn stupidity in this very holy subject
Bassam Karzeddin

[bassam karzeddin]

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by bassam karzeddin
Example: (0.999... = 999.../1000... = No number/No number = NO NUMBER), FOR SURE

No one says that but you you dishonest shit

What an academic mathematician sh*t idiot you are "Zelos Malum"
Isn't (0.9 = 9/10, 0.99 = 99/100, 0.999 = 999/1000, ...,

In Arabic there is a saying "tall and stupid", but I think it was meant for Malum who is "Swede and stupid". He is an embarrassment to the public education in Sweden.

Post by bassam karzeddin
0.999...(n) = 999...(n)...999/10^n), where (0.999...(n)) means the number of repeated digit of 9's after a decimal notation for n integer number of times
And tell me how large your integer you can go for when writing it in repeated digits of 9's like this (999...(n)...999)? wonder!
What is your (n) such that you stop naming it a natural number?
How many centuries do you require to understand something basically needs only a few seconds from a truly intelligent being (if rarely existing among the vast majority of alleged genius academic imbeciles mathematicians and alike)? wonders!
Of course, n can tend to your fiction infinity being always nearer to one than something rotting and badly smelling in your empty skull box, which is sounding very loudly when hit by a tinny hummer
Hence, (0.999... = 999.../1000... = No number/No number = NO NUMBER
But without this fake one (0.999...), no alleged modern maths would ever rise up again
However, this was made purely and solely to legalize the oldest dearest and worshiped no number like *pi*, (Get it correctly, MoronS)
They had never imagined unless recently (and from my posts) that the start geometrical object and most sacred one which is the "Circle" doesn't even exist except of course in many inferior drains like brains
Get over this very old issue of mine, enough global and stubborn stupidity in this very holy subject
Bassam Karzeddin

طويل و هبيل "pronounced like "Taweel wa habeel" yes, but Zelos may be short as well,

It is really very boring how the academic trolls with degrees keep arguing aimlessly about so many elementary issues for the rest of their meaningless lives and not able to think wisely for a few minutes only

All their alleged many famous provers for the most famous fiction like (1 = 0.999...) on the traditional moron site mathematics on Stalk Exchange have recently and secretly withdrawn their shameful meaningless names since they realized secretly their unlimited stupidities but kept their visible answers with hundreds of upvotes under "Wiki Answers"

Where are their names disappeared suddenly and why they behave cowardly those cowards professionals mathematicians experts? Wonders!

Why do they behave like drug gunges "in secret" as if nobody sees their confidence and stupidities

There isn't any visible Nobel person among them it seems, except of course in their very fucked up forged history with so many farts

Here are the real natural tests for your canny behaviors mathematicians..

And you must understand immeadeatly academic mathematicians how disrespected your human category of a human-like beings

They are truly the shame of all sciences and humanity that rarely notice their canning traits for sure

And remember very well that even their greatest masters majorities were actually a plain Trolls who exploited badly the normal human stupidities

BKK

[Eram semper recta]

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by bassam karzeddin
Example: (0.999... = 999.../1000... = No number/No number = NO NUMBER), FOR SURE

No one says that but you you dishonest shit

What an academic mathematician sh*t idiot you are "Zelos Malum"
Isn't (0.9 = 9/10, 0.99 = 99/100, 0.999 = 999/1000, ...,

In Arabic there is a saying "tall and stupid", but I think it was meant for Malum who is "Swede and stupid". He is an embarrassment to the public education in Sweden.

Post by bassam karzeddin
0.999...(n) = 999...(n)...999/10^n), where (0.999...(n)) means the number of repeated digit of 9's after a decimal notation for n integer number of times
And tell me how large your integer you can go for when writing it in repeated digits of 9's like this (999...(n)...999)? wonder!
What is your (n) such that you stop naming it a natural number?
How many centuries do you require to understand something basically needs only a few seconds from a truly intelligent being (if rarely existing among the vast majority of alleged genius academic imbeciles mathematicians and alike)? wonders!
Of course, n can tend to your fiction infinity being always nearer to one than something rotting and badly smelling in your empty skull box, which is sounding very loudly when hit by a tinny hummer
Hence, (0.999... = 999.../1000... = No number/No number = NO NUMBER
But without this fake one (0.999...), no alleged modern maths would ever rise up again
However, this was made purely and solely to legalize the oldest dearest and worshiped no number like *pi*, (Get it correctly, MoronS)
They had never imagined unless recently (and from my posts) that the start geometrical object and most sacred one which is the "Circle" doesn't even exist except of course in many inferior drains like brains
Get over this very old issue of mine, enough global and stubborn stupidity in this very holy subject
Bassam Karzeddin

طويل و هبيل "pronounced like "Taweel wa habeel" yes, but Zelos may be short as well,

I used to speak quite a bit of Arabic but then the civil war broke out in the Sudan where I was born. Arabic and Greek were the first languages I ever heard. My parents used to speak Arabic all the time in the Sudan but when we left, they did not speak that much any more. My Jew father could speak Arabic well. He could also read and write. I started to teach myself to read Arabic when I was 6 years old but for some reason I lost interest because I was interested in too many other things. Instead I learned Hebrew which is not a bad thing but I think Arabic would have been more useful.


Back to the discussion.

You wrote:

"They had never imagined unless recently (and from my posts) that the start geometrical object and most sacred one which is the "Circle" doesn't even exist except of course in many inferior drains like brains"

1. The foundation geometric object is the point or location, not the circle. Before the circle there is the line and straight line.

2. The circle DOES EXIST as a perfect concept. Of course you cannot create any object which has the same periphery as a perfect circle, but the main attribute of a circle is DISTANCE. As we both know, the circumference of any circle CANNOT be measured using its diameter as UNIT.

3. Geometry is about paths (lines or distances). The easiest way to derive the concept of number is to use distance because if you tried to use some other scalar such as mass, weight, etc from nothing it would be impossible.

But starting with the most primitive notion which is location, is the easiest and in my opinion the only way. We define location in stages:

i. At first it can only be "here" or "not here".

ii. Then we define paths as distances between locations (points).

iii. Then we define movement and direction as primitives also.

iv. Then we have the shortest distance which is the one in which movement from one location to another is such that the primitive direction does not change. That is, we look at the destination object and it stays exactly the same in our view as we move to it.

etc.

So as you can see, it's a bit of a challenge even with distance but doable. Now imagine trying to formulate number from nothing using a primitive concept such as 'mass'.

[bassam karzeddin]

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by bassam karzeddin
Example: (0.999... = 999.../1000... = No number/No number = NO NUMBER), FOR SURE

No one says that but you you dishonest shit

What an academic mathematician sh*t idiot you are "Zelos Malum"
Isn't (0.9 = 9/10, 0.99 = 99/100, 0.999 = 999/1000, ...,

In Arabic there is a saying "tall and stupid", but I think it was meant for Malum who is "Swede and stupid". He is an embarrassment to the public education in Sweden.

Post by bassam karzeddin
0.999...(n) = 999...(n)...999/10^n), where (0.999...(n)) means the number of repeated digit of 9's after a decimal notation for n integer number of times
And tell me how large your integer you can go for when writing it in repeated digits of 9's like this (999...(n)...999)? wonder!
What is your (n) such that you stop naming it a natural number?
How many centuries do you require to understand something basically needs only a few seconds from a truly intelligent being (if rarely existing among the vast majority of alleged genius academic imbeciles mathematicians and alike)? wonders!
Of course, n can tend to your fiction infinity being always nearer to one than something rotting and badly smelling in your empty skull box, which is sounding very loudly when hit by a tinny hummer
Hence, (0.999... = 999.../1000... = No number/No number = NO NUMBER
But without this fake one (0.999...), no alleged modern maths would ever rise up again
However, this was made purely and solely to legalize the oldest dearest and worshiped no number like *pi*, (Get it correctly, MoronS)
They had never imagined unless recently (and from my posts) that the start geometrical object and most sacred one which is the "Circle" doesn't even exist except of course in many inferior drains like brains
Get over this very old issue of mine, enough global and stubborn stupidity in this very holy subject
Bassam Karzeddin

طويل و هبيل "pronounced like "Taweel wa habeel" yes, but Zelos may be short as well,

I used to speak quite a bit of Arabic but then the civil war broke out in the Sudan where I was born. Arabic and Greek were the first languages I ever heard. My parents used to speak Arabic all the time in the Sudan but when we left, they did not speak that much any more. My Jew father could speak Arabic well. He could also read and write. I started to teach myself to read Arabic when I was 6 years old but for some reason I lost interest because I was interested in too many other things. Instead I learned Hebrew which is not a bad thing but I think Arabic would have been more useful.

Probably the Arabic language is the oldest spoken language on a large scale area of the world (as official language for more than 20 big countries beside taught in many other Islamic non-Arab countries), where one day it was the scientific language that kept, translated and saved most of the Greeks works and elder civilizations that researchers still refer to in our days

We feel so glad when reading poetry and many old stories and history that were written even many centuries before Islam was spread all over the world

, that is well-written, and easily understood by an average educated Arab person these days, especially that it is mainly a musical and very expressive and intuitive language that affected greatly many other languages like (Parsia, Aurdo, Hinde, Turkey) to a large considerable degrees

But the difficulty in learning the Arabic Language by Non-Arab at elder ages is mainly due to the great difficulty of pronouncing around seven sounding letters that are called the throat heavy letters (which rarely exist in many other languages)

Also, grammars almost like mathematics where sounding are balanced as music, as in this traditional Arabic poetry song, heard even without a translations

s Back to the discussion.

Post by Eram semper recta
"They had never imagined unless recently (and from my posts) that the start geometrical object and most sacred one which is the "Circle" doesn't even exist except of course in many inferior drains like brains"
1. The foundation geometric object is the point or location, not the circle. Before the circle there is the line and straight line.

Let me guess that mathematicians generally imagine a point in one dimension as a small straight distance, and as a circle in two dimensions with a small radius, and as a spherical particle in 3-D Space with a small radius

But we know that is all dimensionless

Post by Eram semper recta
2. The circle DOES EXIST as a perfect concept.

And this concept was a direct result from the human very limited ability of visibility to see a regular existing polygon with very small side as a circle, which makes the greatest difference in the true understanding of those three old impossible construction problems raised strictly by the ancient Greeks who also didn't realize the true reason behind those three impossibilities even by any tools, where tools are also so irrelevant to any big mathematical serious issue of this rare kind level up to our current days, where the huge ignorance about the true reason had been accumulated to an explosive historical point that makes almost all alleged best mathematicians and independent thinkers like (philosophers, logicians, and physicians) hate to see the untold and hidden truth and resist it to death as well

Where mathematics went astray for thousands of years by never realizing the true riddle of non-existence issue behind most of their alleged greatest unsolved problems like Ryman hypothesis ad many similar problems as well

Post by Eram semper recta
Of course you cannot create any object which has the same periphery as a perfect circle, but the main attribute of a circle is DISTANCE. As we both know, the circumference of any circle CANNOT be measured using its diameter as UNIT.

Theoretically, and logically a non-existing object can't be measured by any means and what do they measure since the start of mathematics is actually a ratio of regular existing polygon perimeter to its largest existing distance between vertices generally as an existing constructible number that is approximated "ENDLESSLY" in standard decimal rational form

Where there isn't any end for this longest historical and mathematical business since there is no circle basically

Post by Eram semper recta
3. Geometry is about paths (lines or distances). The easiest way to derive the concept of number is to use distance because if you tried to use some other scalar such as mass, weight, etc from nothing it would be impossible.

And the distance (space) is the whole real number properties and the existence issue fundamentally,
Yes, location is a sizeless description, but every real existing number is basically an exact existing distance that maybe also represent an area or a volume

Post by Eram semper recta
i. At first it can only be "here" or "not here".
ii. Then we define paths as distances between locations (points).
iii. Then we define movement and direction as primitives also.
iv. Then we have the shortest distance which is the one in which movement from one location to another is such that the primitive direction does not change. That is, we look at the destination object and it stays exactly the same in our view as we move to it.
etc.
So as you can see, it's a bit of a challenge even with distance but doable. Now imagine trying to formulate number from nothing using a primitive concept such as 'mass'.

Numbers without space means nothing since space is a container of every visibly existing geometrical object

And if we were talking about a number of people, then +ve integers are only numbers

But distance is a number the best description for real existing numbers that are theoretically constructible

Regards
Bassam Karxeddin

[Zelos Malum]

Post by bassam karzeddin
Isn't (0.9 = 9/10, 0.99 = 99/100, 0.999 = 999/1000, ...,

Correct, but does not imply your other garbage.

Post by bassam karzeddin
0.999...(n) = 999...(n)...999/10^n), where (0.999...(n)) means the number of repeated digit of 9's after a decimal notation for n integer number of times

Only valid for finite decimal expansions.

Post by bassam karzeddin
Hence, (0.999... = 999.../1000... = No number/No number = NO NUMBER

NOPE! because there are no such integers you moron!

[Eram semper recta]

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by bassam karzeddin
Isn't (0.9 = 9/10, 0.99 = 99/100, 0.999 = 999/1000, ...,

Correct, but does not imply your other garbage.

It most certainly does!

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by bassam karzeddin
0.999...(n) = 999...(n)...999/10^n), where (0.999...(n)) means the number of repeated digit of 9's after a decimal notation for n integer number of times

Only valid for finite decimal expansions.

Of course. There isn't anything else. "Infinite decimal expansions" are a myth.

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by bassam karzeddin
Hence, (0.999... = 999.../1000... = No number/No number = NO NUMBER

NOPE! because there are no such integers you moron!

Partly true! Except YOU are the MORON. LMAO. pi = c/2r but c and 2r are not necessarily integers. Therefore for this reason, pi = NO NUMBER.

[Zelos Malum]

Post by Eram semper recta
It most certainly does!

Nope, it does not in anyway.

Post by Eram semper recta
Of course. There isn't anything else. "Infinite decimal expansions" are a myth.

Incorrect, as per usual.

Post by Eram semper recta
Partly true! Except YOU are the MORON. LMAO. pi = c/2r but c and 2r are not necessarily integers. Therefore for this reason, pi = NO NUMBER.

You assume Q are the only numbers here.

[Eram semper recta]

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta
It most certainly does!

Nope, it does not in anyway.

Post by Eram semper recta
Of course. There isn't anything else. "Infinite decimal expansions" are a myth.

Incorrect, as per usual.

Post by Eram semper recta
Partly true! Except YOU are the MORON. LMAO. pi = c/2r but c and 2r are not necessarily integers. Therefore for this reason, pi = NO NUMBER.

You assume Q are the only numbers here.

<PLONK>

[Zelos Malum]

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta
It most certainly does!

Nope, it does not in anyway.

Post by Eram semper recta
Of course. There isn't anything else. "Infinite decimal expansions" are a myth.

Incorrect, as per usual.

Post by Eram semper recta
Partly true! Except YOU are the MORON. LMAO. pi = c/2r but c and 2r are not necessarily integers. Therefore for this reason, pi = NO NUMBER.

You assume Q are the only numbers here.

<PLONK>

as usual, you got nothing

[Zelos Malum]

Post by bassam karzeddin
Irrelevant to all my old and recently proved claimes

I have shown the faults in your "Proofs", rework them

[Mitch Raemsch]

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by FromTheRafters

Post by Earle Jones

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or
measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a
number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other
NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are
measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking
correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form
of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in
the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from
geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is
strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes,
we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is
ambiguous.
In fact, ZERO is not required at all in mathematics but it is very useful as
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Three people enter an empty building at time t = 0.
The three people leave the building at later time t = 1.
Question: What is the number of people in the building after time t = 1?
earle
*

If f(x)=e^x then f'(x) is also, leaving Q(x.h) equal to a number he
says is not required in mathematics except as a placeholder. The
function Q(x,h) takes in two variables which it then ignores and
outputs a zero. It is the constant function commonly known as zero.

It was proved and since long ago in a dozen of many elementary ways that no numbers other than real constructible numbers do exist as exact distances relative to any arbitrary existing unity distance, hence real transcendental numbers strictly don't exist, thus f(x) = e^x is no function at all, but gibberish human mad minds and pure insanity, FOR SURE
BKK

"real constructible numbers" is just nonsense.

The distinct constructible number is a distinct existing distance relative to any arbitrary existing unity distance

In which case it is NOT a NUMBER, but a DISTANCE.
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE MEASURE OF A DISTANCE.

Magnitude can be distance, area, volume, mass, weight or any other scalar.

I like the strength of gravity...
It programs Gamma math.

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by bassam karzeddin
I have never seen any other numbers where that represent the truly rational and irrational distinct number,
It seems that the oldest historical story with that revolutionary Pythagorean who did discover the true irrational number and was thrown to the sea for his main historical discovery did not finish properly yet and Pythagorian theorem is never truly understood, despite thousands of years
What is truly going on is simply even after that rare historical and true discovery people went back to rational numbers and claiming that they are irrationals with new kinds also like algebraic and transferential with their no number (infinity fiction)
Simply they have spoiled that rare discovery from the roots when they thought wrongly that true irrational numbers can be exactly equated with rationals by invented fiction of infinity (as simple as that)
But can all those methods of approximations like (Dedekind cut, Cauchy sequence, Euler's sum, Limits using delta and epsilon, convergence, Infinity, Infinititusem ..., etc) truly attain uncountable constructible numbers that are strictly less than the diagonal of a square exact existing distance with unity side?
Never, and regardless of any imaginable technology used for computation where the case is a perpetual state
This is the true undeniable story of what a real number is that is before minds and eyes as well
It is not different if asked about distance like
"What is a physical existing distance"?
It is simply a constructible number
BKK
BKK

[Sergio]

Post by Mitch Raemsch

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by FromTheRafters

Post by Earle Jones

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or
measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a
number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other
NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are
measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking
correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form
of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in
the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from
geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is
strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes,
we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is
ambiguous.
In fact, ZERO is not required at all in mathematics but it is very useful as
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Three people enter an empty building at time t = 0.
The three people leave the building at later time t = 1.
Question: What is the number of people in the building after time t = 1?
earle
*

If f(x)=e^x then f'(x) is also, leaving Q(x.h) equal to a number he
says is not required in mathematics except as a placeholder. The
function Q(x,h) takes in two variables which it then ignores and
outputs a zero. It is the constant function commonly known as zero.

It was proved and since long ago in a dozen of many elementary ways that no numbers other than real constructible numbers do exist as exact distances relative to any arbitrary existing unity distance, hence real transcendental numbers strictly don't exist, thus f(x) = e^x is no function at all, but gibberish human mad minds and pure insanity, FOR SURE
BKK

"real constructible numbers" is just nonsense.

The distinct constructible number is a distinct existing distance relative to any arbitrary existing unity distance

In which case it is NOT a NUMBER, but a DISTANCE.
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE MEASURE OF A DISTANCE.

Magnitude can be distance, area, volume, mass, weight or any other scalar.

I like the strength of gravity...
It programs Gamma math.

gamma math is dumpster math

Post by Mitch Raemsch

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by bassam karzeddin
I have never seen any other numbers where that represent the truly rational and irrational distinct number,
It seems that the oldest historical story with that revolutionary Pythagorean who did discover the true irrational number and was thrown to the sea for his main historical discovery did not finish properly yet and Pythagorian theorem is never truly understood, despite thousands of years
What is truly going on is simply even after that rare historical and true discovery people went back to rational numbers and claiming that they are irrationals with new kinds also like algebraic and transferential with their no number (infinity fiction)
Simply they have spoiled that rare discovery from the roots when they thought wrongly that true irrational numbers can be exactly equated with rationals by invented fiction of infinity (as simple as that)
But can all those methods of approximations like (Dedekind cut, Cauchy sequence, Euler's sum, Limits using delta and epsilon, convergence, Infinity, Infinititusem ..., etc) truly attain uncountable constructible numbers that are strictly less than the diagonal of a square exact existing distance with unity side?
Never, and regardless of any imaginable technology used for computation where the case is a perpetual state
This is the true undeniable story of what a real number is that is before minds and eyes as well
It is not different if asked about distance like
"What is a physical existing distance"?
It is simply a constructible number
BKK
BKK

[Mitch Raemsch]

Post by Sergio

Post by Mitch Raemsch

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by FromTheRafters

Post by Earle Jones

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or
measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a
number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other
NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are
measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking
correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form
of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in
the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from
geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is
strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes,
we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is
ambiguous.
In fact, ZERO is not required at all in mathematics but it is very useful as
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Three people enter an empty building at time t = 0.
The three people leave the building at later time t = 1.
Question: What is the number of people in the building after time t = 1?
earle
*

If f(x)=e^x then f'(x) is also, leaving Q(x.h) equal to a number he
says is not required in mathematics except as a placeholder. The
function Q(x,h) takes in two variables which it then ignores and
outputs a zero. It is the constant function commonly known as zero.

It was proved and since long ago in a dozen of many elementary ways that no numbers other than real constructible numbers do exist as exact distances relative to any arbitrary existing unity distance, hence real transcendental numbers strictly don't exist, thus f(x) = e^x is no function at all, but gibberish human mad minds and pure insanity, FOR SURE
BKK

"real constructible numbers" is just nonsense.

The distinct constructible number is a distinct existing distance relative to any arbitrary existing unity distance

In which case it is NOT a NUMBER, but a DISTANCE.
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE MEASURE OF A DISTANCE.

Magnitude can be distance, area, volume, mass, weight or any other scalar.

I like the strength of gravity...
It programs Gamma math.

gamma math is dumpster math

You just don't like math Roy Masters...
You have said it yourself.

Post by Sergio

Post by Mitch Raemsch

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by bassam karzeddin
I have never seen any other numbers where that represent the truly rational and irrational distinct number,
It seems that the oldest historical story with that revolutionary Pythagorean who did discover the true irrational number and was thrown to the sea for his main historical discovery did not finish properly yet and Pythagorian theorem is never truly understood, despite thousands of years
What is truly going on is simply even after that rare historical and true discovery people went back to rational numbers and claiming that they are irrationals with new kinds also like algebraic and transferential with their no number (infinity fiction)
Simply they have spoiled that rare discovery from the roots when they thought wrongly that true irrational numbers can be exactly equated with rationals by invented fiction of infinity (as simple as that)
But can all those methods of approximations like (Dedekind cut, Cauchy sequence, Euler's sum, Limits using delta and epsilon, convergence, Infinity, Infinititusem ..., etc) truly attain uncountable constructible numbers that are strictly less than the diagonal of a square exact existing distance with unity side?
Never, and regardless of any imaginable technology used for computation where the case is a perpetual state
This is the true undeniable story of what a real number is that is before minds and eyes as well
It is not different if asked about distance like
"What is a physical existing distance"?
It is simply a constructible number
BKK
BKK

Gravity strength and speed program Gamma for aether time and energy

[bassam karzeddin]

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by bassam karzeddin

Post by FromTheRafters

Post by Earle Jones

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or
measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a
number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other
NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are
measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking
correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form
of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in
the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from
geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is
strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes,
we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is
ambiguous.
In fact, ZERO is not required at all in mathematics but it is very useful as
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Three people enter an empty building at time t = 0.
The three people leave the building at later time t = 1.
Question: What is the number of people in the building after time t = 1?
earle
*

If f(x)=e^x then f'(x) is also, leaving Q(x.h) equal to a number he
says is not required in mathematics except as a placeholder. The
function Q(x,h) takes in two variables which it then ignores and
outputs a zero. It is the constant function commonly known as zero.

It was proved and since long ago in a dozen of many elementary ways that no numbers other than real constructible numbers do exist as exact distances relative to any arbitrary existing unity distance, hence real transcendental numbers strictly don't exist, thus f(x) = e^x is no function at all, but gibberish human mad minds and pure insanity, FOR SURE
BKK

"real constructible numbers" is just nonsense.

The distinct constructible number is a distinct existing distance relative to any arbitrary existing unity distance
I have never seen any other numbers where that represent the truly rational and irrational distinct number,
It seems that the oldest historical story with that revolutionary Pythagorean who did discover the true irrational number and was thrown to the sea for his main historical discovery did not finish properly yet and Pythagorian theorem is never truly understood, despite thousands of years
What is truly going on is simply even after that rare historical and true discovery people went back to rational numbers and claiming that they are irrationals with new kinds also like algebraic and transferential with their no number (infinity fiction)
Simply they have spoiled that rare discovery from the roots when they thought wrongly that true irrational numbers can be exactly equated with rationals by invented fiction of infinity (as simple as that)
But can all those methods of approximations like (Dedekind cut, Cauchy sequence, Euler's sum, Limits using delta and epsilon, convergence, Infinity, Infinititusem ..., etc) truly attain uncountable constructible numbers that are strictly less than the diagonal of a square exact existing distance with unity side?
Never, and regardless of any imaginable technology used for computation where the case is a perpetual state
This is the true undeniable story of what a real number is that is before minds and eyes as well
It is not different if asked about distance like

I meant to say

"What is an arbitrary physical existing distance"?

"It is simply a constructible number" Which can be unity existing distance which is the whole existing true numbers by contraction and elongation indefinitely without being vanished

So, one is only the true creator of existing "constructible" numbers

And the fake fabricated non-existing one denoted by no one like (0.999...) is the true source of fiction non-existing and no numbers, for sure

where pi and 2^{1/3} are on the top-list of no numbers

but since neither the shortest nor the longest distances ever exist then space is an endless state of a moment in mind both outwardly and inwardly as well,

BKK

Post by bassam karzeddin
"What is a physical existing distance"?
It is simply a constructible number
BKK
BKK

[Eram semper recta]

Post by FromTheRafters

Post by Earle Jones

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other
NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are
measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking
correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form
of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in
the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from
geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is
strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes,
we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is
ambiguous.
In fact, ZERO is not required at all in mathematics but it is very useful as
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Three people enter an empty building at time t = 0.
The three people leave the building at later time t = 1.
Question: What is the number of people in the building after time t = 1?
earle
*

If f(x)=e^x then f'(x) is also, leaving Q(x.h) equal to a number he
says is not required in mathematics except as a placeholder. The
function Q(x,h) takes in two variables which it then ignores and
outputs a zero. It is the constant function commonly known as zero.

No idiot. It just means there is NO DIFFERENCE in slopes because Q(x,h) is the difference in slopes. That is what 0 indicates. It is NOT a number because it measures NOTHING.

I am not advocating that 0 should be dropped but its meaning and function placed in correct perspective. Zero is very useful.

[Eram semper recta]

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

You can't get away from the definition of number:


A number describes the measure of a magnitude or size or quantity.

This is what is a number. NOTHING else.

[Zelos Malum]

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

A number describes the measure of a magnitude or size or quantity.
This is what is a number. NOTHING else.

That is your pet idea, nothing else.

[Eram semper recta]

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

A number describes the measure of a magnitude or size or quantity.
This is what is a number. NOTHING else.

That is your pet idea, nothing else.

I don't have any pets. LMAO.

A number describes the measure of a magnitude or size or quantity.

is .... FACT.

[Zelos Malum]

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

A number describes the measure of a magnitude or size or quantity.
This is what is a number. NOTHING else.

That is your pet idea, nothing else.

I don't have any pets. LMAO.
A number describes the measure of a magnitude or size or quantity.
is .... FACT.

That is your pet idea, nothing else.

[Eram semper recta]

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Idiots who think that 0 is a number, believe that:

"sin x + 2x + h - sin x =/= 2x + h" - Jean Pierre Messager aka (Python) and Zelos Malum (Swede mental case)

[Zelos Malum]

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

"sin x + 2x + h - sin x =/= 2x + h" - Jean Pierre Messager aka (Python) and Zelos Malum (Swede mental case)

Being dishonest again :)

[Eram semper recta]

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

"sin x + 2x + h - sin x =/= 2x + h" - Jean Pierre Messager aka (Python) and Zelos Malum (Swede mental case)

Being dishonest again :)

You did say: "sin x + 2x + h - sin x =/= 2x + h"

I am not like you moron! Dishonesty is your thing.

[Zelos Malum]

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

"sin x + 2x + h - sin x =/= 2x + h" - Jean Pierre Messager aka (Python) and Zelos Malum (Swede mental case)

Being dishonest again :)

You did say: "sin x + 2x + h - sin x =/= 2x + h"
I am not like you moron! Dishonesty is your thing.

I never said that, if you think I did, link it :)

[Eram semper recta]

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Never have I advocated the removal of 0. It is extremely useful provided it is used correctly which can only be possible through the understanding that it is NOT a number.

[Zelos Malum]

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Never have I advocated the removal of 0. It is extremely useful provided it is used correctly which can only be possible through the understanding that it is NOT a number.

LOOK! You couldn't find it, could you? You lying sack of shit

[Eram semper recta]

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Never have I advocated the removal of 0. It is extremely useful provided it is used correctly which can only be possible through the understanding that it is NOT a number.

LOOK! You couldn't find it, could you? You lying sack of shit

I can't imagine a worse liar and deluded psychopath than one who makes claims as follows:

"Mathematics is not about measure or number" - Zelos Malum

"If you have one pile of shit and you add another to it, then you still have one pile of shit, therefore 1 = 1+1" - Zelos Malum

[Zelos Malum]

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Never have I advocated the removal of 0. It is extremely useful provided it is used correctly which can only be possible through the understanding that it is NOT a number.

LOOK! You couldn't find it, could you? You lying sack of shit

"Mathematics is not about measure or number" - Zelos Malum
"If you have one pile of shit and you add another to it, then you still have one pile of shit, therefore 1 = 1+1" - Zelos Malum

Whats the matter? Can't find the link to where I said what you claim? Common, find it! Link it! whats the matter you lying sack of shit?

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Never have I advocated the removal of 0. It is extremely useful provided it is used correctly which can only be possible through the understanding that it is NOT a number.

LOOK! You couldn't find it, could you? You lying sack of shit

"Mathematics is not about measure or number" - Zelos Malum
"If you have one pile of shit and you add another to it, then you still have one pile of shit, therefore 1 = 1+1" - Zelos Malum

[Zelos Malum]

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Never have I advocated the removal of 0. It is extremely useful provided it is used correctly which can only be possible through the understanding that it is NOT a number.

LOOK! You couldn't find it, could you? You lying sack of shit

"Mathematics is not about measure or number" - Zelos Malum
"If you have one pile of shit and you add another to it, then you still have one pile of shit, therefore 1 = 1+1" - Zelos Malum

Knew you were a lying sack of shit

[Eram semper recta]

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Never have I advocated the removal of 0. It is extremely useful provided it is used correctly which can only be possible through the understanding that it is NOT a number.

LOOK! You couldn't find it, could you? You lying sack of shit

"Mathematics is not about measure or number" - Zelos Malum
"If you have one pile of shit and you add another to it, then you still have one pile of shit, therefore 1 = 1+1" - Zelos Malum

Knew you were a lying sack of shit

It's all true. The lying sack of shit is none other than YOU.

[Zelos Malum]

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by Eram semper recta

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Never have I advocated the removal of 0. It is extremely useful provided it is used correctly which can only be possible through the understanding that it is NOT a number.

LOOK! You couldn't find it, could you? You lying sack of shit

"Mathematics is not about measure or number" - Zelos Malum
"If you have one pile of shit and you add another to it, then you still have one pile of shit, therefore 1 = 1+1" - Zelos Malum

Knew you were a lying sack of shit

It's all true. The lying sack of shit is none other than YOU.

Then why won't you link to where I said it? Why are you avoiding it?

[Eram semper recta]

Post by Eram semper recta
Poor idiot mainstream academics.
A number is by definition a ratio which by definition is a comparison or measure.
The first ratios were NOT numbers but magnitudes. e.g. pi = c : 2r
As we know, 2r (diameter) does not measure c (circumference).
A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR QUANTITY OR MAGNITUDE.
0 does NOT describe the ****MEASURE**** of ANY size, therefore 0 is NOT a number.
The chief property of a NUMBER is that it has a COMMON MEASURE with other NUMBERS. 0 has NO COMMON measure with any other number.
0 is a PLACE-HOLDER. NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS.
0 is NOT a NUMBER.
Therefore, since any number is written as p:q where both p and q are measured in whole units, it follows that neither can be 0.
While it is common to assume that 0/q = 0, it is not strictly speaking correct because NO part of q measures 0.
It is utterly meaningless to write 0/q but because algebra is a weak form of geometry, 0/q is just another way of saying 0 in algebra which means 0 in the role of place-holder. There is no such thing as 0 magnitude in geometry.
Now since all the arithmetic operations in algebra are directly derived from geometry, it must be remembered that the role it plays in algebra is strictly that of PLACE-HOLDER.
Rather than write x^2 + 2x + 1 in algebra when we wish to solve for zeroes, we write x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0. We could write x^2 + 2x + 1 = but this is ambiguous.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-zero-john-gabriel/

Discuss the topic and I might educate you. All else is irrelevant.