Who was the first person in the history that constructed exactly the cube root of two and not necessarily by the Greek tools but by any means?

https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/11917/who-was-the-first-person-in-the-history-that-constructed-exactly-the-cube-root-o

A forbidden old question of mine to uncover the truth by all the possible means strictly in very Moderated sites run by so many unnoticeable Trolls as moderators

Once I commented that I would be adding another proof of the untold fact that cube root two isn't a real number since it doesn't exist (except in the minds of its blind believers)

Then, the Trollish unnamed moderators immediately closed this issue of mine (as always as usual) in order to prevent it from being realized simply even by interested laypersons, amateurs, Middle-school students and generally by any educated people

Of course, one alone can't immediately realize the so many huge consequences like how much large the huge size of false flawed mathematics that constitutes most of the foundations of the Modern mathematics of today world where only a few people may realize and how much damaging is that flawed Fantazia mathematics to the innocent school students minds (globally) and their entire societies by this very old and simple untold story that gave the true idiots the greatest chances to keep adding more and more of such fictions and also were regarded as a true genius people in history and societies they severely betrayed either by innocent plain stupidly or very intentionally by exploiting very badly the less intellectual abilities of the public mainstream people

Where this, once well-understood must be regarded as an old and modern act exactly as a criminal act and brute humiliation to all human minds mercilessly FOR SURE

For the very clueless persons in this regard, this problem was one of three impossible construction problems called "the impossibility of doubling the cube" by an unmarked straight edge and a compass within a known number of steps that were raised by the Ancient Greeks thousands of years back

And in 1837, a historical mathematicians "Wentzel" proved this impossibility that was accepted officially by mathematicians and was published

Hence, and in accordance with Wentzel proof, the cube root of two mustn't be regarded as a real existing number since that was proved impossible construction

Of course, Wentzel never doubted the non-existence of such number but a common belief among the mathematicians that it still exists despite the fact of its impossible construction, and they went much further by relating its non-existence due to the tools and conditions stated by the Greeks to exactly construct it, where they started developing hundreds of many other methods to claim its true existence among real numbers where then they considered it so as the real existing number

Of course, all the other methods were basically much less accurate than any numerical approximations even by trial and error and even before BC

Those methods, generally are pleasing to a layperson who is deeply clueless about the deeply hidden theme behind this great puzzle

However, those many alleged methods of exact construction were not so different from the Carpenter's skills to solve it such that it pleases everyone

Exactly like asking the skiled carpenter to make a cube wooden box of two unit volume, where that is a very easy task for him and for YOU too

Similarly with your modern mathematics with its thousands of methods of approximations even by using supercomputers for the task in order to seem like a true intellectual breakthrough

This art started early in history by Archimedes, with human eyes marking, by carpenter's square method, and recently by many alleged methods like Origami, Paper folding, Neiuss or many many more like names ...

So, if all these methods claim was true about exact constructing of cube root two, then why the hell in mathematics they are still considering 2^{1/3} as a non-constructible number? Wonders

It should be named "constructible" number if ever any alleged construction method was true in its exact construction, which is why I asked those imbeciles of history sections in Stalk Exchange where instead of answering who was that big lier first in the human history to make it by any tools or means, they simply and immediately closed the issue and never wanting the public opinion to bonder about that because they came to know from my many earlier hidden and deleted topics in their sites the full truth about such impossibility by any means and not only by the Greeks tools

So, we have reached such a very shameful stage of complete dishonesty, denial, unbelievable stupidity and open lies strictly among the academic professional mathematicians and the most knowledgeable people in this field and more especially among English Language speakers since I do write the facts in this language (in few older posts, publicly published by too elementary proofs about the non-existence of such number like cube root two, and many more)

But here, let us remind you again with only one direct and fast proof that is most suitable to elementary school students to fully understand in a few minutes FOR SURE

Probably elementary proof number (9) from my older posts

1) Cube root two is still classified as "Non-constructible number" in mathematics,

hence you can't describe it geometrically exactly like the case of sqrt(2), that is the ratio of the diagonal (y), of a square to its side (x), where both exactly exist in this form as constructible numbers equations

(y^2 = 2x^2)

But note very carefully that the decimal representation of sqrt(2) isn't the same as sqrt(2), but only for comparison and approximations which comes as perpetual approximations from the following solvable Diapghontine Equations with an uncountable number of integer solutions

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

and the decimal or rational approximation is simply (n/m), and since the largest solutions don't exist, so the "ENDLESS" decimal representation isn't a number itself and generally VALID for any constructible number decimal expansion wither if it is with repeated patterns for rationals or with no known patterns for truly constructible irrationals

2) Having well-understood the above, then you have only the numerical expression for cube root two to check wither it is truly a number

Then forger for few minutes only about using the decimal notation in order to get it by the fastest way every human must be able to (with no excuse at all, except by ignorance, stubbornness and open global denial of the proven facts) FOR SURE

2^{1/3} IS approximated as (1.2599210498)

So, simply you can express it without decimal notation like this

(12599210498/10^10)

And if they get more digits of approximations like this for example

(1.259921049894) = (1259921049894/10^12)

And in general, the cube root two is approximated in the rational following form
A(n) / 10^n, where A(n) is integer with (n + 1) digits, Right?!

And what would happens to that rational number when your natural number index (n) tends to be no number like your infinity in your mathematics

1) It is an impossible task by any assumed technology, Right?!

2) It is not permissible in the holy principles of mathematics since then you would have a ratio of two non-existing integers, which is also no number Right?!

3) So, you are left alone in your perpetual rational approximation form Right?!

4) Then where is that irrational (algebraic) number (staying only in mind) you are hopelessly searching for?! Wonders!

Oops it doesn't exist For SURE

And if they con your head by decimal notation again and again like this

(1.259921049894...)

Tell them this is the same as this

(1259921049894.../1000000000000...) = No number/No number = NO NUMBER, FOR (100%) SURE

Free your minds and Go fast to teach your innocent teachers in mathematics FOR SURE

Congratulations and Regards for clever students

Bassam Karzeddin

Señor Dingus

2020-06-21 14:18:34 UTC

Get a brain.

bassam karzeddin

2020-06-21 15:25:57 UTC

Post by bassam karzeddin
https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/11917/who-was-the-first-person-in-the-history-that-constructed-exactly-the-cube-root-o
A forbidden old question of mine to uncover the truth by all the possible means strictly in very Moderated sites run by so many unnoticeable Trolls as moderators
Once I commented that I would be adding another proof of the untold fact that cube root two isn't a real number since it doesn't exist (except in the minds of its blind believers)
Then, the Trollish unnamed moderators immediately closed this issue of mine (as always as usual) in order to prevent it from being realized simply even by interested laypersons, amateurs, Middle-school students and generally by any educated people
Of course, one alone can't immediately realize the so many huge consequences like how much large the huge size of false flawed mathematics that constitutes most of the foundations of the Modern mathematics of today world where only a few people may realize and how much damaging is that flawed Fantazia mathematics to the innocent school students minds (globally) and their entire societies by this very old and simple untold story that gave the true idiots the greatest chances to keep adding more and more of such fictions and also were regarded as a true genius people in history and societies they severely betrayed either by innocent plain stupidly or very intentionally by exploiting very badly the less intellectual abilities of the public mainstream people
Where this, once well-understood must be regarded as an old and modern act exactly as a criminal act and brute humiliation to all human minds mercilessly FOR SURE
For the very clueless persons in this regard, this problem was one of three impossible construction problems called "the impossibility of doubling the cube" by an unmarked straight edge and a compass within a known number of steps that were raised by the Ancient Greeks thousands of years back
And in 1837, a historical mathematicians "Wentzel" proved this impossibility that was accepted officially by mathematicians and was published
Hence, and in accordance with Wentzel proof, the cube root of two mustn't be regarded as a real existing number since that was proved impossible construction
Of course, Wentzel never doubted the non-existence of such number but a common belief among the mathematicians that it still exists despite the fact of its impossible construction, and they went much further by relating its non-existence due to the tools and conditions stated by the Greeks to exactly construct it, where they started developing hundreds of many other methods to claim its true existence among real numbers where then they considered it so as the real existing number
Of course, all the other methods were basically much less accurate than any numerical approximations even by trial and error and even before BC
Those methods, generally are pleasing to a layperson who is deeply clueless about the deeply hidden theme behind this great puzzle
However, those many alleged methods of exact construction were not so different from the Carpenter's skills to solve it such that it pleases everyone
Exactly like asking the skiled carpenter to make a cube wooden box of two unit volume, where that is a very easy task for him and for YOU too
Similarly with your modern mathematics with its thousands of methods of approximations even by using supercomputers for the task in order to seem like a true intellectual breakthrough
This art started early in history by Archimedes, with human eyes marking, by carpenter's square method, and recently by many alleged methods like Origami, Paper folding, Neiuss or many many more like names ...
So, if all these methods claim was true about exact constructing of cube root two, then why the hell in mathematics they are still considering 2^{1/3} as a non-constructible number? Wonders
It should be named "constructible" number if ever any alleged construction method was true in its exact construction, which is why I asked those imbeciles of history sections in Stalk Exchange where instead of answering who was that big lier first in the human history to make it by any tools or means, they simply and immediately closed the issue and never wanting the public opinion to bonder about that because they came to know from my many earlier hidden and deleted topics in their sites the full truth about such impossibility by any means and not only by the Greeks tools
So, we have reached such a very shameful stage of complete dishonesty, denial, unbelievable stupidity and open lies strictly among the academic professional mathematicians and the most knowledgeable people in this field and more especially among English Language speakers since I do write the facts in this language (in few older posts, publicly published by too elementary proofs about the non-existence of such number like cube root two, and many more)
But here, let us remind you again with only one direct and fast proof that is most suitable to elementary school students to fully understand in a few minutes FOR SURE
Probably elementary proof number (9) from my older posts
1) Cube root two is still classified as "Non-constructible number" in mathematics,
hence you can't describe it geometrically exactly like the case of sqrt(2), that is the ratio of the diagonal (y), of a square to its side (x), where both exactly exist in this form as constructible numbers equations
(y^2 = 2x^2)
But note very carefully that the decimal representation of sqrt(2) isn't the same as sqrt(2), but only for comparison and approximations which comes as perpetual approximations from the following solvable Diapghontine Equations with an uncountable number of integer solutions
(n^2 = 2m^2 - 1),
and the decimal or rational approximation is simply (n/m), and since the largest solutions don't exist, so the "ENDLESS" decimal representation isn't a number itself and generally VALID for any constructible number decimal expansion wither if it is with repeated patterns for rationals or with no known patterns for truly constructible irrationals
2) Having well-understood the above, then you have only the numerical expression for cube root two to check wither it is truly a number
Then forger for few minutes only about using the decimal notation in order to get it by the fastest way every human must be able to (with no excuse at all, except by ignorance, stubbornness and open global denial of the proven facts) FOR SURE
2^{1/3} IS approximated as (1.2599210498)
So, simply you can express it without decimal notation like this
(12599210498/10^10)
And if they get more digits of approximations like this for example
(1.259921049894) = (1259921049894/10^12)
And in general, the cube root two is approximated in the rational following form
A(n) / 10^n, where A(n) is integer with (n + 1) digits, Right?!
And what would happens to that rational number when your natural number index (n) tends to be no number like your infinity in your mathematics
1) It is an impossible task by any assumed technology, Right?!
2) It is not permissible in the holy principles of mathematics since then you would have a ratio of two non-existing integers, which is also no number Right?!
3) So, you are left alone in your perpetual rational approximation form Right?!
4) Then where is that irrational (algebraic) number (staying only in mind) you are hopelessly searching for?! Wonders!
Oops it doesn't exist For SURE
And if they con your head by decimal notation again and again like this
(1.259921049894...)
Tell them this is the same as this
(1259921049894.../1000000000000...) = No number/No number = NO NUMBER, FOR (100%) SURE
Free your minds and Go fast to teach your innocent teachers in mathematics FOR SURE
Congratulations and Regards for clever students
Bassam Karzeddin

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3717809/is-my-solution-true-or-false-for-the-following-diophantine-equation

Can anyone help urgently the academic moderators of mathematics section also on Stalk Exchange where there is a bounty offered of only hundred point

Since they seem helpless with one very silly answer they provide and got completely stunned not knowing what to do or what to say or what to reply on such a brutes attack on the entire fake foundations of their modern mathematics? Wonders!

And they generally do describe YOU sci. Mathers in so many occasions as all as eternal TROLLS? wonders

Go there, and laugh at their modest intelligence FOR SURE

Most of them were actually in desperate need for such moderated sites in order to protect their eternal and so unbelievable stupidity, arrogance, ignorance, cowardness, ..., etc, strictly in "MATHEMATICS"

Where once faced with any real challenge in their own fields they immediately start behaving like Gangs and secretly cooperating in groups intrinsically to hide those many fatal challenges thrown up over their empty skulls to wake up and face the bitter truth of their real incompetence and many bad traits as well

Driven by the illusion of misusing the decimal notation only for centuries, imagine, Wonders!

A part of the many mind fictions that are Paradises for their top characters such that they are in a continuous state of mindless *Sh*tting* theorems from early morning until their early morning dreams... FOR SURE

And for many years, they were simply after most of my topics to hide, delete, steal, ..., etc

And this one issue would soon be deleted, but it is indeed a rare chance to see their appreciation of the superior facts that are cursing them

Only, 8 downvotes and they need your help for more downvotes in order to relax from this global scandal in this very negligible and so unnoticeable world of those bird brains mathematicians

But they have already known their stinky truth where they would never relax any more unless they completely clean themselves from all the dirt and shame they have added for themselves by their own criminal like minds of wanting you as ignorant as they are

Go and help them Now

BKK

bassam karzeddin

2020-06-22 08:12:43 UTC

Post by bassam karzeddin
https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/11917/who-was-the-first-person-in-the-history-that-constructed-exactly-the-cube-root-o

See how careful they are not to show even the comments where they turn it to chat after closing the question in order to hide it and delete it completely from public visibility again and again for reasons they do certainly and secretly know but they are so afraid that many students get them correctly as they are

And of course, answering the question isn't permissible after they took the necessary step to prevent it appearing in their site

The whole game seems like wars of the human devils like with No wonder!

BKK

Post by bassam karzeddin
A forbidden old question of mine to uncover the truth by all the possible means strictly in very Moderated sites run by so many unnoticeable Trolls as moderators
Once I commented that I would be adding another proof of the untold fact that cube root two isn't a real number since it doesn't exist (except in the minds of its blind believers)
Then, the Trollish unnamed moderators immediately closed this issue of mine (as always as usual) in order to prevent it from being realized simply even by interested laypersons, amateurs, Middle-school students and generally by any educated people
Of course, one alone can't immediately realize the so many huge consequences like how much large the huge size of false flawed mathematics that constitutes most of the foundations of the Modern mathematics of today world where only a few people may realize and how much damaging is that flawed Fantazia mathematics to the innocent school students minds (globally) and their entire societies by this very old and simple untold story that gave the true idiots the greatest chances to keep adding more and more of such fictions and also were regarded as a true genius people in history and societies they severely betrayed either by innocent plain stupidly or very intentionally by exploiting very badly the less intellectual abilities of the public mainstream people
Where this, once well-understood must be regarded as an old and modern act exactly as a criminal act and brute humiliation to all human minds mercilessly FOR SURE
For the very clueless persons in this regard, this problem was one of three impossible construction problems called "the impossibility of doubling the cube" by an unmarked straight edge and a compass within a known number of steps that were raised by the Ancient Greeks thousands of years back
And in 1837, a historical mathematicians "Wentzel" proved this impossibility that was accepted officially by mathematicians and was published
Hence, and in accordance with Wentzel proof, the cube root of two mustn't be regarded as a real existing number since that was proved impossible construction
Of course, Wentzel never doubted the non-existence of such number but a common belief among the mathematicians that it still exists despite the fact of its impossible construction, and they went much further by relating its non-existence due to the tools and conditions stated by the Greeks to exactly construct it, where they started developing hundreds of many other methods to claim its true existence among real numbers where then they considered it so as the real existing number
Of course, all the other methods were basically much less accurate than any numerical approximations even by trial and error and even before BC
Those methods, generally are pleasing to a layperson who is deeply clueless about the deeply hidden theme behind this great puzzle
However, those many alleged methods of exact construction were not so different from the Carpenter's skills to solve it such that it pleases everyone
Exactly like asking the skiled carpenter to make a cube wooden box of two unit volume, where that is a very easy task for him and for YOU too
Similarly with your modern mathematics with its thousands of methods of approximations even by using supercomputers for the task in order to seem like a true intellectual breakthrough
This art started early in history by Archimedes, with human eyes marking, by carpenter's square method, and recently by many alleged methods like Origami, Paper folding, Neiuss or many many more like names ...
So, if all these methods claim was true about exact constructing of cube root two, then why the hell in mathematics they are still considering 2^{1/3} as a non-constructible number? Wonders
It should be named "constructible" number if ever any alleged construction method was true in its exact construction, which is why I asked those imbeciles of history sections in Stalk Exchange where instead of answering who was that big lier first in the human history to make it by any tools or means, they simply and immediately closed the issue and never wanting the public opinion to bonder about that because they came to know from my many earlier hidden and deleted topics in their sites the full truth about such impossibility by any means and not only by the Greeks tools
So, we have reached such a very shameful stage of complete dishonesty, denial, unbelievable stupidity and open lies strictly among the academic professional mathematicians and the most knowledgeable people in this field and more especially among English Language speakers since I do write the facts in this language (in few older posts, publicly published by too elementary proofs about the non-existence of such number like cube root two, and many more)
But here, let us remind you again with only one direct and fast proof that is most suitable to elementary school students to fully understand in a few minutes FOR SURE
Probably elementary proof number (9) from my older posts
1) Cube root two is still classified as "Non-constructible number" in mathematics,
hence you can't describe it geometrically exactly like the case of sqrt(2), that is the ratio of the diagonal (y), of a square to its side (x), where both exactly exist in this form as constructible numbers equations
(y^2 = 2x^2)
But note very carefully that the decimal representation of sqrt(2) isn't the same as sqrt(2), but only for comparison and approximations which comes as perpetual approximations from the following solvable Diapghontine Equations with an uncountable number of integer solutions
(n^2 = 2m^2 - 1),
and the decimal or rational approximation is simply (n/m), and since the largest solutions don't exist, so the "ENDLESS" decimal representation isn't a number itself and generally VALID for any constructible number decimal expansion wither if it is with repeated patterns for rationals or with no known patterns for truly constructible irrationals
2) Having well-understood the above, then you have only the numerical expression for cube root two to check wither it is truly a number
Then forger for few minutes only about using the decimal notation in order to get it by the fastest way every human must be able to (with no excuse at all, except by ignorance, stubbornness and open global denial of the proven facts) FOR SURE
2^{1/3} IS approximated as (1.2599210498)
So, simply you can express it without decimal notation like this
(12599210498/10^10)
And if they get more digits of approximations like this for example
(1.259921049894) = (1259921049894/10^12)
And in general, the cube root two is approximated in the rational following form
A(n) / 10^n, where A(n) is integer with (n + 1) digits, Right?!
And what would happens to that rational number when your natural number index (n) tends to be no number like your infinity in your mathematics
1) It is an impossible task by any assumed technology, Right?!
2) It is not permissible in the holy principles of mathematics since then you would have a ratio of two non-existing integers, which is also no number Right?!
3) So, you are left alone in your perpetual rational approximation form Right?!
4) Then where is that irrational (algebraic) number (staying only in mind) you are hopelessly searching for?! Wonders!
Oops it doesn't exist For SURE
And if they con your head by decimal notation again and again like this
(1.259921049894...)
Tell them this is the same as this
(1259921049894.../1000000000000...) = No number/No number = NO NUMBER, FOR (100%) SURE
Free your minds and Go fast to teach your innocent teachers in mathematics FOR SURE
Congratulations and Regards for clever students
Bassam Karzeddin

William

2020-06-22 15:16:57 UTC

Post by bassam karzeddin
But note very carefully that the decimal representation of sqrt(2) isn't the same as sqrt(2)

The infinite decimal representation is, however it would seem you are allergic to infinite objects. The sqrt(2) as a finite object is a finite algorithm for producing the decimal approximation. The idea that only numbers constructable by compass and unmarked straight edge exist has no theoretical or practical support.

Python

2020-06-22 15:22:18 UTC

Post by bassam karzeddin
But note very carefully that the decimal representation of sqrt(2) isn't the same as sqrt(2)

It's even worse than that... Bassam Crank Karzeddin has never been able
to define properly what he means by "constructable", the best he did
is asserting that it is NOT "constructable by compass and straight
edge". He definitely has no clue, not even about what he means.

William

2020-06-22 18:33:04 UTC

Post by Python
He definitely has no clue, not even about what he means.

Indeed. However, my hypothesis is that he only accepts constructuable (usual definition) numbers as existing. His remarks about this hypothesis can and should be ignored.

--
William Hughes

bassam karzeddin

2020-06-22 20:46:08 UTC

Post by bassam karzeddin
But note very carefully that the decimal representation of sqrt(2) isn't the same as sqrt(2)

To William

The true existing irrational numbers were purely a matter of discovery due to the Pythagorean theorem thousands of years ago and it was never a matter of engineering design due to the many huge volumes produced by so many idiots as those many alleged great (Philosophers, Logicians, Physicians, Mathematicians, etc)

True existing numbers can only be created by an arbitrary existing unity distance as one (the true created of existing numbers) but impossible to be created by imbeciles Devils of human-like shapes

Those were all mentally retarded and impossible to create even a single existing number (except in their empty minds that are full of many fake paradises like infinity, imaginary, sh*t theories, group theories, algebraic, transcendental, repeated decimal pattern, ..., etc)

For further irrefutable one-line proof consider this Equation:

(Y2 = 2X^2), Where (X, Y) are existing numbers

Solution: (X is the side arbitrary existing distance of a square, And Y is the distance diagonal of the same square), where the ratio of the diagonal to the side of a square (Y/X = SQRT(2)), (proof finished)

But the decimal endless approximation of sqrt(2), comes from this solvable Diaphontin Equation of this form in non-zero integers:

(n^2 = 2m^2 - 1)

Where it has an uncountable number of solutions for approximating sqrt(2) as (n/m) in rational or decimal numbers, where the largest solution doesn't exist, Right!?

Hence, the endless decimal representation of any existing constructible number isn't a number, where this applies also to rationals and true irrational numbers themselves wither they have a known pattern of reception or not since they require a ratio of two coprime integers (each with an uncountable number of sequence digits, where each isn't a number, and their ratio also isn't a number (as simple as it is), for sure

Think slowly and get the theme secret that puzzled all the greatest thinkers for since the start of mathematics by the circle where no circle ever exists (but regular existing polygons with many sides that we can't see by our own eyes), since eyes are with the very limited ability of visibility

In short, distance is a number

But the visibility of superior minds are truly unlimited FOR SURE

Good luck

Bassam Karzeddin

William

2020-06-22 21:05:07 UTC

Post by bassam karzeddin
But the decimal endless approximation of sqrt(2),

is irrelevant, as sqrt(2) is not a decimal approximation.

bassam karzeddin

2020-06-23 16:41:38 UTC

Post by bassam karzeddin
But the decimal endless approximation of sqrt(2),

is irrelevant, as sqrt(2) is not a decimal approximation.

So what, this is a well-known fact on sci.math at least and for many years nowadays

In short, the real number is only constructible number

Can you say true or false without unnecessarily any further details

So, (T or F)

BKK

William

2020-06-23 17:00:28 UTC

Post by bassam karzeddin
But the decimal endless approximation of sqrt(2),

is irrelevant, as sqrt(2) is not a decimal approximation.

So what, this is a well-known fact on sci.math at least and for many years nowadays

nope you are confusing a sequence of approximations with an infinite object.

Post by bassam karzeddin
In short, the real number is only constructible number
Can you say true or false without unnecessarily any further details
So, (T or F)

F. If you do not want to use the standard meaning of real number make up your own notation.

bassam karzeddin

2020-06-23 18:11:45 UTC

Post by bassam karzeddin
But the decimal endless approximation of sqrt(2),

is irrelevant, as sqrt(2) is not a decimal approximation.

So what, this is a well-known fact on sci.math at least and for many years nowadays

nope you are confusing a sequence of approximations with an infinite object.

Post by bassam karzeddin
In short, the real number is only constructible number
Can you say true or false without unnecessarily any further details
So, (T or F)

F. If you do not want to use the standard meaning of real number make up your own notation.

I understand that you say False, (i.e real numbers aren't only constructible numbers), Right?

Then can you please get us only one SINGLE triangle with exactly known sides such that at least one side of the triangle is not a constructible number

And if you can't, where do you think that those vast majorities of real numbers of modern mathematics can be found

But please, don't tell me they exist in human minds only because that is really would be a great JOKE for sure

BKK

William

2020-06-23 18:24:14 UTC

Post by bassam karzeddin
But the decimal endless approximation of sqrt(2),

is irrelevant, as sqrt(2) is not a decimal approximation.

So what, this is a well-known fact on sci.math at least and for many years nowadays

nope you are confusing a sequence of approximations with an infinite object.

Post by bassam karzeddin
In short, the real number is only constructible number
Can you say true or false without unnecessarily any further details
So, (T or F)

F. If you do not want to use the standard meaning of real number make up your own notation.

Put two marks on my straightedge. Make a segment of length cube root of 2. Use three such segments to make a triangle.

bassam karzeddin

2020-06-23 19:03:11 UTC

Post by bassam karzeddin
But the decimal endless approximation of sqrt(2),

is irrelevant, as sqrt(2) is not a decimal approximation.

So what, this is a well-known fact on sci.math at least and for many years nowadays

nope you are confusing a sequence of approximations with an infinite object.

Post by bassam karzeddin
In short, the real number is only constructible number
Can you say true or false without unnecessarily any further details
So, (T or F)

F. If you do not want to use the standard meaning of real number make up your own notation.

Put two marks on my straightedge.

And how accurate the eye marking is? Wonder!

Post by William
Make a segment of length cube root of 2.

But this is the whole question about, how can one make a segment of the exact length of cube roo two

Maybe the question isn't clear to you yet, and the Wikipedia many alleged methods in this carpentry directions

Yes, carpenters are truly very skilled in this lesson, as the carpenters square, paper folding, Origami and many many more ...

But all those many methods are very pleasant and satisfactory to a layperson say for practical purposes and not mathematics but still far less accurate than any numerical approximation method even by trial and error even before BC, Where still this is engineering mathematics made by engineers and not made yet in mathematics

This problem was one of the three greatest problems ever in the history of mathematics raised strictly by the Greeks if you check up its too long history

Post by William
Use three such segments to make a triangle.

I'm afraid to say that you are clueless about this very important issue

Regards

Bassam Karzeddin

William

2020-06-23 20:11:11 UTC

Post by bassam karzeddin
But the decimal endless approximation of sqrt(2),

is irrelevant, as sqrt(2) is not a decimal approximation.

So what, this is a well-known fact on sci.math at least and for many years nowadays

nope you are confusing a sequence of approximations with an infinite object.

Post by bassam karzeddin
In short, the real number is only constructible number
Can you say true or false without unnecessarily any further details
So, (T or F)

F. If you do not want to use the standard meaning of real number make up your own notation.

Put two marks on my straightedge.

And how accurate the eye marking is?

Just as accurate as compasses that do not in fact make perfect circles, straightedges that are not in fact perfectly straight etc.
A neusis construction is no more and no less accurate than a construction that uses unmarked straightedge. There is no reason to accept one method and reject the other.

bassam karzeddin

2020-06-23 18:45:58 UTC

Oops, they have also suspended my account in the history section of SE, for this so innocent question again:

Who was the first person in the history that constructed exactly the cube root of two and not necessarily by the Greek tools but by any means?

Please, tell me genius people in the field

Is this type of Questions is completely forbidden to ask in the Church Academia of the history of mathematics also and strictly on very moderated sites like Stalk Exchange? wonders

Please let me know about the many forbidden questions strictly in mathematics, since truly I don't know

I simply noticed that there are only a few thousand alleged genius historical and living mathematicians and alike were claiming so but not by the Greeks tools

So to say, as if they say the Greek tools and conditions were actually the main reason for the impossibility of exact construction of the cube root of two, otherwise the problem is so easy and so many had solved it exactly, Right? Wonders!

Then why do they still classify the cube root of two as "non-constructible" number in your modern mathematics? more of wonders! Right?

They can then simply classify it as constructible but not by the Greeks requirements or tools, Right? NO wonders!

You see also, anything forbidden to ask in that ignorant unnamed site like Stak Exchange is easily and freely allowed here without any further embarrassments, for sure

Maybe they are strictly dictated only to their Church of Academia where they can teach all their holly rules they do obey and believe so blindly for sure

And since the cube root two is considered as a real existing number then certainly they should have exactly constructed that number say by any means (it doesn't matter)

But who was the first? that was the whole too innocent question of mine where I deserved to be suspended by moderators like that unknown person Danio and others

Don't you feel how truly much superior the sci. math that that traditional egoistic sites like SE?

At least one can freely ask, answer and learn the facts freely without any restrictions

But on the contrary in the vast majorities of official and moderated sites

So, who was the first in order to check his claim seriously in this one of the most important and so sensitive issues in the entire foundation AND history of modern mathematics, FOR SURE

Bassam Karzeddin

William

2020-06-23 20:23:39 UTC

The predeliction of the Greek mathematicians for straightedge and compass concstruction has been called "a not inconsiderable error". It should be noted that the neusis construction was considered less desirable, not incorrect.

--
William Hughes

bassam karzeddin

2020-06-24 18:31:02 UTC

Post by William
The predeliction of the Greek mathematicians for straightedge and compass concstruction has been called "a not inconsiderable error". It should be noted that the neusis construction was considered less desirable, not incorrect.
--
William Hughes

It seems you have missed many important discussions about this elementary issue where truly I don't have plenty of time to reexplain them for each interested person separately, where this role must be solely the responsibility of those many academic professional traitors who well-understood them and educate the concerned people about them officially and honestly the way they did learn them exactly as from their original sources

But it seems that they would never dare to educate the people about it since they don't like it just because it put a sad end to their bird brains dreams

Anyway and in short, forget about all kinds of tools on those issues since they are absolutely so irrelevant in any way to the whole problems, but only for illustrations

The truer tools are the truer ideas and never any kind of so accurate compass or whatever since this is purely carpentry mathematics that is satisfactory to a laypersons who are clueless about the theme behind the issue

And forget about all the many engineering methods of approximations made by engineers like (Dedekind cuts, Eye marking, PAPER folding, Origami, Newton's approximations, Cuashy sequences, limits, ..., etc) which is also satisfactory and so pleasant to clueless persons where all that for little earthy achievement on a paper before eyes

But universally, they are all non-mathematics in principles and can never resolve the core issue from the roots

As for exact construction for our alleged real existing number like cube root 2,
or alleged existing angle say like (Pi/9 = 20 Degrees), so all you have to do and without bothering at all about any tools) is to find a single triangle with **exactly** known sides such that one of its angles is **exactly** 20 degrees (that is the whole problem, no tools and nothing needed)

And no matter if you require a triangle vertices exist each in another galaxy

(since this is not earthy little maths but must be universally valid as well, and for sure)

Mentioning a fact that (to avoid too lengthy useless discussions or huge volumes of unnecessary philosophy and wired logic)

An angle like of (Pi/6 = 30 Degrees) exists **exactly** in many uncountable numbers of triangles each with **exactly** known sides

Which is why I used to say "TOOLS FOR FOOLS" in so many detailed explanations only in my public published posts here or outside

And the full tragedy is that neither "Donkeypedia" nor their best alleged "Maters Journals" or "Universities" are daring to learn openly those too elementary issues from my modest posts, despite they certainly had learnt them secretly FOR SURE

But announcing this ever simplest fact would immediately uncover all those many gunges who intentionally prefer to cheat the human minds

Which is why they mix up the whole problem with tools issue and so cowordly hide behind, and exactly as algebrians hide behind pure mind silly fictions like infinity strictly in modern mathematics

How would they survive if they don't truly cheat human minds? Wonders

But there are so many other suitable professions they can get, where they are too lazy to search

Bassam Karzeddin

William

2020-06-24 18:47:22 UTC

On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 3:31:07 PM UTC-3, bassam karzeddin wrote:

or alleged existing angle say like (Pi/9 = 20 Degrees), so all you have to do and without bothering at all about any tools) is to find a single triangle with **exactly**

Since you do/can not say what you mean by "exactly" it is impossible to do this. Are the results of a compass and straightedge construction exact? If so why are the results of a marked straightedge constriction not exact.

known sides such that one of its angles is **exactly** 20 degrees (that is the whole problem, no tools and nothing needed)

Post by bassam karzeddin
And no matter if you require a triangle vertices exist each in another galaxy
(since this is not earthy little maths but must be universally valid as well, and for sure)
Mentioning a fact that (to avoid too lengthy useless discussions or huge volumes of unnecessary philosophy and wired logic)
An angle like of (Pi/6 = 30 Degrees) exists **exactly** in many uncountable numbers of triangles each with **exactly** known sides
Which is why I used to say "TOOLS FOR FOOLS" in so many detailed explanations only in my public published posts here or outside
And the full tragedy is that neither "Donkeypedia" nor their best alleged "Maters Journals" or "Universities" are daring to learn openly those too elementary issues from my modest posts, despite they certainly had learnt them secretly FOR SURE
But announcing this ever simplest fact would immediately uncover all those many gunges who intentionally prefer to cheat the human minds
Which is why they mix up the whole problem with tools issue and so cowordly hide behind, and exactly as algebrians hide behind pure mind silly fictions like infinity strictly in modern mathematics
How would they survive if they don't truly cheat human minds? Wonders
But there are so many other suitable professions they can get, where they are too lazy to search
Bassam Karzeddin

bassam karzeddin

2020-06-24 19:00:45 UTC

Post by bassam karzeddin
or alleged existing angle say like (Pi/9 = 20 Degrees), so all you have to do and without bothering at all about any tools) is to find a single triangle with **exactly**
Since you do/can not say what you mean by "exactly" it is impossible to do this. Are the results of a compass and straightedge construction exact? If so why are the results of a marked straightedge constriction not exact.
known sides such that one of its angles is **exactly** 20 degrees (that is the whole problem, no tools and nothing needed)

NO NO NO, DON'T RUN AWAY WITH IT, but better face it courageously as it is

Exactly means exactly that is all

For example, the triangle with **exact** sides of unity distance, has **exact** angle each of (pi/3 = 60 Degrees), Right?

Then why should we abuse every clear meaning of too simple words even in your own language? Wonders!

Is it truly to please that many alleged genius (Philosophers, Physicians, Logicians, mini Mathematicians) in order to cheat and exploit the so innocents minds so mercilessly? No wonders

And For sure

Bassam King Karzeddin

William

2020-06-24 19:08:05 UTC

Post by bassam karzeddin
Exactly means exactly that is all

Ah, I devotee of May, Do you have a less circular definition?

bassam karzeddin

2020-06-24 21:10:44 UTC

@ Wilium

And what do you mean by definition then?

Wonders!

Bassam Karzeddin

William

2020-06-24 21:16:17 UTC

Post by bassam karzeddin
@ Wilium
And what do you mean by definition then?
Wonders!
Bassam Karzeddin

That's a no then?

bassam karzeddin

2020-06-24 22:05:00 UTC

When we say a triangle with exact sides of unit distances (3, 4, 5), one can perceive it, and no error is there by whatever you may imagine William

No need for your compass or any tool to create any errors of measurements to validate your argument

This is truer and pure mathematics not laboratory or workshop

Which is a out the perfect idea or concept
Also real analysis isn't meaningles in mathematics

But integer analysis guarantees the perfection that strictly mathematics requires

BKK

William

2020-06-24 22:31:50 UTC

So we ar back to where we started, you are unable or unwilling to give a formal procedure for determining if a real number exists. We know from what you have said that you think sqrt(2) exists but the cube root of 2 does not. You would appear to use the definition "a real number exists iff it is constructable (ie by compass and straightedge).

Either confirm this characterization or provide a counter-example, a non-constructabe real that exists or a constructable real that does not exist.

bassam karzeddin

2020-06-25 02:04:55 UTC

@ William

Of course the word real means existence but unreal means non-existing

Numbers are reflection in mind about existing physical objects that exist in this physical universe we sense around, where this physical existence requires space before anything else to exist despite the fact that space is a place and nothingness itself, which is is why unbound or endless outwardly and inwordly as well, and its visualization is through three orthognal distances each extended endlessly, so distance is the basic element and concept of space that is a number itself in mathematics where they must have the same properties

But numbers can describe physical objects like the number of persons for example, where then natural numbers are existing

Since no meaning to fraction number of persons which isn't a full integer, and no meaning to negative numbers so, or any other kinds of numbers

But the best description of numbers is the distance since distance is the basic space element that is the whole existence

Where area"s and volumes are extension of distance concept

And yes, their existence doesn't require compass or anything else to exist

For example, a rectangle with sides (1, 2) exists independent from any tools where also its diagonal sqrt(5), must exists independent according to Phythagorus theorem, and not from any other modern analysis

Since all the eingineering approximation methods made by engineers with many eingineering terms (for their own purposes) like (Dedikined cut, Cuchey sequences, Euler sum, Limits with eingineering delta and epsilon, Convergence, Approching, Tending to, Intermediate, Newtons Approximation, ..., etc)

Are absolutley impossible to define a single true irrational number like sqrt(5), since they are a absolutly impossible to define many uncountable constructible numbers that are less or greater than sqrt(5)

But sqrt(5) is an existing distance that is never rational, it is a created from unity existing distance as one, two horizontal and one perpendicular then it is created (by P.Theorem), as simply as it's as a diagonal of the rectangle with sides (1, 2)

And forget about the circle, since it doesn't exist, (Ref: my many related topics)

Bassam King karzeddin

William

2020-06-25 04:14:17 UTC

On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 11:05:02 PM UTC-3, bassam karzeddin:

failed to give a counterexample to:

A number exists iff it is constructable.

Whether or not he knows this, this is what he means when he says a number does or does not exist.

bassam karzeddin

2020-06-25 11:17:17 UTC

Wilium

Don't fall to understand that existing number created by unity can be constructed only by its creator, One

But fairy non-existing numbers created by human minds are impossible to construct exactly by all the means

Which is why they do suddenly believe in the fake one that is no one like this Devil one (0.999.. )

Where the truer one is so angry of all infidels of mathematics and alike

BKK

William

2020-06-25 12:43:58 UTC

No counterexample. Try again.

bassam karzeddin

2020-06-25 13:31:48 UTC

What counter example you are hiding behind Willium? Wonder!

Mathematics is theory and not materilistic tools

Do you want truly to turn simply the discovered facts about fake non-existing numbers to a very lengthy game of playing with words and Languages of the vast majorities of those many imbicil philosophers and logicians

I truly don't have any available time for that

But those many imbicils like (set theorists, Cantor, Kunt, Godel, Edro, ...,etc) have drastically failed to understand the most elementary facts in mathematics about the solvable Diaphotine Equations and circle for sure

Then how one would ever believe in all their huge volumes of meaningles hallucinations? Wonders!

However, adding one more to the long list of deniers wouldn't count at all nor would change the irrefuitable proven facts to a middle school students For sure

Good luck with all your mind paradises

Bassam Karzeddin

William

2020-06-25 13:46:55 UTC

Post by bassam karzeddin
What counter example you are hiding behind Willium?

You have not provided a counterexample. Perhaps my misspelling of the term or art "Constructible number" confused you. Let me rephrase.

Defeinition: A raven number is a number that can obtained from the rationals using a finite number of additions, subtractions, multiplications, divisions and square roots.

My hypothesis is that you consider all numbers to be raven numbers.

A counterexample would be a number that is not a raven number.

bassam karzeddin

2020-06-25 15:29:45 UTC

Willium

Provide a clear trusted references to your Raven numbers first

BKK

William

2020-06-25 15:42:13 UTC

Post by bassam karzeddin
Willium
Provide a clear trusted references to your Raven numbers first
BKK

I provided a definition for raven number, a arbitrary name I made up.

bassam karzeddin

2020-06-25 17:18:24 UTC

Again, William

True existing numbers are a matter of discovery, and never a matter of human definitions

However, those already existing numbers had been said or classified as constructible numbers in mathematics

But better they name them as existing discovered numbers, where no other real numbers ever exist except symbolically in bird brain as fairy and imaginary no numbers

Good luck

Bassam King karzeddin

William

2020-06-25 18:42:19 UTC

Still no counterexample.

bassam karzeddin

2020-06-25 19:17:51 UTC

William

No counter example exists, real number is unique existing distance and unique representation in a number system,

They are named as real constructible number in your own mathematics

Numbers with only symbols in human minds with no exact differences are no numbers at all

Nothing would ever be added in this regard except fairy and imaginary numbers

Game finished

Bassam King karzeddin

William

2020-06-25 19:39:08 UTC

Post by William
William
No counter example exists,

Ok then, BKK says than any number can be expressed by starting with the rationals and using a finite number of additions, subtractions, multiplications, divisions and square roots.

This is my original claim/

bassam karzeddin

2020-06-25 21:14:50 UTC

@ William

This is s called a constructible number in modern mathematics as well, what is new in this story?

Yes, real numbers are only constructible in the language of modern maths that every a acadimic understand

Bassam King karzeddin

konyberg

2020-06-24 18:55:03 UTC

I would rather try to construct a 3-sides-equal trapezoid. But then that is circular :)
KON

konyberg

2020-06-24 19:03:30 UTC

I would rather try to construct a 3-sides-equal trapezoid inscribed in a circle segment. But then that is circular :)
KON

bassam karzeddin

2020-06-24 22:12:26 UTC

@ KON

I replied earlier to your inquiry, but seems not visible so far, maybe something wrong happened, any way

Of course many people can do this easily with trisecibe angles only

See my related triangle we did discuss many times before,

But impossible with those vast majorities of non-existing angles announced and proven non-existent angles

BKK

bassam karzeddin

2023-08-30 13:25:37 UTC

bassam karzeddin

2023-09-06 17:34:05 UTC

bassam karzeddin

2023-09-08 02:36:11 UTC

One must note how did the Stak Exchange moderators & dominated members were very careful to hide my provded answer in the above mentioned link, to prevent the innocent clueless students not to understand the core theme issue of this too important topic, since then many more lies & human mind cheating would be immediately well-understood even by the talented beginners in number theory, it is unbelievably so amazing how too simple & too elementary matters are hugely covered by farto mathematics for thousands of years & still running smoothly in human minds like the theoretical mathematicians, logicians, philosophers & physicians as well

BKK

bassam karzeddin

2023-09-20 13:22:02 UTC

How shamful upon the allegedly top-most ginious humans who didn't understand the truth about non-existing numbers & angles as well?

BKK

bassam karzeddin

2023-09-21 12:43:44 UTC

After thousands of years, the human academic mathematickers of the 21st century were completely shocked to witness that one of their hollyest historical numbers as Cubrt(p), where p is prime number, is infact No existing number at all on the real number line, where this uncovers many more fake established mathematics FOR SURE

BKK

bassam karzeddin

2023-09-22 11:00:26 UTC

Nobody had constructed Cubrt2 exactly so far, including my modest self

Nor would be there any intelligent being be able to do that

Simply because, non-existing (distances or numbers) are absolutely impossible to be brought to existence (by any tools & by any means of human methods of endless approximations) FOR SURE

BKK

bassam karzeddin

2023-09-25 17:36:13 UTC

This is the most difficult question for ALL

Crypto Skills

2024-01-04 02:34:08 UTC