Discussion:
Can you professional genius mathematicians drop the decimal notation to see the ugly fact?
(too old to reply)
bassam king karzeddin
2018-11-21 08:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?

I swear this is a very very very easy task for all of you (Globally) and for sure

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2018-11-21 08:55:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
I swear this is a very very very easy task for all of you (Globally) and for sure
BKK
Hint: this had been well-explained and PUBLISHED nearly hundreds of times in my POSTS, SURE

You can ask a friend or ask the whole world about it, and remember this is not a constructible number not only by a straight unmarked edge and a compass with a given number of steps but also not exactly constructible by any means,

However, as a sincere advice, don't trust at all those many well-known cheating methods as (Orgame, eye marking, Carpenter square tool, marked ruler, a paper folding method, ... etc) of exact constructions of real numbers, since truly any numerical method even by trial and error that was known even before BC, is still far better APPROXIMATION to that number that is only staying in your mind, FOR SURE
BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2018-11-21 09:22:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
I swear this is a very very very easy task for all of you (Globally) and for sure
BKK
Hint: this had been well-explained and PUBLISHED nearly hundreds of times in my POSTS, SURE
You can ask a friend or ask the whole world about it, and remember this is not a constructible number not only by a straight unmarked edge and a compass with a given number of steps but also not exactly constructible by any means,
However, as a sincere advice, don't trust at all those many well-known cheating methods as (Orgame, eye marking, Carpenter square tool, marked ruler, a paper folding method, ... etc) of exact constructions of real numbers, since truly any numerical method even by trial and error that was known even before BC, is still far better APPROXIMATION to that number that is only staying in your mind, FOR SURE
BKK
And please don't tell me more about those incredible cuts, known as Dedekind cuts, or Newton's endless APPROXIMATION, they are endless APPROXIMATIONS after all
And please don't state your inherited axioms, since they assume the existence of real numbers in advance as a matter of belief

However, you may try your best, but remember also those known as Cauchy methods aren't helping any more in this regard since they ultimately APPROXIMATE the real number by using distance false concepts as delta and sigma which are of course non-sense

All those non-sense had been well-refuted in my many earlier posts and in (AP, JG, WM, ...) POSTS as well

And we know very well why the alleged global genius professional mathematicians fear a lot the word "EXACTLY" since it is another meaning of the basic mathematical notation you had learnt in the first grade at the age of five years old nearly, but most likely you had completely forgotten those old lessons since early childhood, FOR SURE

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2018-11-21 09:40:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
I swear this is a very very very easy task for all of you (Globally) and for sure
BKK
So, you certainly saw the very ugly fact of this alleged real number, didn't you? wonder!

And you certainly don't like the fact because it is a very bitter taste that you don't like to digest, no wonder!

In this case, you see that your (in mind) number is only a ratio of two integers (as you do always express) BUT ultimately or Exactly requiring each integer to be with an endless number of digits which is not at all accepted or respected in your so elementary mathematics, isn't it? no wonder!

But so, unfortunately, your rational perpetual expression is rational and your number in mind is defined to be irrational and also impossible to construct, hence your in mind number is an unreal number that never exists exactly on the real number line but of course in your only mind, for sure

So, why don't Wiki-piki Writers harry up and suggests to add another set of unreal numbers, for example, then everything can go smoothly for sure

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2018-11-21 10:08:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
I swear this is a very very very easy task for all of you (Globally) and for sure
BKK
I know exactly why don't you like to hear such so elementary questions, but it doesn't matter since it wasn't at all your fault for sure

In fact, you were so simply the so innocent victims and this is not at all any shame, for sure

The important matter is only to get you healed from so many fictional numbers you had in your mind, hopefully

BKK
Zelos Malum
2018-11-22 06:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
2^{1/5}
There it is!
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Hint: this had been well-explained and PUBLISHED nearly hundreds of times in my POSTS, SURE
You haven't explaiend anythign well.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And please don't tell me more about those incredible cuts, known as Dedekind cuts, or Newton's endless APPROXIMATION, they are endless APPROXIMATIONS after all
Dedekinds cuts are exact, no approximation in it. Do you even know what a dedekidns cut is and what an approximation is?
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And please don't state your inherited axioms, since they assume the existence of real numbers in advance as a matter of belief
Real numbers are constructed, not assuemd to exist. We can prove they must exist.
bassam king karzeddin
2018-11-22 08:22:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
2^{1/5}
There it is!
It is only a notation in mind which is absolutely meaningless
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Hint: this had been well-explained and PUBLISHED nearly hundreds of times in my POSTS, SURE
You haven't explaiend anythign well.
You do lie a lot shamelessly since you were engaged personally with me in almost hundreds of previous discussions for sure

And if the Pythagorean theorem justifies strictly the mere existence of sqrt(2) or generally the constructible real positive numbers then which theorem in mathematics (if existing) justify the existence of such alleged real numbers like p^{1/q), where p is a prime number and q is a prime number greater than two? wonder!

No such theorems exist in mathematics but on the contrary, there is a theorem that refutes its existence like FLT, for sure
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And please don't tell me more about those incredible cuts, known as Dedekind cuts, or Newton's endless APPROXIMATION, they are endless APPROXIMATIONS after all
Dedekinds cuts are exact, no approximation in it. Do you even know what a dedekidns cut is and what an approximation is?
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And please don't state your inherited axioms, since they assume the existence of real numbers in advance as a matter of belief
Real numbers are constructed, not assuemd to exist. We can prove they must exist.
You and the whole current mathematics can't prove something that had been well-refuted by the KING, for surer
BKK
Zelos Malum
2018-11-22 09:01:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
It is only a notation in mind which is absolutely meaningless
It is very meaningful, it says teh positive real number that when pot to exponent 5 is equal to two.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
You do lie a lot shamelessly since you were engaged personally with me in almost hundreds of previous discussions for sure
I have enver lied here. You are a crank however.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And if the Pythagorean theorem justifies strictly the mere existence of sqrt(2) or generally the constructible real positive numbers then which theorem in mathematics (if existing) justify the existence of such alleged real numbers like p^{1/q), where p is a prime number and q is a prime number greater than two? wonder!
The construction of real numbers, dedekinds cut or cauchy, shows it does exist. The construction follows naturally from all tools in mathematics.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
No such theorems exist in mathematics but on the contrary, there is a theorem that refutes its existence like FLT, for sure
It exists and I have given you it, you liar.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
You and the whole current mathematics can't prove something that had been well-refuted by the KING, for surer
You haven't refuted anything, again you cannot make a fucking proof worth a damn. You are an idiot.
bassam king karzeddin
2019-01-26 16:06:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
It is only a notation in mind which is absolutely meaningless
It is very meaningful, it says teh positive real number that when pot to exponent 5 is equal to two.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
You do lie a lot shamelessly since you were engaged personally with me in almost hundreds of previous discussions for sure
I have enver lied here. You are a crank however.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And if the Pythagorean theorem justifies strictly the mere existence of sqrt(2) or generally the constructible real positive numbers then which theorem in mathematics (if existing) justify the existence of such alleged real numbers like p^{1/q), where p is a prime number and q is a prime number greater than two? wonder!
The construction of real numbers, dedekinds cut or cauchy, shows it does exist. The construction follows naturally from all tools in mathematics.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
No such theorems exist in mathematics but on the contrary, there is a theorem that refutes its existence like FLT, for sure
It exists and I have given you it, you liar.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
You and the whole current mathematics can't prove something that had been well-refuted by the KING, for surer
You haven't refuted anything, again you cannot make a fucking proof worth a damn. You are an idiot.
Then do it without a decimal notation since it is easily doable for sure

but note that every alleged genius is too careful to do it without decimal notations since everybody must laugh loudly then, without a stop, FOR SURE
BKK

So, they hide behind a decimal notation also FOR SURE

Any school students here to help their teachers in this regard? wonder!

BKK
Zelos Malum
2019-01-28 07:25:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
It is only a notation in mind which is absolutely meaningless
It is very meaningful, it says teh positive real number that when pot to exponent 5 is equal to two.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
You do lie a lot shamelessly since you were engaged personally with me in almost hundreds of previous discussions for sure
I have enver lied here. You are a crank however.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And if the Pythagorean theorem justifies strictly the mere existence of sqrt(2) or generally the constructible real positive numbers then which theorem in mathematics (if existing) justify the existence of such alleged real numbers like p^{1/q), where p is a prime number and q is a prime number greater than two? wonder!
The construction of real numbers, dedekinds cut or cauchy, shows it does exist. The construction follows naturally from all tools in mathematics.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
No such theorems exist in mathematics but on the contrary, there is a theorem that refutes its existence like FLT, for sure
It exists and I have given you it, you liar.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
You and the whole current mathematics can't prove something that had been well-refuted by the KING, for surer
You haven't refuted anything, again you cannot make a fucking proof worth a damn. You are an idiot.
Then do it without a decimal notation since it is easily doable for sure
but note that every alleged genius is too careful to do it without decimal notations since everybody must laugh loudly then, without a stop, FOR SURE
BKK
So, they hide behind a decimal notation also FOR SURE
Any school students here to help their teachers in this regard? wonder!
BKK
Do what you moron?
bassam king karzeddin
2019-04-17 12:25:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
I swear this is a very very very easy task for all of you (Globally) and for sure
BKK
What is truly an easier question than this for kids? wonder!
BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2019-04-22 17:48:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
I swear this is a very very very easy task for all of you (Globally) and for sure
BKK
Of course, the curse of this decimal notation had completely made you behind, so no need to tooooooooo... advanced theories to convince you any more, sure
BKK
Zelos Malum
2019-04-23 05:19:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
I swear this is a very very very easy task for all of you (Globally) and for sure
BKK
Of course, the curse of this decimal notation had completely made you behind, so no need to tooooooooo... advanced theories to convince you any more, sure
BKK
There is nothing wrong with decimal notation.
bassam king karzeddin
2019-04-30 17:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
I swear this is a very very very easy task for all of you (Globally) and for sure
BKK
Can't do it, was the decimal notation born with you? wonder!

Or just got addicted to it? no wonder!
can't you write (1/10) instead of (0.1)? wonder!

If this only blinded you completely to any truth in mathematics, then how are you going to understand too advanced matters that you had never heard before?

Are you mathematicians just like programmed robots, well-trained to say only what had been well-recorded into your hollow skulls? sure

You are really worthless for any good matter, JUST like Talkative Parrots
Bkk
Zelos Malum
2019-05-01 09:21:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
I swear this is a very very very easy task for all of you (Globally) and for sure
BKK
Can't do it, was the decimal notation born with you? wonder!
Or just got addicted to it? no wonder!
can't you write (1/10) instead of (0.1)? wonder!
If this only blinded you completely to any truth in mathematics, then how are you going to understand too advanced matters that you had never heard before?
Are you mathematicians just like programmed robots, well-trained to say only what had been well-recorded into your hollow skulls? sure
You are really worthless for any good matter, JUST like Talkative Parrots
Bkk
Why would we give up decimal notation? It is increadibly useful
bassam king karzeddin
2019-05-25 10:26:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
I swear this is a very very very easy task for all of you (Globally) and for sure
BKK
Can't do it, was the decimal notation born with you? wonder!
Or just got addicted to it? no wonder!
can't you write (1/10) instead of (0.1)? wonder!
If this only blinded you completely to any truth in mathematics, then how are you going to understand too advanced matters that you had never heard before?
Are you mathematicians just like programmed robots, well-trained to say only what had been well-recorded into your hollow skulls? sure
You are really worthless for any good matter, JUST like Talkative Parrots
Bkk
Why would we give up decimal notation? It is incredibly useful
What a clueless Troll incurable case you "Zelo"? No wonder!

Do you really like keep coming in every issue with empty hands and head as well? no wonder!
BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2019-05-15 07:52:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
I swear this is a very very very easy task for all of you (Globally) and for sure
BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2019-07-11 14:40:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
I swear this is a very very very easy task for all of you (Globally) and for sure
BKK
Why is every professional mathematicians becoming so sensitive of the decimal notation only, it is really safe and very good scientific notation, especially that when used to represent and **COVER UP** the irrational numbers that aren't constructible,
Right? Wonder!
If you ARE SO afraid of it, then USE the division notation and drop it for a while and see the full hidden untold facts just before your own eyes, FOR SURE
BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2019-07-22 16:16:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
I swear this is a very very very easy task for all of you (Globally) and for sure
BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2019-11-04 17:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
I swear this is a very very very easy task for all of you (Globally) and for sure
BKK
Python
2019-11-04 17:52:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
{ p/q \in Q : p^5/q^5 < 2 }

See, idiot? No decimal point there.
bassam karzeddin
2020-06-29 12:40:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
I swear this is a very very very easy task for all of you (Globally) and for sure
BKK
Did you see how a decimal notation only have prevented the imbecile alleged genius mathematicians to see the shining truth for many centuries nowadays? No wonders and FOR SURE

BKK
bassam karzeddin
2020-07-04 16:39:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
I swear this is a very very very easy task for all of you (Globally) and for sure
BKK
All false foundation of modern mathematics can be so easily visible to an elementary school students if ever their alleged top-most genius teachers have the minimum courage to express for them exactly a non-constructible number (without a decimal notation), where then they immediately pick up the perpetual facts about their absolute non-existence, FOR SURE

The numerical counterexamples are indeed uncountable

Where also, no ALLEGED GINUES academic professional mathematician or alike ever like to see them again and again FOR (100%) SURE

Innocent school students can nowadays and always enjoy the so unbelievable (stupidity, in nobility, dishonesty and greatest cowardness) of their alleged top-most majorities of the genus (historical & living) mathematicians, philosophers, logicians and pure physicians as well

FOR (100%) SURE

Bassam Karzeddin
Python
2020-07-04 17:46:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
{ p/q \in Q : (p^5/q^5) < 2 }

See, idiot Karzeddin? No decimal point.
bassam karzeddin
2020-07-04 18:16:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
Incurable Idiot Python wrote something he never understands
Post by Python
{ p/q \in Q : (p^5/q^5) < 2 }
So what? this only one of the fifth power of a rational number (p^5/q^5) that is much less than 2, where the largest fifth power of a rational number that is less than 2, never exists

Similarly for the least rational number of the fifth power greater than 2, never exists either

Since in both cases you would certainly require two coprime integers (each with an infinite sequence of digits and in any valid number system) where an integer with an infinite sequence of digits **IS NOT A NUMBER**

And the ratio of such no numbers is also never a number (as simple as its)

HENCE, THE FIFTH ROOT OF TWO IS NOT A NUMBER

NOR ANY P'TH ROOT OF A PRIME NUMBER IS A NUMBER FOR SURE

Where p is an odd prime number

And you can't construct it (by any means) because it is still defined in your own mathematics as non-constructible number
Post by Python
See, idiot Karzeddin? No decimal point.
You would never realize (like everyone else) that the true idiot is YOU, stubborn idiot

But luckily for you that the norm of truer idiocy is well-accepted among the vast majorities who are alike idiots FOR SURE

Bassam King Karzeddin
Python
2020-07-05 01:53:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam karzeddin
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
Incurable Idiot Python wrote something he never understands
You don't understand it, I do. Billions on people on Earth do.
Post by bassam karzeddin
Post by Python
{ p/q \in Q : (p^5/q^5) < 2 }
So what?
See, idiot Karzeddin? No decimal point.
Post by bassam karzeddin
Similarly for the least rational number of the fifth power greater than 2, never exists either
See, idiot Karzeddin? No decimal point.
Post by bassam karzeddin
Since in both cases you would certainly require two coprime integers (each with an infinite sequence of digits and in any valid number system) where an integer with an infinite sequence of digits **IS NOT A NUMBER**
See, idiot Karzeddin? No decimal point.
Post by bassam karzeddin
And the ratio of such no numbers is also never a number (as simple as its)
See, idiot Karzeddin? No decimal point.
Post by bassam karzeddin
HENCE, THE FIFTH ROOT OF TWO IS NOT A NUMBER
NOR ANY P'TH ROOT OF A PRIME NUMBER IS A NUMBER FOR SURE
Where p is an odd prime number
And you can't construct it (by any means) because it is still defined in your own mathematics as non-constructible number
Post by Python
See, idiot Karzeddin? No decimal point.
You would never realize (like everyone else) that the true idiot is YOU, stubborn idiot
See, idiot Karzeddin? No decimal point.
Post by bassam karzeddin
But luckily for you that the norm of truer idiocy is well-accepted among the vast majorities who are alike idiots FOR SURE
See, idiot Karzeddin? No decimal point.

See, idiot Karzeddin? No decimal point.
See, idiot Karzeddin? No decimal point.
See, idiot Karzeddin? No decimal point.
Post by bassam karzeddin
Bassam IDIOT King Karzeddin
Indeed.
Sergio
2020-07-05 03:44:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the
magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as
2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point
denoted by (.)?
  Incurable Idiot Python wrote something he never understands
You don't understand it, I do. Billions on people on Earth do.
Post by Python
{ p/q \in Q : (p^5/q^5) < 2 }
  So what?
See, idiot Karzeddin? No decimal point.
  Similarly for the least rational number of the fifth power greater
than 2,  never exists either
See, idiot Karzeddin? No decimal point.
  Since in both cases you would certainly require two coprime integers
(each with an infinite sequence of digits and in any valid number
system) where an integer with an infinite sequence of digits **IS NOT
A NUMBER**
BBK, when you write 1 an integer, it is SHORTHAND for 1.000...

and that is SHORTHAND for ...0001.000...

BBK you are stuck in math nomenclature and need to retake the class.
Post by Python
See, idiot Karzeddin? No decimal point.
  And the ratio of such no numbers is also never a number (as simple
as its)
See, idiot Karzeddin? No decimal point.
  HENCE, THE FIFTH ROOT OF TWO IS NOT A NUMBER
sure it is. so it the twoth root of two.
Dan Christensen
2020-07-05 03:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
You have banned the numbers 0 and 1. Now you want to ban decimal points??? Too bad! It ain't going to happen outside--not outside the psych ward anyway.

2^(1/5) = approx.
1.14869835499703500679862694677792758944385088909779750551371111849360320625351305681147311301150847391457571782825280872990018972855371267615994917020637676959403854539263226492033301322122190625130645468320078386350285806907949085127708283982797043969640382563667945344431106523789654147255972578315704103326302050272017414235255993151553782375173884359786924137881735354092890268530342009402133755822717151679559278360263800840317501093689917495888199116...

Source: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2%5E%281%2F5%29

This result can apparently be determined to any number of significant figures. Do you know what that means, Crank Boy?


From Psycho Troll BKK who also wrote here:

“Those many challenges of mine (in my posts) weren't actually designed for human beings, but for the future artificial beings that would certainly replace them not far away from now, for sure.”
-- BKK, Dec. 6, 2017

"The Devils deeds that are strictly and basically sourced from mathematicians like humans, FOR SURE!"
-- BKK, June 11, 2020 *** NEW ***

“You know certainly that I'm the man, and more specially the KING who is going to upside down most of your current false mathematics for all future generations.”
-- BKK, Nov. 22, 2018

“Despite thousands of years of continuous juggling and false definitions of what is truly the real number, they [us carbon-based lifeforms?] truly don't want to understand it as was discovered strictly by the *KING* [BKK Himself!]”
-- BKK, Nov. 28, 2019

“I don't believe even in one being a number”
-- BKK, Dec. 31, 2019

Math failure, BKK, doesn't believe in negative numbers, zero, one or numbers like pi and root 2. He doesn't even believe in 40 degree angles or circles. Really! Needless to say his own goofy system is getting nowhere and never will. As such he is insanely jealous of wildly successful mainstream mathematics. He seems to believe these super-intelligent artificial beings of his will somehow be enlisting his aid to "reform" mathematics worldwide when they take over the planet in the near future. He is truly delusional.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
bassam karzeddin
2020-07-05 19:44:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
You have banned the numbers 0 and 1. Now you want to ban decimal points??? Too bad! It ain't going to happen outside--not outside the psych ward anyway.
Dan C-T, Copied a wrong answer from Trollish machine of Wolfram -Alpha that is a calculator only where it is impossible to think
Post by Dan Christensen
2^(1/5) = approx.
1.14869835499703500679862694677792758944385088909779750551371111849360320625351305681147311301150847391457571782825280872990018972855371267615994917020637676959403854539263226492033301322122190625130645468320078386350285806907949085127708283982797043969640382563667945344431106523789654147255972578315704103326302050272017414235255993151553782375173884359786924137881735354092890268530342009402133755822717151679559278360263800840317501093689917495888199116...
See the clear idiocy of Dan C-T (and so, unfortunately, the vast majorities of YOU mathematicians as well)

Not that started by (x = approx., and ended with those most stupid achievements of modern mathematics and denoted by three stupid meaningless dots as (...) after a number of digits are obtained as an approximation but never exact)

Just because they never like to understand thousands of years very important issue about insolvable Diophantine Equations

Note that any approximation for the fifth root of two is perpetually expressed in this rational or decimal form as [A(n)/10^{n - 1}], where A(n) is a natural number with (n) number of digits (saying here in our current 10-base number system)

Where it is not permissible in the holy grail of mathematics principles to consider (n--> (No number or your infinity), and only because this absolutely impossible task nor because there is no such pure human mind fiction as infinity in your modern mathematics strictly, but because you would have a ratio of two integers (which aren't existing numbers, since each would be with an infinite sequence of digits)

Where no existing limits for [A(n)/10^{n - 1}], When (n--> oo)

In short, it becomes as (No number/No number = No number) as per our **ORIGINAL** insolvable Diaphontine Eqn. of:

[A(n)]^5 = 5(10^{n - 1}^5

Please, smart people & students, don't ever be conned anymore with the magic (the cheaters create) of that decimal notation that alleged top-most genus academic mathematicians usually hide behind, nor the fiction of infinity they hide behind since all that fails drastically before the simplest D. Eqns, that are impossible to be solved (in any case) by all those carpentry terms like

(Limits, infinity, decimal notation, convergence, Newton's approximations, infamous Dedikined cuts, endless Cauchy sequences, Intermediate empty theorems, Euler unfinished sum, Diagonal Contour idiot theorem, Godel nonsense, KUNT madness, potential infinity, ..., etc)

**********END OF NO NUMBERS THAT AREN'T CONSTRUCTIBLE (by all the means)******

Say the truth, that the algebraic fifth root number of a prime number is no existing number and then legalize your claimed approximations (in a constructible form number) for whatever other carpentry reasons (but strictly not in truer and superior mathematics)

That is the whole problem where YOU mathematicians and alike refuse to understand (under the sunlight and full understanding of every wise person (if ever existing)
Post by Dan Christensen
Source: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2%5E%281%2F5%29
The source is also not understanding their mind fallacies since these situations are quite global
Post by Dan Christensen
This result can apparently be determined to any number of significant figures. Do you know what that means, Crank Boy?
Still, Dan T, INCAPABLE for the true understanding that no irrational numbers exist except constructible numbers in their surd form with proofs from the Pythagorian theorem strictly
How do you know the fact that you are the eternal Psycho Troll, Dan? wonders!
Post by Dan Christensen
“Those many challenges of mine (in my posts) weren't actually designed for human beings, but for the future artificial beings that would certainly replace them not far away from now, for sure.”
-- BKK, Dec. 6, 2017
"The Devils deeds that are strictly and basically sourced from mathematicians like humans, FOR SURE!"
-- BKK, June 11, 2020 *** NEW ***
“You know certainly that I'm the man, and more specially the KING who is going to upside down most of your current false mathematics for all future generations.”
-- BKK, Nov. 22, 2018
“Despite thousands of years of continuous juggling and false definitions of what is truly the real number, they [us carbon-based lifeforms?] truly don't want to understand it as was discovered strictly by the *KING* [BKK Himself!]”
-- BKK, Nov. 28, 2019
“I don't believe even in one being a number”
-- BKK, Dec. 31, 2019
Math failure, BKK, doesn't believe in negative numbers, zero, one or numbers like pi and root 2. He doesn't even believe in 40 degree angles or circles. Really! Needless to say his own goofy system is getting nowhere and never will. As such he is insanely jealous of wildly successful mainstream mathematics. He seems to believe these super-intelligent artificial beings of his will somehow be enlisting his aid to "reform" mathematics worldwide when they take over the planet in the near future. He is truly delusional.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Don't lie in some issues like sqrt(2), change it to the cube root of two

And don't mix the endless decimal notation of sqrt(2) wich isn't a number either

I guess that my posts are only visible to the same well-known hired Trolls of sci. math! wonders!

Since it is absolutely the seventh impossible itself for educated humans with at least middle schools levels education to be with such unbelievable stupidities FOR (100%) SURE

Bassam King Karzeddin
Dan Christensen
2020-07-05 22:22:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
You have banned the numbers 0 and 1. Now you want to ban decimal points??? Too bad! It ain't going to happen--not outside the psych ward anyway.
Dan C-T, Copied a wrong answer from Trollish machine of Wolfram -Alpha that is a calculator only where it is impossible to think
2^(1/5) = approx.
1.14869835499703500679862694677792758944385088909779750551371111849360320625351305681147311301150847391457571782825280872990018972855371267615994917020637676959403854539263226492033301322122190625130645468320078386350285806907949085127708283982797043969640382563667945344431106523789654147255972578315704103326302050272017414235255993151553782375173884359786924137881735354092890268530342009402133755822717151679559278360263800840317501093689917495888199116...
Source: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2%5E%281%2F5%29
This result can apparently be determined to any number of significant figures. Do you know what that means, Crank Boy?
See the clear idiocy of Dan C-T (and so, unfortunately, the vast majorities of YOU mathematicians as well)
OK, so you don't know what it means.
Post by bassam karzeddin
Not that started by (x = approx., and ended with those most stupid achievements of modern mathematics and denoted by three stupid meaningless dots as (...) after a number of digits are obtained as an approximation but never exact)
Just take the above result and multiply it out. You will a get an answer of 2 to within an insanely close tolerance that would be physically impossible in any real-world application.

Don't worry, BKK, no one expects you to understand any of this. You don't have to use 0 or 1 or decimal points if you don't want to. Just don't expect to get a job when you, ummm... "graduate."


Dan
bassam karzeddin
2020-07-11 08:30:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
I swear this is a very very very easy task for all of you (Globally) and for sure
BKK
Look here, and see that they have finally got suddenly intrigued and started asking great questions only about the decimal notation

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/64042/what-are-the-numbers-before-and-after-the-decimal-point-referred-to-in-mathemati/64045#64045

And note that so funny first answer provided by a moderator called something like DADO where he gets so many upvotes from so many imbeciles for his unbelievable intrinsic stupidity for sure

It seems that they read a lot of articles here on sci. math but hiding so cowardly under so many fake names for sure

They don't know yet that sci.math is leading in this very old issue, nor do they know that the whole modern mathematics was broken to dust only by misusing that decimal notation

In other much simpler words for clever middle school students, the misuse of that decimal notation can so easily refute the entire alleged modern mathematics FOR SURE

So, school students have many independent tools for the same purpose of realizing the biggest fart of the so-called modern mathematics to easily refute by using different following elementary tools so independently, where other advanced tools are also available for sure

But let us consider only the elementary tools since it takes minutes each to fully understand

1) The misuse of the decimal notation

2) the pure mind fiction of infinity

3) The Pythagoras theorem

4) The insolvable Diophantine Equations


Decimal numbers are simply true in this form STRICTLY (N.M)

Where two natural numbers are simply separated by that symbol dot denoted by a point like this (.)

And of course, if any natural number of (N or M) is assumed with an infinite number of digits, then the whole expression isn't a number

And since the irrational (non-constructible) numbers in mathematics have their M with infinite number of digits, then they are certainly no numbers at all

Famous Examples for no numbers are the followings:

1) (0.999...), where (N = 0), and (M = 999...) = No number, for sure


2) (1.142857142857142857...), where (N = 1), and (M = 142857142857142857... = NO NUMBR,

** BUT NOTE THAT (8/7) IS A rational number

3) (2.2360679774...), where (N = 2) and (M = 2360679774... = NO NUMBER)

** but note that sqrt(5) is a truly irrational number since its a diagonal distance of a rectangle with sides (1, 2) unit distances

4) (6.34960420787279...), where (N = 6), and (M = 34960420787279... = NO number

Also, note that cube root (256) isn't a number because it is no existing distance BY ANY MEANS, for sure

5) (2.71828182845...), Where (N = 2) and (M = 71828182845... = NO NUMBER)

Not that symbol (e) is just a symbol of no existing distance by any means, hence a fictional modern mathematical nonsense

6) (3.141592653...), where (N = 3), and (M = 141592653... = NO NUMBER FOR SURE, but that symbol *pi* is also no number since no circle exists but regular existing polygons that exist with a large number of sides and seem to us like a circle, where no existing distance for our circle in mind

Enjoy

Bassam King Karzeddin
bassam karzeddin
2020-07-28 13:27:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
I swear this is a very very very easy task for all of you (Globally) and for sure
BKK
Look here, and see that they have finally got suddenly intrigued and started asking great questions only about the decimal notation
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/64042/what-are-the-numbers-before-and-after-the-decimal-point-referred-to-in-mathemati/64045#64045
And note that so funny first answer provided by a moderator called something like DADO where he gets so many upvotes from so many imbeciles for his unbelievable intrinsic stupidity for sure
It seems that they read a lot of articles here on sci. math but hiding so cowardly under so many fake names for sure
They don't know yet that sci.math is leading in this very old issue, nor do they know that the whole modern mathematics was broken to dust only by misusing that decimal notation
In other much simpler words for clever middle school students, the misuse of that decimal notation can so easily refute the entire alleged modern mathematics FOR SURE
So, school students have many independent tools for the same purpose of realizing the biggest fart of the so-called modern mathematics to easily refute by using different following elementary tools so independently, where other advanced tools are also available for sure
But let us consider only the elementary tools since it takes minutes each to fully understand
1) The misuse of the decimal notation
2) the pure mind fiction of infinity
3) The Pythagoras theorem
4) The insolvable Diophantine Equations
Decimal numbers are simply true in this form STRICTLY (N.M)
Where two natural numbers are simply separated by that symbol dot denoted by a point like this (.)
And of course, if any natural number of (N or M) is assumed with an infinite number of digits, then the whole expression isn't a number
And since the irrational (non-constructible) numbers in mathematics have their M with infinite number of digits, then they are certainly no numbers at all
1) (0.999...), where (N = 0), and (M = 999...) = No number, for sure
2) (1.142857142857142857...), where (N = 1), and (M = 142857142857142857... = NO NUMBR,
** BUT NOTE THAT (8/7) IS A rational number
3) (2.2360679774...), where (N = 2) and (M = 2360679774... = NO NUMBER)
** but note that sqrt(5) is a truly irrational number since its a diagonal distance of a rectangle with sides (1, 2) unit distances
4) (6.34960420787279...), where (N = 6), and (M = 34960420787279... = NO number
Also, note that cube root (256) isn't a number because it is no existing distance BY ANY MEANS, for sure
5) (2.71828182845...), Where (N = 2) and (M = 71828182845... = NO NUMBER)
Not that symbol (e) is just a symbol of no existing distance by any means, hence a fictional modern mathematical nonsense
6) (3.141592653...), where (N = 3), and (M = 141592653... = NO NUMBER FOR SURE, but that symbol *pi* is also no number since no circle exists but regular existing polygons that exist with a large number of sides and seem to us like a circle, where no existing distance for our circle in mind
Enjoy
Bassam King Karzeddin
Please note that this thread is never talking about YOU (too innocent minds) of common mainstream mathematicians or alike in logic, philosophy and physics as well

BKK
p***@gmail.com
2020-07-29 09:37:51 UTC
Permalink
Everyone knows you talk only to YOU
bassam karzeddin
2020-09-14 18:13:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
I swear this is a very very very easy task for all of you (Globally) and for sure
BKK
bassam karzeddin
2020-10-18 13:49:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
I swear this is a very very very easy task for all of you (Globally) and for sure
BKK
Bassam Karzeddin
2020-11-24 13:05:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
I swear this is a very very very easy task for all of you (Globally) and for sure
BKK
Python
2020-11-24 16:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
I swear this is a very very very easy task for all of you (Globally) and for sure
No genious needed.

2^(1/5) = { p/q \in Q : (p^5)/(q^5) < 2 }

See bASSHOLE KarzeddINSANE? No decimal point there.
Bassam Karzeddin
2020-11-25 13:52:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
I swear this is a very very very easy task for all of you (Globally) and for sure
No genious needed.
2^(1/5) = { p/q \in Q : (p^5)/(q^5) < 2 }
See bASSHOLE KarzeddINSANE? No decimal point there.
And most likely the perpetual mentally retarded mathematikers like Python would also say the same about sqrt(2) like this:

2^(1/2) = { p/q \in Q : (p^2)/(q^2) < 2 }

As if sqrt(2) wasn't discovered as a TRUE irrational *existing* number since many thousands of years from the original Summaries Theorem (known as PhythagorasTheorem nowadays in the *entirely* forged history of mathematics)

Bassam Karzeddin
zelos...@gmail.com
2020-11-25 14:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bassam Karzeddin
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
I swear this is a very very very easy task for all of you (Globally) and for sure
No genious needed.
2^(1/5) = { p/q \in Q : (p^5)/(q^5) < 2 }
See bASSHOLE KarzeddINSANE? No decimal point there.
2^(1/2) = { p/q \in Q : (p^2)/(q^2) < 2 }
As if sqrt(2) wasn't discovered as a TRUE irrational *existing* number since many thousands of years from the original Summaries Theorem (known as PhythagorasTheorem nowadays in the *entirely* forged history of mathematics)
Bassam Karzeddin
That is the construction you imbecile
Bassam Karzeddin
2020-11-25 14:44:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Bassam Karzeddin
Post by Python
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians express exactly the magnitude of the arithmetical fifth root of two, denoted as 2^{1/5}, but please without using that decimal notation point denoted by (.)?
I swear this is a very very very easy task for all of you (Globally) and for sure
No genious needed.
2^(1/5) = { p/q \in Q : (p^5)/(q^5) < 2 }
See bASSHOLE KarzeddINSANE? No decimal point there.
2^(1/2) = { p/q \in Q : (p^2)/(q^2) < 2 }
As if sqrt(2) wasn't discovered as a TRUE irrational *existing* number since many thousands of years from the original Summaries Theorem (known as PhythagorasTheorem nowadays in the *entirely* forged history of mathematics)
Bassam Karzeddin
That is the construction you imbecile
Here is another well-known (on sci. math) incurable mental case like (Zelos Malum) as an ideal victim of a common academic proffessional mathematician *EXPERT* with highest degrees in mathematics

A square is an existing mathematical object say with unity distance side as a regular polygon with four equal sides, where its diagonal distance **must** also exist as sqrt(2) number and without all the greatest and ***ENDLESS*** human mind fart like those of many **RATIONAL** approximations (that one is capable to make) by those like (Dedekind infamous cuts, Cauchy endless sequences, ..., etc, etc)

Morons can't **STRICTLY** understand but they can so easily and certainly ***BELIEVE*** as true IMBECILES & TROLS of the modern mathematics

Bassam Karzeddin

mitchr...@gmail.com
2020-11-24 19:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you genius professional mathematicians
Professional is not genius...
Who called you a genius?

Mitchell Raemsch
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...