Where do the Complex numbers fail completely?

[bassam king karzeddin]

It happens many times where you have to follow strict rules in order to arrive at the desired and designed results that wouldn't contradict the illegal creation of those called imaginary or generally complex numbers!

Where those type of rules become as holy rules and unquestionable,

As you must do step one before step two, or you must recognize yourself what is to choose the more suitable answer, ...etc, but there may be cases where even strict rules wouldn't save the situation and everything collapses immediately!

So unlike normal and sensible mathematics, may be because it was originated basically from imagination, that wasn't any significant discovery, How?

.....?

Regards

Bassam King Karzeddin

4th, OCT, 2016

[Serigo]

On 10/4/2016 11:36 AM, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
>
> It happens many times where you have to follow strict rules in order
> to arrive at the desired and designed results that wouldn't
> contradict the illegal creation of those called imaginary or
> generally complex numbers!

illegal creation ? its just algebra dude.

>
> Where those type of rules become as holy rules and unquestionable,

you mama.

>
> As you must do step one before step two, or you must recognize
> yourself what is to choose the more suitable answer, ...etc, but
> there may be cases where even strict rules wouldn't save the
> situation and everything collapses immediately!

so you like the "strickness"

>
> So unlike normal and sensible mathematics, may be because it was
> originated basically from imagination, that wasn't any significant
> discovery, How?

no, it is just algebra, honest, read "Theory of Functions" by Knopp

[Pfsszxt]

On 10/4/2016 11:36 AM, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
>

> It happens many times where you have to follow strict rules in order

to arrive at the desired and designed results that wouldn't contradict
the illegal

creation of those called imaginary or generally complex numbers!
>

The "so-called" complex numbers are simply the points in the
ordinary (x,y) plane. A clever notation has been devised to
avoid the tedium of always writing ordered pairs. The complex
number "i" is simply the point (0,1)

[Tim Golden BandTech.com]

The cleanest build of the complex numbers is via the generalization of sign called polysign numbers. The reals are no more fundamental than the complex numbers. In fact they are siblings in a class of number systems:
P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, ...
where P2 are the reals and P3 are equivalent to the complex numbers.
http://bandtech.com/PolySigned

[abu.ku...@gmail.com]

barycentrical of old

[bassam king karzeddin]

It is really surprising how always the authorized official or professional opinions would come first as an obvious answer for so many questions in mathematics, where also people would much appreciate them as they confine to their own learning, even though they aren’t of anything new, but a repletion of some materials that were long time well established and so available everywhere

If you simply Google the words (contradiction in complex numbers), then you would certainly find so many issues in this regard, and if you go after them carefully, you would be surprised to find this not better than many other huge fallacy in mathematics, consider at least this recent Wikipedia reference below:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0mK7ybi4DY4J:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_fallacy+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=sa

Which most likely trying to outline the public concern, even without referring to the many actual public opinions or discussions, but considering some official reference as the general behaviors of wiki writers or researchers
And if this is really a fallacy, then there must be something that went unquestionable or unnoticeable and had been quite wrong from the early beginning, even though it appears as useful concept in little matters that had been so designed for

With strict rules on how to properly use it, as you must do this step first, then the second step should be arranged as this, or else, you wouldn’t get it correctly, and there are other cases where you have to choose the correct answer yourself, as if you must need a catalogs on how to use the imaginary or generally the complex numbers, so unlike the natural or the normal beautiful mathematics!

After so much comparison and investigations in this matter, I was convinced more than ever, that was only another huge fallacy in mathematics, despite its apparent usefulness that had been designed for, which also could had been done without all those extra magical tools that was never of any great discovery but rather a convention or better word was only an agreement, just to convey the unnecessarily talents and extra baseless volume of nonsense mathematics!

To show this fallacy to a layperson, remember that one day there weren’t the negative integers or zero concepts, but zero was introduced as an integer to facilitate the calculations mainly, even it is really meaningless to be called as real object as any other positive integer on the real line number, but zero was the bridge to further create the set of negative integers which are actually nothing but a mirror image of the natural integers on the number line (by the definition),

Where also the set behavior of negative integers under division or multiplication operations had been defined wrongly for a purpose as this:

Negative times negative is equal to positive (unbelievable huge mistake), then how? I would like to explain it to a layperson:

Just consider the simple example of multiplication (3*5 = 15), on a number line (say, positive X-axis), then mark the three numbers on the positive X-axis, (3, 5, and 15), now, consider Y-axis acting like a mirror (being the artificial symmetry we do create deliberately for our own narrow purpose only),

Now, observe the mirror image of the multiplication operation marked on the positive X-axis, in the mirror, where naturally the image would be seen as this (-3)*(-5) = (-15)
Since we do accept that (-3) is the mirror image of 3, and similarly (-5) is the mirror image of (-5),

But oddly we deny the product image of (-3)*(-5) = (-15) as the mirror image of the actual product (3)*(5) = (15), where this was another huge fallacy in mathematics for so many reasons!

Or more precisely (-1)*(-1) = (-1), so Sqrt(-1) = -1, and not even the legendary fake imaginary number (i)?

How come people can be fooled to this limit and for so many centuries!?

Now, I think I do understand why the ancient mathematicians as (Babel yon, Egyptians, Arabs, Indians, Chinese Greek, Muslims,…etc), all had missed that genius idea of negative integer concept basically,

Otherwise they would certainly discover most of the mathematics we know today within few years as an immediate subsequent results, (if they allowed themselves to establish so easily such concepts)

But I think they were even much wiser, even not to accept the negative integers, because they knew from the definition of the line, that is the shortest distance joining two points and extend endlessly in both opposite directions, nothing was being defined as negative in the elementary definition of a line or generally a number line, but only two opposite direction,

In other words, the Y-axis is only made to show an artificial symmetry (+, -) that is never a natural symmetry, which would create later the fake “fundamental theorem of algebra” and many more, which is easily refutable if you go back in time and question this type of fake symmetries, or genius discoveries of this form,

What is the solution of (x + 1 = 0)?, so easy discovery, let there be negative integers, but truly speaking, I can’t show you the negative sheep

What is the solution of (x^2 + 1 = 0)?, much easier, let there be imaginary numbers, but truly speaking, this isn’t interesting imagination, but boring magic nations

What is the Solution of (x^3 + 2 = 0), So silly problem, let there be a cube root of (2), but truly speaking at the paradise of fools, you would infinitely find infinitely many more of this type of numbers (without a single proof and unlike the case of Sqrt(2) with rigorous proof)

I also do appreciate other answers provided here which authors had no responsibilities or any guilt, because this was being so as global education adopted

Hopping also a tolerance for my own point of view in this regard!

Thanking You Sincerely and Best Regards

Bassam King Karzeddin

8TH, Oct, 2016

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:36:18 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:

Actually, they fall very often, but the prostitutional do not like to confess it (for sure)

BK

[abu.ku...@gmail.com]

your stuff is bogus, but if bassam can get any thing out of it,
that is probably no a g00d sign!

> where P2 are the reals and P3 are equivalent to the complex numbers.
> http://bandtech.com/PolySigned

if you can thereby define octonions,
that would be g00d, but I'm sure that you shouldn't even try

[abu.ku...@gmail.com]

it's interesting that you talk to yourself, although
you probably will not bother to read it, either

> 8TH, Oct, 2016

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:36:18 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:

And the poor minds are so incapable to get so many examples of obvious logical many contradictions for sure, wonder!

BK

[bassam king karzeddin]

And this is really one of the hottest subjects that would ultimately free the real science physics from the mostly fiction science of mathematics, for sure,
where then no accepted nonsense theorems in mathematics would be approved before it gets approved completely from physics

Other branches of sciences as logic, philosophy, and psychology may require the approval of any mathematical invented theorems or results in the future, wonder!

BKK

[Python]

bassam king karzeddin, inventing laws, wrote:
> ... the illegal creation of those called imaginary or generally
> complex numbers!

Mr Karzeddin, there is nothing illegal in considering the set of
equivalence classes over the field of polynoms with real coefficients
by the ideal generated by the polynom X^2 + 1, isn't it?


Then there is nothing illegal in calling this set C and use "i"
as a shortcut for the equivalence class of the polynom X.

[bassam king karzeddin]

There are no polynomials, there are only Diophantine equations, with integer solutions or without any solution (get educated first with my recent proofs regarding this sensitive issue)

And the rest of consequences as equivalence classes or fields becomes meaningless for sure

Also, there isn't any real coefficient (except constructible numbers) for sure, and if do not believe it, just show us in physical reality only one real number that is not constructible, wonder!

Of course, symbolic numbers in your mind are so meaningless for sure

BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

And here at Wolfram Alpha an obvious example where complex numbers fail completely and beyond any little doubt, sure

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x%5E7+%2B+1+%3D+0

They claim simply and so illegally THE well-known impossible construction of a regular polygon with seven sides based on complex roots solutions for (x^7 + 1 = 0)

So, enjoy your fake mathematics forever mathematickers

BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

I had already asked the same question at that moderated site here, but with little more details

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Does-Wolfram-Alpha-Technology-cheat-in-their-alleged-solutions-for-polynomials-x-n-+-1-where-n-is-integer-belongs-to-7-9-11-13-14-18-19

Most likely it wouldn't be visible since they (some professional moderators) seem to freeze it and don't like to face obvious consequences

Even this site Quora is much less moderated than that site called MSE, or SE

Those real Trolls as moderators, can not tolerate any new idea that is so superior to their corrupted understanding for mainly selfish reasons as beeing a book or a paper publishers of doomed to hell, so everything is naturally understandable as human common bad traits among the vast majorities, sure

They simply don't like people to learn anything new that contradicts their own huge ignorance for sure, same for very alleged most famous reputable Journals who decided in advance that every new knowledge must be sourced from them and according to their well-proven ignorance

The issue point to show the huge fiction story of those alleged numbers called the complex numbers, that are only valid fro very few problems that were designed neatly for, but generally fail completely beyond any little doubt
but the lesson is clear and a sincere advice for every talented mature or professional,

"Never ask or give a genius question or result in any moderated site including the so-called most reputable Journals", before you document it in unmoderated site since there are many dislikes of your discovery

And generally, never trust the morality or the honesty of professional mathematicians, since the vast majorities of them are simply failures especially in mathematics

And forget completely about that alleged nobility or honesty that you read in moderated fiction history as very novel stories in mathematicians

BKK

[burs...@gmail.com]

You are stupid, right?

[burs...@gmail.com]

Remember what I showed you ε_n = e^(2*i*pi/n),

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_of_unity

[burs...@gmail.com]

"As 7 is not a Fermat prime, the 7th roots of unity are the first that require cube roots. There are six primitive 7th roots of unity; thus their computation involves solving a cubic polynomial, and therefore computing a cube root. The three real parts of these primitive roots are the roots of a cubic polynomial; thus they may be expressed in terms of square and cube roots. However, as these three roots are real, we are in the case of casus irreducibilis, and any expression of these real parts in terms of radicals involves necessarily some nonreal complex number."

"In algebra, casus irreducibilis (Latin for "the irreducible case") is one of the cases that may arise in attempting to solve a cubic equation with integer coefficients with roots that are expressed with radicals. Specifically, if a cubic polynomial is irreducible over the rational numbers and has three real roots, then in order to express the roots with radicals, one must introduce complex-valued expressions, even though the resulting expressions are ultimately real-valued. This was proved by Pierre Wantzel in 1843."

[burs...@gmail.com]

You must know Pierre Wantzel:

“Ordinarily he worked evenings, not lying down until late; then he read, and took only a few hours of trouble sleep, making alternately wrong use of coffee and opium, and taking his meals at irregular hours until he was married. He put unlimited trust in his constitution, very strong by nature, which he taunted at pleasure by all sorts of abuse. He brought sadness to those who mourn his premature death.” — Adhémar Jean Claude Barré de Saint-Venant on the occasion of Wantzel's death.

Oops, wrong paragraph, looks more like some kind of AP.

No I mean this:

Pierre Laurent Wantzel (5 June 1814 in Paris – 21 May 1848 in Paris) was a French mathematician who proved that several ancient geometric problems were impossible to solve using only compass and straightedge.[1]

In a paper from 1837,[2] Wantzel proved that the problems of

doubling the cube, and
trisecting the angle

are impossible to solve if one uses only compass and straightedge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Wantzel

The German wiki makes it more dramatic:

Pierre-Laurent Wantzel (* 5. Juni 1814 in Paris; † 21. Mai 1848 ebenda) war ein französischer Mathematiker. Er ist bekannt für die Lösung von zwei der Klassischen Probleme der antiken Mathematik, die **jahrhundertelang offen** waren: Unmöglichkeitsbeweise für den allgemeinen Fall von Winkeldreiteilung und Würfelverdopplung.

[bassam king karzeddin]

I think we had talked about this before, and I know that Wantzel never understood the problem correctly, and most likely he repeated the older ancient proof of the impossibility of doubling the cube but in different version, and sadly he died ignorant like so many others as well thinking that the number two has a real cube root, but can't be constructed exactly by finite number of steps using the unmarked ruler and compass

where this is a very big common fallacy among the modern mathematicians nowadays for sure

And are you really convinced by those silly tricks like using marked ruler, or paper folding or neusis or Origami nonsense methods

Or did you really read their critiques? wonder!

Did not you understand yet that those cheating methods are really just like little approximations only, where carpenters new higher approximations even by trial and error even before BC, wonder!

And especially those generally untrusted Wikipedia pages that were written purposely by unknown people that started almost recently and especially after hot discussions were prior to them by dates in mathematical forums

And it is indeed a very big tragedy if the top most alleged reputable Journals and Universities teach nonsense, so what can we regard those silly sources then? wonder

I had never seen such a stubborn and so ignorant like you who can't meet a challenge, refute a proof or provide such a triangle sides that contain a single angle as (40) degrees, but still standing on his horns so stubbornly for sure

As if the fiction mathematics is a kind of believes or religion that must be blindly obeyed

Go and bring the best teachers that you know

They are certainly minding ploughing not even better than using direct
Protractor just to keep everything that was illegally well established running smoothly

Also, Wantzel had a very sad miserable short life by mainly his colleges, like almost any regarded big figure from the moderated history of mathematics, were usually those tiny creatures always recognise things after nearly a century for their own self-purposes,

But footballers recognise good goals immediately, so superior to mathematicians for sure

BKK

[burs...@gmail.com]

Whats wrong in Wentzels proof, do you think we can trisect or
double the cube with compass and straight edge?

[burs...@gmail.com]

Ah you prefer playing footbal. That explains a lot.
Do you have a team that consists of Unicorns?

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 6:58:41 PM UTC+3, burs...@gmail.com wrote:
> Whats wrong in Wentzels proof, do you think we can trisect or
> double the cube with compass and straight edge?

There is nothing wrong in Wentzel proof I said about the imposibility, because it is indeed impossible, so he proved this imposibility

But he never understood correctly why such an imposibility, nor you or anyone else did

The question, why it is impossible to trisect an angle say for instant (40) degrees?

The simplest reason is that such an alleged angle doesn't exist for sure

As per my published irrefutable proofs in my recent posts

But Wentzel thought wrongly that such angle exists and proved that is impossible to trisect it by the unmarked straight edge and a compass, but can still be trisected by a marked ruler and a compass (where he never confessed that is only as an approximation for an assumed angle in mind only)

And I am quite sure that even a hundred presented proofs would not convince the so mentally retarded professional mathematicians for their mainly too tiny and so negligible egoistic and psychological and inherited many disease they had already acquired

since only authority mathematics can decide where then they keep silent even they confess so openly that they never understand a little of such proofs (same case with FLT proof even before 30 years)

And never ask again why a skilled football player boy is much more worth nowadays than all mathematicians on earth including their biggest historical figures for sure

It is up to anyone to understand correctly, but sure you will not

BKK

[burs...@gmail.com]

Can you show a reference that he did something with
marked rule? And if he did, why this should not
be a construction.

(BTW: I think he didn't)

[Markus Klyver]

So you deny we can have real pairs (a, b) with some structure added (multiplication, division, etc defined)?

[Markus Klyver]

-1 * -1 is usually defined tot be 1. If you want to, you can view the negative integers as pairs of naturals. More precisely, a negative integer is an equivalence class of pairs of naturals. We say that two pairs (a, b) and (c, d) are equivalent if and only if a + d = b + c. Let's say we want to define multiplication between two integers A and B. Let the pair (a,b) be contained in A and (c, d) be contained in B. Then A*B is defined as equivalence class which contains the pair (ac + bd, ad + bc).

Now let A = B = -1 and consider the pair (0,1). We get, (0,1) * (0, 1) = (1, 0). So we have -1 * -1 = 1.

[bassam king karzeddin]

the most sensible logic would be up to similarity, if: (+)*(+) = (+), then

(-)*(-) = (-), otherwise there is something so unobvious for sure

BKK

[Markus Klyver]

Did you even bother to read my post? I gave you the LITERAL DEFINITION and DERIVED -1 * -1 = 1 for you.

[bassam king karzeddin]

If we make deliberately something truly unreal, then no point of performing the known valid mathematical operations for reals on that truly unreal, otherwise we do create unnecessarily new unsolved puzzles

Example, we say infinity is an unreal number by definition, then what is the point of (adding, multiplying, division, subtraction, or the square root of infinity) a real number to infinity? wonder!

or what is the sum of a tree plus seven? wonder

All that had been established about truly unreal numbers are truly nonsense, and therefore must create very silly puzzles for sure

BKK

[Markus Klyver]

But the integers are not the real numbers. You obviously have no idea or understanding about what I just proved to you. I defined THE INTEGERS from the naturals, defined multiplikation between integers and showed -1 * -1 = 1.

[bassam king karzeddin]

Tell me please where is that negative space coordinations around your head (in reality) that you get once applying the negative (XYZ) coordinations adopted up to date in mathematics? wonder!

And did you KNOW why did they make it like that?

Or do you feel very cold once you move into those three negative coordinates?

And can't you jump suddenly in time once you go into those very complex coordinations? WONDER!

Total brain fault and obvious hallucination for sure

BKK

[Markus Klyver]

I don't understand your post at all. How is a three dimensional vector space a problem for me?

[bassam king karzeddin]

Markus wrote:

> I don't understand your post at all. How is a three dimensional vector space a problem for me?

I didn't say anything about vector space but yes for negative coordinations

Even though I had already written so much about the (xyz-axis)

What is the (say X-axis)?
It is simply a straight line with no beginning nor an end

Then someone might ask, what is the original definition of the straight line?

It is the shortest distance between any two distinct assumed fixed locations (in space) that also extend endlessly beyond those defined two locations

Then what is the location in space?

It is a description of lengths (created by unity) with respect to some chosen location by definition as a reference frame

Another Q: was the straight line originally being with positive and negative lengths

Answer: Never, it is only conventional notations that were made by mathematicians from a chosen location to create the negatives and call it real

Q: Did the negative sheep exist?
A: Yes in mirror

Q: Is the image of a sheep real?

A: The sheep itself is real, but not its image is fake sheep

Q: Do the sheep know that her image is UNreal?

A: Of course not at all, since the brain masters mathematicians do think firmly that the mirror image is really real, wonder!
Q: Why do they believe so then?
A: Because there was no other easy way to make or manufacture or discover great theorems, and mathematics was indeed too difficult for them
Q: But how did they invented this silly game?
A: They simply made and assumed wrongly a natural symmetry from a location, where then they assumed a mirror perpendicular to a straight line where every location on the right side of a straight line corresponding to its mirror image location on the left side (thus deleting the rear left side of a real straight line location and replacing it by mirror image of locations from the right side

Q: Did they make use of that mirror image too?
A: Of course for sure, their abilities were so peculiar in this regard, they could further milk that very poor mirror image sheep like a cow, and convinced her that she possesses an imaginary and so wonderful sheep too but with so many restrictions that need a user catalogue

Q: Are they going to make something more interesting from that last wonderful sheep they had already made in the near future?

A: Most likely they are planning to convince that imaginary sheep that she is actually a hen since a henS can bleaches MUCH more gold too

Q: But where are the other so many authorities from all that harmful nonsense then?

A: They are actually very corrupted and so afraid of them thinking that they are very clever and represent symbol of justice with their equal signs they always pretend to use and also the seriousness and the modesty they show, but they are also very lucky to keep away from so many things that they think wrongly that it is impossible to digest

Q: For how long had they been practising those black magical games?

A: Almost since thousands of years by now, or since (Pi), or since they killed that Pythagorean who truly discovered the true irrational numbers that are only constructible numbers obeying the existing principle of physical reality

Q: What could be the end of this old and very dirty game that spoils almost the whole life?

A: Mainly the new generations that had not been affected so badly by those silly tricks yet

Q: And if this doesn't work immediately?
A: Then hopes are soon held on those new borns called the artificial Intelligence made generally by normal practical mathematicians and usually called scientists and Engineers (with generally much higher scores since childhood)

So, let us all pray and hope again that full justice would rain again above the whole planet and free the so innocent and deceived mathematicians and the science from all the many inherited fictions for a better role in this life, for sure

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
07/29/2017

[burs...@gmail.com]

Lets call an ambulance, BKK is about to jump out
of the window because of all this black magic in math.

Dont do this BKK, dont feel deceived by math, only
because you have no clue about it. In one place you

freely use log(x/y) in your FLT like formula, and
then next you say irrational numbers don't exist,

so again you are probably schizo, besides brain farto
and bird brain, you are the math schizo here.

[burs...@gmail.com]

And a quite pathetic and boring schizo BTW.
Take this hero here, MM, who poves pi = 4:

The Manhattan Metric
http://milesmathis.com/manh.pdf

Miles Mathis
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

[bassam king karzeddin]

As if you could really solve any of my many puzzles that you were especially entangled with them

I swear that you (in particular) know the full truth by now since I had successfully installed them very well in your very stubborn and thick skull

But what can you hope from a real cheater who keeps playing the innocent protector role of fallen mathematics for a selfish purpose? wonder!

And naturally, I have to encounter many of your like for sure

But, never be happy because I would never throw myself from a window since much more puzzles would be thrown above your head on the way, and you would never be able to finalize them the well-exposed way you do usually

And you would stay as helpless as usual, but adding little fun and more nonsense with so much cheating for sure

BKK

[burs...@gmail.com]

The problem is only in your mind BKK.

[burs...@gmail.com]

The problem is still in your schizo math mind BKK.

[burs...@gmail.com]

Skillz is everything. You have zero skillz BKK.

[burs...@gmail.com]

And english skills, what is RIGRIOUSLY?
Something to do with a Grizzly bear?

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 6:22:33 PM UTC+3, burs...@gmail.com wrote:
> And english skills, what is RIGRIOUSLY?
> Something to do with a Grizzly bear?

I had already encountered Many of your alike (bursegan) that had ultimatly turned to be so proffissional in lingusitc matters (as if it adds or subtracts anything to the real so painful issues), since they didn't have another choice for sure

At least be so thankful and so grateful that I write in a very simple and so direct language that you happen to understand (denier)

BKK

[burs...@gmail.com]

Well there is doubt that you know anything about math.

[bassam king karzeddin]

> Well there is doubt that you know anything about
> math.

I really don't like to know anything that you know, but sadly I know for sure

[burs...@gmail.com]

There is evidence that you dont know anything about math.

[burs...@gmail.com]

Besides that you english is horrible, what
is IRREFUITABLE. Some fruit dessert?

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 12:58:02 AM UTC+3, burs...@gmail.com wrote:
> Besides that you english is horrible, what
> is IRREFUITABLE. Some fruit dessert?

Doesn't this sounds as irrefutable to you, and I am quite sure that you know what did I mean, wonder!

Did you check yourself your own mistakes, wonder!

In fact, you can see the red line marking mistakes in the vast majorities of the posts, but generally, people understand the issue and ignore

But, writing in the Arabic language may be a very good idea, where the others have to translate then

Now, not much time available for a 40 days vacation,

BKK

[burs...@gmail.com]

Woa, 26 spam posts by BKK in a few hours, he must
be a quite desperate attention whore by now.

[burs...@gmail.com]

27 spam posts with incomprehensible brable, giving
evidence that BKK has lost all his marbles.

[burs...@gmail.com]

BTW: There seem to be some series, for roots of
polynomial p(x)=a0+a1*x+...+an*x^n.

Solving algebraic equations in terms of A-hypergeometric series
Bernd Sturmfels - Discrete Mathematics
Volume 210, Issues 1–3, 6 January 2000, Pages 171-181
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012365X99001260?via%3Dihub

Probably the same series, if you use the implicit
function development trick. Not sure.

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 5:11:31 PM UTC+3, burs...@gmail.com wrote:
> 27 spam posts with incomprehensible brable, giving
> evidence that BKK has lost all his marbles.

No moron, I know that is mainly your duty (for living) to reply and spoil my posts, but I wanted to make it so difficult for you to follow, where then you have no time
I know also that you are more than a single character for the huge volumes you and your allies generally produce and respond very fastly with very and many poor references

But don't you notice that is mainly you beside some few masked characters like Python, shio..., or Dan who generally respond

Don't you observe that the vast majorities usually keep silent for the absolute truthiness of my posts, at least they appreciate the true meaning of the word "challenge" and never inter openly since they know in advance the consequences, so unlike you who so foolishly thinks that he is doing his job perfectly where as the fact that you are helping me a lot of course without your true intention

Don't you notice that many of those professional mathematicians had apparently disappeared completely or better say had been kicked out from here and most likely preferred to hide in more safe and well-protected sites like SE for the shame they realize and feel upon their shoulders if they keep teaching that same old nonsense they usually add here

And you must realize now that my posts are a true treatment course and a short remedy for curing the vast majorities of infected mathematicians of so many fictions that had been inherited so badly

So, naturally, this isn't their place, this is must not be a place for very poor people in mathematics, and you finally will be kicked out for sure

So, better get out from sci.math now

BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

[bassam king karzeddin]

I couldn't see any series, but can you state here? wonder!

BKK

[Markus Klyver]

You know R^3 is a vector space, right? Are you saying negative numbers are a problem?

[bassam king karzeddin]

Well they aren't a problem but miss-using them was the main problem
BKK

[Markus Klyver]

Explain how they are misused.

[bassam king karzeddin]

Markus wrote:
> Explain how they are misused.

How many times did I explained that, but never mind

Consider the (X-axis) as a real number line, so (Y-axis) is acting as an artificial mirror where the negative numbers are the mirror image of positive numbers out of this deliberate but not natural symmetry we impose

So, mark the multiple of (3*5 = 15), where you place an apple on number 3, and an orange on number 5, and a banana on number 15, then see the mirror image of your numbers, then you would find a mirror image of an apple in place of (-3), and a mirror image of an orange in place of (- 4), and a mirror image of a banana in place of (-15) and not so foolishly in place of (15)

And certainly, you wouldn't like to get it correctly for sure

BKK

[burs...@gmail.com]

Woa, again ~20 spam posts polluting sci.math today. Same
nonsense again and again. What a useless attention whore.

Am Sonntag, 30. Juli 2017 15:59:32 UTC+2 schrieb burs...@gmail.com:

[burs...@gmail.com]

And still the same baby talk nobody understands,
wonder, sure, wonder, etc... Absolutely nuts this guy.

[burs...@gmail.com]

Maybe BKK should have learnt after these many years,
that nonsense phrases like: "Did Fermat say so?".
Makes absolutely no sense. Math is not really spoken
words by some X, like the ten commandments. Theorems

are only given names in honour of those who discovered
them first. And what can happen is that some new
statement follows from already established statements,
or its negation follows from already established

statements, or there are models in favor and against
a statement. But again these basic conclusion schemas
might vary depending on the domain that is considered,
and further difficult or even impossible to establish.

[bassam king karzeddin]

It is indeed so difficult for you to understand what is a natural symmetry and what is an artificial fake symmetry that can mislead all the Trollish people on earth, but certainly not forever and tomorrow the kids must teach your alike the ever biggest lesson for sure
BKK

[Markus Klyver]

Again, that made no sense whatsoever. Are you talking about reflective mappings or projection transformations in R^2? And what "natural symmetry" are you talking about?

[burs...@gmail.com]

Lets start a nonsense list of BKK:

Since -3 and -5 are on the left of zero, their product must
be also on the left of zero, i.e. (-3)*(-5) = -15, but math
usually defines (-3)*(-5) = 15, so the negative numbers
dont exist.
- BKK, 01.08.2017

BTW the above joke of BKK is already many years old,
he repeats it every year here on sci.math. But since
you @Markus Klyver are new here, you are just feeding

the troll, which does make you very brilliant either.

Am Dienstag, 1. August 2017 16:59:54 UTC+2 schrieb Markus Klyver:
> > So, mark the multiple of (3*5 = 15), where you place an apple on number 3, and an orange on number 5, and a banana on number 15, then see the mirror image of your numbers, then you would find a mirror image of an apple in place of (-3), and a mirror image of an orange in place of (- 4), and a mirror image of a banana in place of (-15) and not so foolishly in place of (15)
>

[burs...@gmail.com]

Corr.:
the troll, which doesn't make you very brilliant either.

[bassam king karzeddin]

Markus wrote:
> Again, that made no sense whatsoever. Are you talking about reflective mappings or projection transformations in R^2? And what "natural symmetry" are you talking about?

No, we are talking about fictions vs. physical reality

Otherwise, FLT should have been stated like the following:

(x^n + y^n + z^n = 0) have no solution in non-zero integers (x, y, z) for integers (n > 1)

But because of the artificial fake symmetry that was made deliberately (for a narrow purpose), the confusion started, beside that no negative coordinates exist in our physical reality, but only opposite directions

So, you can have a real banana in your hand, and can't really have it from the mirror
But since mathematics is reality some time, and not any reality whenever it's caught in contradiction, so it is up to the designer mood and definition, wonder!
BKK

[burs...@gmail.com]

The only banana here is you BKK. Negative numbers have
noting to do with a mirror, its just the Euclidean line,

and when you are left of zero, you use a negative sign,
and when you are right of zero, you use a positive sign,

negative numbers cannot be a mirror in the sense of
a homomorphism h : R -> R, since we alrady know:

h(a*b) = h(a)*h(b) doesn't work

take (-3)*(-5) <> -15. So no, negative numbers are not
mirror numbers, leern some math. Skillz is everything,

and you seem to have zero math skillz.

"The word homomorphism comes from the ancient Greek
language: ὁμός (homos) meaning "same" and μορφή
(morphe) meaning "form" or "shape"."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphism

I am not sure whether there is an easy geometric
explanation for -3 * -5 = 15. Maybe the distributivity
laws in this form help understanding:

A*(B-C) = A*B-A*C

(A-B)*C = A*C-B*C

And of course this form of associatibity:

A-(B-C) = (A-B)+C

We then have:

-3 * -5 = (0 - 3) * -5

= 0 * -5 - 3 * -5

= 0 - 3 * (0 - 5)

= 0 - 3*0 + 3*5

= 0 - 0 + 15

= 15

[burs...@gmail.com]

But this is too way over your head, how many year
do you already produce internet vomit? Minimum 8 years?

You know the below laws are all precalculus, don't you?

[burs...@gmail.com]

Lets say the multiplication is related to some area, this
is quite in the spirit of Euclid. I would then say
to make the Shoe Lace formula work, we need positive and
negative areas, you can check yourself how it makes

sense to have negative and positive sub areas, and that
ultimately you might have -3 * -5 = 15.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoelace_formula

Anyway, there is an error in wikipedia:

"If the points are labeled sequentially in the
counterclockwise direction, then the above
determinants are positive and the absolute
value signs can be omitted; if they are
labeled in the clockwise direction, the
determinants will be negative."

Not all determinants are positive, respectively negative.
You can try yourself, take these points:

n xn yn
1 3 4
2 1 2
3 4 1

Which is in the spirit of this triangle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoelace_formula#/media/File:Triangle_area_from_coordinates_JCB.jpg

Now compute the determinants:

n det/2
1 1.0
2 -3.5
3 6.5
Total 4.0

Go figure out a geometric interpretation of the
negative determinant values.

Am Dienstag, 1. August 2017 20:04:21 UTC+2 schrieb burs...@gmail.com:

[Markus Klyver]

But, again, whether something exists in the physical world or not is an empirical question of physics and not mathematics.

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:36:18 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> It happens many times where you have to follow strict rules in order to arrive at the desired and designed results that wouldn't contradict the illegal creation of those called imaginary or generally complex numbers!
>
> Where those type of rules become as holy rules and unquestionable,
>
> As you must do step one before step two, or you must recognize yourself what is to choose the more suitable answer, ...etc, but there may be cases where even strict rules wouldn't save the situation and everything collapses immediately!
>
> So unlike normal and sensible mathematics, may be because it was originated basically from imagination, that wasn't any significant discovery, How?
>
> .....?
>
> Regards
>
> Bassam King Karzeddin
>
> 4th, OCT, 2016

So, can't you make a very long table showing exactly where the complex (imaginary numbers) fails absolutely? wonder!
But make sure that you would never be able to cover all the cases for sure
BKK

[Zelos Malum]

They do not fail you moron. The only thing failing here is you for being such an idiot.

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:36:18 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> It happens many times where you have to follow strict rules in order to arrive at the desired and designed results that wouldn't contradict the illegal creation of those called imaginary or generally complex numbers!
>
> Where those type of rules become as holy rules and unquestionable,
>
> As you must do step one before step two, or you must recognize yourself what is to choose the more suitable answer, ...etc, but there may be cases where even strict rules wouldn't save the situation and everything collapses immediately!
>
> So unlike normal and sensible mathematics, may be because it was originated basically from imagination, that wasn't any significant discovery, How?
>
> .....?
>
> Regards
>
> Bassam King Karzeddin
>
> 4th, OCT, 2016

Can a particular category of human minds be more stupid than those who DECIDED such numbers as called Imaginary numbers? wonder

The Diophantine Eqn. (n^2 + 1 = 0) is obviously insolvable, but against all the odds and any sensible logic, some mad and drank man insisted to solve it in such a peculiar way to the unbelievable limit of such stupidity

Of course, he was in power after people over trusted him for some other alleged talents he had shown to others, otherwise, every one must shout loudly against such extreme and pure madness, where naturally they became just as mere listeners for that rare genius who wanted to insult human minds to its rotten core, wonder!

So, what was the DECISION?

It was so simply not any true discovery or property of integers, but a decision made for a hidden purpose most likely you know about it

And the shocking reality of that old and current dogmatic audience who found this as a real Paradise where simply they can so easily derive subsequent many more results, plus making theorems free of any real talent of discovery

So, who is truly more stupid, those who decided such a scandal in mathematics, or those dogmatic mathematickers who are still believing them? wonder!

Are the mathematicians truly the most foolish people on earth? for sure

BKK

[Python]

bassam king karzeddin wrote:> Can a particular category of human minds

be more stupid than those who DECIDED
> such numbers as called Imaginary numbers? wonder

> So, what was the DECISION?

http://www.math.uri.edu/~merino/spring06/mth562/ShortHistoryComplexNumbers2006.pdf

> Are the mathematicians truly the most foolish people on earth? for sure

Read, and learn, if you can. Wonder.

[Zelos Malum]

>Can a particular category of human minds be more stupid than those who DECIDED such numbers as called Imaginary numbers? wonder

Yes, look in a mirror and you see something much dumber.

>The Diophantine Eqn. (n^2 + 1 = 0) is obviously insolvable, but against all the odds and any sensible logic, some mad and drank man insisted to solve it in such a peculiar way to the unbelievable limit of such stupidity

Only in R, in C it is solvable.

>Are the mathematicians truly the most foolish people on earth? for sure

Nah, you are the foolish one.

[bassam king karzeddin]

And to convey the meaningless meaning of such decided or invented mathematics, by assuming that the same decision of deciding such an imaginary unit {i}, was made by those old ancient mathematicians few thousands years back, then definitely you would see all the subsequent easy mathematics (theorems and many results) that resulted immediately after such decision were actually made and documented thousands of years back, since it doesn't require hardly any real talent but mainly completing a very silly mind game that must be eventual as a natural result for such very easy decisions

See here in this very clear example how the professionals would never mind but would always bless you when considering [i = sqrt(-1)]

EXAMPLE 1) (-1)(-1)(-1)(-1)(-1) = (-1) , by taking square root of

both sides then you get: (i^5 = i), implies (i^4 = 1), implies (i^2 = -1), confirming to the standard of their simple understanding, and hence nobody would certainly object such conclusion. (HAPPY END)

But see here the very clear CONTRADICTION in their ill behaviours with a very less size example, where all would so simply rebel against the same logic they had already adopted above and start screaming at you and imposing new rules that must lead only to their short believes

EXAMPLE 2) (-1)(-1)(-1) = (-1), by taking square root of

both sides then you get: (i^3 = i), implies (i^2 = 1), and contrary to their old believe and never conforming to the standard of their simple understanding, and hence everybody would certainly object such conclusion. (UNHAPPY END)

SO, to say, are the believers in fictional decided or invented or fabricated mathematics truly so dogmatic up to this limit of stupidity? wonder!

And you (the independent reader), after all those so many posts of explanations and proving rigorously the so obvious many contradictions in all fabricated mathematics can't even distinguish yet a fabricated mathematics from truly discovered mathematics? wonder!

I had explained earlier how much that nonsense had affected mainly the physics itself to become a much bigger source for more fun and very ill imaginations for sure

So, why don't you shout loudly against all non-sense that you see very clearly before your eyes in so many ways, unless of course you are the same typo....for sure.

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Dec. 19th, 2017

[Zelos Malum]

>both sides then you get: (i^3 = i), implies (i^2 = 1),

Incorrect, you assume that squareroot is distributive over complex numbers, it is only for positive real numbers. So you don't get

i^3=i

You get sqr((-1)^3)=sqrt(-1)You cannto distribute it over all -1's on the left side.

Again, the issue is you, not mathematics.

[bassam king karzeddin]

However, this types of replies one must face and get used to it from whenever he catches a very clear contradiction while dealing with imaginary numbers or more generally with alleged real numbers that never exist except of course in their minds

Now, as if this guy is simply saying the square root operation isn't distributive when applying it on: (-1)^3 = -1, but never mind if it is applicable when applying it on: (-1)^5 = -1 as distributive here, but note that this isn't only single case where you catch the contradictions in mathematicians absurd thinking, but many more you also easily can detect.

Butter search google (contradictions of complex or imaginary numbers), there are so many more fallacies arising due to this silly concept, for sure

Also, the word imagination has some usefulness if it is truly imaginable, but pure nonsense or human brain fart isn't at all even any significant imagination, for sure, since imaginations implies creativity and ability that mathematicians generally miss badly both of them for sure

BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:36:18 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> It happens many times where you have to follow strict rules in order to arrive at the desired and designed results that wouldn't contradict the illegal creation of those called imaginary or generally complex numbers!
>
> Where those type of rules become as holy rules and unquestionable,
>
> As you must do step one before step two, or you must recognize yourself what is to choose the more suitable answer, ...etc, but there may be cases where even strict rules wouldn't save the situation and everything collapses immediately!
>
> So unlike normal and sensible mathematics, may be because it was originated basically from imagination, that wasn't any significant discovery, How?
>
> .....?
>
> Regards
>
> Bassam King Karzeddin
>
> 4th, OCT, 2016

And incase anyone recognizes the simplest issues and admits that the so obvious clear facts can't be hidden by the spider's thread anymore, then one must admit that a true revolution against ignorance and old wrong believes in mathematics must also happen as soon as possible, since this type of wrong well-established and also inherited mathematics is basically not more than a matter of solid and old belief resulting from the many wrong decisions in the history of mathematics mainly not about any truly discovered mathematics but only about the invented or decided or fabricated mathematics that were for silly human purposes
So, it is very necessary to publish and address those issues publicly in order to let people be so aware about them before people finally decide their complete nonsense and throw them away for a better healthy understanding

Otherwise, no Journal or University would even bother to look again but more carefully about the ignorance they themselves spread so confidently and so widely for sure

BKK

[Python]

bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> Otherwise, no Journal or University would even bother to look again but
> more carefully about the ignorance they themselves spread so confidently
> and so widely for sure

You are so one stuck in your ignorance. You do not understand how
imaginary numbers appeared in history and how they end up to get
a proper definition.

I provided you with a link to a document explaining this very
clearly, you are too stubborn to read it and too stupid to
understand it.

[Zelos Malum]

>However, this types of replies one must face and get used to it from whenever he catches a very clear contradiction while dealing with imaginary numbers or more generally with alleged real numbers that never exist except of course in their minds

There is no contradiction, the issue is YOU make assumptions that are false.

>Now, as if this guy is simply saying the square root operation isn't distributive when applying it on: (-1)^3 = -1, but never mind if it is applicable when applying it on: (-1)^5 = -1 as distributive here, but note that this isn't only single case where you catch the contradictions in mathematicians absurd thinking, but many more you also easily can detect.

It is not distributive when applied to ANY complex number that isn't a non-negative real number.

[bassam king karzeddin]

So, the happy end which is always wanted by the mythmakers, but whenever the end is so unhappy, then you have to use the catalogue to end up always with that DECIDED happy end, For sure

But other imbeciles keep arguing so stubbornly and so aimlessly just to keep protecting the ignorance forever, depending on their short sources of pure ignorance and never realizing that would shame them more and forever

But, naturally those alleged defenders never reveal their true identity, since they must had realized the truth by now, and no wonder to note that no decent professional with true identity name would ever dare to protect such nonsense decided mathematics after seeing the so obvious truth, For sure
BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

In other simple words, complex numbers mixed with imaginary crazy parts fail everywhere except in your stubborn heads (alleged genius professional mathematicians), For sure
BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:36:18 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> It happens many times where you have to follow strict rules in order to arrive at the desired and designed results that wouldn't contradict the illegal creation of those called imaginary or generally complex numbers!
>
> Where those type of rules become as holy rules and unquestionable,
>
> As you must do step one before step two, or you must recognize yourself what is to choose the more suitable answer, ...etc, but there may be cases where even strict rules wouldn't save the situation and everything collapses immediately!
>
> So unlike normal and sensible mathematics, may be because it was originated basically from imagination, that wasn't any significant discovery, How?
>
> .....?
>
> Regards
>
> Bassam King Karzeddin
>
> 4th, OCT, 2016

they fail almost everywhere as been showed to you quite many times, for sure
BKK

[Zelos Malum]

> In other simple words, complex numbers mixed with imaginary crazy parts fail everywhere except in your stubborn heads (alleged genius professional mathematicians), For sure

You haven't shown anywhere where they fail. All you have shown is that you do not understand that extensoins of functions may not retain properties.

>they fail almost everywhere as been showed to you quite many times, for sure

No, you have shown you do not understand how extensions of functions work and what can happen then. That is not a failure of complex numbers, that is a failure of your stupid brain.

[Zelos Malum]

You assume that all powers, like in positive real numbers, is distributive over products, but when we extend it to encompas all real, or even all complex numbers, that property is lost.

That is not a failure of complex numbers, that is just a loss of a proeprty.

Get that into your stupid head.

[bassam king karzeddin]

And if (x^2 + 1 = 0), has no solution in real numbers, then let be there an imaginary numbers such that....., what a great discovery or a great theorem made by a drunk monkey
total fun, for sure
BKK

[Zelos Malum]

If 3x-2=0 has no integer solution, lets make the rational numbers so we have

Extending structures to have more elements and more solutions is nothing new and nothing bad. It can be done rigorously through quotient structures

C=R[x]/<x^2+1>

But I doubt you can even understand that notation.

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 3:21:55 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:36:18 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > It happens many times where you have to follow strict rules in order to arrive at the desired and designed results that wouldn't contradict the illegal creation of those called imaginary or generally complex numbers!
> >
> > Where those type of rules become as holy rules and unquestionable,
> >
> > As you must do step one before step two, or you must recognize yourself what is to choose the more suitable answer, ...etc, but there may be cases where even strict rules wouldn't save the situation and everything collapses immediately!
> >
> > So unlike normal and sensible mathematics, may be because it was originated basically from imagination, that wasn't any significant discovery, How?
> >
> > .....?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Bassam King Karzeddin
> >
> > 4th, OCT, 2016
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:36:18 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > It happens many times where you have to follow strict rules in order to arrive at the desired and designed results that wouldn't contradict the illegal creation of those called imaginary or generally complex numbers!
> >
> > Where those type of rules become as holy rules and unquestionable,
> >
> > As you must do step one before step two, or you must recognize yourself what is to choose the more suitable answer, ...etc, but there may be cases where even strict rules wouldn't save the situation and everything collapses immediately!
> >
> > So unlike normal and sensible mathematics, may be because it was originated basically from imagination, that wasn't any significant discovery, How?
> >
> > .....?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Bassam King Karzeddin
> >
> > 4th, OCT, 2016
>

Don't worry, this keeps happening in the human history, for sure
BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:36:18 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> It happens many times where you have to follow strict rules in order to arrive at the desired and designed results that wouldn't contradict the illegal creation of those called imaginary or generally complex numbers!
>
> Where those type of rules become as holy rules and unquestionable,
>
> As you must do step one before step two, or you must recognize yourself what is to choose the more suitable answer, ...etc, but there may be cases where even strict rules wouldn't save the situation and everything collapses immediately!
>
> So unlike normal and sensible mathematics, may be because it was originated basically from imagination, that wasn't any significant discovery, How?
>
> .....?
>
> Regards
>
> Bassam King Karzeddin
>
> 4th, OCT, 2016

So, now it is very necessary for someone free that can make voluntary many failure cases for imaginary numbers instead of me, since truly I haven't much time for that very easy task for sure
BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:36:18 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> It happens many times where you have to follow strict rules in order to arrive at the desired and designed results that wouldn't contradict the illegal creation of those called imaginary or generally complex numbers!
>
> Where those type of rules become as holy rules and unquestionable,
>
> As you must do step one before step two, or you must recognize yourself what is to choose the more suitable answer, ...etc, but there may be cases where even strict rules wouldn't save the situation and everything collapses immediately!
>
> So unlike normal and sensible mathematics, may be because it was originated basically from imagination, that wasn't any significant discovery, How?
>
> .....?
>
> Regards
>
> Bassam King Karzeddin
>
> 4th, OCT, 2016

They had already fallen apart, And quite many times, for sure
So, kick out this obvious fictional Paradise that similar to Infinity, for sure
BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:36:18 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> It happens many times where you have to follow strict rules in order to arrive at the desired and designed results that wouldn't contradict the illegal creation of those called imaginary or generally complex numbers!
>
> Where those type of rules become as holy rules and unquestionable,
>
> As you must do step one before step two, or you must recognize yourself what is to choose the more suitable answer, ...etc, but there may be cases where even strict rules wouldn't save the situation and everything collapses immediately!
>
> So unlike normal and sensible mathematics, may be because it was originated basically from imagination, that wasn't any significant discovery, How?
>
> .....?
>
> Regards
>
> Bassam King Karzeddin
>
> 4th, OCT, 2016

Didn't you get it yet? wonder!

And if you did, then shout so loudly and let the whole world know about it, for sure

But you won't, maybe because you are too shyful to confess it, or maybe you need a written permission first, for sure

But recall, how did they inserted this fallacy into your skull, and remember that was only a mere decision by some drunk genius that costed him few seconds to decide it, and it worked very nicely and for so long centuries into those well described sheeple skulls, and up to date! wonder!

BKK

[Zelos Malum]

Did you understand shit already or are you still too stupid?

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:36:18 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> It happens many times where you have to follow strict rules in order to arrive at the desired and designed results that wouldn't contradict the illegal creation of those called imaginary or generally complex numbers!
>
> Where those type of rules become as holy rules and unquestionable,
>
> As you must do step one before step two, or you must recognize yourself what is to choose the more suitable answer, ...etc, but there may be cases where even strict rules wouldn't save the situation and everything collapses immediately!
>
> So unlike normal and sensible mathematics, may be because it was originated basically from imagination, that wasn't any significant discovery, How?
>
> .....?
>
> Regards
>
> Bassam King Karzeddin
>
> 4th, OCT, 2016

Let us see it again and again until you get rid of your own idiocy talent, for sure
BKK

[Zelos Malum]

you mean you not understanding anything?

[bassam king karzeddin]

you must be so confused, as always as usual, they had completely fallen forever, but you don't want to understand, for sure

BKK

[Mr Sawat Layuheem]

to teacher Bassam.....

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=955027744652217&set=pcb.955027924652199&type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=955027887985536&set=pcb.955027924652199&type=3&theater

[bassam king karzeddin]

Glad you got them the so cheap fictionality of imaginary numbers, for sure

BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:36:18 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> It happens many times where you have to follow strict rules in order to arrive at the desired and designed results that wouldn't contradict the illegal creation of those called imaginary or generally complex numbers!
>
> Where those type of rules become as holy rules and unquestionable,
>
> As you must do step one before step two, or you must recognize yourself what is to choose the more suitable answer, ...etc, but there may be cases where even strict rules wouldn't save the situation and everything collapses immediately!
>
> So unlike normal and sensible mathematics, may be because it was originated basically from imagination, that wasn't any significant discovery, How?
>
> .....?
>
> Regards
>
> Bassam King Karzeddin
>
> 4th, OCT, 2016

And if you want to witness their absolute fictionality, just see how did they manufacture them? wonder!

They simply said, let there be an imaginary unit such that whenever multiplied by itself, it gives you back the mirror image of your unity, sure

What a great invention is this really? wonder!

Didn't we disprove them in so many multiple ways? wonder!

Drop the MANY fictions and stand again, it is not at all your fault, for sure

BKK

BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 3:21:55 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:36:18 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > It happens many times where you have to follow strict rules in order to arrive at the desired and designed results that wouldn't contradict the illegal creation of those called imaginary or generally complex numbers!
> >
> > Where those type of rules become as holy rules and unquestionable,
> >
> > As you must do step one before step two, or you must recognize yourself what is to choose the more suitable answer, ...etc, but there may be cases where even strict rules wouldn't save the situation and everything collapses immediately!
> >
> > So unlike normal and sensible mathematics, may be because it was originated basically from imagination, that wasn't any significant discovery, How?
> >
> > .....?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Bassam King Karzeddin
> >
> > 4th, OCT, 2016
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:36:18 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > It happens many times where you have to follow strict rules in order to arrive at the desired and designed results that wouldn't contradict the illegal creation of those called imaginary or generally complex numbers!
> >
> > Where those type of rules become as holy rules and unquestionable,
> >
> > As you must do step one before step two, or you must recognize yourself what is to choose the more suitable answer, ...etc, but there may be cases where even strict rules wouldn't save the situation and everything collapses immediately!
> >
> > So unlike normal and sensible mathematics, may be because it was originated basically from imagination, that wasn't any significant discovery, How?
> >
> > .....?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Bassam King Karzeddin
> >
> > 4th, OCT, 2016
>

Got it?, it is too simple beyond belief, a wrong decision only

but it is more than funny, wonder! but still, you won't get it for sure

And probably you don't know the answer, sure

BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:36:18 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> It happens many times where you have to follow strict rules in order to arrive at the desired and designed results that wouldn't contradict the illegal creation of those called imaginary or generally complex numbers!
>
> Where those type of rules become as holy rules and unquestionable,
>
> As you must do step one before step two, or you must recognize yourself what is to choose the more suitable answer, ...etc, but there may be cases where even strict rules wouldn't save the situation and everything collapses immediately!
>
> So unlike normal and sensible mathematics, may be because it was originated basically from imagination, that wasn't any significant discovery, How?
>
> .....?
>
> Regards
>
> Bassam King Karzeddin
>
> 4th, OCT, 2016

So, how many times we had proven rigorously and shown you that imaginary numbers fail almost everywhere, especially in irreducible polynomials, but frankly they give some great fun to play with, especially that they are still existing in so many illegal imaginations, for sure

But in human dreams and beyond existing physical reality they may be still useful in making your dream so colourful (and not just black and white pictures) for sure, and people who would deny their mere existence can't certainly see a colourful dream yet, sure

So, you certainly need them urgently just before going o sleep, wonder!

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
May 3ed, 2018

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 7:42:25 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:36:18 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > It happens many times where you have to follow strict rules in order to arrive at the desired and designed results that wouldn't contradict the illegal creation of those called imaginary or generally complex numbers!
> >
> > Where those type of rules become as holy rules and unquestionable,
> >
> > As you must do step one before step two, or you must recognize yourself what is to choose the more suitable answer, ...etc, but there may be cases where even strict rules wouldn't save the situation and everything collapses immediately!
> >
> > So unlike normal and sensible mathematics, may be because it was originated basically from imagination, that wasn't any significant discovery, How?
> >
> > .....?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Bassam King Karzeddin
> >
> > 4th, OCT, 2016
>

> Actually, they fall very often, but the prostitutional do not like to confess it (for sure)
>
> BK

Haven't you fond yet many other cases where your complex numbers fail drastically? wonder!

But most likely, you are a very loyal and blind obedient, who would comply strictly to the rules, sure
BKK