What did John Gabriel say about 1 divided by 3 exactly?

[John Gabriel]

There is a lot of noise on this forum and it's easy to get a headache because there are several trolls of which DC is the ring leader.

Geometrically, it's possible to partition any line segment into as many equal parts as you need using just a compass and straight edge.

Algebraically, the obelus (the division symbol -:-) does nothing if the first operand is less than the second. To write 1 -:- 3 = 1/3 is misleading because no division is taking place. It has already taken place when we write 1/3. The obelus only works when the first operator is greater than the second.

That is, p -:- d = q remainder r. In actual fact, the obelus is an algorithm that stops when p<d.

What I have been explaining is that it's false to say algebraically that 1 -:- 3 = 1/3 because no division of any kind is taking place. 1/3 (or 1:3) is a the representation of a number which is a measure of the magnitude known as one third.

These things are not difficult to understand if one has not been brainwashed by mainstream academia. :-) The academic bourgeoisie does not want to produce independent thinkers, but robots who accept their WRONG ideas as established fact.

Are you a robot? :-)

Learn more about the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history at: http://thenewcalculus.weebly.com (Also available in German and Chinese with more translations currently in process).

For interesting philosophical discussions and the web's greatest resource on the 0.999... = 1 fallacy, follow me on Space Time and the universe:

http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/math/4507-0-999-equal-one-736.html

[John Gabriel]

More importantly, the vinculum in 1/3 (vinculum means the forward slash or horizontal line) has NOTHING to do with "repeated subtraction". Guess what? That's what the obelus (division symbol) is all about.

[Dan Christensen]

On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 11:48:26 PM UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote:

> Algebraically, the obelus (the division symbol -:-) does nothing if the first operand is less than the second. To write 1 -:- 3 = 1/3 is misleading because no division is taking place. It has already taken place when we write 1/3. The obelus only works when the first operator is greater than the second.
>
> That is, p -:- d = q remainder r. In actual fact, the obelus is an algorithm that stops when p<d.
>
> What I have been explaining is that it's false to say algebraically that 1 -:- 3 = 1/3 because no division of any kind is taking place. 1/3 (or 1:3) is a the representation of a number which is a measure of the magnitude known as one third.
>

What more proof does one need that JG is setting out to deliberately confuse and mislead? This is not simply a difference of opinion.

Dan

[John Gabriel]

Please let me know when you are able to perform the operation 1 -:- 3 algebraically using the obelus (repeated subtraction). Chuckle.

[John Gabriel]

It's 8:12am on the West Coast and troll DC should be in just about ... now!

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

you are tiresomely pedantic, and far too literalist (although
I a a big fan of the etymologists ... also,
quite grumpy, grumpa. anyway, of course,
divisions is isomorphic to "repeated subtra tion, but
no-one really gAf but you

[Efftard]

1) google-poster

2) gmail address

3) off-topic

4) cant writtin tehtengilsh grammer speling

5) Idiot

6) Double-idiot.

wrote in message
news:07797b89-389e-41d3...@googlegroups.com...

"wibble"

[williamb...@gmail.com]

it is good to know, the term of obelus, and ...
what was that other word

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

vinculum?

[John Gabriel]

I am still waiting for the ranters and screamers to show me how 1 -:- 3 = 1/3 using algebra. Chuckle. Of course it's never going to happen, because it can only be done in geometry.

Fools claim that division is repeated subtraction but can't show me how repeated subtraction is applied to 1 -:- 3 = 1/3.

All that's happening here is:

1. The dots of the obelus ( -:- ) are discarded.
2. By so doing it turns into a vinculum.
3. 1 is baptized the numerator
4. 3 is baptized the denominator.

[Dan Christensen]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 2:44:37 AM UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote:

> I am still waiting for the ranters and screamers to show me how 1 -:- 3 = 1/3 using algebra.

Easy.

Assuming we have multiplication, for y=/=0, we define x -:- y = z if and only if x = z * y.

We have 1 = 1/3 * 3. By definition then, 1 -:- 3 = 1/3.

Oops, I forgot... you banned if and only if definitions some time ago. I guess you and your legions of followers (hee, hee!) are screwed.

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

[John Gabriel]

I guess I'll be waiting a long time... Sigh.

[John Gabriel]

On Tuesday, 7 April 2015 17:41:04 UTC+2, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 2:44:37 AM UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote:
>
> > I am still waiting for the ranters and screamers to show me how 1 -:- 3 = 1/3 using algebra.
>
> Easy.

He says easy but does not even read or understand the question correctly. The question asks the reader to show using repeated subtraction how it can be that 1 -:- 3 = 1/3. Tsk, tsk.

>
> Assuming we have multiplication, for y=/=0, we define x -:- y = z if and only if x = z * y.

Dumbo "assumes" we have multiplication, but the question makes it clear that nothing is to be assumed. One cannot assume we have multiplication, because multiplication is derived from the quotient. Axiom 4 below.

El Dumbo assumes again that z * y is well defined for all rational numbers, but fails to notice there is a difference when it comes to proper fractions, that is, the multiplication operator takes on a different meaning (it's polymorphic for those with brains). So he makes a LOT of assumptions, but what can you expect from an idiot who subscribes to Peano's juvenile axioms?...

>
> We have 1 = 1/3 * 3. By definition then, 1 -:- 3 = 1/3.

Dumbo does not understand definitions (much like dullrich does not understand the same) and assumes a definition is well formed solely by his whims.

>
> Oops, I forgot... you banned if and only if definitions some time ago. I guess you and your legions of followers (hee, hee!) are screwed.
>

A lie which is considered libel in the USA.


Gabrielean Axioms:

1. The difference (or subtraction) of two positive numbers, is that positive number which describes how much the larger number exceeds the smaller.

Let the numbers be 1 and 4.

4 - 1 = 3 or |1 - 4| = 3

2. The difference of equal numbers is zero.

Let the numbers be k and k.

|k - k| = 0

3. The sum (or addition) of two given positive numbers, is that positive number whose difference with either of the two given numbers produces the other number.

Let the numbers be 1 and 4.

1 + 4 = 5 because 5 - 4 = 1 and 5 - 1 = 4

4. The quotient (or division) of two positive numbers is that positive number, that measures either positive number in terms of the other.

Let the numbers be 2 and 3.

2/3+2/3+2/3 = 6/3 = (6-2-2)/(3-1-1) = 2/1 = 2

3/2+3/2=6/2= (6-3)/(2-1)= 3/1 = 3

5. If a unit is divided by a positive number into equal parts, then each of these parts of a unit, is called the reciprocal of that positive number.

Let the positive number be 4.

The reciprocal is 1/4 and 1/4+1/4+1/4+1/4 = 1

6. Division by zero is undefined, because 0 does not measure any magnitude.

Since the consequent number is always the sum of equal parts of a unit, it follows clearly that no such number exists that when summed can produce 1, that is, no matter how many zeroes you add, you never get 1.

7. The product (or multiplication) of two positive numbers is the quotient of either positive number with the reciprocal of the other.

Let the numbers be 2 and 3.

1/2+1/2+1/2+1/2+1/2+1/2=3

1/3+1/3+1/3+1/3+1/3+1/3=2

8. The difference of any number and zero is the number.

Let the number be k.

|k-0|=|0-k|

Observe that all the basic arithmetic operations are defined in terms of the primitive operator called difference.

These are the true axioms of arithmetic and the definition of the arithmetic operators.

Axioms for negative numbers are easy to define with some trivial modification.

[Dan Christensen]

On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 2:50:39 AM UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 April 2015 17:41:04 UTC+2, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 2:44:37 AM UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote:
> >
> > > I am still waiting for the ranters and screamers to show me how 1 -:- 3 = 1/3 using algebra.
> >
> > Easy.
>
> He says easy but does not even read or understand the question correctly. The question asks the reader to show using repeated subtraction how it can be that 1 -:- 3 = 1/3. Tsk, tsk.
>

As required, I showed you why 1 -:- 3 = 1/3 using algebra. If you cannot accept that, I can only suggest a good textbook in 4th grade math.

> >
> > Assuming we have multiplication, for y=/=0, we define x -:- y = z if and only if x = z * y.
>
> Dumbo "assumes" we have multiplication, but the question makes it clear that nothing is to be assumed.

Perhaps I was wrong in assuming you understood multiplication. Silly me. If you you don't understand multiplication, of course, won't understand division.

Better make that a THIRD grade textbook in that case, Troll Boy.

> >
> > We have 1 = 1/3 * 3. By definition then, 1 -:- 3 = 1/3.
>
> Dumbo does not understand definitions (much like dullrich does not understand the same) and assumes a definition is well formed solely by his whims.
>

"Whatever I imagine is real because whatever I imagine is well defined."
-- John Gabriel, sci.math, March 26, 2015

I suppose you are now going to tell us that was your evil twin brother, Skippy. Sounds pretty stupid now, doesn't it, Troll Boy?

> >
> > Oops, I forgot... you banned if and only if definitions some time ago. I guess you and your legions of followers (hee, hee!) are screwed.
> >
>
> A lie which is considered libel in the USA.
>

"I abolished 'if and only if' definitions because they are stupid!"
-- John Gabriel, sci.math, August 7, 2014

That darned Skippy again, right, Troll Boy?

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

*****
The John Gabriel "Crazy Quote" of the day:
"Unless I think it's logic, it's not... There are no rules in mathematics... As I have repeatedly stated, if there were to be rules, I'd be making the rules."
-- John Gabriel, sci.math, March 17, 2015

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

I'm on it

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

notice that 21 hundredths is the same
as 7/(33 + 1/3), or
70/333 for shorthand, or if you hate Stevin's formalism
(for no reason that any one can care about

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

I recntly found an alternative from of the trilateral inequality,
using the abs. value and thus not needing the cyclic permutation
on the three edges (or on the six edges
of the tetrahedron, although it is the same inequality

[John Gabriel]

And this is why I have ceased to reply to this vicious troll.

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

hey, 21 per cent is the same as seven thirty-three-and-a-third, or
70/333 for short ... unless you are using a.p's finity-
that-is-the-bound-on-infinity ... also,
what is the sideways 8, as seen to account
for the precession of the equinoxes on agolbe

[John Gabriel]

On Thursday, 2 April 2015 05:48:26 UTC+2, John Gabriel wrote:

Read my new article on How we got numbers at:

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

[Dan Christensen]

On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 1:23:28 AM UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote:

>
> Read my new article on How we got numbers at:
>

Does this version enable you to prove finally prove 2+2=4? Or to do proof by induction?

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

*****
The John Gabriel "Crazy Quote" of the day:

"Unless I think it's logic, it's not... There are no rules in mathematics... As I have repeatedly stated, if there were to be rules, I'd be making the rules."

[John Gabriel]

On Monday, 13 April 2015 07:39:39 UTC+2, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 1:23:28 AM UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote:
>
> >
> > Read my new article on How we got numbers at:
> >
>
> Does this version enable you to prove finally prove 2+2=4? Or to do proof by induction?
>
>
> Dan

Don't feed the troll.

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

don't eat the troll, unless he's not that hungry

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

technically, 0.10000..., just for teh sake of annoyance (or
completeness, but,
this is always the problwn with the Stevin-bashers [that is to say,
they have no other "reaason to bash a 15thcce engineer of hydraulics

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

unless he is a dyke (verb

[John Gabriel]

On Thursday, 2 April 2015 05:48:26 UTC+2, John Gabriel wrote:

There are still those morons who believe that 1 -:- 3 = 1/3. Algebraically, division of 1 by 3 is simply not possible. The obelus operation is a NON-OPERATION. There is no repeated subtraction of any kind. Partitioning a unit into 3 equal parts is only possible geometrically.

[Dan Christensen]

On Monday, April 27, 2015 at 2:06:11 PM UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote:

> There are still those morons who believe that 1 -:- 3 = 1/3. Algebraically, division of 1 by 3 is simply not possible. The obelus operation is a NON-OPERATION. There is no repeated subtraction of any kind. Partitioning a unit into 3 equal parts is only possible geometrically.

Is this "John Gabriel" for real? Can anyone in the real world be so stupid on so many levels? It seems unlikely. I have to wonder if this guy isn't just impersonating the real John Gabriel, whoever he may be, trying to make look like some idiotic psycho.

You be the judge. In this guy's own words here at sci.math:

JG's God Complex:

"I am the Creator of this galaxy."
-- March 19, 2015

"Unless I think it's logic, it's not... There are no rules in mathematics... As I have repeatedly stated, if there were to be rules, I'd be making the rules."

-- March 17, 2015

"Whatever I imagine is real because whatever I imagine is well defined."

-- March 26, 2015


JG's Final Solution:

"Hitler was a genius and a very talented artist... As from a moral point of view, again his actions can't be judged, because his morals are different."
-- March 18, 2015

"I will point out a few facts about Hitler that most of you arrogant idiots didn't know or refused to acknowledge because your Jewish overlords do not allow you...

"Unfortunately, Hitler's henchmen got the wrong Jews...

(Note: When repeatedly asked if they should have gotten Jews like Albert Einstein, JG has refused to comment. You figure it out, folks.)

"It would be a very good idea to round up all the academic idiots, gas them and incinerate the useless lot. Only those that pass John Gabriel's exam should be allowed to live." (Charming fellow.)
-- July 13, 2014


JG's Just Plain Stupid:

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

"By definition, a line is the distance between two points."
-- April 13, 2015


"There is no such thing as a continuous real number line."
-- March 24, 2015


"Indeed, there is no such thing as an instantaneous speed -- certainly not with respect to the calculus." (Note: Instantaneous speed is indicated by the speedometer in a car. Another Jewish conspiracy, JG?)
-- March 17, 2015

[Robin Chapman]

On 27/04/2015 19:25, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Monday, April 27, 2015 at 2:06:11 PM UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote:
>
> JG's God Complex:
>
> "I am the Creator of this galaxy."
> -- March 19, 2015

Did JG ever meet Xenu?

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

he is just a big child, as far as academic chops, goes, although
he is strictly academic, AFAiCT (no proferred result(s

[John Gabriel]

Robin Chapman? Hey moron, I never made such a claim. And if I did, it would have been in jest.

Of course if you believe in what troll DC states, you'll believe in anything.

[John Gabriel]

On Monday, 27 April 2015 20:25:23 UTC+2, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Monday, April 27, 2015 at 2:06:11 PM UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote:
>
> > There are still those morons who believe that 1 -:- 3 = 1/3. Algebraically, division of 1 by 3 is simply not possible. The obelus operation is a NON-OPERATION. There is no repeated subtraction of any kind. Partitioning a unit into 3 equal parts is only possible geometrically.
>
>

> Can anyone in the real world be so stupid on so many levels?

Yes, his name is troll Dan Christensen. You did mean a real world as opposed to the one you live in, yes? Chuckle.

> It seems unlikely. I have to wonder if this guy isn't just impersonating the real John Gabriel, whoever he may be, trying to make look like some idiotic psycho.

I am real but you are a fucking idiot troll. You are psychotic and beyond any help. It's easy to prove and everyone knows it:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.math/0WiooP9pzUA

[John Gabriel]

On Monday, 27 April 2015 20:25:23 UTC+2, Dan Christensen wrote:

> On Monday, April 27, 2015 at 2:06:11 PM UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote:
>
> > There are still those morons who believe that 1 -:- 3 = 1/3. Algebraically, division of 1 by 3 is simply not possible. The obelus operation is a NON-OPERATION. There is no repeated subtraction of any kind. Partitioning a unit into 3 equal parts is only possible geometrically.

One of these incessant morons lives on sci.myth. He is well-known troll DC.

Need proof? Go here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.math/0WiooP9pzUA

[YBM]

Le 28/04/2015 03:02, John Gabriel a écrit :
> I am real

Unfortunately... You are an embarrassment for humanity John.

[John Gabriel]

Oh look, idiot responds again. Yes, I know you want to be on my list, but you need to know some mathematics and I need to know that you know.

So far you have not convinced me you are real. Instead, you have proved what I have suspected all along - you are a crank and a troll.

Don't you realise O stupid that those reading your shit will immediately see you are nothing but a troll? Hint: Try addressing the topic dimwit! You can't, therefore I suggest you shut up or kill yourself. I'd prefer the latter.

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

I was glad to leanr the two words, obelus, and um vinculus

this is the perfect thread, such as it is -a-hem- to give
the f.t.O.arithmetic/algebra, to sort-of one-up Gauss

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

of course, it could still be in one of his norebooks

> the f.t.O.arithmetic/algebra, to sort-of one-up Gauss
>
> > > > There are still those morons who believe that 1 -:- 3 = 1/3.

or, you could just say, one over pi, aye, aye, aye

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

that is to say that
pi divided by one represents teh same proportion
as one divided by pi, and it is just as interesting, but
only really in comparison (hence, the constitutive equation

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

of course, you see that j.g has nothing to either a)
add, or b)
subtract from the matter of proof ... even if
he is the Greatest calculator since slicced whole wheat

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

of course, it's easy to use 3 =: pi,
as per the first-to-be-measured ratio of
diameter to area of spheroidal thing

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

oops, one third, for both the linear (circumferential, and
the nonlinear (areal

[John Gabriel]

On Thursday, 2 April 2015 05:48:26 UTC+2, John Gabriel wrote:
> There is a lot of noise on this forum and it's easy to get a headache because there are several trolls of which DC is the ring leader.
>
> Geometrically, it's possible to partition any line segment into as many equal parts as you need using just a compass and straight edge.
>
> Algebraically, the obelus (the division symbol -:-) does nothing if the first operand is less than the second. To write 1 -:- 3 = 1/3 is misleading because no division is taking place. It has already taken place when we write 1/3. The obelus only works when the first operator is greater than the second.
>
> That is, p -:- d = q remainder r. In actual fact, the obelus is an algorithm that stops when p<d.
>
> What I have been explaining is that it's false to say algebraically that 1 -:- 3 = 1/3 because no division of any kind is taking place. 1/3 (or 1:3) is a the representation of a number which is a measure of the magnitude known as one third.
>
> These things are not difficult to understand if one has not been brainwashed by mainstream academia. :-) The academic bourgeoisie does not want to produce independent thinkers, but robots who accept their WRONG ideas as established fact.
>
> Are you a robot? :-)
>
> Learn more about the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history at: http://thenewcalculus.weebly.com (Also available in German and Chinese with more translations currently in process).
>
> For interesting philosophical discussions and the web's greatest resource on the 0.999... = 1 fallacy, follow me on Space Time and the universe:
>
> http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/math/4507-0-999-equal-one-736.html

Read more here:

How we got numbers:

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

The Arithmetic Mean:

http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/arithmetic-mean-john-gabriel

What is artificial intelligence?

http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-artificial-intelligence-john-gabriel

[Dan Christensen]

**** TROLL ALERT ****

On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 3:46:14 PM UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote:

> Read more here:
>

John Gabriel, in his own words here at sci.math:

JG's God Complex:

"I am the Creator of this galaxy."
-- March 19, 2015

"Unless I think it's logic, it's not... There are no rules in mathematics... As I have repeatedly stated, if there were to be rules, I'd be making the rules."
-- March 17, 2015

"Whatever I imagine is real because whatever I imagine is well defined."
-- March 26, 2015

"I am the last word on everything."
-- May 6, 2015

JG's Final Solution:

"Hitler was a genius and a very talented artist... As from a moral point of view, again his actions can't be judged, because his morals are different."
-- March 18, 2015

"I will point out a few facts about Hitler that most of you arrogant idiots didn't know or refused to acknowledge because your Jewish overlords do not allow you...

"Unfortunately, Hitler's henchmen got the wrong Jews...

(Note: When repeatedly asked if they should have gotten Jews like Albert Einstein, JG has refused to comment. You figure it out, folks.)

"It would be a very good idea to round up all the academic idiots, gas them and incinerate the useless lot. Only those that pass John Gabriel's exam should be allowed to live." (Charming fellow.)
-- July 13, 2014


JG's Just Plain Stupid:

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

"By definition, a line is the distance between two points."
-- April 13, 2015


"There is no such thing as a continuous real number line."
-- March 24, 2015

"Indeed, there is no such thing as an instantaneous speed -- certainly not with respect to the calculus." (Note: Instantaneous speed is indicated by the speedometer in a car. Another Jewish conspiracy, JG?)
-- March 17, 2015

In JG's Wacky New Calculus, he cannot even prove that 2+2 = 4. Do you think he might have anything at all useful to say about mathematics or anything else? I really doubt it.

BTW, it has occurred to me that this JG character may be impersonating the real John Gabriel, whoever he may be, trying to portray him as some psycho-idiot. Who could be this stupid on so many levels in real life?

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

ah, that of whom

> http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-artificial-intelligence-john-gabriel

[John Gabriel]

Jealous academics hate my articles because I openly deride them. They say and do stupid things and then expect you to respect them. My articles give you all the ammunition you need to call out your foolish educators. They have no answers, no retorts. All they can do is libel me. From this you know, that things cannot be right in mainstream academia.

You don't attack someone's character because of what they think about mathematics. But as you can see, on this forum, it's old news.

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

why cannot you simply dyscuss your alleged ideas, or
are you just a ranter like a.p etc. ad vomitorium

[YBM]

You don't "think" John, you are a deluded fool.

There is no mathematics in your paper but idiocies, rants,
misunderstandings of basic stuff.

As a matter of fact, there is no mathematical point to argue with
you (I tried...), because you are ill.

And, John, moreover, you are an ass.

[John Gabriel]

I don't discuss my knowledge with those of inferior intelligence. Especially trolls.

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

you don't notice any *mathematica, iff
it plonks you in cyberdroll

[Gary Ho]

John Gabriel於 2015年4月2日星期四 UTC+8上午11時48分26秒寫道：

> There is a lot of noise on this forum and it's easy to get a headache because there are several trolls of which DC is the ring leader.
>
> Geometrically, it's possible to partition any line segment into as many equal parts as you need using just a compass and straight edge.
>

> Algebraically, the obelus (the division symbol -:-) does nothing if the first operand is less than the second. To write 1 -:- 3 = 1/3 is misleading because no division is taking place. It has already taken place when we write 1/3. The obelus only works when the first operator is greater than the second.

>
> That is, p -:- d = q remainder r. In actual fact, the obelus is an algorithm that stops when p<d.
>
> What I have been explaining is that it's false to say algebraically that 1 -:- 3 = 1/3 because no division of any kind is taking place. 1/3 (or 1:3) is a the representation of a number which is a measure of the magnitude known as one third.
>
> These things are not difficult to understand if one has not been brainwashed by mainstream academia. :-) The academic bourgeoisie does not want to produce independent thinkers, but robots who accept their WRONG ideas as established fact.
>
> Are you a robot? :-)
>
> Learn more about the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history at: http://thenewcalculus.weebly.com (Also available in German and Chinese with more translations currently in process).
>
> For interesting philosophical discussions and the web's greatest resource on the 0.999... = 1 fallacy, follow me on Space Time and the universe:
>
> http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/math/4507-0-999-equal-one-736.html

Once upon a time, the Earth is flat and the sun is orbiting around the Earth (I guess... yours still does). You missed the point that Mathematics definitions can change over time. Of course, you always can restrict "yours division sign" to be one of its remotely abundant form, so you can claim everyone else is wrong in your world. So?

Popular definitions took their form for some good reasons, in most cases, because they better describe what they suppose to describe + facilitate more efficient communications. Concerning yours isolated re-retro fashion Mathematics definitions, I suggest you... let history be history.

[Dan Christensen]

You give JG too much credit. He is a stupid and malicious troll who hates mathematics and seeks to confuse and mislead beginners. He has over-reached himself here -- even a ten-year-old can see here that he is an idiot, but JG doesn't care.

Dan

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

*********

The JG Really Stupid Quote of the Day:

“I am the last word on everything.”
-- John Gabriel, May 6, 2015

“Unless I think it's logic, it's not... There are no rules in mathematics... As I have repeatedly stated, if there were to be rules, I'd be making the rules.”

-- John Gabriel, March 17, 2015

[John Gabriel]

On Sunday, 17 May 2015 15:20:20 UTC+2, Gary Ho wrote:
> John Gabriel於 2015年4月2日星期四 UTC+8上午11時48分26秒寫道：
> > There is a lot of noise on this forum and it's easy to get a headache because there are several trolls of which DC is the ring leader.
> >
> > Geometrically, it's possible to partition any line segment into as many equal parts as you need using just a compass and straight edge.
> >
> > Algebraically, the obelus (the division symbol -:-) does nothing if the first operand is less than the second. To write 1 -:- 3 = 1/3 is misleading because no division is taking place. It has already taken place when we write 1/3. The obelus only works when the first operator is greater than the second.
> >
> > That is, p -:- d = q remainder r. In actual fact, the obelus is an algorithm that stops when p<d.
> >
> > What I have been explaining is that it's false to say algebraically that 1 -:- 3 = 1/3 because no division of any kind is taking place. 1/3 (or 1:3) is a the representation of a number which is a measure of the magnitude known as one third.
> >
> > These things are not difficult to understand if one has not been brainwashed by mainstream academia. :-) The academic bourgeoisie does not want to produce independent thinkers, but robots who accept their WRONG ideas as established fact.
> >
> > Are you a robot? :-)
> >
> > Learn more about the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history at: http://thenewcalculus.weebly.com (Also available in German and Chinese with more translations currently in process).
> >
> > For interesting philosophical discussions and the web's greatest resource on the 0.999... = 1 fallacy, follow me on Space Time and the universe:
> >
> > http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/math/4507-0-999-equal-one-736.html
>
> Once upon a time, the Earth is flat and the sun is orbiting around the Earth (I guess... yours still does). You missed the point that Mathematics definitions can change over time.

Sure. They can change for the better or for worse. Unfortunately, the meaning of the obelus has not changed in the last 1000 years. The polymorphic interpretation has increased, but that does not mean anything.

> Of course, you always can restrict "yours division sign" to be one of its remotely abundant form, so you can claim everyone else is wrong in your world. So?

I have no restrictions. I can divide anything into any number of equal parts using geometry. No matter what definitions you have in algebra, it's not possible to divide 1 by 3 in the true meaning of 'division'.

> Popular definitions took their form for some good reasons,

Sorry, no! Definitions that are ill formed are worthless shit.

> in most cases, because they better describe what they suppose to describe + facilitate more efficient communications. Concerning yours isolated re-retro fashion Mathematics definitions, I suggest you... let history be history.

Nothing to do with history, only well-formed concepts.

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

yes, but only with polygona whose #(sides is function
of powers of two times any of each of the Fermat primes,
which is the sole problemma du Fermat, that is unsolved (although
a simper form of the Diophantine problem taht is a.k.a zee last one

[Gary Ho]

> Sorry, no! Definitions that are ill formed are worthless shit.

> Nothing to do with history, only well-formed concepts.

Look son, popular definitions took their form for some good reasons, in most cases, because they better describe what they suppose to describe + facilitate more efficient communications.

While what is better can be debatable upon solely your own point of view, more efficient communications doesn't. When it comes to communications, you have no choice but to follow everyone's understanding.

Hey, how about create a new symbol for division with precisely your definition (Let's call it "Google Group John Gabriel Redfined Division Sign"); and, try your best of promote its usage. You are holy correct and holy good, right? I guess everyone in the world will immediately give up theirs to adopt yours. ^^"

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

also, all of the Fermat (compass contructible polygona,
can be made by folding the paper ... plus,
polygons whose number of sides have factors of the Pierpont primeS

[John Gabriel]

Your suggestions are noted. Nonsense is something I don't subscribe to. It's not just a case of revising a symbol, but revising WRONG understanding and theory. Pay attention sonny!!

[John Gabriel]

On Monday, 18 May 2015 02:50:49 UTC+2, Gary Ho wrote:

Go to my comment on this video and learn some basic arithmetic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiO8iAYC6xI

Once you've done that, then you come back and talk to me, okay?

[Gary Ho]

John Gabriel於 2015年5月18日星期一 UTC+8下午1時30分58秒寫道：

^^", that's the most absurd thing I heard for this week. Anyway, Mr. absurd of the week, I look forward to see you "revise" the world.

[Gary Ho]

Dan Christensen於 2015年5月17日星期日 UTC+8下午10時57分17秒寫道：

Mmm... Dan, you are right, John Gabriel is a kind of losing his mind. Reading his posts is entertaining in some bizarre ways though (... ^^" I must be awfully bored ...). Thanks for reminding me.

[John Gabriel]

What's Gary Ho in Chinese? 傻瓜 ?

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

see, when any sort of technical issue is up for discussion,
he curls-up into fetal ball

[John Gabriel]

Oh please! What a troll. If there is a question that's understandable, I usually answer it. I do not discuss things with those who are inferior to me intellectually. Hint: YOU.

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

I can't really tell, though, how small is the ball,
that he just enfolded into

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

I couldn't open that stuff, from the dumbterminal, but
arithmetic is part of the trivium (as shown by Boole

[John Gabriel]

I am not well liked. It is possible that my comments have been deleted.

All the information can be accessed here because I share my comments on Google:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/100331542132819585743/posts

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

great little problem,
what does 10.01, represent

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

don't use base_ten, or base_e

[John Gabriel]

On Wednesday, 20 May 2015 21:56:15 UTC+2, abu.ku...@gmail.com wrote:
> great little problem,
> what does 10.01, represent

Can you not divide 1 into 100 equal parts? Of course you can. Then each pile would have 10.01.

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

it's just not in base_ten, or base_e or base_factorial

Boole showed that logical syllogisms are binary arithmetic

[John Gabriel]

Has NOTHING to do with bases you dumb Arab!!!!

[John Gabriel]

On Thursday, 2 April 2015 05:48:26 UTC+2, John Gabriel wrote:

> There is a lot of noise on this forum and it's easy to get a headache because there are several trolls of which DC is the ring leader.
>
> Geometrically, it's possible to partition any line segment into as many equal parts as you need using just a compass and straight edge.
>
> Algebraically, the obelus (the division symbol -:-) does nothing if the first operand is less than the second. To write 1 -:- 3 = 1/3 is misleading because no division is taking place. It has already taken place when we write 1/3. The obelus only works when the first operator is greater than the second.
>
> That is, p -:- d = q remainder r. In actual fact, the obelus is an algorithm that stops when p<d.
>
> What I have been explaining is that it's false to say algebraically that 1 -:- 3 = 1/3 because no division of any kind is taking place. 1/3 (or 1:3) is a the representation of a number which is a measure of the magnitude known as one third.
>
> These things are not difficult to understand if one has not been brainwashed by mainstream academia. :-) The academic bourgeoisie does not want to produce independent thinkers, but robots who accept their WRONG ideas as established fact.
>
> Are you a robot? :-)
>
> Learn more about the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history at: http://thenewcalculus.weebly.com (Also available in German and Chinese with more translations currently in process).
>
> For interesting philosophical discussions and the web's greatest resource on the 0.999... = 1 fallacy, follow me on Space Time and the universe:
>
> http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/math/4507-0-999-equal-one-736.html

1/3 is the measured magnitude but 1:3 is the ratio of the magnitudes being compared. Division has already taken place in 1/3. Nothing more to do. It's a number. 1 -:- 3 is an algorithm that does NOTHING in algebra. It has come to mean 1 divided by 3, but it's only possible using geometry.

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

well, that is what Eudoxus was doing,
before Euclid wrote him down (aside from the non-extant works
of Eudoxus

[John Gabriel]

Yawn. If you weren't so ignorant, I may have bothered with a response.