info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Quora is a trash heap and it shows. Alon Amit, PhD in Mathematics - a fucking moron who knows shit about mathematics.
3,196 views
Skip to first unread message
Eram semper recta
Jan 6, 2020, 8:12:33 AM1/6/20
to
The link refers:
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-no-formal-definition-for-a-set-in-math-How-can-we-make-any-statement-about-sets-and-therefore-all-of-math-if-we-don-t-even-know-what-it-is
So the idiot Amit writes:
--In “The Elements”, Euclid defines a point as “that which has no breadth or width”, and a line as “that which lies evenly with itself”.--
In fact, Euclid writes NO such thing! A "point is defined as that which has no part". What Euclid meant is clear from the Platonic philosophy that spawned mathematics: the "point" is merely the concept of place or location. It asks the question "Where?"
Typical misrepresentation and lack of attention to detail by this mainstream moron Amit. In fact Euclid defines both a line and straight line as follows
2. And a line is a length without breadth.
3. And the extremities of a line are points.
4. A straight-line is (any) one which lies evenly with points on itself.
Firstly, Euclid was attempting to write these things down for the first time in human history - he was a pioneer and pioneers don't always do a perfect job, but Euclid was pretty close to perfect! All it takes is a genius like me to understand.
From my revised Elements:
1. A point is the concept of location or place or position. It has no dimension or size or extent.
2. A line is a path between two points whose chief attribute is *length* or *distance*.
3. A straight line is the shortest path between any two points in a plane.
--The very next thing he does is completely ignore those (terrible) definitions, and he never once refers to them for the rest of this monumental book. He never uses them, never mentions them, never says “so AC is a line because it lies evenly with itself”.-- Amit
LIE. What follows is based ENTIRELY on these foundation objects. Geometry is about DISTANCES and their relationships.
. IS NOT a point
___ IS NOT a line
o IS NOT a circle
--Instead, he posits a few axioms that are satisfied by points, lines, circles and the relationships between them (such as incidence), and everything from this point onwards is drawing conclusions from those axioms.-- Amit
FALSE. There are NO axioms or postulates in the Elements. Every one of the 5 requirements are derivable from NOTHING beginning with a point. Every requirement is derived from the Previous requirements. These things were very obvious to the brilliant Ancient Greeks. So obvious that they didn't bother writing down the entire derivation, assuming it was well-known (Greek mathematicians were schooled in Platonic thought!!!) and sufficient only to state the requirements before continuing to discuss the theorems.
How can one even address "he posits a few axioms that are satisfied by points, lines, circles" because it's not even wrong!
The theorems that are stated are made possible by the 5 requirements.
In any case, to cut a long story short, I have revealed these things in my free eBook which shows clearly the derivation of the 5 requirements from NOTHING:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view
Mainstream academics have NEVER understood the basics of the Elements and this is why they NEVER understood NUMBER. Everything Euclid does in Books 1-6 establishes the groundwork for the definition of NUMBER.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-no-formal-definition-for-a-set-in-math-How-can-we-make-any-statement-about-sets-and-therefore-all-of-math-if-we-don-t-even-know-what-it-is
So the idiot Amit writes:
--In “The Elements”, Euclid defines a point as “that which has no breadth or width”, and a line as “that which lies evenly with itself”.--
In fact, Euclid writes NO such thing! A "point is defined as that which has no part". What Euclid meant is clear from the Platonic philosophy that spawned mathematics: the "point" is merely the concept of place or location. It asks the question "Where?"
Typical misrepresentation and lack of attention to detail by this mainstream moron Amit. In fact Euclid defines both a line and straight line as follows
2. And a line is a length without breadth.
3. And the extremities of a line are points.
4. A straight-line is (any) one which lies evenly with points on itself.
Firstly, Euclid was attempting to write these things down for the first time in human history - he was a pioneer and pioneers don't always do a perfect job, but Euclid was pretty close to perfect! All it takes is a genius like me to understand.
From my revised Elements:
1. A point is the concept of location or place or position. It has no dimension or size or extent.
2. A line is a path between two points whose chief attribute is *length* or *distance*.
3. A straight line is the shortest path between any two points in a plane.
--The very next thing he does is completely ignore those (terrible) definitions, and he never once refers to them for the rest of this monumental book. He never uses them, never mentions them, never says “so AC is a line because it lies evenly with itself”.-- Amit
LIE. What follows is based ENTIRELY on these foundation objects. Geometry is about DISTANCES and their relationships.
. IS NOT a point
___ IS NOT a line
o IS NOT a circle
--Instead, he posits a few axioms that are satisfied by points, lines, circles and the relationships between them (such as incidence), and everything from this point onwards is drawing conclusions from those axioms.-- Amit
FALSE. There are NO axioms or postulates in the Elements. Every one of the 5 requirements are derivable from NOTHING beginning with a point. Every requirement is derived from the Previous requirements. These things were very obvious to the brilliant Ancient Greeks. So obvious that they didn't bother writing down the entire derivation, assuming it was well-known (Greek mathematicians were schooled in Platonic thought!!!) and sufficient only to state the requirements before continuing to discuss the theorems.
How can one even address "he posits a few axioms that are satisfied by points, lines, circles" because it's not even wrong!
The theorems that are stated are made possible by the 5 requirements.
In any case, to cut a long story short, I have revealed these things in my free eBook which shows clearly the derivation of the 5 requirements from NOTHING:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view
Mainstream academics have NEVER understood the basics of the Elements and this is why they NEVER understood NUMBER. Everything Euclid does in Books 1-6 establishes the groundwork for the definition of NUMBER.
Eram semper recta
Jan 6, 2020, 8:15:50 AM1/6/20
to
Mostowski Collapse
Jan 6, 2020, 9:40:10 AM1/6/20
to
What is 0.36-0.33 = ? angry bird. Maybe its
easier to first learn these school boy
calculations before trying math.
LMAO!
easier to first learn these school boy
calculations before trying math.
LMAO!
Eram semper recta
Jan 6, 2020, 9:46:20 AM1/6/20
to
On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 8:12:33 AM UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
Dan Christensen
Jan 6, 2020, 10:55:00 AM1/6/20
to
On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 8:12:33 AM UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> The link refers:
>
> https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-no-formal-definition-for-a-set-in-math-How-can-we-make-any-statement-about-sets-and-therefore-all-of-math-if-we-don-t-even-know-what-it-is
>
> So the idiot Amit writes:
>
> --In “The Elements”, Euclid defines a point as “that which has no breadth or width”, and a line as “that which lies evenly with itself”.--
>
>
> https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-no-formal-definition-for-a-set-in-math-How-can-we-make-any-statement-about-sets-and-therefore-all-of-math-if-we-don-t-even-know-what-it-is
>
> So the idiot Amit writes:
>
> --In “The Elements”, Euclid defines a point as “that which has no breadth or width”, and a line as “that which lies evenly with itself”.--
>
He also wrote:
In “The Elements”, Euclid defines a point as “that which has no breadth or width”, and a line as “that which lies evenly with itself”.
In “The Elements”, Euclid defines a point as “that which has no breadth or width”, and a line as “that which lies evenly with itself”.
The very next thing he does is completely ignore those (terrible) definitions, and he never once refers to them for the rest of this monumental book. He never uses them, never mentions them, never says “so AC is a line because it lies evenly with itself”.
Instead, he posits a few axioms that are satisfied by points, lines, circles and the relationships between them (such as incidence), and everything from this point onward is drawing conclusions from those axioms.
This is one of the most brilliant, brilliant moves in the history of human thought.
In the realm of mathematics, an object is what it does (I keep quoting Tim Gowers with this phrase, and I will likely do so many more times). The only thing that matters about points, lines, real numbers, sets, functions, groups and tempered distributions is the properties and features and rules they obey. What they “are” is of no concern.
Not only does it not matter, it gives math immense power when we realize that the same conclusions that hold for our “usual” points and lines hold for anything that satisfies the same axioms, whether or not it looks or smells or quacks like a point or a line....
> In fact, Euclid writes NO such thing! A "point is defined as that which has no part". What Euclid meant is clear from the Platonic philosophy that spawned mathematics: the "point" is merely the concept of place or location. It asks the question "Where?"
>
> Typical misrepresentation and lack of attention to detail by this mainstream moron Amit. In fact Euclid defines both a line and straight line as follows
>
> 2. And a line is a length without breadth.
> 3. And the extremities of a line are points.
> 4. A straight-line is (any) one which lies evenly with points on itself.
>
> Firstly, Euclid was attempting to write these things down for the first time in human history - he was a pioneer and pioneers don't always do a perfect job, but Euclid was pretty close to perfect! All it takes is a genius like me to understand.
>
> From my revised Elements:
So NOT Euclid's original definition. Thought so.
>
> 1. A point is the concept of location or place or position. It has no dimension or size or extent.
> 2. A line is a path between two points whose chief attribute is *length* or *distance*.
> 3. A straight line is the shortest path between any two points in a plane.
>
>
> --The very next thing he does is completely ignore those (terrible) definitions, and he never once refers to them for the rest of this monumental book. He never uses them, never mentions them, never says “so AC is a line because it lies evenly with itself”.-- Amit
>
> LIE. What follows is based ENTIRELY on these foundation objects. Geometry is about DISTANCES and their relationships.
>
> . IS NOT a point
> ___ IS NOT a line
> o IS NOT a circle
>
>
>
> --Instead, he posits a few axioms that are satisfied by points, lines, circles and the relationships between them (such as incidence), and everything from this point onwards is drawing conclusions from those axioms.-- Amit
>
> FALSE. There are NO axioms or postulates in the Elements
It seems you have missed the entire point of Euclid's "Elements," Troll Boy. Maybe it will make more sense when you have completed your high school education.
Even at his advanced age (60+?), John Gabriel is STILL struggling with basic, elementary-school arithmetic. As he has repeatedly posted here:
"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017
“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015
"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
--October 28, 2017
"Zero is not a number."
-- Dec. 2, 2019
"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017
“There is no such thing as an empty set.”
--Oct. 4, 2019
“3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless)
--Oct. 22, 2019
No math genius, our JG!
Interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated December 2019) at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Dan Christensen
Jan 6, 2020, 11:04:24 AM1/6/20
to
On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 8:15:50 AM UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> I am banned from posting on that shit heap Quora
What better recommendation for going over to Quora!
>
> I am banned from posting on that shit heap Quora
> because TRUTH has no place in mainstream mathematics, only the delusions of Georg Cantor and ZFC are permissible.
Dan
Eram semper recta
Jan 6, 2020, 12:52:22 PM1/6/20
to
bassam karzeddin
Jan 6, 2020, 2:17:54 PM1/6/20
to
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-minimum-ethical-guarantees-exist-in-todays-opened-world-among-academic-professional-experts-of-logic-philosophy-pure-physics-and-mathematics-towards-armatures-public-published-discoveries-that-contradict/answer/Bassam-Karzeddin-1
BKK
Me
Jan 6, 2020, 3:46:17 PM1/6/20
to
On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 2:12:33 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:
> "The very next thing he does is completely ignore those (terrible)
> definitions, and he never once refers to them for the rest of this
> monumental book. He never uses them, never mentions them, never says
> “so AC is a [straight] line because it lies evenly with [the points on]
> "The very next thing he does is completely ignore those (terrible)
> definitions, and he never once refers to them for the rest of this
> monumental book. He never uses them, never mentions them, never says
> itself”." (Amit)
>
> LIE.
Nope.
"About the Definitions
The Elements begins with a list of definitions. Some of these indicate little more than certain concepts will be discussed, such as Def.I.1, Def.I.2, and Def.I.5, which introduce the terms point, line, and surface. (Note that for Euclid, the concept of line includes curved lines.) Others are substantial definitions which actually describe new concepts in terms of old ones. For example, Def.I.10 defines a right angle as one of two equal adjacent angles made when one straight line meets another. Other definitions look like they’re substantial, but actually are not. For instance, Def.I.4 says a straight line “is a line which lies evenly with the points on itself.” No where in the Elements is the defining phrase “which lies evenly with the points on itself” applicable. Thus, this definition indicates, at most, that some lines under discussion will be straight lines.
It has been suggested that the definitions were added to the Elements sometime after Euclid wrote them. Another possibility is that they are actually from a different work, perhaps older. In Def.I.22 special kinds of quadrilaterals are defined including square, oblong (a rectangle that are not squares), rhombus (equilateral but not a square), and rhomboid (parallelogram but not a rhombus). Except for squares, these other shapes are not mentioned in the Elements. Euclid does use parallelograms, but they’re not defined in this definition. Also, the exclusive nature of some of these terms—the part that indicates not a square—is contrary to Euclid’s practice of accepting squares and rectangles as kinds of parallelograms."
Source: https://mathcs.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookI/bookI.html#guide
Dan Christensen
Jan 6, 2020, 4:24:10 PM1/6/20
to
On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 2:17:54 PM UTC-5, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 4:12:33 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > The link refers:
> >
> > https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-no-formal-definition-for-a-set-in-math-How-can-we-make-any-statement-about-sets-and-therefore-all-of-math-if-we-don-t-even-know-what-it-is
> >
It's there.
> On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 4:12:33 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > The link refers:
> >
> > https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-no-formal-definition-for-a-set-in-math-How-can-we-make-any-statement-about-sets-and-therefore-all-of-math-if-we-don-t-even-know-what-it-is
> >
Dan
Eram semper recta
Jan 6, 2020, 4:58:50 PM1/6/20
to
On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 3:46:17 PM UTC-5, Me wrote:
> On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 2:12:33 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> > "The very next thing he does is completely ignore those (terrible)
> > definitions, and he never once refers to them for the rest of this
> > monumental book. He never uses them, never mentions them, never says
> > “so AC is a [straight] line because it lies evenly with [the points on]
> > itself”." (Amit)
> >
> > LIE.
>
> Nope.
Yes. Not nope. It is a LIE either through ignorance or dishonesty or both.
> On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 2:12:33 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> > "The very next thing he does is completely ignore those (terrible)
> > definitions, and he never once refers to them for the rest of this
> > monumental book. He never uses them, never mentions them, never says
> > “so AC is a [straight] line because it lies evenly with [the points on]
> > itself”." (Amit)
> >
> > LIE.
>
> Nope.
You don't know shit about Euclid's Elements Franz. You've demonstrated over and over again that you are clueless.
>
> "About the Definitions
>
> The Elements begins with a list of definitions. Some of these indicate little more than certain concepts will be discussed, such as Def.I.1, Def.I.2, and Def.I.5, which introduce the terms point, line, and surface.
Mostowski Collapse
Jan 6, 2020, 5:03:43 PM1/6/20
to
Poor boy, still struggling with 0.333... = 1/3.
LMAO!
LMAO!
Me
Jan 6, 2020, 5:23:06 PM1/6/20
to
On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 10:58:50 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 3:46:17 PM UTC-5, Me wrote:
> > On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 2:12:33 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >
> > > "He [...] never says “so AC is a [straight] line because it lies evenly
> On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 3:46:17 PM UTC-5, Me wrote:
> > On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 2:12:33 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >
> > > with [the points on] itself”." (Amit)
> > >
> > > LIE.
> > >
> > Nope.
> >
> Yes. Not nope.
Nope.
> > >
> > > LIE.
> > >
> > Nope.
> >
> Yes. Not nope.
Hint: "[...] Other definitions look like they’re substantial, but actually are not. For instance, Def.I.4 says a straight line “is a line which lies evenly with the points on itself.” No where in the Elements is the defining phrase “which lies evenly with the points on itself” applicable. Thus, this definition indicates, at most, that some lines under discussion will be straight lines."
Source: https://mathcs.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookI/bookI.html#guide
Eram semper recta
Jan 6, 2020, 5:34:13 PM1/6/20
to
The definition that comes directly before it states:
**And the extremeties of a line are points.**
This is ALL that is needed for the definition of a line.
The next definition attempts to define a STRAIGHT line. That definition is vague:
Εὐθεῖα γραμμή ἐστιν, ἥτις ἐξ ἴσου τοῖς ἐφ᾿ ἑαυτῆς σημείοις κεῖται.
Literally:
Straight line is, "is equal to" these points lying.
That is very difficult to translate from Ancient Greek and no one knows what that actually meant. All the translations are guesswork.
The definition of plane is also difficult to translate because it contains similar language.
However, it's pretty clear as one moves on in the Elements that a straight line is the shortest path between any two points.
None of this matters because I have explained to you how these things are defined properly and the 5 requirements derived systematically from nothing.
You can't use Euclid's short comings as an excuse to rubbish the Elements. He was a pioneer and Ancient Greek is the language he used. Most modern Greeks DO NOT understand Ancient Greek.
Eram semper recta
Jan 6, 2020, 5:39:06 PM1/6/20
to
These are minor problems compared to the issues with set theory and ZFC.
Mostowski Collapse
Jan 6, 2020, 5:58:08 PM1/6/20
to
Well ZFC has certainly less issue than
Gabriel poop polynomials. LMAO!
Gabriel poop polynomials. LMAO!
Mostowski Collapse
Jan 6, 2020, 5:59:52 PM1/6/20
to
Your statement gabriel polynomial < taylor polynomial
was written will taking a dump, right dumbo?
Some people can even not compute a Taylor Approximation:
https://gist.github.com/jburse/18fb0eaf776078f075b8124d72fc8755#gistcomment-3128092
was written will taking a dump, right dumbo?
Some people can even not compute a Taylor Approximation:
https://gist.github.com/jburse/18fb0eaf776078f075b8124d72fc8755#gistcomment-3128092
Me
Jan 6, 2020, 6:21:24 PM1/6/20
to
On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 11:34:13 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:
> You can't use Euclid's short comings as an excuse to rubbish the Elements.
Huh?! No sane person would even think about that.
> You can't use Euclid's short comings as an excuse to rubbish the Elements.
Actually, we can BUILD on his work and try to PERFECT it.
See: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10472-018-9606-x.pdf
"Abstract
We used computer proof-checking methods to verify the correctness of our proofs of the propositions in Euclid Book I. We used axioms as close as possible to those of Euclid, in a language closely related to that used in Tarski’s formal geometry. We used proofs as close as possible to those given by Euclid, but filling Euclid’s gaps and correcting errors. Euclid Book I has 48 propositions; we proved 235 theorems. The extras were partly “Book Zero”, preliminaries of a very fundamental nature, partly propositions that Euclid omitted but were
used implicitly, partly advanced theorems that we found necessary to fill Euclid’s gaps, and partly just variants of Euclid’s propositions. We wrote these proofs in a simple fragment of first-order logic corresponding to Euclid’s logic, debugged them using a custom software tool, and then checked them in the well-known and trusted proof checkers HOL Light and Coq."
Me
Jan 6, 2020, 6:22:27 PM1/6/20
to
On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 11:39:06 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 5:34:13 PM UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> These are minor problems compared to the issues with set theory and ZFC.
Such as?
> On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 5:34:13 PM UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> These are minor problems compared to the issues with set theory and ZFC.
Eram semper recta
Jan 6, 2020, 8:33:43 PM1/6/20
to
On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 6:21:24 PM UTC-5, Me wrote:
> On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 11:34:13 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> > You can't use Euclid's short comings as an excuse to rubbish the Elements.
>
> Huh?! No sane person would even think about that.
>
> Actually, we can BUILD on his work and try to PERFECT it.
Actually, the finishing touches on Euclid are not left up to ignorant idiots like you, but to the master John Gabriel.
> On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 11:34:13 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> > You can't use Euclid's short comings as an excuse to rubbish the Elements.
>
> Huh?! No sane person would even think about that.
>
> Actually, we can BUILD on his work and try to PERFECT it.
<drivel follows>
Eram semper recta
Jan 6, 2020, 8:35:00 PM1/6/20
to
Antonio J. Buckfutter
Jan 6, 2020, 9:04:29 PM1/6/20
to
Give it a rest, you turd-belching butt-muncher.
Princess Consuela Banana-Hammock
Jan 7, 2020, 10:07:32 AM1/7/20
to
Choke on crotch
Sergio
Jan 7, 2020, 11:03:43 AM1/7/20
to
On 1/6/2020 2:46 PM, Me wrote:
> On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 2:12:33 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:
>
>> "The very next thing he does is completely ignore those (terrible)
>> definitions, and he never once refers to them for the rest of this
>> monumental book. He never uses them, never mentions them, never says
>> “so AC is a [straight] line because it lies evenly with [the points on]
>> itself”." (Amit)
>>
>> LIE.
>
JG, (or Mr Chuckle, or Mr Rectum) commenting on Elucid ?
> On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 2:12:33 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:
>
>> "The very next thing he does is completely ignore those (terrible)
>> definitions, and he never once refers to them for the rest of this
>> monumental book. He never uses them, never mentions them, never says
>> “so AC is a [straight] line because it lies evenly with [the points on]
>> itself”." (Amit)
>>
>> LIE.
>
that is like a degenerate monkey gonocytes, commenting on Quantum Computing.
Zelos Malum
Jan 8, 2020, 6:52:59 AM1/8/20
to
Eram semper recta
Jan 8, 2020, 8:05:09 AM1/8/20
to
"Mathematics is not about measure or number" - Zelos Malum
"x=y DOES NOT imply f(x)=f(y)" - Zelos Malum
"If you add one pile of shit to another pile of shit, you still have one pile." - Zelos Malum (master of science dissertation)
Zelos Malum
Jan 9, 2020, 2:06:26 AM1/9/20
to
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/Q3wreZ3SoiQ/49xlcfiVCQAJ
"I like fucking jews in the ass before gassing them" - John Gabriel.
"The greatest person in history was Adolf Hitler, finally getting rid of the jews" - John Gabriel
"My greatest fetish is shitting on another man" - John Gerbil.
"I like it big and hard in my arsehole" - John Gerbil
"Fucking jews in the arse before turning on the gas is the best" - John Gerbil.
I will keep adding as you lie :)
Eram semper recta
Jan 9, 2020, 7:59:00 AM1/9/20
to
Zelos Malum
Jan 10, 2020, 1:38:42 AM1/10/20
to
Eram semper recta
Jan 10, 2020, 7:53:43 AM1/10/20
to
Mostowski Collapse
Jan 10, 2020, 9:53:26 AM1/10/20
to
Poor boy, still struggling with 0.333... = 1/3.
LMAO!
Sergio
Jan 10, 2020, 10:36:28 AM1/10/20
to
where did JG go to grade school ?
Eram semper recta
Jan 10, 2020, 1:37:27 PM1/10/20
to
On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 9:53:26 AM UTC-5, Jan Burse wrote:
> Poor boy, still struggling with 0.333... = 1/3.
Choke on it moron!
> Poor boy, still struggling with 0.333... = 1/3.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel
Mostowski Collapse
Jan 10, 2020, 4:06:56 PM1/10/20
to
The problem with bird brains math, there
is no environment that would automatically
correct his errors.
So Edward L. Thorndike Law of Effects does
not apply. His math doesn't put him into a
cage, where errors wouldn't let him
out. The new calculoose errors get completely
unnoticed in his own brain, and he is not
susceptible what he hears from peers.
Puzzle box (Thorndike)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fanm--WyQJo
If somebody would ask him to make some
calculations for a rocket or whatever, he
would maybe wake up. But new calculoose
was never applied somewhere.
LMAO!
is no environment that would automatically
correct his errors.
So Edward L. Thorndike Law of Effects does
not apply. His math doesn't put him into a
cage, where errors wouldn't let him
out. The new calculoose errors get completely
unnoticed in his own brain, and he is not
susceptible what he hears from peers.
Puzzle box (Thorndike)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fanm--WyQJo
If somebody would ask him to make some
calculations for a rocket or whatever, he
would maybe wake up. But new calculoose
was never applied somewhere.
LMAO!
Eram semper recta
Jan 10, 2020, 5:50:33 PM1/10/20
to
On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 4:06:56 PM UTC-5, Jan Burse aka Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> So Edward L. Thorndike Law of Effects does
> not apply. His math doesn't put him into a
> cage, where errors wouldn't let him
> out.
LMAO. You poor, pitiful, ignorant and uneducated fool. Tsk, tsk. I suppose you haven't heard of the Asch Conformity experiment? It's about weak-minded, insecure people such as you.
> So Edward L. Thorndike Law of Effects does
> not apply. His math doesn't put him into a
> cage, where errors wouldn't let him
> out.
> The new calculoose errors
There are NO errors in the New Calculus. Just because the herd tells you that what they believe is true, does not mean it is so.
You can't asses the validity of new knowledge by comparing it to old flawed knowledge using the ideas in flawed knowledge. It doesn't work this way, for the simple reason that if this were true, it would be impossible to realise new knowledge. But birdbrain that you are, this never crossed your brain, did it?
> get completely
> unnoticed in his own brain, and he is not
> susceptible what he hears from peers.
>
> Puzzle box (Thorndike)
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fanm--WyQJo
>
> If somebody would ask him to make some
> calculations for a rocket or whatever, he
> would maybe wake up.
> But new calculoose was never applied somewhere.
You can't understand the Gabriel Polynomial simply because you are not intellectually up to the task. It's nothing like Euler's crappy Zeta function or his superior blunder S = Lim S.
You're a total failure Jan Burse. Get a job at a cheese factory where you might discover your true potential.
<PLONK>
Michael Moroney
Jan 10, 2020, 6:00:14 PM1/10/20
to
Eram semper recta <thenewc...@gmail.com> writes:
>In order for one to have peers, one must have "equals". I don't have any - so
>nobody would have a clue what I am thinking or even the way that I think.
Oh good, Birdbrain finally figured out that everyone in the whole world is
>In order for one to have peers, one must have "equals". I don't have any - so
>nobody would have a clue what I am thinking or even the way that I think.
superior to him, and that's why he has no peers!
Mostowski Collapse
Jan 10, 2020, 6:04:58 PM1/10/20
to
So we have to wait some 1000 years, until some
aliens land on earth, so that they can explain
us new calculoose? Ha Ha
aliens land on earth, so that they can explain
us new calculoose? Ha Ha
Mostowski Collapse
Jan 10, 2020, 6:32:08 PM1/10/20
to
I dont think every mental spleen qualifies
as a big invention. Already that f(x)=a*x+b
has no derivative is clearly a sign
of some errors. Last but not least, it
sounds rather unreal, than anything real
numbers, if 0.333... =/= 1/3.
LMAO!
as a big invention. Already that f(x)=a*x+b
has no derivative is clearly a sign
of some errors. Last but not least, it
sounds rather unreal, than anything real
numbers, if 0.333... =/= 1/3.
LMAO!
Airhead Simpons Rectum
Jan 10, 2020, 9:30:18 PM1/10/20
to
math...@gmail.com
Jan 10, 2020, 10:47:14 PM1/10/20
to
Get help, you insane kook.
math...@gmail.com
Jan 10, 2020, 10:49:25 PM1/10/20
to
> I am banned from posting on that shit heap Quora because TRUTH has no place in mainstream mathematics, only the delusions of Georg Cantor and ZFC are permissible.
Good. They realised you are better off in a mental institution than spewing trash in their site.
Eram semper recta
Jan 11, 2020, 7:48:27 AM1/11/20
to
But even worse when a PhD (Amit) can't even quote the Elements correctly!
Mostowski Collapse
Jan 11, 2020, 8:11:05 AM1/11/20
to
But it cannot be rigorous if its only based on
intuitive geometric reasoning and not on FOL.
What is wrong with you?
intuitive geometric reasoning and not on FOL.
What is wrong with you?
Wlod AA
Nov 19, 2021, 11:45:08 PM11/19/21
to
On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 8:12:33 AM UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> In fact, Euclid writes [...]
on and on, while, ironically, Euclid-the author of Elements has never existed.
(It's enough to read easily available sources, including en.wikipedia, to see clearly what I just said above -- they don't write this explicitly but it's there).
> In fact, Euclid writes [...]
on and on, while, ironically, Euclid-the author of Elements has never existed.
(It's enough to read easily available sources, including en.wikipedia, to see clearly what I just said above -- they don't write this explicitly but it's there).
Peter Redwood
May 4, 2023, 12:17:05 AM5/4/23
to
Quantum Bubbles
May 7, 2023, 12:53:59 PM5/7/23
to
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 12:48:27 PM UTC, Eram semper recta wrote:
> I have always stated that no one should be granted a math degree without a thorough understanding of the Elements. Given that no educator was able to teach the Elements correctly, it follows that every math diploma is for all intents and purposes, a worthless piece of trash.
Oh JG 115 you say the funniest things. In order to make such a judgement wouldn't you have had to successfully obtain at least an undergraduate degree in mathematics in the first place? Were you ever awarded one by an actual university?
> I have always stated that no one should be granted a math degree without a thorough understanding of the Elements. Given that no educator was able to teach the Elements correctly, it follows that every math diploma is for all intents and purposes, a worthless piece of trash.
David Hilbert understood Euclid's elements very well, and was able to improve upon it in his own work on the foundations of synthetic geometry.
Gauss also understood Euclid's Elements very well, as did Nikolai Lobachevsky. What were their opinions again?
I have a certain fondness for Euclidean geometry, and do find it regrettable that parts of it aren't more widely shown to undergraduates, but at the end of the day life is short and maths is vast, so there is only so much time that universities can spend on elementary maths of that kind of they want to train students to be competent for modern applications of, and research in, mathematics. Partial differential equations, fractal geometry, modern cryptography & coding theory, operations research, non-linear dynamics, relativistic cosmology.... Euclid's elements isn't going to take you very far in those fields.
Modern books aimed at undergraduates, in which elementary Euclidean geometry receives some treatment, include:
- Elementary Geometry, by Roe
- Geometry by its History, by Ostermann & Wanner
- A Readable introduction to Real Mathematics (2nd ed), by Rosenthal, Rosenthal & Rosenthal (not a typo)
Doubtless there are others.
The first is rather quick with the synthetic approach, and for good reason, as the more interesting material on vectors for solid geometry and a primer on differential geometry would take forever to get to, and that would be a bigger shame.
Regards QB 133
Remain Calm and Keep Loving Leonard Euler (160+ ?)
bassam karzeddin
Oct 10, 2023, 8:41:43 AM10/10/23
to
On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 9:17:54 PM UTC+2, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> Let us check if Quora allows this answer to be visible
> https://www.quora.com/Does-the-minimum-ethical-guarantees-exist-in-todays-opened-world-among-academic-professional-experts-of-logic-philosophy-pure-physics-and-mathematics-towards-armatures-public-published-discoveries-that-contradict/answer/Bassam-Karzeddin-1
>
> BKK
> https://www.quora.com/Does-the-minimum-ethical-guarantees-exist-in-todays-opened-world-among-academic-professional-experts-of-logic-philosophy-pure-physics-and-mathematics-towards-armatures-public-published-discoveries-that-contradict/answer/Bassam-Karzeddin-1
>
> BKK
Eram semper recta
Oct 12, 2023, 7:42:15 AM10/12/23
to
bassam karzeddin
Oct 12, 2023, 8:07:53 AM10/12/23
to
BKK
0 new messages