If (+1)*(+1) = (+1), then must (-1)*(-1) = (-1), this is natural symmetry

 Otherwise, consider this Diophantine Eqn. (Fermat's last theorem), Implies that

 (x^n + y^n = z^n), has no integer solution when the Integer (n > 2),

and (xyz =/= 0), where (x, y, z) are non-zero integers

 But the FLT can be rewritten in another equivalent formate once we use negative numbers as this form

 (a^n + b^n + c^n = 0), has no integer solution when the Integer (n > 1), and (abc =/= 0), where (a, b, c) are non-zero integers

 The simple them is that the condition of the exponent integer (n) mustn't change unless we define (-1)*(-1) = (-1) instead of (+1), where then both statements of the same theorem would be valid under the same unique condition

 So, how can you see this from your own point of view (independently) and without repeating what had you been taught in early school days

 Philosophers, logicians, ...etc, are welcomed to participate with their true identities  

 Regards
 Bassam King Karzeddin
 Nov. 21st, 2017

>If (+1)*(+1) = (+1), then must (-1)*(-1) = (-1), this is natural symmetry

No, that is not symmetrical to start with. Secondly, it does not even have to be symmetrical, nothing demands it must be.

Fucking moron.

 Actually, I had requested philosophers and logicians or wise people to participate with true identities, and not so silly kids that would repeat like a parrot whatever had been programmed into their tinny skulls  

 But it seems that you only jump in too many issues that seem so ridiculous to you, but truly I'm afraid you would finally go mad for sure

 So, do not wonder if you see that rarely people dare to get into that foundation issues that most likely above your average understanding

 So, go away and watch it silently to avoid getting harmed moron

 BKK
 

Umm, your the moron, MORON.

>  BKK

ZG

 Note that you couldn't provide any independent thinking OR opinion nor did we ask any fictional character to comment, so do have some little respect at least for your self, wonder!

 BKK
 

>Actually, I had requested philosophers and logicians or wise people to participate with true identities, and not so silly kids that would repeat like a parrot whatever had been programmed into their tinny skulls

You aren't participating with your true identity either so cut it out already.

>But it seems that you only jump in too many issues that seem so ridiculous to you, but truly I'm afraid you would finally go mad for sure

Mad why? You are the one that is absolutely insane.

>So, do not wonder if you see that rarely people dare to get into that foundation issues that most likely above your average understanding

Several of us who knows real mathematics here knows the foundations of mathematics, how things are defined and all.

>Note that you couldn't provide any independent thinking OR opinion nor did we ask any fictional character to comment, so do have some little respect at least for your self, wonder!

You mean unlike you, who cannot provide any thinking at all?

On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 9:54:49 AM UTC+1, bassam king karzeddin wrote:

> If (+1)*(+1) = (+1), then must (-1)*(-1) = (-1), this is natural symmetry

No, this is natural bullshit, idiot.

Especially, since

     -1 * a = -a     (a e IR)

we get

     -1 * -1 = -(-1)

for a = -1.

With -(-1) = 1 we get

     -1 * -1 = 1 .

(-1)*(-1) = -1  is incorrect.

Do you agree that any number has an additive inverse? For example, p and -p are additive inverses, that is, their sum is ZERO.

So first you show that the product of a negative number and a positive number is a negative number:

   m(n-n) = 0
 => mn + (m)(-n) = 0

Given that only the additive inverse of mn can produce 0 when added to mn, it follows that (m)(-n) must be -mn.

The final step is to show that the product of two negative numbers is positive:

  -m(n-n)=0
=> (-m)(n)+ (-m)(-n) = 0
We already know that (-m)(n) = -mn so the additive inverse of -mn is (-m)(-n) which must be mn, because -mn + mn = 0.

On Wednesday, 22 November 2017 05:39:01 UTC-5, Me  wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 9:54:49 AM UTC+1, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
>
> > If (+1)*(+1) = (+1), then must (-1)*(-1) = (-1), this is natural symmetry
>
> No, this is natural bullshit, idiot.
>
> Especially, since
>
>      -1 * a = -a     (a e IR)

That is just an assumption you idiot! You haven't proved it and then you use it in your "proof".

But when have you ever understood proofs .... Chuckle.

>
> we get
>
>      -1 * -1 = -(-1)
>
> for a = -1.
>
> With -(-1) = 1 we get
>
>      -1 * -1 = 1 .

Not at all convincing.

On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 12:00:42 PM UTC+1, John Gabriel wrote:
> On Wednesday, 22 November 2017 05:39:01 UTC-5, Me  wrote:
> >
> > Especially, since
> >
> >      -1 * a = -a     (a e IR)

> > ...
> >
> That is just an assumption [here]. You haven't proved it

Agree.

Same with: -(-1) = 1 .

Proofs are left to the reader as an exercise.

 Yes, but it is not an easy proof, nor any proof for sure

 BKK

It is trivial, I did that in my bachelor thesis.

On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 12:54:49 AM UTC-8, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> If (+1)*(+1) = (+1), then must (-1)*(-1) = (-1), this is natural symmetry

Ah, but that's only half the story.

What, then, is (+1)*(-1) ?

What is (-1)*(+1) ?

Many years ago, somewhere I saw a system developed where the sign of the product was the sign of the first multiplicand. Thus
 (+1)*(-1) = (+1)
 (-1)*(+1) = (-1)

Or perhaps it was the sign of the second multiplicand...

Make it happen. Deal with the consequences.

On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 1:58:07 PM UTC+3, John Gabriel wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 November 2017 03:54:49 UTC-5, bassam king karzeddin  wrote:
> > If (+1)*(+1) = (+1), then must (-1)*(-1) = (-1), this is natural symmetry
> >
> >  Otherwise, consider this Diophantine Eqn. (Fermat's last theorem), Implies that
> >
> >  (x^n + y^n = z^n), has no integer solution when the Integer (n > 2),
> >
> > and (xyz =/= 0), where (x, y, z) are non-zero integers
> >
> >  But the FLT can be rewritten in another equivalent formate once we use negative numbers as this form
> >
> >  (a^n + b^n + c^n = 0), has no integer solution when the Integer (n > 1), and (abc =/= 0), where (a, b, c) are non-zero integers
> >
> >  The simple them is that the condition of the exponent integer (n) mustn't change unless we define (-1)*(-1) = (-1) instead of (+1), where then both statements of the same theorem would be valid under the same unique condition
> >
> >  So, how can you see this from your own point of view (independently) and without repeating what had you been taught in early school days
> >
> >  Philosophers, logicians, ...etc, are welcomed to participate with their true identities  
> >
> >  Regards
> >  Bassam King Karzeddin
> >  Nov. 21st, 2017
>

 JG wrote:

> (-1)*(-1) = -1  is incorrect.
>
> Do you agree that any number has an additive inverse? For example, p and -p are additive inverses, that is, their sum is ZERO.
>
> So first you show that the product of a negative number and a positive number is a negative number:
>
>    m(n-n) = 0
>  => mn + (m)(-n) = 0
>
> Given that only the additive inverse of mn can produce 0 when added to mn, it follows that (m)(-n) must be -mn.
>
> The final step is to show that the product of two negative numbers is positive:
>
>   -m(n-n)=0
> => (-m)(n)+ (-m)(-n) = 0
> We already know that (-m)(n) = -mn so the additive inverse of -mn is (-m)(-n) which must be mn, because -mn + mn = 0.

**************************************************************

 Let us see if you can get it from here since you are independent thinker with true identity name

 Another huge fiction story in mathematics foundations was (the complex numbers) that was fabricated from those non-existing mirror image numbers called the negative numbers  

 Let us go back in time before those illegal types of numbers were fabricated to be well established as absolute existing facts in the Holy Grail science of mathematics

 First, there are two main views about mathematics wither it is been discovered or invented, but I think it is being both of them as it seems to me nowadays, where I think personally that mathematics is merely and rarely pure discoveries that don't depend at all on our (decisions, definitions, ...etc) nor depends on our own existence,

 The real part of it which may be called absolutely true mathematics (mainly about the existing physical universe around us, and in particular the space properties and its three orthogonal dimensionality), where this part may be considered as discovered, which means its absolute facts where its truthiness is independent on wither it comes into our knowledge or not, and the other part may be considered as an invented or fabricated part that may be (true or false), but generally false on the long run

 Then how can we be sure about that part of invented and really false mathematics that may be also helpful to a certain degree, but misleading if we considered it as an absolute facts, especially if we keep building towers of additional knowledge that might collapse completely upon itself and our entire knowledge, since that was based merely on a fiction story that was fabricated by old ancient famous mathematicians in order to solve unnecessarily problems they had invented and was mainly to prove their super talents for others (Human Psychology Problem –HPP)

 So, what is the fiction story here?
It is quite simple as this, the imaginary number unit, which is called (i), where, i = Sqrt(-1), but how?

 Then we have to go back in time and see the real meaning of the (negative concept) which was the (mother without a father) that gave birth to this illegal born (i)
 
 But (i) seem healthy and normal; yes it is also practical in so many cases, it produced the most famous fundamental theorems of algebra how can all those be based on fictions, unfortunately, true and yes they were all based on baseless foundations that were based on wrong juggling and not even good imaginations  

 To understand this mind deception clearly by a layperson, note that math started by counting of physical existing objects around us, so physics must be considered the origin of math, then numbering was essential of comparing existing objects, and all that was abbreviated to a highly advanced tool of comparison, called the (real number line which is the property of one dimension of our existing physical universe), and was the most powerful tool to judge the fake non-existing number from true existing number!

So what is a straight line first which is generally may be considered a number line also, as XYZ axis?

 The early basic definition of a straight line was defined (by Euclide) as being the shortest distance between two distinct locations in space and its extensions in two opposite directions  

 Note that nothing was defined as being negative, but in two opposite directions from a start given visualized distinct location, zero number was not added yet, it was at later stage introduced by the Arabs just to facilitate daily merchants calculation even though it is not an existing number, and later was considered as a real integer despite being nothingness in magnitude and unlike any real positive existing integer!

 At a later stage after fabricating the nothingness zero as an integer, an alleged genius from history suggested to create the negative numbers as being a mirror image of actual existing numbers where he had to rename them as positive real integers, and since zero was given birth as an existing integer as any other integer, so funny!
 Then zero was the main bridge to cross to the other side of the mirror image of integers and call those mirror image integers as being really real the same way positive integers are, wonder!

 And physically speaking, there is not an existing negative object except in the mirror, which is truly unreal.

 So, here was the start of the fiction story in mathematics and unfortunately extended rapidly to physics recently misleading and blinding it completely to produce so many unbelievable more factious and more legendary stories that Hollywood cannot even produce!

 Instead of dividing the real number line to (+, -) as the case of (XYZ-axis), and If they were honest and keen they would simply divide it to two opposite directions as for example (right and left, east and west, north and south, etc), where both in actual positive sense and as it is been indeed physically, but this choice would not make any more business for them, so why to chose this type of real and actual existing coordination? wonder!  

 Despite the usefulness of the negative concept, they insisted to spoil it completely for not more than narrow purposes of pure selfishness, but they gave so many others an endless space to swim in the fake vast imaginations and conclude further so many facts about the universe and universes

 To see the clear cheating in this story, note, only the multiplication operation of negative integers and finally the creation of the illegal complex numbers

 Let (A*B = C), where (A, B, C) are positive integers, so mark them on the positive (X-axis), now observe their image on the negative (X-axis), where (Y-axis) is acting as a mirror for the (X-axis)

 So, the mirror image of A is (-A), and for B is (-B), that you do accept for sure, and for C is (-C), independently
Then you would certainly see in the mirror image as simple as this, (-A)*(-B) = (-C), and not just (C), and of course you will not be able to mark them since they are actually unreal, thus (-1)*(-1) = (-1), and therefore the (Sqrt(-1) = -1), must be,  and not those two legendary invented  fake numbers (+ or – )(i)

 But when it comes to the product C, in the multiplication operation you would deny completely the result just because it was not your choice but was your bad mind programming!

 The confusion comes from making the confusion itself deliberately, by creating an artificial symmetry (which is not natural nor physical) at a location on the real number line and delete one real direction completely and tell you that deleted part is only a mirror image of the right side real direction, and call it opposite not only in magnitude but also in direction, and then define the multiplication operation in a way that was illegal, in order to create a new baby called (the imaginary), and later extend and mix it with the real real and call it complex, then so much fake and unnecessary mythematics  is accumulated and invaded its origin (the physics) and killing it completely by those ill formed concepts

 So, wake up true daughters and sons of the Queen and remove this long-standing shame upon your shoulders forever and immediately.

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 27th, 2017

There has never been any question in my mind that sqrt(-1)  is nonsense.

>
>  Then we have to go back in time and see the real meaning of the (negative concept) which was the (mother without a father) that gave birth to this illegal born (i)
>  
>  But (i) seem healthy and normal; yes it is also practical in so many cases, it produced the most famous fundamental theorems of algebra how can all those be based on fictions, unfortunately, true and yes they were all based on baseless foundations that were based on wrong juggling and not even good imaginations  
>
>  To understand this mind deception clearly by a layperson, note that math started by counting of physical existing objects around us, so physics must be considered the origin of math, then numbering was essential of comparing existing objects, and all that was abbreviated to a highly advanced tool of comparison, called the (real number line which is the property of one dimension of our existing physical universe), and was the most powerful tool to judge the fake non-existing number from true existing number!
>
> So what is a straight line first which is generally may be considered a number line also, as XYZ axis?
>
>  The early basic definition of a straight line was defined (by Euclide) as being the shortest distance between two distinct locations in space and its extensions in two opposite directions  
>
>  Note that nothing was defined as being negative, but in two opposite directions from a start given visualized distinct location, zero number was not added yet, it was at later stage introduced by the Arabs just to facilitate daily merchants calculation even though it is not an existing number, and later was considered as a real integer despite being nothingness in magnitude and unlike any real positive existing integer!
>
>  At a later stage after fabricating the nothingness zero as an integer, an alleged genius from history suggested to create the negative numbers as being a mirror image of actual existing numbers where he had to rename them as positive real integers, and since zero was given birth as an existing integer as any other integer, so funny!
>  Then zero was the main bridge to cross to the other side of the mirror image of integers and call those mirror image integers as being really real the same way positive integers are, wonder!
>
>  And physically speaking, there is not an existing negative object except in the mirror, which is truly unreal.
>
>  So, here was the start of the fiction story in mathematics and unfortunately extended rapidly to physics recently misleading and blinding it completely to produce so many unbelievable more factious and more legendary stories that Hollywood cannot even produce!
>
>  Instead of dividing the real number line to (+, -) as the case of (XYZ-axis), and If they were honest and keen they would simply divide it to two opposite directions as for example (right and left, east and west, north and south, etc), where both in actual positive sense and as it is been indeed physically, but this choice would not make any more business for them, so why to chose this type of real and actual existing coordination? wonder!  
>
>  Despite the usefulness of the negative concept, they insisted to spoil it completely for not more than narrow purposes of pure selfishness, but they gave so many others an endless space to swim in the fake vast imaginations and conclude further so many facts about the universe and universes
>
>  To see the clear cheating in this story, note, only the multiplication operation of negative integers and finally the creation of the illegal complex numbers
>
>  Let (A*B = C), where (A, B, C) are positive integers, so mark them on the positive (X-axis), now observe their image on the negative (X-axis), where (Y-axis) is acting as a mirror for the (X-axis)
>
>  So, the mirror image of A is (-A), and for B is (-B), that you do accept for sure, and for C is (-C), independently
> Then you would certainly see in the mirror image as simple as this, (-A)*(-B) = (-C), and not just (C), and of course you will not be able to mark them since they are actually unreal, thus (-1)*(-1) = (-1),

No. That is not true. Look, there is an arithmetic operation between A and B. So if you apply that arithmetic operation between -A and -B does not mean you will get the same answer.

It is very logical (-ve)*(-ve) = (+ve).

 And the only way to understand this obvious phenomenon without changing the conditions of the exponent is to redfin the multiplication of negative numbers the way I discovered it, otherwise they would be always a mystrey that can't be resolved or understood for sure

  BKK

 JG wrote:

> No. That is not true. Look, there is an arithmetic operation between A and B. So if you apply that arithmetic operation between -A and -B does not mean you will get the same answer.
>
> It is very logical (-ve)*(-ve) = (+ve).

 Then how can we explain logically this arising paradox given in the Question before our eyes (from positive, negative) meaningless extra decisions OR SHORT HUMAN definitions about real numbers, wonder!

 And if we do it the way I suggest, then no paradox arises for sure, but this would immediately invalidate the complex numbers that you see as nonsense numbers also  

 >  Otherwise, consider this Diophantine Eqn. (Fermat's last theorem), Implies that
>
>  (x^n + y^n = z^n), has no integer solution when the Integer (n > 2),
>
> and (xyz =/= 0), where (x, y, z) are non-zero integers
>
>  But the FLT can be rewritten in another equivalent formate once we use negative numbers as this form
>
>  (a^n + b^n + c^n = 0), has no integer solution when the Integer (n > 1), and (abc =/= 0), where (a, b, c) are non-zero integers
>
>  The simple them is that the condition of the exponent integer (n) mustn't change unless we define (-1)*(-1) = (-1) instead of (+1), where then both statements of the same theorem would be valid under the same unique condition
>
>  So, how can you see this from your own point of view (independently) and without repeating what had you been taught in early school days
>
>  Philosophers, logicians, ...etc, are welcomed to participate with their true identities  
>
>  Regards
>  Bassam King Karzeddin
>  Nov. 21st, 2017

 BKK

bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> ... unless we define (-1)*(-1) = (-1) instead of (+1),

Well, and what is (-1)*(1) then? Still -1 ?

No answer Mr Bassam King Karzeddin, cowardice?

So let's try to explain it with words only:

-1 means you have a need for 1. Each time you multiply by -1, you remove the need so you have 1.

Suppose you multiply -2 by -4.

You have a need for 2.
So,
   Remove the need once and you get 2.
So now you have -3 to count:
   Remove the need again and you get 4.
So now you have -2 to count:
   Remove the need again and you get 6.
So now you have -1 to count:
   Remove the last need and you get 8.

Make sense now?

When you are proven to be wrong, the right thing to do is to admit error and move on. It doesn't mean you are stupid, just that you experienced a temporary lapse in logic or that you simply didn't give it enough thought. It can and does happen to the best of us. Sometimes we are not thorough and as we get older, it's easier to make a mistake.

In fact if you persist in the wrong opinion, then you shut off realisation of new knowledge or correct knowledge.  It's okay to be wrong as long as one is wrong less and less.

One of the hallmarks of the BIG STUPID (mainstream academia) cranks is that they refuse to admit error even when proven wrong. So you don't want to be a crank like them!

You moron for fuck sake

(1+(-1))=0
(-1)(1+(-1))=0
(-1)*1+(-1)*(-1)=0
-1+(-1)*(-1)=0
(-1)*(-1)=-1

A simple fucking proof.

 Zeros had finally got it

> (1+(-1))=0
> (-1)(1+(-1))=0
> (-1)*1+(-1)*(-1)=0
> -1+(-1)*(-1)=0
> (-1)*(-1)=-1
>
> A simple fucking proof.

 So, yes (-1)*(-1) = (-1)

 And what would you do next with your rare proof? wonder!

 Congratulations
 BKK

 The true and real coward with bad intention is most probably that one who is too ashamed to use his real identity name and who keeps abusing others so unnecessarily even he stands blindly on the wrong side and exactly as the case with you and many of your alike here, for sure

 Did you ever hear of old Geographical coordinations moron? wonder!

 Was there anything called negative or even sqrt(negative)? wonder!

 But of course, this wouldn't let your grand ancestors morons have their old dirty and so unnecessary business for sure

 And you are so different from those vast majorities who are truly  so very diseased with it for sure  

 So, enjoy it forever since it is perpetual fiction for sure

 BKK

bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 9:52:20 AM UTC+3, Zelos Malum wrote:

...

>> (1+(-1))=0
>> (-1)(1+(-1))=0
>> (-1)*1+(-1)*(-1)=0
>> -1+(-1)*(-1)=0
>> (-1)*(-1)=-1
>>
>> A simple fucking proof.
>
>  So, yes (-1)*(-1) = (-1)
>
>  And what would you do next with your rare proof? wonder!

You didn't spot the typo at the last line unfortunately.

Why didn't you answer to my question, Mr Karzeddin. What
is, according to you, (-1)*(1) ?

Den torsdag 30 november 2017 kl. 09:21:08 UTC+1 skrev bassam king karzeddin:
> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 9:52:20 AM UTC+3, Zelos Malum wrote:
> > Den måndag 27 november 2017 kl. 18:19:43 UTC+1 skrev bassam king karzeddin:
> > > On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 11:54:49 AM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > > > If (+1)*(+1) = (+1), then must (-1)*(-1) = (-1), this is natural symmetry
> > > >
> > > >  Otherwise, consider this Diophantine Eqn. (Fermat's last theorem), Implies that
> > > >
> > > >  (x^n + y^n = z^n), has no integer solution when the Integer (n > 2),
> > > >
> > > > and (xyz =/= 0), where (x, y, z) are non-zero integers
> > > >
> > > >  But the FLT can be rewritten in another equivalent formate once we use negative numbers as this form
> > > >
> > > >  (a^n + b^n + c^n = 0), has no integer solution when the Integer (n > 1), and (abc =/= 0), where (a, b, c) are non-zero integers
> > > >
> > > >  The simple them is that the condition of the exponent integer (n) mustn't change unless we define (-1)*(-1) = (-1) instead of (+1), where then both statements of the same theorem would be valid under the same unique condition
> > > >
> > > >  So, how can you see this from your own point of view (independently) and without repeating what had you been taught in early school days
> > > >
> > > >  Philosophers, logicians, ...etc, are welcomed to participate with their true identities  
> > > >
> > > >  Regards
> > > >  Bassam King Karzeddin
> > > >  Nov. 21st, 2017
> > >
> > >  And the only way to understand this obvious phenomenon without changing the conditions of the exponent is to redfin the multiplication of negative numbers the way I discovered it, otherwise they would be always a mystrey that can't be resolved or understood for sure
> > >
> > >   BKK
> >
> > You moron for fuck sake
> >
>  Zeros had finally got it
> > (1+(-1))=0
> > (-1)(1+(-1))=0
> > (-1)*1+(-1)*(-1)=0
> > -1+(-1)*(-1)=0
> > (-1)*(-1)=-1
> >
> > A simple fucking proof.
>
>  So, yes (-1)*(-1) = (-1)
>
>  And what would you do next with your rare proof? wonder!
>
>  Congratulations
>  BKK

A typo you moron, you cannot even read a god damn proof.

(1+(-1))=0
(-1)(1+(-1))=0
(-1)*1+(-1)*(-1)=0
-1+(-1)*(-1)=0
(-1)*(-1)=1

That is the correct one.

Holy shit you are stupid and you think you can overthrow anything?

Den torsdag 30 november 2017 kl. 09:35:36 UTC+1 skrev Python:

> bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 9:52:20 AM UTC+3, Zelos Malum wrote:

> ...

> >> (1+(-1))=0
> >> (-1)(1+(-1))=0
> >> (-1)*1+(-1)*(-1)=0
> >> -1+(-1)*(-1)=0
> >> (-1)*(-1)=-1
> >>
> >> A simple fucking proof.
> >
> >  So, yes (-1)*(-1) = (-1)
> >
> >  And what would you do next with your rare proof? wonder!
>

> You didn't spot the typo at the last line unfortunately.
>
> Why didn't you answer to my question, Mr Karzeddin. What
> is, according to you, (-1)*(1) ?

Thanks for pointing it out to the idiot that there was a typo.

 Oops, I thought truly you had got it correctly, but I almost forgot that you are a constantly hidden moron who refuses any fact, for sure

 BKK

bassam king karzeddin wrote:
>   Oops, I thought truly you had got it correctly, but I
> almost forgot that you are a constantly hidden moron who
> refuses any fact, for sure

I for sure wonder what is, according to you, the result of (-1)*(1) ?

You are the one that refuse to accept fact you moron.

I made a mistake and I acknowledge it, but you can see the lines in the corrected version, there is no way in hell that (-1)(-1)=-1, it simply isn't possible and maintain normal arithmetic.

We get thats not argument only in school that say

 It is good sign that you started confessing your mistakes openly, but by confessing so you are again making a mistake, and it is well-understood that one who makes mistakes would keep always making mistakes where he would never  understand, for sure  

 BKK

bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> ... it is well-understood that one who makes mistakes would keep

> always making mistakes where he would never  understand, for sure

Very accurate description of your own personal case, for sure.

For sure, I wonder why Mr Bassam Karzeddin cannot answer a simple
question as "What is the value of (-1)*1" ?

On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 3:54:49 AM UTC-5, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> If (+1)*(+1) = (+1), then must (-1)*(-1) = (-1), this is natural symmetry
>

You really are trying confuse and mislead students! Shame on you, BKK!

Here is my informal justification of positive x negative = negative:

Just follow the pattern:

2 x 3 = 6
2 x 2 = 4
2 x 1 = 2
2 x 0 = 0
2 x -1 = ?  (Answer = -2)
2 x -2 = ?  (Answer = -4)
2 x -3 = ?  (Answer = -6)

The number on the right-hand side keeps decreasing by 2.

Here is my informal justification of negative x negative = positive:

Again, just follow the pattern:

2 x -3 = -6  (Since positive x negative = negative from previous example)
1 x -3 = -3
0 x -3 = 0
-1 x -3 = ?  (Answer = 3)
-2 x -3 = ?  (Answer = 6)
-3 x -3 = ?  (Answer = 9)

The number on the right-hand side keeps increasing by 3.


Dan

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

 Almost everyone had already learned all those simple things in early schools, where this doesn't resolve the standing paradox before your eyes that was given in the first post and you avoided it deliberately

 So why does the condition of the exponent (n) must change drastically? wonder!

 So, unless we define it the way I do suggest where no paradox remains obvious, however, I will explain (-1)*(1) or (1)(-1) soon, it is even easier for sure

 BKK

There is no "paradox" here. There is no contradiction. You simply don't understand basic arithmetic.

 
>  So why does the condition of the exponent (n) must change drastically? wonder!
>

[snip]

What exponent??? The topic is multiplication. -1 x -1 = 1. Deal with it.

 Which implies that you are upsent minded for sure

 BKK

>  Which implies that you are upsent minded for sure
>

OK, genius, please demonstrate a contradiction in the rules of integer arithmetic, i.e. using the well known rules of integer arithmetic prove something is true, then prove it is false using the same rules. No division by 0 or "infinite numbers" or other such bullshit.

 I really did, but most likely you didn't notice or more precisely didn't like to notice, (almost like anyone)

 Did you ever hear about old Geographical coordination? wonder!

 But that true realistic coordination wouldn't make it possible to create so much unnecessary business mathematics for the mathematickers, so they had to abandon it completely for the sake of showing many unnecessary talents and more unnecessary business mythematics.

 So, considering an (X-Y) PLAN in two dimensions, It is simply dividends that plan in terms of adopted directions only but all in actual positive sense as it is the physical reality of space you are within  

 So, substitute E: for (East direction for positive x-axis), W: for (West direction for negative x-axis), N: for (North direction of positive y-axis), and S: for (South direction of negative y-axis,
 where: (E^2 = W^2 = N^2 = S^2 = 1) AS a length, and (EW = EN = ES = WE = WS = WN = SE = SW = SN = NE = NW = NS = 1) as an erea

 And it is true in reality that there is (say) one sheep but not at all a negative one sheep since the later is only a mirror image which isn't at all realistic, otherwise people would never go hungry, same applies to say two apples that do exist in physical reality, but two negative apples are their mirror image which is not at all realistic

 In short, negative integers aren't at all real, but mirror image that had been adopted only in mathematics as being real integers, and the poor physics had blindly adopted this mathematical brain fart and started swimming endlessly into too many unbelievable fictions that are too difficult even to Hollywood film producers    

 Don't forget the fictional integer zero (which implies nothingness), that had been used later for this deliberate dirty purpose.

Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 30th, 2017

What nonsense! Forget your goofy analogies, Crank Boy. It seems you cannot demonstrate any kind of contradiction arising from the rules of integer arithmetic. I think we can safely assume that you are incapable of doing so.

>  And it is true in reality that there is (say) one sheep but not at all a negative one sheep since the later is only a mirror image which isn't at all realistic, otherwise people would never go hungry, same applies to say two apples that do exist in physical reality, but two negative apples are their mirror image which is not at all realistic
>
>  In short, negative integers aren't at all real

Spoken like a true crank. You can't prove FLT in your goofy system of compasses and rulers, so you think something must be wrong with integer arithmetic. What an idiot!

 And all the crap you did write wouldn't resolve the standing paradox before your eyes

 But truly, the hiding stubborn cranks under fictional masks feel so free to pronounce any meaningless words as yours and for sure

 BKK

bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 2:16:27 PM UTC+3, Python wrote:

>> Pytho wrote:
>>> bassam king karzeddin wrote:

>>>> ... unless we define (-1)*(-1) = (-1) instead of (+1),
>>>
>>> Well, and what is (-1)*(1) then? Still -1 ?
>>
>> No answer Mr Bassam King Karzeddin, cowardice?
>
> [rant, no answer]

How weird, Mr Bassam Karzeddin. You can give a value do (-1)*(-1) but
you cannot to (-1)*(1).

Not a paradox. Merely gibberish. Some bizarre analogy that has nothing to do with reality.

>  But truly, the hiding stubborn cranks under fictional masks feel so free to pronounce any meaningless words as yours and for sure
>

I know a proof of a contradiction when I see one. See for example Russell's proof of a contradiction in Frege's axiomatization of set theory (Russell's Paradox). Your bizarre analogy was not such a proof.

Hint: A paradox is NOT just something that BKK cannot understand.

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 10:20:56 PM UTC+3, Python wrote:
> bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 2:16:27 PM UTC+3, Python wrote:
> >> Pytho wrote:
> >>> bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> >>>> ... unless we define (-1)*(-1) = (-1) instead of (+1),
> >>>
> >>> Well, and what is (-1)*(1) then? Still -1 ?
> >>
> >> No answer Mr Bassam King Karzeddin, cowardice?
> >
> > [rant, no answer]
>
> How weird, Mr Bassam Karzeddin. You can give a value do (-1)*(-1) but
> you cannot to (-1)*(1).

 We have originated everything as it must be in terms of direction and opposite directions, didn't you read my today answers? wonder!

 BKK

bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 10:20:56 PM UTC+3, Python wrote:
>> bassam king karzeddin wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 2:16:27 PM UTC+3, Python wrote:
>>>> Pytho wrote:
>>>>> bassam king karzeddin wrote:
>>>>>> ... unless we define (-1)*(-1) = (-1) instead of (+1),
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, and what is (-1)*(1) then? Still -1 ?
>>>>
>>>> No answer Mr Bassam King Karzeddin, cowardice?
>>>
>>> [rant, no answer]
>>
>> How weird, Mr Bassam Karzeddin. You can give a value do (-1)*(-1) but
>> you cannot to (-1)*(1).
>
>  We have originated everything as it must be in terms of direction and
> opposite directions, didn't you read my today answers? wonder!

Your "answers", mainly answers to yourself, are irrelevant (and most of
what you've posted does not even parse in English by the way). You were
evading my question.

If you pretend to give a value to (-1)*(-1) Mr Bassam Karzeddin, how
come you cannot give one to (-1)*(1) ?

I think your idea of changing direction is good!
Let's see:
+ * + points in the positive direction
+ * - (or - * +) shift to negative of the positive (turning 180 degrees around)
- * - shift to negative of the negative (turning 180 degrees around)
Which direction does - * - now point?
KON

In case BKK missed it: If we had -1 x -1  = -1 x 1, then cancelling a factor of -1, we obtain -1 = 1.

Is that your new axiom, BKK? Or can we now not cancel negative factors because, ummm... negative numbers don't really exist??? Why the hesitation?

Before this goes on for much longer, it might be a good idea to simply admit you were wrong, BKK. Or you were just testing us -- something like that. Otherwise, with this bunch, you will be forced to pile one idiocy upon another in an ultimately futile attempt to salvage your goofy theory.

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 2:55:22 PM UTC-8, Dan Christensen wrote:

> In case BKK missed it: If we had -1 x -1  = -1 x 1, then cancelling a factor of -1, we obtain -1 = 1.

So what? There are LOTS of places where cancelling doesn't work. The easiest example is 1 x 0 = 2 x 0 so 1 = 2

Or multiplication of matrices

Or the integers mod 6: 3 x 2 = 3 x 4 so 2 = 4

Or ...

*
Cancelling is good.

64 / 16 = 4 (cancel the 6s.)

95 / 19 = 5 (cancel the 9s.)

sin(x) / n = six. (cancel the 'n's.)

Any questions?

earle
*

Or we don't even need any sort of "useful" example.
We're defining an operation, we can define it however
we choose to.

However, if what we're doing is characterizing
"the multiplication operation of the negative numbers",
then we might reasonably ask what (if anything) it is about
our not-yet-formalized notions of multiplication and negative
numbers that make (-1)*(-1) = 1 inevitable.

   (This is my reading of the subject line: as a request
    for clarification instead of a "discovery" of some kind
    of error. I had to lean against the subject line kind
    of hard to make it read that way, but if I don't do
    that, I find that I have no interest in responding.)

"The numbers", as in the natural numbers, have a zero 0 and
a successor operator S. If we are extending the numbers to
negatives, a reasonable way to do this is to also have a
predecessor operation P which is the inverse S.
1)   Sx = y  <->  x = Py

This shows up in our description of addition as
2)   x + 0  =  x
3)   x + Sy  =  S(x + y)
4)   x + Py  =  P(x + y)

We can extend this to a subtraction operation
5)   x - 0  =  x
6)   x - Sy  =  P(x - y)
7)   x - Py  =  S(x - y)

This gives us a definition of the successor and
predecessor operations in terms of addition.
8)   x + S0  =  S(x + 0)  =  Sx
9)   x - S0  =  P(x - 0)  =  Px
which leads to definitions
10)    1  :=  S0
11)   -1  :=  P0

If we extend multiplication the same way, incorporating
the us of P as well as S, we get
12)   x*0  =  0
13)   x*Sy  =  (x*y) + x
14)   x*Py  =  (x*y) - x

If these definitions seem acceptable, then we can
just evaluate
    (-1)*(-1)
    =  P0*P0            by 11
    =  (P0*0) - P0      by 14
    =  0 - P0           by 12
    =  S(0 - 0)         by 7
    =  S0               by 5
    =  1                by 10
Thus
    (-1)*(-1)  =  1
because that's what we mean by the multiplication
of negative numbers.

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 6:27:20 PM UTC-5, FredJeffries wrote:
> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 2:55:22 PM UTC-8, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> > In case BKK missed it: If we had -1 x -1  = -1 x 1, then cancelling a factor of -1, we obtain -1 = 1.
>
> So what? There are LOTS of places where cancelling doesn't work.

You can cancel any non-zero factors in integer arithmetic, including factors of -1 as in my example. But you already know this, don't you?

>it is well-understood that one who makes mistakes would keep always making mistakes where he would never  understand, for sure  

You mean like you, whom makes nothing but errors in mathematics?

>Almost everyone had already learned all those simple things in early schools, where this doesn't resolve the standing paradox before your eyes that was given in the first post and you avoided it deliberately

There is no contradiction there you fucking moron.

>In short, negative integers aren't at all real, but mirror image

No you moron, Negative integers are as real as positive integers, they are equally abstract.

That is only true for zero divisors, but integers are an integral domain so it has no zero divisors.

Mathematics does not deal with "direction", it makes no sense to consider it.

We have the construction of integers with additive inverses to every element and in order to order it (and thereby giving a meaning to the wrod "negative" as in being less than 0) we need to find a set of Z, which we denote P, which is closed under addition and multiplication, does not contain 0 and that have its additive inverses, along with zero and itself being all of Z, for that we get the non-zero natural numbers being the only possible choice. We then declare that the additive inverses of P as being the negatives and from these we get that they are less than 0 and more importantly, NOT BEING CLOSED UNDER MULTIPLICATION!

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 7:47:49 PM UTC-8, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 6:27:20 PM UTC-5, FredJeffries wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 2:55:22 PM UTC-8, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >
> > > In case BKK missed it: If we had -1 x -1  = -1 x 1, then cancelling a factor of -1, we obtain -1 = 1.
> >
> > So what? There are LOTS of places where cancelling doesn't work.
>
> You can cancel any non-zero factors in integer arithmetic, including factors of -1 as in my example. But you already know this, don't you?

So what? The problem is not about YOUR precious integers. The problem is about ways to extend the natural numbers. Your integers is only one possible solution.

Once again you are begging the question.

I'm fairy certain that BKK was talking about multiplying the usual integers +1 and -1. His position seems quite hopeless at the moment, so I'm sure he would appreciate your help concocting some alternative formulation. We could all use a good laugh.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com

That is an excellent post and I heartily endorse it.

But, I notice frequent uses of the words "if", "could", and "can" in addition (pun intended) to your opening "We're defining an operation, we can define it however we choose to."

Let's use our imagination and see what happens if we choose differently (Make it happen. Deal with the consequences.)

For instance, starting with the natural numbers, N (in which I am here including zero, but we could choose not to), let's do a mirror image. So consider the set N x {+, -}, i.e. one copy of N caries a "+" sign and the other a "-".

Now usually when defining the integers in this manner we identify the two zeroes (0, +) and (0, -), ending up with a unique zero. But it is possible to choose to not do this identification and have a system with a positive zero and a negative zero. Nonsense? Well, not if you're using a digital computer to scoff at this:

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

When it comes to addition, we usually use the inherited operation inside each component. When it comes to crossover, we choose to say that
(a, +) + (b, -) = (a-b, +) if a >= b otherwise (b-a, -)

Exercise: What happens here if we have the two zeroes?

For multiplication we have lots of choices. For instance

(a, +)*(b, -) could be (a*b, -) or (a*b, +) or something else
(a, -)*(b, -) could be (a*b, -) or (a*b, +) or something else

Multiplication need not be commutative so we could have the sign of the product is the sign of the first multiplicand:

(a, +)*(b, -) = (a*b, +) but (a, +)*(b, -) = (a*b, -)

Or perhaps it's the sign of the greater:
(a, +)*(b, -) = (a*b, +) if a >= b but (a*b, -) otherwise.

Or something else.

Further reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercomplex_number
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-complex_number
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_number

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 9:09:56 AM UTC-8, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 11:50:38 AM UTC-5, FredJeffries wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 7:47:49 PM UTC-8, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 6:27:20 PM UTC-5, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 2:55:22 PM UTC-8, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In case BKK missed it: If we had -1 x -1  = -1 x 1, then cancelling a factor of -1, we obtain -1 = 1.
> > > >
> > > > So what? There are LOTS of places where cancelling doesn't work.
> > >
> > > You can cancel any non-zero factors in integer arithmetic, including factors of -1 as in my example. But you already know this, don't you?
> >
> > So what? The problem is not about YOUR precious integers. The problem is about ways to extend the natural numbers. Your integers is only one possible solution.
>
> I'm fairy certain that BKK was talking about multiplying the usual integers +1 and -1.

Since he maintained that (-1)*(-1) = -1, he was obviously NOT talking about your usual integers.

> His position seems quite hopeless at the moment, so I'm sure he would appreciate your help concocting some alternative formulation. We could all use a good laugh.

Yes, it's easier to laugh and bully than to do math.

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 12:30:39 PM UTC-5, FredJeffries wrote:
> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 9:09:56 AM UTC-8, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 11:50:38 AM UTC-5, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 7:47:49 PM UTC-8, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 6:27:20 PM UTC-5, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 2:55:22 PM UTC-8, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In case BKK missed it: If we had -1 x -1  = -1 x 1, then cancelling a factor of -1, we obtain -1 = 1.
> > > > >
> > > > > So what? There are LOTS of places where cancelling doesn't work.
> > > >
> > > > You can cancel any non-zero factors in integer arithmetic, including factors of -1 as in my example. But you already know this, don't you?
> > >
> > > So what? The problem is not about YOUR precious integers. The problem is about ways to extend the natural numbers. Your integers is only one possible solution.
> >
> > I'm fairy certain that BKK was talking about multiplying the usual integers +1 and -1.
>
> Since he maintained that (-1)*(-1) = -1, he was obviously NOT talking about your usual integers.
>

Oh, really? Maybe he wasn't talking about the usual addition or multiplication.

Most likely his "proof" of FLT depends on (-1)*(-1) = -1. And he thinks, well maybe....

Remember, this is someone who thinks 40 degree angles don't exist and he is skeptical of negative numbers. So assuming 1 = -1 may well seem quite reasonable to him.

He did say he was working on an answer for 1 x -1. We will have to wait and see. (Hee, hee!)

You are correct.
But learning younger pupils about the negative times a negative it is effective using the number line. We play mathematics, and they understand it.
Since BKK first used directions, I thought I would show him to do it correct.
KON

Zelos Malum was thinking very hard :

> Den torsdag 30 november 2017 kl. 20:32:09 UTC+1 skrev bassam king karzeddin:
>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 10:20:56 PM UTC+3, Python wrote:
>>> bassam king karzeddin wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 2:16:27 PM UTC+3, Python wrote:
>>>>> Pytho wrote:
>>>>>> bassam king karzeddin wrote:
>>>>>>> ... unless we define (-1)*(-1) = (-1) instead of (+1),
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, and what is (-1)*(1) then? Still -1 ?
>>>>>
>>>>> No answer Mr Bassam King Karzeddin, cowardice?
>>>>
>>>> [rant, no answer]
>>>
>>> How weird, Mr Bassam Karzeddin. You can give a value do (-1)*(-1) but
>>> you cannot to (-1)*(1).
>>
>>  We have originated everything as it must be in terms of direction and
>> opposite directions, didn't you read my today answers? wonder!
>>
>>  BKK
>
> Mathematics does not deal with "direction", it makes no sense to consider it.

What's the difference between a scalar quantity and a vector quantity?

[...]

direction
KON

fredag 1. desember 2017 12.12.19 UTC+1 skrev Zelos Malum følgende:

Here I have to correct you. Sorry about that.
"Mathematics does not deal with directions."
It does. There are in the reals two directions + and - (number line). This is clearly when we will find the derivative of a function. We have to inspect it from the negative side, and then positive side. If these are the same OK.

And vectors are also mathematical objects.

My point with BKK and - * - is that using the number line, opposed a 10 year old , he would understand. BKK does not has a clue.
KON

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 1:55:22 AM UTC+3, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 9:07:46 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> > bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > > ... it is well-understood that one who makes mistakes would keep
> > > always making mistakes where he would never  understand, for sure
> >
> > Very accurate description of your own personal case, for sure.
> >
> > For sure, I wonder why Mr Bassam Karzeddin cannot answer a simple
> > question as "What is the value of (-1)*1" ?
>
> In case BKK missed it: If we had -1 x -1  = -1 x 1, then cancelling a factor of -1, we obtain -1 = 1.
>

 Dan wrote:

> Is that your new axiom, BKK? Or can we now not cancel negative factors bis the ecause, ummm... negative numbers don't really exist??? Why the hesitation?

>
> Before this goes on for much longer, it might be a good idea to simply admit you were wrong, BKK. Or you were just testing us -- something like that. Otherwise, with this bunch, you will be forced to pile one idiocy upon another in an ultimately futile attempt to salvage your goofy theory.
>
>
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

 I really try always to look at the mere facts as they are indeed in our physical reality, and without trying to philosophize so much and so unnecessary, to explain it in simple words, the Paradox of unreality of negative concept and consequently, the positive concept that is both concepts seems useless (at least for me), for me existing and constructibility concepts are the main key issue to understand correctly anything that confines well with our existing physical reality that is the origin of every sensible concept,

 Consider for example this absolute true statement against a contrary statement in our existing physical reality:

 (Four apples) do exist vs (negative four apples don't exist)

 Now, divide both statements by the object word (apple), hence you get this:

 (Four) do exist vs (negative four don't exist)

 Therefore, negative integers aren't absolutely real integers,(but only a mirror image of existing integers), which is unreal integers, hence an obvious contradiction to the common old beliefe in our modern mathematics, however more to those many simple mere facts can be also added

 Regards
 Bassam King Karzeddin
 Dec. 2ed, 2017  

       

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 12:12:19 PM UTC+1, Zelos Malum wrote:

> Mathematics does not deal with "direction", it makes no sense to consider it.

I'd like to disagree. After all vectors in IR^3 have a "direction", no?

"In mathematics, physics, and engineering, a Euclidean vector (sometimes called a geometric or spatial vector, or —as here— simply a vector) is a geometric object that has magnitude (or length) and direction." (Wikipedia)

Actually, there's even the notion of a "direction vector":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direction_vector
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DirectionVector.html

You clearly do not know what begging the question is.

>Since he maintained that (-1)*(-1) = -1, he was obviously NOT talking about your usual integers.

Or a much more likely scenario is that he tries to talk about them but is too stupid to realise what he says is invalid as he doesn't know any mathematics.

If he had started with asying "Lets make a structure such that yada yada" it'd been the case he was trying to make one where it isn't the case and it'd be a fun discussion. But he never did, he never COULD do it because he is far too ignorant.

A vector space is a module X over a field F, scalar are elements in F, vectors are in X

Easy now isn't it? Nothing about "direction".

Here is a vector space for you, All continuous functions. Try to think of "direction" there, you cannot because it is non-sense. Direction only occures when we try to APPLY mathematics but not IN mathematics and we may use the TERMS of direction as a means of communication but there is no "direction" in it.

How about you try to look at the mathematics and not fucking application OF it?

On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 11:00:04 PM UTC-8, Zelos Malum wrote:
 
> A vector space is a module X over a field F, scalar are elements in F, vectors are in X
>
> Easy now isn't it? Nothing about "direction".
>
> Here is a vector space for you, All continuous functions. Try to think of "direction" there, you cannot because it is non-sense. Direction only occures when we try to APPLY mathematics but not IN mathematics and we may use the TERMS of direction as a means of communication but there is no "direction" in it.

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/direction+of+a+vector#unoriented_direction

<quote>
the unoriented direction of a non-zero vector in any vector space is its equivalence class under multiplication by non-zero elements of the ground field,... this makes sense over an arbitrary field.
</quote>

 All the correct application are simply those which scientists and engineers simply master from basic correct mathematics that is so common to all, sure

 BKK

On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 11:54:49 AM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> If (+1)*(+1) = (+1), then must (-1)*(-1) = (-1), this is natural symmetry
>
>  Otherwise, consider this Diophantine Eqn. (Fermat's last theorem), Implies that
>
>  (x^n + y^n = z^n), has no integer solution when the Integer (n > 2),
>
> and (xyz =/= 0), where (x, y, z) are non-zero integers
>
>  But the FLT can be rewritten in another equivalent formate once we use negative numbers as this form
>
>  (a^n + b^n + c^n = 0), has no integer solution when the Integer (n > 1), and (abc =/= 0), where (a, b, c) are non-zero integers
>
>  The simple them is that the condition of the exponent integer (n) mustn't change unless we define (-1)*(-1) = (-1) instead of (+1), where then both statements of the same theorem would be valid under the same unique condition
>
>  So, how can you see this from your own point of view (independently) and without repeating what had you been taught in early school days
>
>  Philosophers, logicians, ...etc, are welcomed to participate with their true identities  
>
>  Regards
>  Bassam King Karzeddin
>  Nov. 21st, 2017

 So, did anyone had figured out yet why the mathematical valid operation generally fails with those UNREAL and fabricated or invented numbers (but were never any meaningful discovery) as these alleged numbers (Zero, the negative, the imaginary numbers, and any alleged number with endless terms or digits)? wonder!

 BKK

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 11:55:22 PM UTC+1, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 9:07:46 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> > bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > > ... it is well-understood that one who makes mistakes would keep
> > > always making mistakes where he would never  understand, for sure
> >
> > Very accurate description of your own personal case, for sure.
> >
> > For sure, I wonder why Mr Bassam Karzeddin cannot answer a simple
> > question as "What is the value of (-1)*1" ?
>
> In case BKK missed it: If we had -1 x -1  = -1 x 1, then cancelling a factor of -1, we obtain -1 = 1.
>

> Is that your new axiom, BKK? Or can we now not cancel negative factors because, ummm... negative numbers don't really exist??? Why the hesitation?

>
> Before this goes on for much longer, it might be a good idea to simply admit you were wrong, BKK. Or you were just testing us -- something like that. Otherwise, with this bunch, you will be forced to pile one idiocy upon another in an ultimately futile attempt to salvage your goofy theory.
>
>
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

The fact is, you can cancel out if the element is invertible. And how to know that -1 is invertible, if we can't point out the multiplicative inverse?          bassam king karzeddin keeps telling that (-1)*(-1) = -1 != 1, so clearly, -1 isn't the inverse of -1.

Not being a crank, this proof assumes too much to be considered valid in this framework of thought.

Application is the way we use mathematics in the world, but mathematics is not dependent on application, get it already.

But, since no one has given the complete multiplication table, it is still unknown whether -1 has an inverse.

What ARE (1)*(-1) and (-1)*1 ?

 When we do fabricate or invent (but never truly discover) new numbers as negative integers as existing real integers, then certainly we must face the subsequent contradiction somewhere, where the valid mathematical operation must get completely sucked with them, and oddly we choose to continue the search for the facts from the same puzzles instead of uncovering them so easily and throwing them away and starting again from the beginning where we had committed the mistakes, as if we never learn

 So, this why do you see all those puzzling operations with those fictional and never existing numbers as (negatives, 0, imaginary, assumed numbers with endless terms), since infinity isn't there at all, for sure

 BKK

No you dimwit, all numbers are constructed, logically constructed and hence are equal in that respect.

THere are no known contradictions in mathematics.

On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 11:54:49 AM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> If (+1)*(+1) = (+1), then must (-1)*(-1) = (-1), this is natural symmetry
>
>  Otherwise, consider this Diophantine Eqn. (Fermat's last theorem), Implies that
>
>  (x^n + y^n = z^n), has no integer solution when the Integer (n > 2),
>
> and (xyz =/= 0), where (x, y, z) are non-zero integers
>
>  But the FLT can be rewritten in another equivalent formate once we use negative numbers as this form
>
>  (a^n + b^n + c^n = 0), has no integer solution when the Integer (n > 1), and (abc =/= 0), where (a, b, c) are non-zero integers
>
>  The simple them is that the condition of the exponent integer (n) mustn't change unless we define (-1)*(-1) = (-1) instead of (+1), where then both statements of the same theorem would be valid under the same unique condition
>
>  So, how can you see this from your own point of view (independently) and without repeating what had you been taught in early school days
>
>  Philosophers, logicians, ...etc, are welcomed to participate with their true identities  
>
>  Regards
>  Bassam King Karzeddin
>  Nov. 21st, 2017

 And, sure this seems very difficult for you to recover from this very big and well-designed fallacy up to the size of your skulls, but don't worry I would certainly find much more so easier ways for you to be saved, for sure
BKK
 

On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 11:54:49 AM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> If (+1)*(+1) = (+1), then must (-1)*(-1) = (-1), this is natural symmetry
>
>  Otherwise, consider this Diophantine Eqn. (Fermat's last theorem), Implies that
>
>  (x^n + y^n = z^n), has no integer solution when the Integer (n > 2),
>
> and (xyz =/= 0), where (x, y, z) are non-zero integers
>
>  But the FLT can be rewritten in another equivalent formate once we use negative numbers as this form
>
>  (a^n + b^n + c^n = 0), has no integer solution when the Integer (n > 1), and (abc =/= 0), where (a, b, c) are non-zero integers
>
>  The simple them is that the condition of the exponent integer (n) mustn't change unless we define (-1)*(-1) = (-1) instead of (+1), where then both statements of the same theorem would be valid under the same unique condition
>
>  So, how can you see this from your own point of view (independently) and without repeating what had you been taught in early school days
>
>  Philosophers, logicians, ...etc, are welcomed to participate with their true identities  
>
>  Regards
>  Bassam King Karzeddin
>  Nov. 21st, 2017

 So, did you realize anything shocking yet? wonder!
 BKK

 Hence, (-1)*(-1) = -1, but this symmetry leads directly to the empty meaning of the negative numbers, hence they don't exist actually, for sure

 BKK

There is no fallacy here, the only thing is that you do not understand mathematics and how properties work.

On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 11:54:49 AM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> If (+1)*(+1) = (+1), then must (-1)*(-1) = (-1), this is natural symmetry
>
>  Otherwise, consider this Diophantine Eqn. (Fermat's last theorem), Implies that
>
>  (x^n + y^n = z^n), has no integer solution when the Integer (n > 2),
>
> and (xyz =/= 0), where (x, y, z) are non-zero integers
>
>  But the FLT can be rewritten in another equivalent formate once we use negative numbers as this form
>
>  (a^n + b^n + c^n = 0), has no integer solution when the Integer (n > 1), and (abc =/= 0), where (a, b, c) are non-zero integers
>
>  The simple them is that the condition of the exponent integer (n) mustn't change unless we define (-1)*(-1) = (-1) instead of (+1), where then both statements of the same theorem would be valid under the same unique condition
>
>  So, how can you see this from your own point of view (independently) and without repeating what had you been taught in early school days
>
>  Philosophers, logicians, ...etc, are welcomed to participate with their true identities  
>
>  Regards
>  Bassam King Karzeddin
>  Nov. 21st, 2017

 In short: mathematics were based on abnormal or so artificial symmetry for the hidden purpose of the decision maker, wonder!

 BKK  

On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 11:54:49 AM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> If (+1)*(+1) = (+1), then must (-1)*(-1) = (-1), this is natural symmetry
>
>  Otherwise, consider this Diophantine Eqn. (Fermat's last theorem), Implies that
>
>  (x^n + y^n = z^n), has no integer solution when the Integer (n > 2),
>
> and (xyz =/= 0), where (x, y, z) are non-zero integers
>
>  But the FLT can be rewritten in another equivalent formate once we use negative numbers as this form
>
>  (a^n + b^n + c^n = 0), has no integer solution when the Integer (n > 1), and (abc =/= 0), where (a, b, c) are non-zero integers
>
>  The simple them is that the condition of the exponent integer (n) mustn't change unless we define (-1)*(-1) = (-1) instead of (+1), where then both statements of the same theorem would be valid under the same unique condition
>
>  So, how can you see this from your own point of view (independently) and without repeating what had you been taught in early school days
>
>  Philosophers, logicians, ...etc, are welcomed to participate with their true identities  
>
>  Regards
>  Bassam King Karzeddin
>  Nov. 21st, 2017

 And if we want to maintain the same logic of unsolvability of this Diophantine Equation. for (n > 2), and  (a^n + b^n + c^n = 0), with conditions stated earlier, then we have to redecide negative multiplication as suggested above

 (-1)*(-1) = (-1), where this only makeS it valid in its original form and the later same form beside being logically symmetrical than that abnormal artificial and illogical decided symmetry that we currently adopt

 BKK    

>In short: mathematics were based on abnormal or so artificial symmetry for the hidden purpose of the decision maker, wonder!

No, it is based on the axiomatic method.

>(-1)*(-1) = (-1), where this only makeS it valid in its original form and the later same form beside being logically symmetrical than that abnormal artificial and illogical decided symmetry that we currently adopt

That does not work you delusional bastard. It destroys rings structures and much else.