https://groups.google.com/d/forum/sci.mathsci.mathMathematical discussions and pursuits.Google GroupsRoss A. Finlayson2017-04-27T02:04:59Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/PnnJ1UL6HfcRe: Continuum Hypothesis - proof attemptis false, under the assumption that a particular axiom system which I call "iNBG" is consistent. I.e.: > > iNBG is consistent --> ~CH > > Although I have checked the proof over a few times and think that it is right, I acknowledge: > > 1 - that the proof is not 100% clearly written,John Gabriel2017-04-27T01:57:16Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/rqt1aJH7h08Re: Impartial observer of the battle between JG and the Contemporarysan answer....ergo division by zero........o! that's right in your case it's not a bug.......you see what you want to don't you......... > > > I did not say it was valid.....I said specifically that "it" works and it does.......but that I PERSONALLY remain in the contemporary camp........... >John Gabriel2017-04-27T01:55:24Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/o-5-g9HLWDQRe: Einstein's Idiocies: Time Travel into the Futureinvariant for all observers in any frame of reference; that is, it is always the same. Time dilation is a direct consequence of the invariance of the speed of light. Time dilation may be regarded in a limited sense as "time travel into the future": a person may use time dilation so that a smallArchimedes Plutonium2017-04-27T01:38:28Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/xm6qunwA_-kSt. Martin's Press seems to have no moral code on painting innocents as crazy insane Re: WORLD's FIRST LOGICAL POEM,So George, George Witte of St. Martin's Press with its Eric Francis The Dartmouth Murders, my red line or red flag would have been that Francis is a astrologer and as such is ill equipped at writing objective news. So George, what is your red flag, someone who prefers Charlotte Bronte overDan Christensen2017-04-27T01:04:10Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tA-Ad59QbE8Re: Clueless John Gabriel still doesn't get calculus"Calclueless," JG is unable to find the derivative of even functions as simple as y=x. What a moron. > > No reply, Troll Boy? (Hee, hee!) > DanJohn Gabriel2017-04-27T00:23:44Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/cgcPvnfAydIFor centuries idiot academics tried to find a rigorous formulation. They failed. Hail the New Calculus!The New Calculus - A formidable first and only rigorous formulation. Find out why more and more math academics are turning to it! The New Calculus is an analytic geometry formulation that ALWAYS works and this is why more and more academics are using it. It has new features not possible usingJohn Gabriel2017-04-27T00:22:05Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8Re: sqrt2 and 2 equally mysterious, or not mysterious at all, and proof that 1 = 0.999...On Wednesday, 26 April 2017 17:53:05 UTC-5, Jim Burns wrote: > I don't know. Who says they do represent the same numbers? It's the mainstream view. Heard of Lebesgue measure? [0,1] and [0,1) both have the same measure. > Maybe you should ask whoever says that. > > Here's what *I* say:Jim Burns2017-04-26T22:53:05Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8Re: sqrt2 and 2 equally mysterious, or not mysterious at all, and proof that 1 = 0.999...>>>> If we remove point 1 from [0, 1] there are still _all_ >>>> the elements of the set >>>> { [0, 0.9], [0.9, 0.99], [0.99, 0.999], ... } >>>> left. [0.999...] is the union of these elements. >>>> There is no point 0.999... that can be removed. >> >> Where has the requirement that >>John Gabriel2017-04-26T21:57:49Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8Re: sqrt2 and 2 equally mysterious, or not mysterious at all, and proof that 1 = 0.999...On Wednesday, 26 April 2017 16:22:26 UTC-5, Me wrote: > Huh?! Neither [0, 1) nor [0, 1] is a number, nor do they "represent" numbers. > > [0, 1] and [0, 1] are intervals "consisting of" (containing) real numbers. You mean "points", don't you, you pathetic piece of shit? Chuckle. No. I amJohn Gabriel2017-04-26T21:40:46Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0YB9boRpb0oLebug (lebesgue) - an uncommon moron.Watch the video to see how this idiot is so quickly undone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEtfqqcvb_4 Comments are unwelcome and will be ignored. Posted on this newsgroup in the interests of public education and to eradicate ignorance and stupidity from mainstream mythmatics. gils...@gmaiJohn Gabriel2017-04-26T21:31:29Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8Re: sqrt2 and 2 equally mysterious, or not mysterious at all, and proof that 1 = 0.999...1]? > > Huh?! Neither [0, 1) nor [0, 1] is a number, nor do they "represent" numbers. Please Stupidicus, try to think of it in context. It is obvious he means the measure of those intervals. Burp. > > [0, 1] and [0, 1] are intervals "consisting of" (containing) real numbers. > >John Gabriel2017-04-26T21:30:25Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8Re: sqrt2 and 2 equally mysterious, or not mysterious at all, and proof that 1 = 0.999...1]? > >> > >> It doesn't, but in mythmatics it does. The Lebug "measure" (courtesy of French idiot Lebesgue) defines these to be the same. Watch Lebug undone: > >> > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEtfqqcvb_4 > >> > >>> There are other useful numbers which we cannot locate on the numberPython2017-04-26T21:24:05Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8Re: sqrt2 and 2 equally mysterious, or not mysterious at all, and proof that 1 = 0.999...1]? >> >> It doesn't, but in mythmatics it does. The Lebug "measure" (courtesy of French idiot Lebesgue) defines these to be the same. Watch Lebug undone: >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEtfqqcvb_4 >> >>> There are other useful numbers which we cannot locate on the number line underMe2017-04-26T21:22:26Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8Re: sqrt2 and 2 equally mysterious, or not mysterious at all, and proof that 1 = 0.999...On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 9:58:11 PM UTC+2, netzweltler wrote: > How does that prove that [0, 1) does represent the same number as [0, 1]? Huh?! Neither [0, 1) nor [0, 1] is a number, nor do they "represent" numbers. [0, 1] and [0, 1] are intervals "consisting of" (containing) realDan Christensen2017-04-26T21:01:06Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tA-Ad59QbE8Clueless John Gabriel still doesn't get calculusWhen it comes to calculus, JG is absolutely clueless. Using his Wacky New "Calclueless," JG is unable to find the derivative of even functions as simple as y=x. What a moron. Dan