https://groups.google.com/d/forum/sci.mathsci.mathMathematical discussions and pursuits.Google GroupsELI SOLOMON2017-08-22T13:10:13Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/vEKvizmmi74Re: Prime/Twin Prime GeneratorFrom your post "I do not think you can dispute this other than just making a unsubstantiated declaration that it cannot be guaranteed. You really are a moron. I never disputed the assertion that round(x/3) == round(y/3) meant y=x+2. I disputed the ridiculous assertion that this yielded twinPubkeybreaker2017-08-22T12:57:38Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/vEKvizmmi74Re: Prime/Twin Prime Generatorpost was to present another method and not to go into an 'arms race'. "present another method" It is so totally trivial that it is not worth presenting. We've heard these arguments before. "well how could anyone know unless it has been presented". Some things are so totally trivial thatELI SOLOMON2017-08-22T12:50:13Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/vEKvizmmi74Re: Prime/Twin Prime GeneratorThank you Rolazaro, It's good to know that someone has understood that the reason for the post was to present another method and not to go into an 'arms race'.j4n bur532017-08-22T12:39:42Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0E-T2oBk5ysRe: Greatest mistake missed in math Decimal Number Representation, and why .9999... =1 was math professors downfallWell in 7777777 view it must be incomplete nonsense, since the last 9 is missing. LoL Me schrieb: > On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 10:43:28 AM UTC+2, j4n bur53 wrote: > >> All the natural numbers [in] N = {0,1,2,..}. > > Actually, you already said that before: > >>>> A decimal expansion isMe2017-08-22T11:33:29Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0E-T2oBk5ysRe: Greatest mistake missed in math Decimal Number Representation, and why .9999... =1 was math professors downfallOn Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 10:43:28 AM UTC+2, j4n bur53 wrote: > All the natural numbers [in] N = {0,1,2,..}. Actually, you already said that before: > > > A decimal expansion is indexed by the natural numbers. > > > So it has the form: [...] > > > > thank you for clearing up things,Pubkeybreaker2017-08-22T11:32:01Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/vEKvizmmi74Re: Prime/Twin Prime GeneratorOn Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 6:40:12 AM UTC-4, ELI SOLOMON wrote: > You asked: > 'If you are going to present a method for finding twin primes, you must guarantee that the outputs are CORRECT. Your method does not do that". > > Now here is the basis of the post. It was also stated in myburs...@gmail.com2017-08-22T11:25:09Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/MJTOWybR88wRe: Reeducating mainstream morons: David Hilbert's Fallacies.Extensively reading Hilbert stuff would help AP to get at least a grip of polynomials, after all these years. 30 years spamming sci.math and not a singe line of math. For example this thingy is named after Hilbert: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_Nullstellensatz Am Montag, 21.burs...@gmail.com2017-08-22T11:12:39Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/1_A2X5GXcokRe: polynomial structure cannot afford a:: 1 = k/(x/y) Re: changing COURSE-- there maybe a classification of Transcendental Irrational, after allPolynomial Ring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_%28mathematics%29 Algebraic Number Field: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_%28mathematics%29 Am Dienstag, 22. August 2017 13:10:19 UTC+2 schrieb burs...@gmail.com: > Profound confusion. Yes, polynoms are not closed > over division. Forburs...@gmail.com2017-08-22T11:10:19Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/1_A2X5GXcokRe: polynomial structure cannot afford a:: 1 = k/(x/y) Re: changing COURSE-- there maybe a classification of Transcendental Irrational, after allProfound confusion. Yes, polynoms are not closed over division. For example there is no polynomial in x, for the value: 1/(1+x) Although there is a series: 1/(1+x) = 1 - x + x^2 - x^3 + - ... Polynomials have to have a finite degree. But there is a vexing property, althoughELI SOLOMON2017-08-22T10:40:12Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/vEKvizmmi74Re: Prime/Twin Prime GeneratorPeter, You asked: 'If you are going to present a method for finding twin primes, you must guarantee that the outputs are CORRECT. Your method does not do that". Now here is the basis of the post. It was also stated in my first post. ONLY PRIMES SEPARATED BY TWO (2) WILL YIELD EQUAL QUOTIENTSBill2017-08-22T10:23:16Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/rHZIGwZrkhMRe: Please do not talk with the Failures of Math-- Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, Jan Bielawski, Franz (Me)// robots Simon Roberts, Grahamtime to even "spin these kooks" to my advantage. > As anyone will be able to tell, your posts are ridiculous--any unfavorable attribute that you correspond to anyone else, even more so. I hope you do focus on your "research", instead of blabbering here.Archimedes Plutonium2017-08-22T10:14:20Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/1_A2X5GXcokpolynomial structure cannot afford a:: 1 = k/(x/y) Re: changing COURSE-- there maybe a classification of Transcendental Irrational, after allOn Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 3:24:26 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > What I am trying to resolve, is whether a Polynomial does not have the structure of division, only the structure of multiplication. > > > So take a bigger polynomial > > x^3 + x^2 +5x -3.14 = 0 > > can that bej4n bur532017-08-22T08:43:28Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0E-T2oBk5ysRe: Greatest mistake missed in math Decimal Number Representation, and why .9999... =1 was math professors downfallAll the natural numbers, N = {0,1,2,..} 7777777 schrieb: > maanantai 21. elokuuta 2017 0.41.41 UTC+3 burs...@gmail.com kirjoitti: >> 7777777 I have bad news for you. 0.999...999 is complete >> nonsense. A decimal expansion is indexed by the natural >> numbers. So it has the form: >> >>burs...@gmail.com2017-08-22T08:39:22Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/1_A2X5GXcokRe: is x_1*x_2 different from C*(1/D) Re: changing COURSE-- there maybe a classification of Transcendental Irrational, after allIf a is a root of the polynomial P(x) = a0 + ... + an*x^n Then 1/a is a root of the polynomial Q(x) = a0*x^n + .. + an The later polynomial is just taken the former polynomial and reversing the coefficient. We also have: x^n*P(1/x) = Q(x) Example: sqrt(2) is root ofArchimedes Plutonium2017-08-22T08:24:26Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/1_A2X5GXcokRe: is x_1*x_2 different from C*(1/D) Re: changing COURSE-- there maybe a classification of Transcendental Irrational, after allWhat I am trying to resolve, is whether a Polynomial does not have the structure of division, only the structure of multiplication. So take a bigger polynomial x^3 + x^2 +5x -3.14 = 0 can that be turned into a division like 1 = 3.14/(C/D) x^3 + x^2 +5x = 3.14 1 = 3.14/ (x^3 + x^2 + 5x)Pentcho Valev2017-08-22T07:55:33Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/IZ1AtFbEIiUSpeed of Light in Einstein's Schizophrenic WorldA nice synopsis of Einstein's hoax: Ethan Siegel: "In the 1880s, Albert A. Michelson constructed a series of ultra-sensitive interferometers set up to exploit exactly this fact. As the interferometer rotated into, perpendicular to, and against the Earth's direction of motion, there should haveArchimedes Plutonium2017-08-22T07:16:30Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/1_A2X5GXcokis x_1*x_2 different from C*(1/D) Re: changing COURSE-- there maybe a classification of Transcendental Irrational, after allAlright, I want to go to bed tonight, knowing the truth behind Transcendental and Algebraic Irrationals. Brief recap:: I suspected the Transcendentals did not exist, for the reason that a division C/D can be placed as C*(1/D), imitating the x*x. A axiom of arithmetic says given any Rational APentcho Valev2017-08-22T06:57:09Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/EI_rS6gpLE4Einsteinians Mercilessly Brainwash Innocent People"Einstein was right, as hundreds of visitors to A Time for Science Nature and Science Learning Center in Grifton learned Monday when they descended on the park to view a total solar eclipse that passed over a swath of the U.S., just like the one that proved the famous physicist's theory ofMr Sawat Layuheem2017-08-22T06:30:52Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/xd9em91uDdoNumber Crazy Today?ความศานติและความเอ็นดูเมตตาและความโปรดปรานของอัลลอฮฺ Number Crazy Today? Sliding-Exchanges-Number? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=860699654085027&set=a.397252653763065.1073741825.100004350013006&type=3&theaterArchimedes Plutonium2017-08-22T06:23:56Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/rHZIGwZrkhMRe: Please do not talk with the Failures of Math-- Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, Jan Bielawski, Franz (Me)// robots Simon Roberts, GrahamVillage Idiot show Re: 13Please do not talk to the sci.physics failures-- McGinn, Arindam,Moroney, Benj, Relf... PLAY THE TV GAME SHOW,,,, NAME THAT VILLAGE IDIOT....... win all expense paid trip to North Korea's missile test site..... Hosted by Monty Pythons the 5th'77777772017-08-22T05:58:39Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0E-T2oBk5ysRe: Greatest mistake missed in math Decimal Number Representation, and why .9999... =1 was math professors downfallthank you for clearing up things, now it is possible to see why 0.999... is complete nonsense. Tell me the indexes of all its digits.Mr Sawat Layuheem2017-08-22T05:51:43Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/o3Nqx87lk7UTriangle and Squares????ความศานติและความเอ็นดูเมตตาและความโปรดปรานของอัลลอฮฺ Number Crazy Today? Triangle and Squares???? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=860689707419355&set=pcb.860689747419351&type=3&theaterArchimedes Plutonium2017-08-22T05:38:20Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/1_A2X5GXcokpity that math professors never had to take Logic in school Re: easy to find the holes in Gelfond- Schneider Re: changing COURSE-- there maybe a classification of Transcendental Irrational, after allYes, the failure of the Gelfond-Schneider attempt is a use of a Double Reductio ad Absurdum. In New Math, true math, we cannot even use the Single Reductio ad Absurdum for it is only a probability truth, not a math required-- guarantee of truth-- proof. So the Gelfond-- Schneider makes twoMr Sawat Layuheem2017-08-22T05:21:29Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/FKcDf1UObRMSliding-Exchanges in Number Theory????????ความศานติและความเอ็นดูเมตตาและความโปรดปรานของอัลลอฮฺ Sliding-Exchanges in Number Theory???????? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=860682947420031&set=pcb.860683030753356&type=3&theaterArchimedes Plutonium2017-08-22T05:08:56Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/1_A2X5GXcokeasy to find the holes in Gelfond- Schneider Re: changing COURSE-- there maybe a classification of Transcendental Irrational, after allYes, I think I spotted the Flaw of the Gelfond-Schneider Attempt of A^B transcendental if B is Algebraic Irrational. They made a silly, very silly assumption. They assumed that if in A^B that A^B is algebraic irrational and if B is a element of the Rationals, that such would overturn theirArchimedes Plutonium2017-08-22T04:31:28Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/1_A2X5GXcokwe have 1 = 2/x*x versus 1 = 3.14/(C/D) Re: changing COURSE-- there maybe a classification of Transcendental Irrational, after allOn Monday, August 21, 2017 at 5:08:37 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: (snip) > > > > Proof Statement:: A irrational is the multiplication of two different Rationals. Can there be two different types of irrationals if all irrationals are the multiplication of two different Rationals. No,Me2017-08-22T03:54:14Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/rHZIGwZrkhMRe: Please do not talk with the Failures of Math-- Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, Jan Bielawski, Franz (Me)// robots Simon Roberts, GrahamOn Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 5:25:49 AM UTC+2, Dan Christensen wrote: > Archie I guess he's a rather nice guy, just competely nuts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHTQ6a5Q4NA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B11k8fsOa4sDan Christensen2017-08-22T03:25:49Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/rHZIGwZrkhMRe: Please do not talk with the Failures of Math-- Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, Jan Bielawski, Franz (Me)// robots Simon Roberts, GrahamOn Monday, August 21, 2017 at 8:26:18 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > Dan Christensen, is really.. Archie's knowledge of mathematics is so poor that he believes that 10^666 is an "infinite number," that sine waves are not sinusoidal at all but a string of alternating semi-circles,tombomb...@gmail.com2017-08-22T02:28:51Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/URTJfYxzMXMRe: Is There an Official Answer to Division by Zero?On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 10:27:41 PM UTC-4, tombomb...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 9:20:10 AM UTC-4, Doug wrote: > > Is this one of those unsolved mysteries of Mathematics, or is it just too high level for the average person? I tried to search but didn't find anythingtombomb...@gmail.com2017-08-22T02:27:41Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/URTJfYxzMXMRe: Is There an Official Answer to Division by Zero?high level for the average person? I tried to search but didn't find anything that looked like an "official" or commonly accepted answer. > > Thanks! yesArchimedes Plutonium2017-08-22T01:53:31Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/1_A2X5GXcokRe: C/D rather than x*x Re: changing coarse-- there maybe a classification of Transcendental Irrational, after all, since no proof is forthcoming,,,,Now of course, I would misspell "course" in the title as coarse, but there is nothing coarse in this topic. Now, in this turnaround, let us graph the Irrational point sqrt2 in the Plane. Now taking a right triangle with points (0,0) (1,0) (1,1) Now the hypotenuse from (0,0) to (1,1) hasArchimedes Plutonium2017-08-22T01:37:00Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/9ueL3FV45CkRe: 4Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS, seller Jan BurseOn Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 12:46:58 AM UTC-5, Jan wrote: > > \\\ > > (0 0) > > _ooO_(_)_Ooo____ > > bring along the beer > > Gobbledygook. > > -- > Jan burs...@gmail.com 6:20 PM (2 hours ago) ,,,brain farto nonsense...Archimedes Plutonium2017-08-22T01:13:55Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/1_A2X5GXcokC/D rather than x*x Re: changing coarse-- there maybe a classification of Transcendental Irrational, after all, since no proof is forthcoming,,,,The reason I shifted 180 degrees, is because the Axiom of Arithmetic-- closure and completeness of multiplication and division of Rationals does not give me a proof of **no transcendental category exists**. When faced with the reality that no proof can be fetched, leaves the wise person noten...@gmail.com2017-08-22T01:03:04Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/REbP45NPpYoRe: jackarse poster Re: Algorithm Slide-Number to Infinity?https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=860168880804771&set=pcb.860168937471432&type=3&theater > > Jackarse, do math in sci.math > > or, > > leave it alone be nice if more followed suitMe2017-08-22T00:48:14Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/rHZIGwZrkhMRe: Please do not talk with the Failures of Math-- Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, Jan Bielawski, Franz (Me)// robots Simon Roberts, GrahamOn Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 2:26:18 AM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: Sorry, Ludwig, but I don't think that I'm a stalker. I mean, this is an "open" newsgroup: You are posting (mathematical) crap, we comment on it. Period. > ... a miniversion of Jan Burse, only with 1/2 the hatred-steArchimedes Plutonium2017-08-22T00:26:18Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/rHZIGwZrkhMPlease do not talk with the Failures of Math-- Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, Jan Bielawski, Franz (Me)// robots Simon Roberts, GrahamComes a moment in time when I am bogged down in research, that I have no time to even "spin these kooks" to my advantage. So, I need to warn, and forewarn newcomers, who the Creeps of math are, so as to filter and block them-- the faster the better Dan Christensen, is really dull and dumb inMe2017-08-21T23:49:33Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/1_A2X5GXcokRe: changing coarse-- there maybe a classification of Transcendental Irrational, after all, since no proof is forthcoming,,,,On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 12:08:37 AM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > One fun I have found in math proofs, is that they seem to all have different > flavor of proof, different character each. Right. So where's your *proof* that certain conic sections are ovals but not (never)Me2017-08-21T23:32:24Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/vuW47APQ0WkRe: So the AP Equations of EM are six// reviewing themOn Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 1:06:56 AM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > So the AP Equations of EM are six Wrong NG?Me2017-08-21T23:31:20Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/1_A2X5GXcokRe: changing coarse-- there maybe a classification of Transcendental Irrational, after all, since no proof is forthcoming,,,,On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 12:08:37 AM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > So, sqrt2 is Irrational, but why is it irrational? Because there are no two integers p,q such that sqrt(2) = p/q. (Knowing the definition of /rational/ and /irrational/ numbers is helpful here.) See https://www.mburs...@gmail.com2017-08-21T23:20:22Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/vuW47APQ0WkRe: So the AP Equations of EM are six// reviewing themAP brain farto nonsense... Am Dienstag, 22. August 2017 01:06:56 UTC+2 schrieb Archimedes Plutonium: > Newsgroups: sci.physics > Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 15:56:16 -0700 (PDT) > > Subject: So the AP Equations of EM are six// reviewing them > From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>Archimedes Plutonium2017-08-21T23:06:56Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/vuW47APQ0WkSo the AP Equations of EM are six// reviewing themNewsgroups: sci.physics Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 15:56:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: So the AP Equations of EM are six// reviewing them From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 22:56:16 +0000 So the AP Equations of EM are six// reviewing them So the APj4n bur532017-08-21T22:23:20Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/1_A2X5GXcokRe: changing coarse-- there maybe a classification of Transcendental Irrational, after all, since no proof is forthcoming,,,,Let you inject nonsense in your nonsense. What can happen? Square nonsense? Algebraic numbers are closed over +, -, *, /. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resultant#Number_theory You don't get transcendental numbers by division. Archimedes Plutonium schrieb: > I left off last night with thisMe2017-08-21T22:18:22Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/1_A2X5GXcokRe: changing coarse-- there maybe a classification of Transcendental Irrational, after all, since no proof is forthcoming,,,,On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 12:08:37 AM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > I think [...] the Gelfond-Schneider has a flaw in it Sure, Archie!Archimedes Plutonium2017-08-21T22:08:37Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/1_A2X5GXcokchanging coarse-- there maybe a classification of Transcendental Irrational, after all, since no proof is forthcoming,,,,I left off last night with this nagging nonproof,,, which makes me think I need to investigate the other side-- a transcendental category exists. Let me inject Polynomial theory into the argument:: So we come to the lines in Polynomial theory of x^2 = 2 1 = 2/x*x Now we inject the Axiomburs...@gmail.com2017-08-21T22:02:59Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/s_Yzud63Vs4Re: call it the Stevin-Fibonacci Decimal Representation Re: the number 1/3 is really .3333..33(1/3), not .3333....Never heard of modulo computation? 10000 = 1 (mod 3) Am Montag, 21. August 2017 23:32:37 UTC+2 schrieb Archimedes Plutonium: > On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 2:38:59 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > Now the failure of mathematicians on .99999.... and missing the second-decimal pointburs...@gmail.com2017-08-21T22:01:12Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/-Q_9M6yg3HMRe: the Arithmetic Axiom for closure, completeness, uniqueness // Transcendental numbers are just illusions by bigots of mathThere is not much needed to proof that rationals are "closed to multiplication" the phrase doesn't exist. I guess you mean closed over multiplication: a/b * c/d = (a*c/g)/(b*d/g) where g=ggt(a*b,b*d) "complementary" doesn't make much sense. What should "complementary" mean? This is aArchimedes Plutonium2017-08-21T21:48:40Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/-Q_9M6yg3HMRe: the Arithmetic Axiom for closure, completeness, uniqueness // Transcendental numbers are just illusions by bigots of mathwrote: > > Call it the Axiom of Arithmetic Algebra > > > > Or call it the Axiom of Algebra > > > > And it is simply the Matrix Columns > > > > It contains the axioms of Complementarity, that addition is complement of multiplication > > It contains the axioms of Uniqueness of add operationArchimedes Plutonium2017-08-21T21:32:37Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/s_Yzud63Vs4call it the Stevin-Fibonacci Decimal Representation Re: the number 1/3 is really .3333..33(1/3), not .3333....second-decimal point .9999..99(3*(1/3)) the suffix (3*(1/3)) or for 1/3 = .333..33(1/3) where the suffix is just (1/3) is not a rare thing. > > No, this suffix miss, or failure is throughout Old Math in everyday math. > > It is not just a failure on particular numbers but a failure throughoutcarter...@gmail.com2017-08-21T21:25:46Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/4v3BGu2HvvoSOLUTIONS MANUAL Discrete Mathematics 3rd ED by Goodaire, ParmenterSOLUTIONS MANUAL Discrete Mathematics 3rd ED by Goodaire, Parmenter You can search using Control+F ( by author's names ) to find your own title Then Contact E-mail: cartermath[@]gmail.com You will get a reply promptly with info and instructions to order any solutionsMichael Moroney2017-08-21T20:57:22Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/ZCiPeHf3ym0Re: Crackpot convention in Boston starring Archimedes Plutonium Re: 13Please do not talk to the sci.physics failures-- Archimedes PlutoniumPhysics and Math failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> writes: >Tell me, Mike Moroney, can you organize a crackpot conference there in Boston so these crackpots and interact, intermingle and maybe we can get a "breakthrough or breakup of pottery" I guess with you as the #1