https://groups.google.com/d/forum/sci.mathsci.mathMathematical discussions and pursuits.Google GroupsDan Christensen2016-09-30T03:37:51Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/XvExE48o1qoRe: About John GabrielSure. Be my guest. DanChris M. Thomasson2016-09-30T03:35:06Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/XvExE48o1qoRe: About John GabrielOn 9/27/2016 12:19 PM, Dan Christensen wrote: [...] Would it be wrong to try and compare John to, perhaps something like: http://zork.wikia.com/wiki/Cruel_PuppetDan Christensen2016-09-30T03:27:01Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/XvExE48o1qoRe: About John GabrielOn Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 5:53:18 PM UTC-4, burs...@gmail.com wrote: > > No one with any intelligence believes in anything. A lot of > > academics accept that a linear function has no derivative > > unless it is a tangent line. > > > Only you are frustrated. And many agree that x^3Wally W.2016-09-30T03:26:32Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/XvExE48o1qoRe: About John GabrielOn Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:19:04 -0700 (PDT), Dan Christensen wrote: Subject: About John Gabriel Who cares?! I KFd him long ago. Only your obsession makes me aware of him. Maybe it is time you joined him in my KF.Archimedes Plutonium2016-09-30T02:05:41Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/G14dwKgJLQEcan a impure graphene or carbon capacitor form A, T , C, G inside itself?? Re: repeating Urey-Miller Experiment using a capacitorOn Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 3:14:53 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 11:44:43 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 2:23:53 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 atRoss A. Finlayson2016-09-30T00:33:52Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/LeN5kr3HvxwRe: Continuity and uncountability(Mitch notes that the Least Upper Bound property, or gaplessness, completeness, is an axiomatized feature of the thusly complete ordered field.) Some might find continuity as line continuity, field continuity, then signal continuity, for these usual various modes, as it were, of theJohn Gabriel2016-09-30T00:09:55Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/N0CQGldn3-UThe BIG STUPID (mainstream academia) is a religion. If you don't believe then you are excommunicated.The jealous bastards of mainstream academia have riled against my new calculus for many years. What follows are proofs that even high school students can understand and yet somehow morons the likes of Strang, Huizenga and Kaesorg simply can't grasp! =============================================John Gabriel2016-09-30T00:03:15Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/fd8XXY_8NhkMorons of the BIG STUPID (mainstream academia) say the darndest things.They've never understood what is a tangent line. They imagine that tangent lines are defined by the derivative, but that's understandable because the morons have always wiped their arses before defecating. There would be no derivative were it not for the tangent line. The dullest and mostEarle Jones272016-09-29T23:21:16Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/OaKQTqAMymMRe: An 8th grader has more commonsense and judgement than TrumpOn 2016-09-28 20:20:57 +0000, Archimedes Plutonium said: > Stalker: Is this John Baez of Univ.California, Riverside?? asking for > more data?? > On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 6:50:50 PM UTC-5, abu.ku...@gmail.com wrote: > (snipped) > > Imagine we teach people in school about science andPengKuan Em2016-09-29T23:20:04Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/LeN5kr3HvxwRe: Continuity and uncountabilitypoints > > has zero length and piling them up will give one point, not a line. > > It depends on how many points one manages to pile up. > All the points of an interval makes up more than any finite set points! > -- > Virgil Here is what I said in the paper section 5 "if one puts a realVirgil2016-09-29T23:05:06Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/LeN5kr3HvxwRe: Continuity and uncountabilityIn article <3b2b3df6-2b25-4d25-a0c7-612b590f3710@googlegroups.com>, PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> wrote: > Le jeudi 29 septembre 2016 22:42:59 UTC+2, mitch a écrit : > > > > Your and him are right. Numbers are constituent of line, only markers. > > > The blocks that constitute line areMe2016-09-29T22:50:41Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/XvExE48o1qoRe: About John GabrielOn Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 10:58:51 PM UTC+2, Dan Christensen wrote: > Who else in the world believes that the derivative of any linear function > is undefined? Who else in the world believes that derivative of f(x)=x^3 > is undefined at x=0? NO ONE, Troll Boy!! Well, we are told:PengKuan Em2016-09-29T22:27:40Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/LeN5kr3HvxwRe: Continuity and uncountabilityLe jeudi 29 septembre 2016 22:42:59 UTC+2, mitch a écrit : > > Your and him are right. Numbers are constituent of line, only markers. The blocks that constitute line are elementary line, with length epsilon. > > > > You might look at the axioms for > synthetic differential geometry. > >PengKuan Em2016-09-29T22:24:20Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/LeN5kr3HvxwRe: Continuity and uncountabilityThanks mitch for your reply. Le jeudi 29 septembre 2016 22:31:27 UTC+2, mitch a écrit : > On 09/29/2016 07:02 AM, PengKuan Em wrote: > > > In my paper I said rational numbers have hole because of the hole > > left by irrational number. > > > > What you are describing here relates to the >burs...@gmail.com2016-09-29T21:53:18Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/XvExE48o1qoRe: About John Gabriel> Only you are frustrated. And many agree that x^3 has no > derivative at x=0. Braaaaa Waaaaa Baaaaaa. So this claims are really done by JG. I thought its a joke. Chuckle.Virgil2016-09-29T21:52:00Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/aY0vyFqb6dIRe: Limits depend on representation?In article <nsjntq$5of$1...@dont-email.me>, pirx42 <us...@example.net> wrote: > > It is not my fault that transfinity is nonsense. But I am not willing . to support this fraud. WM only supports frauds! WM is so insanely anti-Cantor that WM claims nonsense rather than accept anything byVirgil2016-09-29T21:44:38Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/aY0vyFqb6dIRe: Limits depend on representation?In article <9bf00be7-f7a5-4cfd-971d-365c3796da3f@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > It is not my fault that transfinity is nonsense. To the extent that it IS nonsense, it is entirely WM;s fault, as he is the only one to make it so! WM is so insanely anti-CantorVirgil2016-09-29T21:40:13Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/aY0vyFqb6dIRe: Limits depend on definition!In article <24f4e0f4-e4ce-41ec-9dfa-4190882d2bfe@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 29. September 2016 18:43:24 UTC+2 schrieb Virgil: > > In article <aa824154-21d7-4d73-90c0-413fdee80cb8@googlegroups.com>, > > WM wrote: > > > > > The sequence (n) ofburs...@gmail.com2016-09-29T21:35:20Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/09CVV8u5X00Re: Diophantine equation : x^{2n} + y^{2m} = z^2Am Donnerstag, 29. September 2016 10:26:45 UTC+2 schrieb bassam king karzeddin: > On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 5:31:18 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote: > > Conjecture: If (x, y, z) are nonzero co prime integers, and (n, m) are positive integers > 1, then this Diophantine equation : > >Virgil2016-09-29T21:25:18Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/WTjFvB0ugkIRe: What set theorists can safely believe, not WM!In article <96c86c5e-798f-4d10-8164-7552a13ef621@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Did von Neumann lie with his account of the natural numbers > {0}, {0, 1}, {0, 1, 2}, ... ? Von Neumann's account of the natural numbers begins them with {}, {{}},Paul2016-09-29T20:44:59Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/nTurQdVgucoRe: Primes such that 2p+1 is a prime.wrote: > > On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 20:43:33 UTC+2, Pubkeybreaker wrote: > > > On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 2:15:10 PM UTC-4, danie...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Hello there! > > > > > > > > I'm high school student from Slovakia. I'm clueless about this statement, which ismitch2016-09-29T20:42:59Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/LeN5kr3HvxwRe: Continuity and uncountabilitythink of points are markers along the line, these points do not constitute the line, rather they are like overhead road signs informing you at what distance you are from each endpoint. >> >> I agree. >> >> Regards, WM > > Your and him are right. Numbers are constituent of line, only markers.mitch2016-09-29T20:38:46Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/LeN5kr3HvxwRe: Continuity and uncountabilityYou should, perhaps, spend more time on sci.logic. Mr. Di Egidio recently told me to look at P. F. Strawson's book on logic to learn about induction. He referred specifically to the last chapter. Because of how anecdotal experience is generalized (contingently) to a universal, Mr.mitch2016-09-29T20:31:27Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/LeN5kr3HvxwRe: Continuity and uncountabilityWhat you are describing here relates to the completeness axiom for the real numbers. Constructively, those "holes" are filled by treating real numbers as special sets of rational numbers. Some of those sets represent rational numbers and the others represent irrational numbers. The realArchimedes Plutonium2016-09-29T20:14:53Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/G14dwKgJLQErepeating Urey-Miller Experiment using a capacitor Re: first time in history of science, where BIOLOGY corrects mathematicsOn Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 11:44:43 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 2:23:53 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 8:31:54 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > > Outline of proof that sine and cosinemitch2016-09-29T20:06:28Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/gcT3guHFYYERe: "one-to-one correspondence"(bijection) and the size of two infinite setsWe call it modal logic and study subsystems where only one possibility is in force at any time.Archimedes Plutonium2016-09-29T20:04:54Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/G14dwKgJLQERe: first time in history of science, where BIOLOGY corrects mathematics Re: biology proving math is wrong in their sinusoid contradictionStalker: Is this John Baez of Univ.California, Riverside?? asking for more data?? On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 2:02:00 PM UTC-5, abu.ku...@gmail.com wrote: (snipped) Revision-Page19, 3-4, EM theory becomes the axioms over all of physics/ Atom-Totality-Universe / textbook 7th edquasi2016-09-29T19:46:05Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/FY3u--jCSxwRe: transitions of rational points on the standard unit sphereI would characterize it as essentially an exercise in Elementary Number Theory. While I don't have a specific reference, I'm sure it's not a new result. >The author hopes that the appreciated reader will give >constructive critics "constructive criticism" >and will tell us in thisPubkeybreaker2016-09-29T19:45:51Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/nTurQdVgucoRe: Primes such that 2p+1 is a prime.On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 4:53:35 PM UTC-4, danie...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 20:43:33 UTC+2, Pubkeybreaker wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 2:15:10 PM UTC-4, danie...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Hello there! > > > > > > I'm high school studentDan Christensen2016-09-29T19:42:54Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/R6XvGTtGIygRe: Learn about the idiot John GabrielOn Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 2:53:24 PM UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote: > A more clueless fool is hard to come by. Chuckle. > How about one who believes that the derivative of any linear function is undefined. Like you, Troll Boy. Talk about clueless. DanPython2016-09-29T19:15:14Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/R6XvGTtGIygRe: Learn about the idiot John GabrielLearn about the delusional incompetent crank John Gabriel: https://sirelephantblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/pseudomathematics-part-1/ OMG, there is a broken link in this post! Oh, this is your Web site, John, what a pity. Does it bother you that you'll be known, even far in the future, onlyMe2016-09-29T19:09:17Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/WTjFvB0ugkIRe: What set theorists can safely believeOn Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 8:11:14 PM UTC+2, WM wrote: > Did von Neumann lie with his account of the natural numbers ... ? YES!abu.ku...@gmail.com2016-09-29T19:03:18Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/fMI3a9HmTegRe: Weber's Law of Electrodynamics.also see articles in 21st Century Sceince and Technology, online; find it at http://larouchepub.comabu.ku...@gmail.com2016-09-29T19:02:00Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/G14dwKgJLQERe: first time in history of science, where BIOLOGY corrects mathematics Re: biology proving math is wrong in their sinusoid contradictiona sinusoid is just a projection of a spiral (current in a wire e.gabu.ku...@gmail.com2016-09-29T18:59:24Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/sQvwkyEXCSURe: New Subject, New Topicsee the i.v.m e.g, which is four planes of the tetrahedron, passing through the origin, intersecting in six lines through the origin > I have a 3x3x3 matrix. And I'm looking for a diagonalization lemma. > A cube's diagonal? > > See: there are 6 planes witch contain the support-straight-lineabu.ku...@gmail.com2016-09-29T18:56:08Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Rc8xEr4MOj8Re: Three Dimensional Compositionsah, so ... and octonions > > solve 5^n = n^5 > > > Apart from 5, 1.76492... is a solution. There are also numerous complex > solutions. > > -- > Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain > to me what you really mean. > I think I had better not, Duchess. NowadaysJohn Gabriel2016-09-29T18:55:15Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/aY0vyFqb6dIRe: Limits depend on representation?Who asked for your opinion, you baboon?abu.ku...@gmail.com2016-09-29T18:54:55Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/nTurQdVgucoRe: Primes such that 2p+1 is a prime.yeah, s.g primes are c00l; I proved the infinitude of the twins, many y.a; Brun's constant is irrational, now known as biG Phi (~1.90) > It is not known if there are infinitely many twin primes {p, 2p+1}, see also: > > http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1421598/primes-p-for-which-2p-pm-John Gabriel2016-09-29T18:54:26Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Fpwd0rGCFR0Cauchy - another delusional French idiot!Cauchy didn't only have problems with the derivative, but he had no clue what it means to be a number: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6roMXD4w3RYJohn Gabriel2016-09-29T18:53:24Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/R6XvGTtGIygLearn about the idiot Henri Lebesgue!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEtfqqcvb_4 A more clueless fool is hard to come by. Chuckle. For an index of my videos: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClBbBVLs3M-d3dNgU4Vop_Apirx422016-09-29T18:52:59Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/aY0vyFqb6dIRe: Limits depend on representation?Who asked you to support it? Not me!John Gabriel2016-09-29T18:51:15Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/gcT3guHFYYERe: "one-to-one correspondence"(bijection) and the size of two infinite setsYou moron, know NOTHING about the Ancient Greeks. > > As for "Lebesgue measure", are you being serious? The idiot Frenchman had nothing > > to do with measure - this was already known over 2000 years ago. > > Lebesgue measure generalize to spaces unknown 2000 years ago. Lebesgue was aJohn Gabriel2016-09-29T18:47:58Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/WTjFvB0ugkIRe: What set theorists can safely believespeakk, > > > > dropping everything and making a concerted effort to believe. > > > > > > Of course! Every mathematician knows that inclusion monotonic > > > sequences like 1 1, 2 1, 2, 3 ... contain everything that they > > > contain in one and the same term. > > > > Then "every mathematicJohn Gabriel2016-09-29T18:45:29Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/aY0vyFqb6dIRe: Limits depend on representation?most useful to supply excuses for the failure of transfinity > > > > You have discovered, so it seems, that all of 20th century mathematics > > is nonsense. > > Not all but all based upon set theory. Yes, it is unbelievable, but most of set theorists must be extremely unable or dishonest.quasi2016-09-29T18:43:02Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/FY3u--jCSxwRe: transitions of rational points on the standard unit sphereHere's a shorter proof of Theorem 4: Suppose p = 3 (mod 4). Only the forward direction of the "iff" of (B) requires proof. Thus we want to show that if x,y are integers such that x^2 + y^2 = 0 (mod p), then x = 0 (mod p) and y = 0 (mod p). Case (1): At least one of x,y is a multiple of p.WM2016-09-29T18:37:48Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/aY0vyFqb6dIRe: Limits depend on representation?in > > ZFC). > > If 1,2,3,... are already sets, > What are the members of 1, and of 2 and of 3? Members of sets are sets. In ZFC everything is a set. > Isn't 1 then a subset of 2 and 2 a subset of 3, and so on? The first natural numbers in von Neumann's representation are 1 = {0}, 2 = {0,Python2016-09-29T18:32:15Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/gcT3guHFYYERe: "one-to-one correspondence"(bijection) and the size of two infinite setsOf course it is, on P(N) for instance. And it was recognize as such by ancient Greeks. > As for "Lebesgue measure", are you being serious? The idiot Frenchman had nothing > to do with measure - this was already known over 2000 years ago. Lebesgue measure generalize to spaces unknown 2000WM2016-09-29T18:30:38Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/aY0vyFqb6dIRe: Limits depend on representation?most useful to supply excuses for the failure of transfinity > > You have discovered, so it seems, that all of 20th century mathematics > is nonsense. Not all but all based upon set theory. Yes, it is unbelievable, but most of set theorists must be extremely unable or dishonest. On the otherSteveGG2016-09-29T18:13:56Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/OaKQTqAMymMRe: An 8th grader has more commonsense and judgement than TrumpTrump has steadfastly refused to show his tax returns, citing an audit as his reason. It's been confirmed that an ongoing audit is no excuse. So WHY ? Obvious reason is there's something he doesn't want revealed to the American people, the little people who pay lots of taxes and who vote. BestWM2016-09-29T18:11:14Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/WTjFvB0ugkIRe: What set theorists can safely believespeakk, > > > dropping everything and making a concerted effort to believe. > > > > Of course! Every mathematician knows that inclusion monotonic > > sequences like 1 1, 2 1, 2, 3 ... contain everything that they > > contain in one and the same term. > > Then "every mathematician" would