https://groups.google.com/d/forum/sci.mathsci.mathMathematical discussions and pursuits.Google GroupsZelos Malum2017-10-18T04:57:36Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/KVk3Bb5y72MRe: Simple geometric proof that sqrt(2) is an incommensurable magnitude, NOT irrational number.A rose by any other name, still all smell the same.Zelos Malum2017-10-18T04:57:08Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/gJS0CkPeSlsRe: Isn't infinity (in mathematics) actually a flawed concept?Except you never did, you only showed your ignorance. > So, you haven't learnt anything from WM about your alleged SH*T theory so far, nor from JG who proved your infinite stupidity repeatedly that is also documented online, and finally, how can you learn anything superior from me too? wonderZelos Malum2017-10-18T04:54:56Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/l7eUXeoWDBoRe: What is the real number?You wanna talk about never understanding? Tell me, what is the definitions of real numbers? Cauchy and Dedekinds one, state them. >Then fix EXACTLY the very fundamental real number (e) in mathematics on the real number line and the question isn't only for you but for all the ProfessionalZelos Malum2017-10-18T04:53:28Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/NsjaDW5vRDkRe: High school mathematics which morons never understood explained. S = Lim S. Euler Oagbar!It is a series but it has not a limit, the PARTIAL SUMS that is DERIVED from that series HAS the limit 1/3, which means, by definition, that the SERIES IS EQUAL TO 1/3 >Wow! You've contradicted yourself here!! That IS but one sequence of an equivalence class and is obtained from the Not atZelos Malum2017-10-18T04:49:41Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbYRe: It is a very bad idea and nothing less than stupid to define 1/3 = 0.333...A definition isn't evaluated to be true, it is just something we declare to be a certain way. It is like I declare what I am holding to be a "Vlanto", it is so because I define it so. But being derived from definitions mean it isn't a definition, it means it is a theorem. >EVERYTHING startsZelos Malum2017-10-18T04:47:13Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214Re: The bogus set concept.Where of the 9 axioms does it say that? Where does the definition of a subset say that? No where! >What you said or not is meaningless shit to me. You are a moron for whom I have ZERO respect. The definition I quoted is in set theory. No, it is not ZFC or any of the other, I linked the 9Zelos Malum2017-10-18T04:42:37Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tWIQqH3_AIARe: Fiction numbers create fiction angles tooNo, it is a virtue. History has shown us as mathematics departed from caring about reality, it got increasingly better and paradoxicly, more useful. >So, this is the newly developed attitudes with all moron professionals, just mix up the concepts and run away and hide behind infinity toraza...@gmail.com2017-10-18T04:05:11Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/ZOEbLQEc8cQSolution manual to Engineering Mechanics - Statics,Dynamics (11th ) by R.C.HIBBELERKindly send me solution mamnual of 11 edition dynamic by hibblerArchimedes Plutonium2017-10-18T02:46:41Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/kvtAJ4jZj2cwith curves and continuum, you cannot have a Calculus Re: in construction Re: huge deep errors in modern math, that need fixing or math diesOn Monday, October 16, 2017 at 5:59:22 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: (snipped in spots) > 2. Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus can exist, and does exist > > by Archimedes Plutonium > > Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, noArchimedes Plutonium2017-10-18T02:18:58Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/kr2V5oddLXERe: probably need a new force definition in Physics, far removed from Newton's F= ma Re: prePage24, 3-1, perspective of Laws versus forcesdefine force as dq/dt Re: probably need a new force definition in Physics, far removed from Newton's F= ma On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 2:36:36 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Now one major benefit to shifting of the definition of force from F = ma = mass*acceleration, shifting toArchimedes Plutonium2017-10-18T02:17:20Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/L0JOp5RvO9kdefine force as dq/dt Re: probably need a new force definition in Physics, far removed from Newton's F= madefine force as dq/dt Re: probably need a new force definition in Physics, far removed from Newton's F= ma On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 2:36:36 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Now one major benefit to shifting of the definition of force from F = ma = mass*acceleration, shifting toBlaubeer Rotapfel2017-10-18T02:11:21Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tWIQqH3_AIARe: Fiction numbers create fiction angles tooAsk PrimeFan: constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗ PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52 Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring an integer number of degrees are precisely the multiples of 3◦. http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf Am Sonntag, 6. August 2017 14:23:46 UTC+2Jack Fearnley2017-10-18T01:57:54Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/gAsU1K2aOtwcubic curveI sent this once but it didn't appear. My apologies if you see it twice. I am sorry, I lost the thread of this message. The last author was Miller. The form x^3=y^3+k^3+2xyk is a cubic curve in projective coordinates (x,y,k). Clearly, (r,r,0) is a solution for any rational number r. If welgt...@gmail.com2017-10-18T01:24:04Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/rkeDYDI-vdERe: Management, 10/e stephen p. Robbins, mary coulter test bankDo you have this one? Could you please send it to me if you can. Thank you so much. Have a nice day! Management, 13/E Stephen P. Robbins, Mary Coulter TEST BANK Management, 13/E Stephen P. Robbins, Mary Coulter SOLUTIONS MANUAL (12edition is also okay.)Timothy Russel2017-10-18T00:54:51Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/jQBE5cr5TREbassam king karzeddin and "Phantom Brain" syndromeA phantom brain is the sensation that an amputated or missing brain is still present in the skull. Approximately 60 to 80% of bassam king karzeddin.s posts to this group exhibit phantom thoughts from his missing brain, and the majority of these messages are meaningless. Although few phantomburs...@gmail.com2017-10-18T00:20:17Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214Re: The bogus set concept.Well these empty brown bags would still contain more brains than bird brain John Gabriel. His set predicate definition, is as stupid, as one would define natural numbers as follows: nat(x) :<=> exists y(x=y+1) What can go wrong? You could do a set theory without empty set, thats veryDan Christensen2017-10-18T00:18:01Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214Re: The bogus set concept.that > > > contain other empty sets [as elements]. > > > > No, psycho. This would be an "contradiction in adjecto". > > Contradiction in adjecto describes you perfectly! Chuckle. > > > > If a set is empty, then it does NOT contain any elements (just BECAUSE it is empty). > > Then it's notburs...@gmail.com2017-10-18T00:11:41Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214Re: The bogus set concept.Nowadays the term "Nullmenge" is avoided, since its ambigious to Measuretheoretic Set with Measure Zero. So in Germany the used term nowadays is "Leere Menge". https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leere_Menge But Zermelo defines "Nullmenge" explicit as if "Leere Menge", aka empty set. The emptyJohn Gabriel2017-10-18T00:08:50Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214Re: The bogus set concept.that > > > contain other empty sets [as elements]. > > > > No, psycho. This would be an "contradiction in adjecto". > > Contradiction in adjecto describes you perfectly! Chuckle. > > > > If a set is empty, then it does NOT contain any elements (just BECAUSE it is empty). > > Then it's notburs...@gmail.com2017-10-17T23:59:23Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214Re: The bogus set concept.Thats nonsense, you do not do this in set theory. For example in ZFC without ur-elements, the whole universe of discourse is anyway sets. So you do not need a predicat set(.), everything is anyway sets. The Zermelo set theory of 1908 included urelements. You find a text here: Ernst Zermelo:John Gabriel2017-10-17T23:59:09Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbYRe: It is a very bad idea and nothing less than stupid to define 1/3 = 0.333...Well, as I predicted most of your rant is irrelevant but the following is truly absurd! > For example, if f: B -> C is a function between topological > spaces B and C, we say that f is *continuous* if, for every > open set Y in C, its inverse image X = f^-1(Y) in B is > an open set. It mightDan Christensen2017-10-17T23:51:29Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbYRe: It is a very bad idea and nothing less than stupid to define 1/3 = 0.333...On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 4:09:51 PM UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote: > > Oh wait, I forgot: actually we do something like that - it's called infinite division, you know, 1 -:- 3 which gives us 0.333... We know that 0.333... = Lim(n --> oo): Sum(k=0,n) 0.3 * 0.1^k = 0.3 /(1 - 0.1) = 1/3 = 1Jim Burns2017-10-17T23:18:57Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbYRe: It is a very bad idea and nothing less than stupid to define 1/3 = 0.333...>> Here is the meaning that 0.333... already has, according to >> Wikipedia, if we're really going the "already defined" route. >> See, in particular, the _definition_ at the bottom of the >> first quote. 0.333... does not have infinite additions. A reminder: the "already defined" meaning ofJohn Gabriel2017-10-17T23:10:04Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0DgFNTIeye4Re: The myth of "infinite" decimal expansions.wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > sqrt(2) is a **SYMBOL** of the incommenurable magnitude known as the > > > > > length of the hypotenuse. > > > > > > > > Indeed, it's a symbol for that number whose square is 2. > > > > > > Then what is that number? You can't write sqrt(2) > > > > I haven't,John Gabriel2017-10-17T23:08:16Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0DgFNTIeye4Re: The myth of "infinite" decimal expansions.wrote: > <snip> > > > > sqrt(2) is a **SYMBOL** of the incommenurable magnitude known as the > > > > length of the hypotenuse. > > > > > > Indeed, it's a symbol for that number whose square is 2. > > > > Then what is that number? You can't write sqrt(2) > > I haven't, but I could. TheJohn Gabriel2017-10-17T22:52:28Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214Re: The bogus set concept.Contradiction in adjecto describes you perfectly! Chuckle. > > If a set is empty, then it does NOT contain any elements (just BECAUSE it is empty). Then it's not a set any more. > The other way round, if a set contains elements, it's NOT EMPTY (by definition of the notion /empty/ set). NoMe2017-10-17T22:31:27Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/ZS_TVzlBG2kRe: 16) Are Gottingen's Thomas Schick, Anita Schöbel as dumb as Franz in Conic = Oval, not ellipse (4 experiments and 2 proofs listed below)On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 8:49:07 PM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 6:32:21 PM UTC-5, Me wrote: > > > > Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic sections > > are ellipses. Right. Here it is again (since you just snippedMe2017-10-17T22:27:39Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/L0JOp5RvO9kRe: probably need a new force law vice F= ma// probably need F= current Re: prePage24, 3-1, perspective of Laws versus forces in PhysicsOn Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 8:55:43 PM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Now let us shift to 2nd dimension geometry for a moment and we have this. > > Ellipse x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 = 1 REALLY?! BUT RECENTLY YOU WROTE: "...when if you look closely at that picture titled c_1X^2 + c_2Y^2 -Me2017-10-17T22:25:59Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/kr2V5oddLXERe: probably need a new force definition in Physics, far removed from Newton's F= ma Re: prePage24, 3-1, perspective of Laws versus forcesOn Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 8:57:31 PM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Now let us shift to 2nd dimension geometry for a moment and we have this. > > Ellipse x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 = 1 Huh?! Recently YOU WROTE: "...when if you look closely at that picture titled c_1X^2 + c_2Y^2 - 1 = 0Me2017-10-17T22:17:52Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/NsjaDW5vRDkRe: High school mathematics which morons never understood explained. S = Lim S. Euler Oagbar!On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 12:03:04 AM UTC+2, burs...@gmail.com wrote: > Whats "it"? Obviously you dont understand the point. > There are two "it"s, "it" Nr. 1 (upper case Lim): > > Lim (a_i)_i=1^oo > > And "it" Nr. 2 (lower case lim): > > lim_n->oo a_n > > Do you see theburs...@gmail.com2017-10-17T22:09:59Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/NsjaDW5vRDkRe: High school mathematics which morons never understood explained. S = Lim S. Euler Oagbar!Hint, if you can recognize the difference, then you also see immediately why S=Lim S is impossible, also not used by Euler. Do you mean Euler used S=Lim S, or do you mean Euler used S=lim S. Don't tell us its irrelevant. You might finally learn something about your ongoing own blunder. WhatMe2017-10-17T22:09:52Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/pbGkIxMWKSgRe: LIGO is fraud and abuse of taxpayer money// the money spent on LIGO could make USA electrical energy independent via GEOTHERMALOn Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 11:51:44 PM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Much of the fusion machines were built due to no more nuke detonations. But: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/giant-us-fusion-laser-might-never-achieve-goal-report-concludesburs...@gmail.com2017-10-17T22:03:04Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/NsjaDW5vRDkRe: High school mathematics which morons never understood explained. S = Lim S. Euler Oagbar!Whats "it"? Obviously you dont understand the point. There are two "it"s, "it" Nr. 1 (upper case Lim): Lim (a_i)_i=1^oo And "it" Nr. 2 (lower case lim): lim_n->oo a_n Do you see the difference, or do you continue aspiring as a super-idiot? BTW: There was newer a Euler blunderMe2017-10-17T21:54:41Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214Re: The bogus set concept.proofs > for the stated theorem here: > https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-prove-that-the-empty-set-is-a-subset-of-every-set > and here: > https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/631042/direct-proof-of-empty-set-being-subset-of-every-set > and here: > https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Empty_Set_is_SuArchimedes Plutonium2017-10-17T21:51:44Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/pbGkIxMWKSgRe: LIGO is fraud and abuse of taxpayer money// the money spent on LIGO could make USA electrical energy independent via GEOTHERMALNow that maybe a huge reason for LIGO-- a Dept of Defense snooping device, disguised as physics telescope. Much of the fusion machines were built due to no more nuke detonations. Similarly LIGO is more about telling train traffic in China and Russia than about astronomy. APMe2017-10-17T21:49:26Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214Re: The bogus set concept.wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 11:51:32 UTC-4, Me wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 5:44:13 PM UTC+2, John Gabriel wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the "empty set is a subset of EVERY set" is then false > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it's PROVABLE rightJulio Di Egidio2017-10-17T21:37:48Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0DgFNTIeye4Re: The myth of "infinite" decimal expansions.<snip> > > > sqrt(2) is a **SYMBOL** of the incommenurable magnitude known as the > > > length of the hypotenuse. > > > > Indeed, it's a symbol for that number whose square is 2. > > Then what is that number? You can't write sqrt(2) I haven't, but I could. The point is, the very moment IMe2017-10-17T21:33:53Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214Re: The bogus set concept.On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 5:36:30 PM UTC+2, John Gabriel wrote: > The von Neumann [definition] of [ordinal] number[s] has empty sets that > contain other empty sets [as elements]. No, psycho. This would be an "contradiction in adjecto". If a set is empty, then it does NOT contain anyJohn Gabriel2017-10-17T21:22:09Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/NsjaDW5vRDkRe: High school mathematics which morons never understood explained. S = Lim S. Euler Oagbar!wrote: > > > ... to make the notation unique, we could use lower case > > for the binder notation, and upper case for non-binder > > operator ... > > That was exactly my intention. (Especially in the context of this NG, you know...) > > Actually, I'd like the possibility just to write > >John Gabriel2017-10-17T21:20:33Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214Re: The bogus set concept.wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > But the "empty set is a subset of EVERY set" is then false > > > > > > > > > > > No, it's PROVABLE right [in set theory]. > > > > > > > > > Rules are not provable ... > > > > > > Right. But we are not talking about a "rule" here, idiot. The statement > > > >John Gabriel2017-10-17T21:19:43Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0DgFNTIeye4Re: The myth of "infinite" decimal expansions.wrote: > > > > > > > > > So sqrt(2) is an irrational number. > > > > > > > > Wrong. sqrt(2) is NOT a number at all. > > > > > > Of course it is: it is the number whose square is 2, > > > > Well, what is that number whose square is 2 then smart-Alec? > > The number whose square is 2 is theMe2017-10-17T21:09:20Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/NsjaDW5vRDkRe: High school mathematics which morons never understood explained. S = Lim S. Euler Oagbar!On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 7:14:46 PM UTC+2, burs...@gmail.com wrote: > ... to make the notation unique, we could use lower case > for the binder notation, and upper case for non-binder > operator ... That was exactly my intention. (Especially in the context of this NG, you know...)Pentcho Valev2017-10-17T21:08:48Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/nOUhI9WCkB8Re: Have All Einsteinians Left the Sinking Ship?"Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara, a theoretical physicist at the Perimeter Institute, said, "I have the distressing experience of physicists telling me that time is not real. ... It confuses me, because time seems to be real. Things happen. When I clap my hands, it happened. ... I would prefer toMe2017-10-17T21:00:39Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214Re: The bogus set concept.wrote: > > > > > > > > > > But the "empty set is a subset of EVERY set" is then false > > > > > > > > > No, it's PROVABLE right [in set theory]. > > > > > > > Rules are not provable ... > > > > Right. But we are not talking about a "rule" here, idiot. The statement > > > > AX: {} c Xburs...@gmail.com2017-10-17T20:58:56Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/NsjaDW5vRDkRe: High school mathematics which morons never understood explained. S = Lim S. Euler Oagbar!One answer to why would use classes, is the situation when we wouldn't work with set theory. For example if we would use only Peano axioms and no set theory. Then we could for example model the partial sums of a series: 1/2 + 1/4 + ... as a natural number function, just a pair for theJulio Di Egidio2017-10-17T20:57:37Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0DgFNTIeye4Re: The myth of "infinite" decimal expansions.The number whose square is 2 is the number whose square is 2. It's you who confuse names and numbers. > sqrt(2) is a **SYMBOL** of the incommenurable magnitude known as the > length of the hypotenuse. Indeed, it's a symbol for that number whose square is 2. > > it is also the > > numberJohn Gabriel2017-10-17T20:49:34Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0DgFNTIeye4Re: The myth of "infinite" decimal expansions.Well, what is that number whose square is 2 then smart-Alec? sqrt(2) is a **SYMBOL** of the incommenurable magnitude known as the length of the hypotenuse. > it is also the > number that would cost your life ta the time of the Pythagoreans. > Stop being unreasonable, there even existburs...@gmail.com2017-10-17T20:47:40Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/NsjaDW5vRDkRe: High school mathematics which morons never understood explained. S = Lim S. Euler Oagbar!It might go back to Giuseppe Peano and before. I found a legend in this book: Interestingly Giuseppe Peano did also formalize such operators I(.) and E(.): §10. Quantitatum systema interior, exterior, limes classis a https://archive.org/stream/arithmeticespri00peangoog#page/n38/mode/2up ItsJohn Gabriel2017-10-17T20:45:14Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0DgFNTIeye4Re: The myth of "infinite" decimal expansions.wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > However, if we use more iterations we > > > > just might find a cycle, and use different colors based on the > > > > iterations it took to find the fraction. Its all about precision and > > > > iteration count. Imvho, it is very similar to finding cycles in long >Julio Di Egidio2017-10-17T20:44:36Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0DgFNTIeye4Re: The myth of "infinite" decimal expansions.Of course it is: it is the number whose square is 2, it is also the number that would cost your life ta the time of the Pythagoreans. Stop being unreasonable, there even exist imaginary numbers, and they are quite real... > It is an incommensurable magnitude and they are not the same thing.