sci.math
https://groups.google.com/d/forum/sci.math
Mathematical discussions and pursuits.enRe: It is a very bad idea and nothing less than stupid to define 1/3 = 0.333...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbY/doHIhUP8BAAJ
Hi, Thats the good thing about category theory, it makes composition of subproblems visible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory Even Alonzo Church didn't think about this, in his lambda calculus composition can be simply expressed by juxtaposition. Ok lets abuse category theoryhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbY
burs...@gmail.comWed, 18 Oct 2017 20:52:32 UTCRe: It is a very bad idea and nothing less than stupid to define 1/3 = 0.333...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbY/0Bw7bvT3BAAJ
<snip> > I don't know how to deal with your statement "I don't know how to even > think about "infinitely many additions" without using something like > limits." > > Do you mean: > > A. "1 + 1 + 1 + ..." ARE NOT infinitely many additions The meaning of "1+1+1+..." *is* a limit of sums.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbY
Julio Di EgidioWed, 18 Oct 2017 19:33:35 UTCRe: It is a very bad idea and nothing less than stupid to define 1/3 = 0.333...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbY/KUi2E8H3BAAJ
I don't know how to deal with your statement "I don't know how to even think about "infinitely many additions" without using something like limits." Do you mean: A. "1 + 1 + 1 + ..." ARE NOT infinitely many additions B. "0.3 + 0.03 + 0.003 + ..." ARE NOT infinitely many additions C. "0.3 +https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbY
netzweltlerWed, 18 Oct 2017 19:29:54 UTCPergaminho Lógico
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/mT5nC1yvOUk/Uv5TAaL1BAAJ
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DMcQ2PNXUAAyEq8.jpg:large Does anybody know where was Gödel in cathegory history?https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mT5nC1yvOUk
Vinicius Claudino FerrazWed, 18 Oct 2017 18:51:02 UTCRe: Fiction numbers create fiction angles too
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/tWIQqH3_AIA/SlWcuCj0BAAJ
Better lets ask: So you think there are integer angles measured in degrees, constructible ones, whch are not multiples of 3°, right? Am Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 20:22:52 UTC+2 schrieb Blaubeer Rotapfel: > So you think there are angles, constructible > ones, whch are not multiples of 3°,https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tWIQqH3_AIA
Blaubeer RotapfelWed, 18 Oct 2017 18:24:01 UTCRe: Fiction numbers create fiction angles too
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/tWIQqH3_AIA/yZOzfhj0BAAJ
So you think there are angles, constructible ones, whch are not multiples of 3°, right? Am Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 20:19:42 UTC+2 schrieb bassam king karzeddin: > On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 8:32:59 PM UTC+3, Blaubeer Rotapfel wrote: > > Well it seems that the following "The missinghttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tWIQqH3_AIA
burs...@gmail.comWed, 18 Oct 2017 18:22:52 UTCRe: It is a very bad idea and nothing less than stupid to define 1/3 = 0.333...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbY/Z226e_TzBAAJ
There is a third case, for example this series here: 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + ... It is none of the cases (1) or (2): lim n->oo S_n = a (1) lim n->oo S_n = oo (2) Am Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 19:57:40 UTC+2 schrieb burs...@gmail.com: > Stillhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbY
burs...@gmail.comWed, 18 Oct 2017 18:20:17 UTCRe: Fiction numbers create fiction angles too
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/tWIQqH3_AIA/5JeUXuzzBAAJ
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 8:32:59 PM UTC+3, Blaubeer Rotapfel wrote: > Well it seems that the following "The missing brain > often feels as if it wibble thunderstruck purple > monkey dishwasher." is true for BKK. > > If somebody asks: > "How can we exactly construct a triangle with >https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tWIQqH3_AIA
bassam king karzeddinWed, 18 Oct 2017 18:19:42 UTCRe: What is the real number?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/l7eUXeoWDBo/dwlzI3LzBAAJ
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 1:31:10 AM UTC-7, bassam king karzeddin wrote: > On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 10:14:29 AM UTC+3, Zeit Geist wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 10:19:55 AM UTC-7, bassam king karzeddin wrote: > > > On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 8:42:11 AM UTC+3,https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/l7eUXeoWDBo
Zeit GeistWed, 18 Oct 2017 18:10:57 UTCRe: The bogus set concept.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214/Mdlb7LzyBAAJ
has "subsets", at least one. > > Liar. If that were true, then there would be no empty set. You are confusing being an ELEMENT of a set with being a SUBSET of a set. This isn't the first time, Troll Boy. You once decreed here: “So, 'is a member of' = 'is a subset of.'” -- May 16, 2015https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214
Dan ChristensenWed, 18 Oct 2017 17:57:59 UTCRe: Page24, 3-1, perspective of Laws versus Forces in Physics; new force definition F = dq/dt; Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/Q8Su9bW_Zik/fHx5n7jyBAAJ
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 7:12:00 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 = 0https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Q8Su9bW_Zik
MeWed, 18 Oct 2017 17:57:40 UTCRe: It is a very bad idea and nothing less than stupid to define 1/3 = 0.333...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbY/JvrawLjyBAAJ
Still miles away from anything like S=Lim S from Euler. Thats just your hallucination. For example sentences such as follows: "You would never think of limits had Euler not thought of infinite additions" Are completely meaningless. Since you didn't define what "infinite additions" herehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbY
burs...@gmail.comWed, 18 Oct 2017 17:57:40 UTCRe: The bogus set concept.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214/srSRoTbyBAAJ
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 6:37:06 PM UTC+2, John Gabriel wrote: > "being an element of a set" and "being included in a set" means EXACTLY the same thing What is meant here is (a) being an element of a set: x e X ("x is an element of X") vs. (b) being included in a set (as a subsethttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214
MeWed, 18 Oct 2017 17:48:22 UTCRe: About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words (October 2017)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/AnlyxTxRRVQ/zSpTo9vxBAAJ
A lot of logical errors in his reasoning: "But the "empty set is a subset of EVERY set" is then false because it is not a subset of itself." - JG, Oct 2017 Well, well, the uniformity of set theory is very nice. For example we have the result: - Every set is subset of itself? Perplexing?https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/AnlyxTxRRVQ
burs...@gmail.comWed, 18 Oct 2017 17:41:51 UTCRe: Page24, 3-1, perspective of Laws versus Forces in Physics; new force definition F = dq/dt; Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/Q8Su9bW_Zik/nzmO2ofxBAAJ
No a conic section is never an ellipse, always an oval. Am Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 19:12:00 UTC+2 schrieb Archimedes Plutonium: > Now let us shift to 2nd dimension geometry for a moment and we have this. > > Circle x^2 + y^2 = 1 > > Ellipse x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 = 1 > > Parabola x^2 - y = 1https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Q8Su9bW_Zik
burs...@gmail.comWed, 18 Oct 2017 17:35:52 UTCRe: cubic curve / Integer equation
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/gAsU1K2aOtw/Pv8oMmPxBAAJ
twice. > > > > I am sorry, I lost the thread of this message. The last author was Miller. > > Are you referring to the BKK 'Integer equation' thread about the equation > in coprime integers n^3 = m^3 + k^3 + 2*n*m*k ? . . . > > -- > jiw Looks like Jack Fearnley was, indeed, referringhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/gAsU1K2aOtw
richard millerWed, 18 Oct 2017 17:33:14 UTCRe: Fiction numbers create fiction angles too
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/tWIQqH3_AIA/KVoXml_xBAAJ
Well it seems that the following "The missing brain often feels as if it wibble thunderstruck purple monkey dishwasher." is true for BKK. If somebody asks: "How can we exactly construct a triangle with known sides such that at least one of its angles is in integer degree (n), where (n) ishttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tWIQqH3_AIA
Blaubeer RotapfelWed, 18 Oct 2017 17:32:59 UTCRe: Fiction numbers create fiction angles too
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/tWIQqH3_AIA/st5hCrrwBAAJ
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 7:45:21 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote: > On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 6:51:38 PM UTC+3, Blaubeer Rotapfel wrote: > > Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle, > > doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled. > > > A TROLL wrote: >https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tWIQqH3_AIA
bassam king karzeddinWed, 18 Oct 2017 17:21:08 UTCRe: About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words (October 2017)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/AnlyxTxRRVQ/wRm-b27wBAAJ
wrote: > > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 9:25:26 AM UTC-4, Dan Christensen wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 10:15:38 AM UTC-4, Dan Christensen wrote: > > > > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 1:38:22 PM UTC-4, Dan Christensen wrote: > > > > > > *** THE IDIOCIES JUST KEEP ONhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/AnlyxTxRRVQ
Dan ChristensenWed, 18 Oct 2017 17:15:43 UTCPage24, 3-1, perspective of Laws versus Forces in Physics; new force definition F = dq/dt; Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/Q8Su9bW_Zik/jRX0gzrwBAAJ
Page24, 3-1, perspective of Laws versus Forces in Physics; new force definition F = dq/dt; Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017 I was stuck on this page for what feels to me to be a month now, but probably not really a chronological month. For it appears to be that the Newton classificahttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Q8Su9bW_Zik
Archimedes PlutoniumWed, 18 Oct 2017 17:12:00 UTCRe: LIGO is fraud and abuse of taxpayer money// the money spent on LIGO could make USA electrical energy independent via GEOTHERMAL
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/pbGkIxMWKSg/lqreZirwBAAJ
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 4:51:44 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Now 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 abouthttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/pbGkIxMWKSg
Archimedes PlutoniumWed, 18 Oct 2017 17:10:51 UTCRe: The myth of "infinite" decimal expansions.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/0DgFNTIeye4/o7UBeg7vBAAJ
"definitions" in FOL or SOL? it is trivial for mathematicians to do it with all other definitions. > > > > > > Then again you cannot even fucking read the order correctly. > > > > Bla, bla, bla, more shit from Zelos idiot malum. > > When you go this childish, it means you've given up becausehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0DgFNTIeye4
John GabrielWed, 18 Oct 2017 16:50:31 UTCRe: Fiction numbers create fiction angles too
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/tWIQqH3_AIA/Hz7_McbuBAAJ
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 6:51:38 PM UTC+3, Blaubeer Rotapfel wrote: > Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle, > doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled. > A TROLL wrote: > You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated, > maybe learn some math. I guess PrimeFan'https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tWIQqH3_AIA
bassam king karzeddinWed, 18 Oct 2017 16:45:21 UTCRe: Fiction numbers create fiction angles too
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/tWIQqH3_AIA/Ts1_17XuBAAJ
Because you are the moron and we are different fucking people. >And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue? We are trying to teach you the core, you are the one that is using superficial excuses for things without understanding the core. >The reference talkshttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tWIQqH3_AIA
Zelos MalumWed, 18 Oct 2017 16:44:10 UTCRe: The bogus set concept.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214/QeSxBFPuBAAJ
Moron. "being an element of a set" and "being included in a set" means EXACTLY the same thing. What an idiot!https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214
John GabrielWed, 18 Oct 2017 16:37:06 UTCRe: It is a very bad idea and nothing less than stupid to define 1/3 = 0.333...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbY/FMg7n_HtBAAJ
general", we might consider it in the following way, imho. > > ACTUALLY, we are dealing with a SEQUENCE of "terms" with the "idea" to sum them up. So instead of writing > > a_1 + a_2 + a_3 + ... (as usual) > > we might as well write > > Sum (a_1, a_2, a_3, ...) > > orhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbY
John GabrielWed, 18 Oct 2017 16:30:08 UTCRe: It is a very bad idea and nothing less than stupid to define 1/3 = 0.333...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbY/suPk7L_tBAAJ
> The conventional definition of infinite decimals does not have infinite additions. False. You cannot have "infinite" decimal expansions without "infinite" additions. They makes ZERO sense. The very fact that these are viewed in relation to a LIMIT implies infinite addition. > We've seenhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbY
John GabrielWed, 18 Oct 2017 16:26:34 UTCRe: It is a very bad idea and nothing less than stupid to define 1/3 = 0.333...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbY/hCFZSY3tBAAJ
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 6:13:52 PM UTC+2, Me wrote: > We might actually call an ordered pair > > (Sum, (a_k)) > > an /infinite series/. The "sum of the series" would be the "result" of > applying the operation Sum to the sequence (a_k) (if the series "converges" > that is).https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbY
MeWed, 18 Oct 2017 16:22:57 UTCRe: It is a very bad idea and nothing less than stupid to define 1/3 = 0.333...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbY/L-9Ibg7tBAAJ
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 5:33:17 PM UTC+2, Jim Burns wrote: Just one thing first. When we are talking about an /infinite series/ "in general", we might consider it in the following way, imho. ACTUALLY, we are dealing with a SEQUENCE of "terms" with the "idea" to sum them up. Sohttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbY
MeWed, 18 Oct 2017 16:13:52 UTCRe: cubic curve / Integer equation
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/gAsU1K2aOtw/_4LSSwftBAAJ
Miller. Are you referring to the BKK 'Integer equation' thread about the equation in coprime integers n^3 = m^3 + k^3 + 2*n*m*k ? In that thread, in message Message-ID: <7d69e2c7-3bf9-48c2-b634-d5dd76a3f0a2@googlegroups.com> on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 at 12:01:36 -0700 Richard Miller wrote "I wouldhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/gAsU1K2aOtw
James WaldbyWed, 18 Oct 2017 16:13:21 UTCLIGO's Gravitational Waves: Needles in a Haystack or Just Fakes?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/gUIFt59G8EI/7aUReQzsBAAJ
"On 18 March 2016, Harald Pfeiffer, Associate Professor at the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Physics, Toronto, will be honoured with a Bessel Award of the Humboldt Foundation. The award will allow him to stay at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute,https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/gUIFt59G8EI
Pentcho ValevWed, 18 Oct 2017 15:55:24 UTCRe: Fiction numbers create fiction angles too
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/tWIQqH3_AIA/AJ9a49frBAAJ
Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle, doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled. You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated, maybe learn some math. I guess PrimeFan's: constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗ PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52 Theorem 3 Thehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tWIQqH3_AIA
burs...@gmail.comWed, 18 Oct 2017 15:51:38 UTCRe: Fiction numbers create fiction angles too
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/tWIQqH3_AIA/1zwC7JDrBAAJ
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 2:07:23 PM UTC+3, Blaubeer Rotapfel wrote: > Do you even know what the word "only" means? > Are you brain amputated, or what? > > Am Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 09:42:36 UTC+2 schrieb bassam king karzeddin: > > Thanks to the reference, but the reference neverhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tWIQqH3_AIA
bassam king karzeddinWed, 18 Oct 2017 15:46:33 UTCRe: It is a very bad idea and nothing less than stupid to define 1/3 = 0.333...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbY/GC2Ai9fqBAAJ
>>>> 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. Can we take one thing off the table?https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbY
Jim BurnsWed, 18 Oct 2017 15:33:17 UTCRe: What is the real number?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/l7eUXeoWDBo/ny5DUaHqBAAJ
for sure You are the liar, he did it right before you and then you say he didn't, that is a lie. >You are a well-exposed example of unbelievable ignorance and stupidity, where your true intention and purpose had been fixed and well documented online by so many others This comes from the onehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/l7eUXeoWDBo
Zelos MalumWed, 18 Oct 2017 15:29:24 UTCRe: The bogus set concept.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214/Rjc41ZTqBAAJ
So what? In mathematics we use modern /axiomatic set theory/ these days, usually ZFC or (a variant of) NBG and/or MK. For example in MK there IS an explicit definition of the notion of /set/: set(x) :<-> Ey(x e y) . ("x is a set.") And we can PROVE there: Ex(~Ey(y e x) &https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214
MeWed, 18 Oct 2017 15:28:31 UTCRe: The bogus set concept.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214/_sdPzQbqBAAJ
sets. > > > > > > > > > Actually it does define what a set is because that is it's fucking job! > > > > > > > No idiot. It defines the properties of a set. A set was defined long > > > before ZF. > > > > > It defines a set by saying that anything that has those properties is a > > set. > >https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214
MeWed, 18 Oct 2017 15:18:21 UTCRe: What is the real number?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/l7eUXeoWDBo/T2MKtfHpBAAJ
existence of continuity and also on naive conclusions (that doesn't constitute any rigorous proof for sure) and you aren't so blamed because the mathematics was taught to everyone as that > Zelos wrote: > Actually it can be proven to exist so not an assumption. > > >And finally, you norhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/l7eUXeoWDBo
bassam king karzeddinWed, 18 Oct 2017 15:16:50 UTCRe: The myth of "infinite" decimal expansions.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/0DgFNTIeye4/9RaMJpXpBAAJ
Julio Di Egidio <ju...@diegidio.name> writes: > On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 11:30:09 AM UTC+2, Alan Smaill wrote: >> Julio Di Egidio <ju...@diegidio.name> writes: [...] >> > Kind of local vs global of those theories: in the meantime, I have >> > been looking for a direct (i.e. constructivehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0DgFNTIeye4
Alan SmaillWed, 18 Oct 2017 15:10:12 UTCRe: It is a very bad idea and nothing less than stupid to define 1/3 = 0.333...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbY/vRrPQqPoBAAJ
You can view the upper case Lim as an attempt to factor the problem in two subproblems, and to channel the discussion. The two subproblems are: - Obtain whole sequence from summands - Apply limit operator to whole sequence If you don't agree with this factoring of the problem into twohttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbY
burs...@gmail.comWed, 18 Oct 2017 14:52:53 UTCRe: It is a very bad idea and nothing less than stupid to define 1/3 = 0.333...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbY/AnCg-zroBAAJ
There is no problem with infinitely many additions per se. A convering sum of series has infinitely many additions. A diverging sum of series has infinitely many additions. Other operators that send some sequence or set to some value, might also accept an infinitude of steps or elements. Andhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbY
burs...@gmail.comWed, 18 Oct 2017 14:45:26 UTCRe: The bogus set concept.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214/vtDdmrznBAAJ
It defines the properties a set MUST HAVE. If it doesn't have those, then it isn't a set and no property of those says Ax Ey (y e x) Therefore your statement "A set must have an element" is false. >The binary arithmetic operators DO NOT define numbers like the fucking moron Dan Christensenhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214
Zelos MalumWed, 18 Oct 2017 14:36:17 UTCRe: JG's bogus set concept.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214/9_UQKGrnBAAJ
Yeah, a good design principle, to lower the complexity of the axioms, is a certain uniformity. The empty set is a good example. Excluding the empty set from set theory is much more complicated, than including it from set theory. So one might ask what goes wrong with JGs new calclueless? Wellhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214
burs...@gmail.comWed, 18 Oct 2017 14:30:29 UTCRe: Integer equation
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/LNPeaAgbF4I/ZMy4YE_mBAAJ
Your paper seems useful and interesting, I will study it once I get time, since it is Diophantine Eqns. and I don't know what did G.Myrsone meant exactly by his meaningless comment since I don't have any axis to any Journal, so he was just unclear and most likely his comment is uselesshttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/LNPeaAgbF4I
bassam king karzeddinWed, 18 Oct 2017 14:10:14 UTCJG's bogus set concept
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214/K1hPomzlBAAJ
before ZF. Without the essential properties of a set, you cannot develop a mathematical theory of sets. Yeah, I know, you couldn't care less about developing a mathematical theory of anything. You just make up some goofy definitions. That's the easy part. It doesn't even seem to matter to youhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214
Dan ChristensenWed, 18 Oct 2017 13:54:00 UTCRe: The bogus set concept.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214/98CT6k3kBAAJ
You're losing your time Mr Malum. John Gabriel is well known to confuse "being a element of a set" and "being included in a set". How come you could convince him about anything about Set Theory? This fool is beyond any hope.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214
PythonWed, 18 Oct 2017 13:33:29 UTCRe: The bogus set concept.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214/pETzvSXkBAAJ
job! > > > > No idiot. It defines the properties of a set. A set was defined long before ZF. > > It defines a set by saying that anything that has those properties is a set. NO! It defines the properties of a set. The binary arithmetic operators DO NOT define numbers like the fuckinghttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/X1tQL4jh214
John GabrielWed, 18 Oct 2017 13:30:36 UTCRe: It is a very bad idea and nothing less than stupid to define 1/3 = 0.333...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbY/zWW0jh3kBAAJ
Shut up now. You are boring me. > > > > > > > > I will once you actually start arguing against the proper mathematical object and not your delusional version. > > > > > > > > I won't let your dishonesty go by unchallanged. > > > > > > BLA, BLA, BLA, I AM A FUCKING IDIOT - ZELOS MALUM > > >https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/bgU-4JWvHbY
Zelos MalumWed, 18 Oct 2017 13:30:01 UTCRe: The myth of "infinite" decimal expansions.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/0DgFNTIeye4/OJnOzAPkBAAJ
"definitions" in FOL or SOL? it is trivial for mathematicians to do it with all other definitions. > > > > Then again you cannot even fucking read the order correctly. > > Bla, bla, bla, more shit from Zelos idiot malum. When you go this childish, it means you've given up because you are toohttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0DgFNTIeye4
Zelos MalumWed, 18 Oct 2017 13:28:11 UTCRe: High school mathematics which morons never understood explained. S = Lim S. Euler Oagbar!
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/NsjaDW5vRDk/R2oFe_rjBAAJ
you try to cite, WRONG! > > >JUST BECAUSE EULER DECREED S TO BE THE LIMIT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS A LIMIT YOU DIPSHIT! > > I have told you already we do not CARE what euler said! > > Just quit going on about euler already, what he said is irrelevant to this discussion. Bla, bla, bla, more shithttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/NsjaDW5vRDk
John GabrielWed, 18 Oct 2017 13:27:31 UTC