sci.math
https://groups.google.com/d/forum/sci.math
Mathematical discussions and pursuits.enbuilding a right triangle with sides all 1 by 1 by 1 Re: Chapter 7-2 Fixing many errors of Old Math
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/KlUpl-rmU5M/P8nWYYdEAgAJ
Alright, cac we place in front of us a see through pyramid and see through tetrahedron. Now, can we picture how we remove one face of the pyramid and slide one of the three to form a tetrahedron. Similar to what i am doing with 3 lengths of strips all 1 unit long. Two forming a 90 angle, thirdhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/KlUpl-rmU5M
Archimedes PlutoniumSun, 22 Jan 2017 11:37:14 UTCbuilding a right triangle with sides all 1 by 1 by 1 Re: Chapter 7-2 Fixing many errors of Old Math
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/KlUpl-rmU5M/naVkU4dEAgAJ
Alright, cac we place in front of us a see through pyramid and see through tetrahedron. Now, can we picture how we remove one face of the pyramid and slide one of the three to form a tetrahedron. Similar to what i am doing with 3 lengths of strips all 1 unit long. Two forming a 90 angle, thirdhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/KlUpl-rmU5M
Archimedes PlutoniumSun, 22 Jan 2017 11:37:14 UTCRe: Peano Like Axioms for Z, the Integers
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/5t19DObiWk8/8tnbCH9AAgAJ
Here's a simpler FOL version. A FOL Lz, with with equality, two uniary functions P (precessor), S and a bincary relation < (smaller than) is ussed. The precessor and successor of n are written Pn and Sn. The axioms are some n with n = n for all n, PSn = n = SPn for any proposition Q(x)https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/5t19DObiWk8
William ElliotSun, 22 Jan 2017 10:23:20 UTCEinsteinians will repeat Eddington's 1919 hoax
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/28VrwL64seg/4_hRv5Y_AgAJ
Einsteinians admit that Eddington's 1919 confirmation of Einstein's relativity was a hoax: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAJn0D4y5ic Brian Greene (6:47) "Eddington's data, with a little bit of massaging, seemed to show that Einstein's ideas were correct. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mahttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/28VrwL64seg
Pentcho ValevSun, 22 Jan 2017 10:06:43 UTCRe: Proof of inconsistencies in BOGUS calculus
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/kHg8BgqakEI/O6hq_eI7AgAJ
Do you know what exactly is n-m in this case? You don't seem to generally accept the idea of the symmetric case m=n, but why are you in this case accepting that m-n=0 ? Would you like to make an exception to the the "rules"? Is the function f(x) = x^2 an exceptional function, and then what ishttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/kHg8BgqakEI
7777777Sun, 22 Jan 2017 08:58:52 UTCRe: Convergence of means problem
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/TrIPjZ_BxjQ/gBPklUw7AgAJ
sqrt(ab). quasihttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/TrIPjZ_BxjQ
quasiSun, 22 Jan 2017 08:48:06 UTCbuilding a right triangle with sides all 1 by 1 by 1 Re: Chapter 7-2 Fixing many errors of Old Math
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/KlUpl-rmU5M/AQ3qUnE6AgAJ
A refinement in the experiment. We cut out three more equal strips of length 1 and tape them together as a 60-60-60 and 1-1-1 equilateral triangle. Now, with our other 3 strips we want a 1-1-1 with 90-45-45 triangle but are shy by a distance of 1.414... subtract 1. What we do is place thehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/KlUpl-rmU5M
Archimedes PlutoniumSun, 22 Jan 2017 08:32:25 UTCbuilding a right triangle with sides all 1 by 1 by 1 Re: Chapter 7-2 Fixing many errors of Old Math
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/KlUpl-rmU5M/IImNBV83AgAJ
Alright, the equilateral right triangle, which has all three sides of one unit length and is a 45-45-90 right triangle. Impossible in plane geometry but totally possible in 3rd dimension. We take a envelope and cut three strips from one end to be line segments of unit 1. Now we take two stripshttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/KlUpl-rmU5M
Archimedes PlutoniumSun, 22 Jan 2017 07:36:07 UTCRe: Cubic equations with real roots
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/d4drw5jDBYo/qlwPElMyAgAJ
Is this a record? A reply to a 21 and a half year old posting on sci.math. Of course this is the good old casus irreducibilis: an irreducible rational cubic with real roots cannot be solved by taking n-th roots just of real numbers.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/d4drw5jDBYo
Robin ChapmanSun, 22 Jan 2017 06:03:39 UTCRe: Limits and the infinite complete Binary Tree and the contradiction of uncountability
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs/PlDAhdoxAgAJ
wrote: > > On Sunday, 22 January 2017 06:38:30 UTC+1, John Gabriel wrote: > > > On Saturday, 21 January 2017 21:27:50 UTC-8, shio...@googlemail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > That's right. You are writing it as an equivalent fraction with the denominator as an integral power of 10. Lookhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs
shio...@googlemail.comSun, 22 Jan 2017 05:55:01 UTCRe: Limits and the infinite complete Binary Tree and the contradiction of uncountability
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs/B9WOJnYxAgAJ
wrote: > > > > > > That's right. You are writing it as an equivalent fraction with the denominator as an integral power of 10. Look stupid: > > > > > > > > 1/4 = 25/10^2 > > > > > > > > 10^2 is an integral power of 10. > > > > > > > > Now tell me baboon, what is the equivalenthttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs
John GabrielSun, 22 Jan 2017 05:47:50 UTCRe: Limits and the infinite complete Binary Tree and the contradiction of uncountability
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs/b709oC8xAgAJ
wrote: > > > > That's right. You are writing it as an equivalent fraction with the denominator as an integral power of 10. Look stupid: > > > > > > 1/4 = 25/10^2 > > > > > > 10^2 is an integral power of 10. > > > > > > Now tell me baboon, what is the equivalent fraction for 1/3?https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs
shio...@googlemail.comSun, 22 Jan 2017 05:42:47 UTCRe: Limits and the infinite complete Binary Tree and the contradiction of uncountability
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs/c6W5t_MwAgAJ
On Saturday, 21 January 2017 21:27:50 UTC-8, shio...@googlemail.com wrote: > > That's right. You are writing it as an equivalent fraction with the denominator as an integral power of 10. Look stupid: > > > > 1/4 = 25/10^2 > > > > 10^2 is an integral power of 10. > > > > Now tellhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs
John GabrielSun, 22 Jan 2017 05:38:30 UTCRe: Limits and the infinite complete Binary Tree and the contradiction of uncountability
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs/ljYQ4l4wAgAJ
wrote: > > On Sunday, 22 January 2017 05:04:30 UTC+1, John Gabriel wrote: > > > On Saturday, 21 January 2017 19:31:39 UTC-8, shio...@googlemail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, 22 January 2017 02:17:12 UTC+1, genm...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, 21 January 2017 16:22:48 UTC-8,https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs
shio...@googlemail.comSun, 22 Jan 2017 05:27:50 UTCRe: Limits and the infinite complete Binary Tree and the contradiction of uncountability
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs/ZoGOo1AwAgAJ
wrote: > > > On Sunday, 22 January 2017 02:17:12 UTC+1, genm...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, 21 January 2017 16:22:48 UTC-8, shio...@googlemail.com wrote: > > > > > "" > > > > > > > > Hey idiot. If you claim that 1/3 is represented in base 10, then produce a fraction p/q, such thathttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs
John GabrielSun, 22 Jan 2017 05:26:49 UTChistory exxageration by math historians Re: Any reason for names cosecant and secant
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/3JOG501aLW4/wKAwpuAvAgAJ
On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 10:33:56 AM UTC-6, Don Redmond wrote: (SNIP) > > Since you asked. The cosecant is just a cofunction like the other two. The secant was first named by the Dutch mathematician Thomas Fincke in a book in 1583. Its name comes from the Latin secans, which means tohttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/3JOG501aLW4
Archimedes PlutoniumSun, 22 Jan 2017 05:18:48 UTCConvergence of means problem
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/TrIPjZ_BxjQ/XuNLUVQuAgAJ
Let G(x,y) = (x^2+y^2)/(x+y) Let H(x,y) = 1/G(1/x, 1/y) Let A_0 = a, B_0 = b where a,b > 0 Let A_(n+1) = G(A_n, B_n) Let B_(n+1) = H(A_n, B_n) What is limit n->oo A_nhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/TrIPjZ_BxjQ
David PetrySun, 22 Jan 2017 04:50:26 UTCRe: Limits and the infinite complete Binary Tree and the contradiction of uncountability
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs/HqLpU4EsAgAJ
wrote: > > On Sunday, 22 January 2017 02:17:12 UTC+1, genm...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Saturday, 21 January 2017 16:22:48 UTC-8, shio...@googlemail.com wrote: > > > > "" > > > > > > > Hey idiot. If you claim that 1/3 is represented in base 10, then produce a fraction p/q, such that p and qhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs
shio...@googlemail.comSun, 22 Jan 2017 04:17:00 UTCRe: Only Comparing Sequences with Values was discovered?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs/gVVO41wsAgAJ
Most of the time I ignore the idiot Jan Burse. He is mentally ill.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs
John GabrielSun, 22 Jan 2017 04:14:24 UTCRe: Limits and the infinite complete Binary Tree and the contradiction of uncountability
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs/L0sQmdIrAgAJ
wrote: > > > "" > > > > > > Hey idiot. If you claim that 1/3 is represented in base 10, then produce a fraction p/q, such that p and q are integers and p/q = 1/3. > > > > > > > > > > > > You won't be able to do it you pisser. The theorem claims it's impossible. And no, whatever shit 0.333...https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs
John GabrielSun, 22 Jan 2017 04:04:30 UTCRe: A number is the measure of a magnitude. There is no other way to derive numbers.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/ntaghVJzawE/etqS10oqAgAJ
wrote: > > On Sunday, 22 January 2017 00:49:39 UTC+1, John Gabriel wrote: > > > On Saturday, 21 January 2017 12:58:09 UTC-8, shio...@googlemail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, 21 January 2017 21:44:10 UTC+1, genm...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, 21 January 2017 12:39:13 UTC-8,https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/ntaghVJzawE
shio...@googlemail.comSun, 22 Jan 2017 03:36:27 UTCRe: A number is the measure of a magnitude. There is no other way to derive numbers.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/ntaghVJzawE/rHqUGggqAgAJ
On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 2:26:58 PM UTC-5, Jim Burns wrote: > > You could also prove that N exists from other assumptions, > such as {Dan's sets}+{An infinite set exists}. From those > same assumptions, you could also prove that the usual addition > exists. > I have posted a proofhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/ntaghVJzawE
Dan ChristensenSun, 22 Jan 2017 03:31:40 UTCRe: Limits and the infinite complete Binary Tree and the contradiction of uncountability
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs/am3w0QcqAgAJ
wrote: > > "" > > > > > Hey idiot. If you claim that 1/3 is represented in base 10, then produce a fraction p/q, such that p and q are integers and p/q = 1/3. > > > > > > > > > > You won't be able to do it you pisser. The theorem claims it's impossible. And no, whatever shit 0.333... is inhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs
shio...@googlemail.comSun, 22 Jan 2017 03:31:39 UTCRe: The first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/7VH6Ogw-UMQ/6rc7D1knAgAJ
complete > Binary Tree and the contradiction of uncountability > Datum: Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:09:10 -0800 (PST) > Von: basisd...@gmail.com > An: janb...@fastmail.fm > > > Here stupid: > > 7/12 > > 12 does not divide 7, but it does divide 105. > > So, 7/12 = 0.(8)https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/7VH6Ogw-UMQ
Ross A. FinlaysonSun, 22 Jan 2017 02:42:30 UTCRe: The first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/7VH6Ogw-UMQ/2AbIYZsmAgAJ
I am not using Google Groups, but JG is now feeling the cold turkey of missing Google posting credits. He is probably running around in circles in his logcabin, preparing a bomb for me. In his desparation he wrote me an email as follows, I like the wrong use of parenthesis in the repeatedhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/7VH6Ogw-UMQ
j4n bur53Sun, 22 Jan 2017 02:28:55 UTCRe: Huge error in Vector Calculus with basis vector, or unit vector
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/fkuVhD99UWc/-iqXnmgmAgAJ
Earle asks if the brain has a measurent of acidity and that a number like 666 would be normal acidity but 650 would be Alzheimer onsethttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/fkuVhD99UWc
Archimedes PlutoniumSun, 22 Jan 2017 02:25:17 UTCRe: The first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/7VH6Ogw-UMQ/gTeS-M8lAgAJ
(It seems that the troll-bot is getting just more stupid. Now it's just defining the derivative as the slope of the tangent line. Be quiet as it's enraged if disturbed. It flails about quite uselessly, but does leave somewhat of a mess.)https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/7VH6Ogw-UMQ
Ross A. FinlaysonSun, 22 Jan 2017 02:14:21 UTCbuilding a right triangle with sides all 1 by 1 by 1 Re: Chapter 7-2 Fixing many errors of Old Math
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/KlUpl-rmU5M/Q9jBg3olAgAJ
Here what i am exploring is a right triangle that is 45-45-90 but whose legs are 1 and the hypotenuse is also 1, not 1.414... And thus sticking out of 2nd dimension invading 3rd dimension. I conjecture that the pyramid is a projection of the tetrahedron as a similar calculus derivative invasionhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/KlUpl-rmU5M
Archimedes PlutoniumSun, 22 Jan 2017 02:08:14 UTCRe: The first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/7VH6Ogw-UMQ/bXm0QmwlAgAJ
Even not a mouse thinks you are using any logic besides spamming, bird brain John Gabriel birdbrains. genm...@gmail.com schrieb:https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/7VH6Ogw-UMQ
burs...@gmail.comSun, 22 Jan 2017 02:07:13 UTCRe: Try to rubbish the first constructive proof of the mean value theorem using the patched apparatus of the BOGUS CALCULUS.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/VMueP6Y6ol8/2_Qk4F0lAgAJ
Nobody thinks that you are using any logic besides spamming, bird brain John Gabriel birdbrains. genm...@gmail.com schrieb:https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/VMueP6Y6ol8
burs...@gmail.comSun, 22 Jan 2017 02:06:11 UTCRe: The long division algorithm is assumed in Euclid's GCD algorithm.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/Z8VdjfJprR0/E98wSlUlAgAJ
I don't think anybody believes you are using any logic except spamming, bird brain John Gabriel birdbrains. genm...@gmail.com schrieb: > On Saturday, 21 January 2017 17:20:11 UTC-8, burs...@gmail.com wrote: >> By stupid, and I mean really dumbass stupid, you >> are talking about you and yourhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Z8VdjfJprR0
burs...@gmail.comSun, 22 Jan 2017 02:05:35 UTCRe: Peano Like Axioms for Z, the Integers
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/5t19DObiWk8/WlZoLkUlAgAJ
wrote: > > On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 6:36:24 PM UTC+1, FredJeffries wrote: > > > On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 9:03:21 AM UTC-8, Jim Burns wrote: > > > > On 1/21/2017 9:55 AM, FredJeffries wrote: > > > > > > > > > See Angelo Margaris "Successor Axioms for the Integers", > > > > >https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/5t19DObiWk8
Julio Di EgidioSun, 22 Jan 2017 02:04:25 UTCRe: Limits and the infinite complete Binary Tree and the contradiction of uncountability
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs/6GJSXvQkAgAJ
In base 15: 7/12 = 0.8 (b 3) 105 96 135 <---+ 132 | 45 | 36 | 135 -+ Or 7/12 = 8/15 + 168/3360 Since 1/3360 = 1/15^3 + 1/15^5 + ... genm...@gmail.com schrieb: > On Saturday, 21 January 2017 17:44:22 UTC-8, j4n bur53 wrote: >> In as far we canhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs
burs...@gmail.comSun, 22 Jan 2017 01:58:38 UTCRe: Limits and the infinite complete Binary Tree and the contradiction of uncountability
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs/1wE1f2kkAgAJ
Give me the ANSWER you moron!!!! I already know it. You have written nonsense.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs
genm...@gmail.comSun, 22 Jan 2017 01:48:42 UTCRe: Limits and the infinite complete Binary Tree and the contradiction of uncountability
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs/2uFaBy0kAgAJ
In as far we can also savely state that: 1) repeating decimals is a finite representation, check for yourself, in the case of 7/12 we have the symbols 0, ., 5, 8, (, 3, and ). 2) henceforth there are infinite countable many repeating decimals. And by the algorithm I showedhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs
burs...@gmail.comSun, 22 Jan 2017 01:44:22 UTCRe: Limits and the infinite complete Binary Tree and the contradiction of uncountability
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs/5NdZ0QwkAgAJ
Let's see if you have been paying attention (of course not!). Give me an algorithm to find a repeating decimal for 7/12 in base 15 and then use limits to show that your repeating decimal representation is a series whose limit is 7/12. Do it quickly you idiot!!!!!https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs
genm...@gmail.comSun, 22 Jan 2017 01:42:04 UTCRe: Limits and the infinite complete Binary Tree and the contradiction of uncountability
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs/_pZTtfAjAgAJ
Pay attention stupid: There is no such thing as a repeating decimal. It's nonsense. The fact that it repeats is PROOF that it can't be measured in base 10. Try my division method with 1 -:- 3 as an exercise. If you can get a ZERO remainder, then you have measured 1/3, just as we do in thehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs
genm...@gmail.comSun, 22 Jan 2017 01:40:03 UTCTry to rubbish the first constructive proof of the mean value theorem using the patched apparatus of the BOGUS CALCULUS.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/VMueP6Y6ol8/ZAQLreMjAgAJ
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLZG1pNlVIX2RTR0Ehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/VMueP6Y6ol8
genm...@gmail.comSun, 22 Jan 2017 01:39:07 UTCRe: Limits and the infinite complete Binary Tree and the contradiction of uncountability
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs/MAT38b4jAgAJ
Here is an example how you get repeating decimals via division, ita more interesting than 1/3: 7/12 = 0.58(3) 0 70 60 100 96 40 <-+ 36 | 40 -+ Since the same reminder pops up again, we have found the repeating part. By the Pigeonhole principle its very easy to see thathttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs
burs...@gmail.comSun, 22 Jan 2017 01:36:29 UTCRe: Limits and the infinite complete Binary Tree and the contradiction of uncountability
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs/aaCnfqQjAgAJ
integral power of 10" > > do you not understand you annoying mental midget? > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_decimal > > Never quote the Moronica you twerp. It's bullshit. > And you did not understand what you read. Never mind the fact that what you read is not germane tohttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs
genm...@gmail.comSun, 22 Jan 2017 01:34:36 UTCRe: Limits and the infinite complete Binary Tree and the contradiction of uncountability
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs/2D3uSX4jAgAJ
What part of "Because you can't express in base 10 if the denominator is not an integral power of 10" do you not understand you annoying mental midget? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_decimal Never quote the Moronica you twerp. It's bullshit. And you did not understand whathttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs
genm...@gmail.comSun, 22 Jan 2017 01:31:52 UTCRe: The long division algorithm is assumed in Euclid's GCD algorithm.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/Z8VdjfJprR0/cbga5lojAgAJ
My method is entirely correct. I made only one mistake by assuming the conclusion that the partial quotient sum is the same. And yes, I can prove that it not the case. No, I do not use forall(x) like you idiot. Chuckle. My logic does not rely on crap like set theory.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Z8VdjfJprR0
genm...@gmail.comSun, 22 Jan 2017 01:29:20 UTCRe: Limits and the infinite complete Binary Tree and the contradiction of uncountability
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs/iu8NiTYjAgAJ
Not in the real limit case, thats how repeating decimals work, bird brain John Gabriel birdbrains. 0.(3) = 1/3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_decimal genm...@gmail.com schrieb: > You need a fraction whose denominator is an integral power of 10.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs
burs...@gmail.comSun, 22 Jan 2017 01:26:43 UTCThe first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/7VH6Ogw-UMQ/wapF8jEjAgAJ
The BIG STUPID is still trying to rubbish the 8th grade proof. While there are lots of "Nah Uhs" and objections, there are no refutations. Chuckle. We can prove that if f(x) is a function with tangent line equation t(x)=kx+b and a parallel secant line equation s(x)=[{f(x+n)-f(x-m)}/(m+n)] x +https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/7VH6Ogw-UMQ
genm...@gmail.comSun, 22 Jan 2017 01:26:24 UTCRe: A number is the measure of a magnitude. There is no other way to derive numbers.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/ntaghVJzawE/usj3tfEiAgAJ
By retard, and I mean really dumbass retard, you are talking about you and your new calculus bird brain John Gabriel birdbrains? Am Sonntag, 22. Januar 2017 02:20:10 UTC+1 schrieb genm...@gmail.com:https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/ntaghVJzawE
burs...@gmail.comSun, 22 Jan 2017 01:21:48 UTCRe: The long division algorithm is assumed in Euclid's GCD algorithm.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/Z8VdjfJprR0/qfGXK9siAgAJ
By stupid, and I mean really dumbass stupid, you are talking about you and your new calculus bird brain John Gabriel birdbrains? Am Sonntag, 22. Januar 2017 02:14:14 UTC+1 schrieb John Gabriel:https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Z8VdjfJprR0
burs...@gmail.comSun, 22 Jan 2017 01:20:11 UTCRe: A number is the measure of a magnitude. There is no other way to derive numbers.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/ntaghVJzawE/rEvFCdsiAgAJ
wrote: > > > On Saturday, 21 January 2017 21:44:10 UTC+1, genm...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, 21 January 2017 12:39:13 UTC-8, shio...@googlemail.com wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, 21 January 2017 21:37:43 UTC+1, genm...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, 21 January 2017https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/ntaghVJzawE
genm...@gmail.comSun, 22 Jan 2017 01:20:10 UTCRe: Limits and the infinite complete Binary Tree and the contradiction of uncountability
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs/cxc9cbEiAgAJ
produce a fraction p/q, such that p and q are integers and p/q = 1/3. > > > > > > > > You won't be able to do it you pisser. The theorem claims it's impossible. And no, whatever shit 0.333... is in your dysfunctional brain, it is not 1/3. > > > "" > > > > > > Umm, p=2, q=6 would be one of thehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/zr23KJOLDfs
genm...@gmail.comSun, 22 Jan 2017 01:17:12 UTCRe: The long division algorithm is assumed in Euclid's GCD algorithm.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/Z8VdjfJprR0/fLLnKIgiAgAJ
remainder, then 884 measures 3009 exactly and the quotient is the GCD. > > 3 + 357/884 > > Since 884 measures itself and 3*884, we only need to repeat the process with the remainder: > > 2 + 170/357 > > Find that part of 884 which is measured by 357. > > Since 357 measures itselfhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Z8VdjfJprR0
John GabrielSun, 22 Jan 2017 01:14:14 UTCRe: Math Clown John Gabriel strikes again
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/Z8VdjfJprR0/YSjNm3AiAgAJ
On Saturday, 21 January 2017 16:47:10 UTC-8, j4n bur53 wrote: > Conclusion: JG has a lot of fantasy. But at > least about the following things, he doesn't > have a firm grip: MVT, GCD, etc... Dumb moron. I am the first and only mathematician to prove the MVT constructively. You poor dumbhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Z8VdjfJprR0
John GabrielSun, 22 Jan 2017 01:12:33 UTC