sci.math
https://groups.google.com/d/forum/sci.math
Mathematical discussions and pursuits.enRe: Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/38GWYTDYqgs/ME9qB_l5BQAJ
burs...@gmail.com writes: >What about your pills, do they not anymore work? >You the autism pills, you never participate in >someothers people threads. You only copy from >others people threads to your threads. I guess >this is a case of severe autism. >For how long already, 10, 20, 30,https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/38GWYTDYqgs
Michael MoroneySun, 18 Mar 2018 05:25:46 UTCis 6.28 the upper limit of pi value Re: sad we do not use dividers more often in math Re: What we are doing here, is a program of Generalized Pi = Perimeter/longest straightline segment
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/8Ln93rc2r2g/Mlq217p5BQAJ
Now there maybe a hauntingly beautiful proof that 2 is the lower bound and 6.28.. is the upper bound of all pi's in the formula Pi = perimeter of closed N-sided polygon divided by longest line segment. All from the simple fact that of two parallel lines for its hypothetical perimeter is 2https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/8Ln93rc2r2g
Archimedes PlutoniumSun, 18 Mar 2018 05:21:19 UTCRe: called Double Gyres Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/ad8KucWArUo/WscSJ6h4BQAJ
Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> writes: [nothing] >Michael Moroney wrote >4:46 PM (2 hours ago) >>Oh, so you finally have a [proof the ellipse is not a conic section?] Archie posted that snippet yet again, even though it's a week old now. At least 10 times in (athttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/ad8KucWArUo
Michael MoroneySun, 18 Mar 2018 05:01:39 UTCRe: tough for me to write certain maths
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/3XGdT0y0Fgs/W37avtF2BQAJ
all the equations because they are necessary further down the hypothetical proof then how can I state them quickly? Please consider when three may be many more than three. > > for example in order to represent all three equations I may try something like: > > for all _[fill in blank]_ a_n =https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/3XGdT0y0Fgs
Simon RobertsSun, 18 Mar 2018 04:27:58 UTCRe: AI is simple, modern math is sick
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/wC-BxL93k14/nH9TUZl1BQAJ
considered to be one of the fathers of artificial intelligence: > > > > > > "If it takes 200 years to achieve artificial intelligence, and then finally there is a textbook that explains how its done, the hardest part of that textbook to write will be the part that explains why people didn’thttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/wC-BxL93k14
JanSun, 18 Mar 2018 04:05:37 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/98mRidZxBQAJ
You are free to develop your own system of mathematics based on only finite sets, Troll Boy. Don't expect it to get very far though, especially since you have banned all axioms and rules of logic in your goofy system. It's pretty much a dead end. Even you seem to think so these days. At hishttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
Dan ChristensenSun, 18 Mar 2018 02:56:42 UTCRe: Operations Management, 10e William J. Stevenson test bank
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/hQudM3F8IeA/jQDCq1txBQAJ
hi, could you help me get these books mentioned below Operations Management, 10e William J. Stevenson instructor manual with solutions to supplementary problems Operations Management, 10e William J. Stevenson test bankhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/hQudM3F8IeA
um1...@stu.xub.edu.inSun, 18 Mar 2018 02:47:54 UTCRe: AI is simple, modern math is sick
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/wC-BxL93k14/OYhnQjhxBQAJ
post it here along with its proof AND disproof. Remember to explicitly cite the axiom or rule of inference that is used at each step of the way in both cases. > > The successor axiom is used: Every n has a successor n+1. > Actually, it's more like: For x in N, S(x) in N. Addition on N ishttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/wC-BxL93k14
Dan ChristensenSun, 18 Mar 2018 02:45:22 UTCRe: tough for me to write certain maths
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/3XGdT0y0Fgs/74ZqiXdwBQAJ
all the equations because they are necessary further down the hypothetical proof then how can I state them quickly? Please consider when three may be many more than three. > > for example in order to represent all three equations I may try something like: > > for all _[fill in blank]_ a_n =https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/3XGdT0y0Fgs
FredJeffriesSun, 18 Mar 2018 02:31:34 UTCRe: AI is simple, modern math is sick
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/wC-BxL93k14/7NGj4JhtBQAJ
If the next generation is as retarded as WM and JG, humanity might even unlearn how to light a fire. Am Sonntag, 18. März 2018 00:57:12 UTC+1 schrieb John Gabriel: > On Saturday, 17 March 2018 18:25:11 UTC-4, scumbag jean penis messager Python driveled: > > > > Your sophistry fa <shit> > >https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/wC-BxL93k14
burs...@gmail.comSun, 18 Mar 2018 01:38:59 UTCRe: Markus Klyver greatest math fool of Sweden-- thinks an ellipse is a conic section
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/CtpKf1Icyog/2DgmYIRtBQAJ
brained propelled idiot. > > Ellipse goes inside a cylinder not a cone, you Swedish creep > > > > Markus Klyver > 5:01 PM (6 hours ago) > > Translate message to English > > > No... m^2/(A*s) is the SI unit for pressure reduced electric field strength. And I*B*L is the formulahttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/CtpKf1Icyog
Markus KlyverSun, 18 Mar 2018 01:37:31 UTCthe fragility and susceptibility of the human mind
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/HZCeC8rkZio/88fZnbJsBQAJ
Can you tell me where you would post this (if you would consider the following 'off-topic'). THAT IS IF you agree and don't think it's nonsensical gibberish or something in that vane. 'the fragility and susceptibility of the human mind'. Solution currently for a machine computer or codehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/HZCeC8rkZio
Simon RobertsSun, 18 Mar 2018 01:22:30 UTCRe: Endorsers sought after
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/9QkfsvUu61k/6p4heCFsBQAJ
If we only look at the subformula with the exists quantifier: ∃b (b={a} /\ b ∈ Z) Then we see that the subformula is logically equivalent to: {a} ∈ Z The general schema for this transformation is: exists x (x = t /\ A(x)) <=> A(t) Homework: Proof the equivalencehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/9QkfsvUu61k
burs...@gmail.comSun, 18 Mar 2018 01:12:06 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/KtmeRstrBQAJ
You missed the pun, didn't you John? It's from Lewis Carroll: http://www.drsallybasker.com/2015/04/six-impossible-things-before-breakfast/https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
PythonSun, 18 Mar 2018 01:05:56 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/cvIAcW1rBQAJ
wrote: >> On Saturday, 17 March 2018 20:42:51 UTC-4, Python wrote: >>> John Gabriel at IQ 10. wrote: >>>> On Saturday, 17 March 2018 20:36:58 UTC-4, Python wrote: >>>>> Silly John Gabriel wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, 17 March 2018 20:24:20 UTC-4, Python wrote: >>>>>>> John Gabriel wrote:https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
PythonSun, 18 Mar 2018 00:59:13 UTCRe: Endorsers sought after
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/9QkfsvUu61k/E9aQe1trBQAJ
because it reads: If a is an element of Z, then ... This would be wrong if there existend an a not covered by this implication. Therefore the quantifyer is useless. >> >> Regrds, WM > > Go here to see me master: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGpZEuXoFWw Good boy. BTW, my name is Royhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/9QkfsvUu61k
PythonSun, 18 Mar 2018 00:57:56 UTCRe: Endorsers sought after
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/9QkfsvUu61k/P3r5MCFrBQAJ
it reads: If a is an element of Z, then ... This would be wrong if there existend an a not covered by this implication. Therefore the quantifyer is useless. > > Regrds, WM Go here to see how I flogged the idiot jean pierre messager: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/9QkfsvUu61k
John Gabriel at age 50.Sun, 18 Mar 2018 00:53:45 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/hRjJzA5rBQAJ
the formula. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As far as a set is defined by a formula (say an inequality), it is not > >>>>>> surprising that in order to know if a rational is or is not in the set > >>>>>> you need the formula. What else would you need, John? A pray to God? > >>>>> > >>>>> Why would youhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
John Gabriel at age 50.Sun, 18 Mar 2018 00:52:27 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/0e2GUvlqBQAJ
PLONK.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
John Gabriel at age 50.Sun, 18 Mar 2018 00:50:54 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/y4AdmPJqBQAJ
the formula. >>>>>> >>>>>> As far as a set is defined by a formula (say an inequality), it is not >>>>>> surprising that in order to know if a rational is or is not in the set >>>>>> you need the formula. What else would you need, John? A pray to God? >>>>> >>>>> Why would you need the sethttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
PythonSun, 18 Mar 2018 00:50:25 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/OqdBTe5qBQAJ
the formula. > > >>>> > > >>>> As far as a set is defined by a formula (say an inequality), it is not > > >>>> surprising that in order to know if a rational is or is not in the set > > >>>> you need the formula. What else would you need, John? A pray to God? > > >>> > > >>> Why would youhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
John Gabriel at age 50.Sun, 18 Mar 2018 00:50:07 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/dRAX1-FqBQAJ
I wonder, Mr Gabriel. How many impossible things are you able to assume before breakfast?https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
PythonSun, 18 Mar 2018 00:49:13 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/maQIlcdqBQAJ
specified by YOU. It NEVER generates an entire set that is scannable. > > WHOOOOOOOSHHHH! Making funny noises as an excuse for your lack of ability of abstraction is a new one, Mr Gabriel. Lot of people told you before: you do not have the basic cognitive abilities to do proper mathematicshttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
PythonSun, 18 Mar 2018 00:47:21 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/iD9xw7BqBQAJ
the formula. > >>>> > >>>> As far as a set is defined by a formula (say an inequality), it is not > >>>> surprising that in order to know if a rational is or is not in the set > >>>> you need the formula. What else would you need, John? A pray to God? > >>> > >>> Why would you need the sethttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
John Gabriel at age 50.Sun, 18 Mar 2018 00:45:43 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/WdIcSppqBQAJ
specified by YOU. It NEVER generates an entire set that is scannable. > > WHOOOOOOOSHHHH! The hilarious part is that even when I assume several impossible things, such as infinite sets and the D. Cut itself, I show using simple logic, that a unique D. Cut is not possible. Chuckle.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
John Gabriel at age 50.Sun, 18 Mar 2018 00:44:06 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/HmLN4IhqBQAJ
formula. >>>> >>>> As far as a set is defined by a formula (say an inequality), it is not >>>> surprising that in order to know if a rational is or is not in the set >>>> you need the formula. What else would you need, John? A pray to God? >>> >>> Why would you need the set if you already havehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
PythonSun, 18 Mar 2018 00:42:51 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/tJQoBYZqBQAJ
No, it does not MORON! A formula generates a finite number of elements as specified by YOU. It NEVER generates an entire set that is scannable. WHOOOOOOOSHHHH!https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
John Gabriel at age 50.Sun, 18 Mar 2018 00:42:39 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/VZST8XFqBQAJ
the formula. > > >> > > >> As far as a set is defined by a formula (say an inequality), it is not > > >> surprising that in order to know if a rational is or is not in the set > > >> you need the formula. What else would you need, John? A pray to God? > > > > > > Why would you need the sethttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
John Gabriel at age 50.Sun, 18 Mar 2018 00:41:13 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/8C8lrGtqBQAJ
John Gabriel at IQ 50. wrote: ... > Again: Why would you need the FORMULA if you already have > ALL the rational numbers you idiot? Chuckle. Because it means the same for sets defined by a formula. Please, John, take your pills, NOW.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
PythonSun, 18 Mar 2018 00:40:46 UTCis 6.28 the upper limit of pi value Re: sad we do not use dividers more often in math Re: What we are doing here, is a program of Generalized Pi = Perimeter/longest straightline segment
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/8Ln93rc2r2g/tPa8tmJqBQAJ
Now this is a surprise to me about a constant upper bound. I knew there was a universal constant lower bound of pi never reaching 2 or below for that two parallel lines and that is not a closed polygon. But this latest news that ribbed polygons have a upper bound of 6.28 constant. It is not thehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/8Ln93rc2r2g
Archimedes PlutoniumSun, 18 Mar 2018 00:40:07 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/gN955VZqBQAJ
formula. > >> > >> As far as a set is defined by a formula (say an inequality), it is not > >> surprising that in order to know if a rational is or is not in the set > >> you need the formula. What else would you need, John? A pray to God? > > > > Why would you need the set if you already havehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
John Gabriel at age 50.Sun, 18 Mar 2018 00:39:17 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/jLam2zpqBQAJ
rationals. > > OMG, you are more dense than a brick. Again: Why would you need the FORMULA if you already have ALL the rational numbers you idiot? Chuckle.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
John Gabriel at age 50.Sun, 18 Mar 2018 00:37:16 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/lMU_ozZqBQAJ
formula. >> >> As far as a set is defined by a formula (say an inequality), it is not >> surprising that in order to know if a rational is or is not in the set >> you need the formula. What else would you need, John? A pray to God? > > Why would you need the set if you already have ALL thehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
PythonSun, 18 Mar 2018 00:36:58 UTCtough for me to write certain maths
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/3XGdT0y0Fgs/brwGYwVqBQAJ
for example (hypothetical) within a proof the words: x_i = x_(i+1) y_j = y_(j+1) z_k = z_(k+1) [and this is a short list of some very obscure hypothetical example] if I would like to generally write the equivalent so that I may use the all the equations because they are necessaryhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/3XGdT0y0Fgs
Simon RobertsSun, 18 Mar 2018 00:33:27 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/5s6_fARqBQAJ
Bullshit. You need the formula idiot. You never have the entire set of rationals. OMG, you are more dense than a brick. > > > Moooooooooorooooooooooonnnnnnn!!! > > Nice signature Mr Gabriel, but you should take your pills, now.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
John GabrielSun, 18 Mar 2018 00:33:23 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/rHj3JexpBQAJ
Sure, going so low is impossible for most of us out there. > Assuming you generate sets, then they must be complete, yes? This is mueckenheimkeit gibberish, John. > So, let's suppose they are complete. > > If you pick an element from a given set, how will you know > it's not in the set ofhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
PythonSun, 18 Mar 2018 00:31:38 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/QYYB28hpBQAJ
formula. > > > > As far as a set is defined by a formula (say an inequality), it is not > > surprising that in order to know if a rational is or is not in the set > > you need the formula. What else would you need, John? A pray to God? > > Why would you need the set if you already have ALL thehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
John GabrielSun, 18 Mar 2018 00:29:07 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/GksJ9rRpBQAJ
formula. > > As far as a set is defined by a formula (say an inequality), it is not > surprising that in order to know if a rational is or is not in the set > you need the formula. What else would you need, John? A pray to God? Why would you need the set if you already have ALL the rationalhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
John GabrielSun, 18 Mar 2018 00:27:41 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/tZE3eJlpBQAJ
See, my intellectual inferiors are incapable of thinking at my level. Assuming you generate sets, then they must be complete, yes? So, let's suppose they are complete. If you pick an element from a given set, how will you know it's not in the set of another D.Cut? You won't know unless youhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
John GabrielSun, 18 Mar 2018 00:25:43 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/l4KdM4ZpBQAJ
formula. As far as a set is defined by a formula (say an inequality), it is not surprising that in order to know if a rational is or is not in the set you need the formula. What else would you need, John? A pray to God? > In other words, the sets don't exist. In other words: you don't have ahttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
PythonSun, 18 Mar 2018 00:24:20 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/C6yfuW1pBQAJ
formula. In other words, the sets don't exist. An infinite set is a myth. > > Assuming that you do have infinite sets, it is insufficient to compare only one element as the idiot Jean pierre messager claims because there may be other elements that are closer, AND YOU CANNOT KNOW THIS WITHOUT THEhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
John GabrielSun, 18 Mar 2018 00:22:35 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/Buc9-DNpBQAJ
You can't get ANY rational number from either of the sets without the formula. In other words, the sets don't exist. An infinite set is a myth. Assuming that you do have infinite sets, it is insufficient to compare only one element as the idiot Jean pierre messager claims because there may behttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
John GabrielSun, 18 Mar 2018 00:18:27 UTCRe: There are no infinite sets. An infinite set does not exist. Dedekind cuts, irrational numbers and the mainstream derivative is bogus.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk/xPIvlBxpBQAJ
You picked the wrong entry from your bookmarks, Mr Gabriel. This one is about you falling from a tree.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w4uxQwRJuJk
PythonSun, 18 Mar 2018 00:16:47 UTCRe: Why school makes you stupid.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/R0x2fkf1iMQ/9zfukvNoBQAJ
Silly dog John Gabriel wrote: ... >> Why don't you stop posting nonsense? > > GOOD QUESTION MORON! I AM UPSET WITH YOU. YOU ARE A VILE, DESPICABLE, DISHONEST, PIECE OF SHIT. I WOULD CUT YOUR HEAD OFF AND SHIT IN YOUR WINDPIPE YOU FUCKING DOG!!!!!! > " I shall not respond further to youhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/R0x2fkf1iMQ
PythonSun, 18 Mar 2018 00:13:50 UTCis 6.28 the upper limit of pi value Re: sad we do not use dividers more often in math Re: What we are doing here, is a program of Generalized Pi = Perimeter/longest straightline segment
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/8Ln93rc2r2g/ptfuxfBoBQAJ
On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 7:09:26 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 4:48:56 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 11:25:48 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > (snipped) > > > > > /^^^^\ > > > VVVVVV > > > >https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/8Ln93rc2r2g
Archimedes PlutoniumSun, 18 Mar 2018 00:13:39 UTCRe: Why school makes you stupid.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/R0x2fkf1iMQ/_6f7DexoBQAJ
BECAUSE YOU ARE AN INCORRIGIBLE MOOOOOROOOOON WHO WILL NOT SEE REASON IF IT SHAT IN HIS FACE. IT SMELLS LIKE SNAIL WHICH YOU EAT ALL THE TIME EH? TSK, TSK. > > > " I shall not respond further to you on this thread " > > Ah ah. You think you've won eh? Bwaaa haaaaa haaaaaa.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/R0x2fkf1iMQ
John GabrielSun, 18 Mar 2018 00:13:18 UTCRe: Why school makes you stupid.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/R0x2fkf1iMQ/CtuNfOJoBQAJ
You've been routed you cunt. I've been telling you this from the beginning. Chuckle. > > Far more convenient for you, as silly and meaningless. You can > kiss your master Professor Wolfgang Mueckenheim on the bum. I feel like shitting in your sewer mouth rather.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/R0x2fkf1iMQ
John GabrielSun, 18 Mar 2018 00:12:36 UTCRe: Why school makes you stupid.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/R0x2fkf1iMQ/glYjAuJoBQAJ
... >>> I shall not respond further to you on this thread >>> PLONK. >> >> Another failure in attempting to make a mathematical point >> from nut John Gabriel. > YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT MATHEMATICS DOUCHEBAG!!! OF COURSE YOU FAIL BECAUSE YOU ARE AN INCORRIGIBLE MOOOOOROOOOON WHO WILL NOThttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/R0x2fkf1iMQ
PythonSun, 18 Mar 2018 00:12:35 UTCRe: Why school makes you stupid.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/R0x2fkf1iMQ/Vsue8r1oBQAJ
See Mr Gabriel? You've actually learnt from your master Professor Wolfgang Mueckenheim: instead of making silly inconsistent videos just post gibberish concerning Set Theory like "doesn't generate", "unfinished set", "bla bla bla". Far more convenient for you, as silly and meaningless. You canhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/R0x2fkf1iMQ
PythonSun, 18 Mar 2018 00:10:00 UTCRe: Why school makes you stupid.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/R0x2fkf1iMQ/fZmOdKRoBQAJ
moron. > > They are not the same, it is easy to write explicitly a rational > number making the difference, no need for infinity here. > > >>> The question to an astute mind is where do they differ > >> > >> An astute mind will find a rational number which is a member > >> of the lower sethttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/R0x2fkf1iMQ
John GabrielSun, 18 Mar 2018 00:08:11 UTC