The utter bullshit of set theory.

[Eram semper recta]

Any intelligent person can't help but be dumbstruck by the stupidity of mainstream academics.

In the talk page of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)

you'll see them arguing amongst themselves about the definition of set. Some are content to call it a "primitive concept" which is laughable because primitive implies a chronology:

primitive: relating to, denoting, or preserving the character of an early stage in the evolutionary or historical development of something.

However, "primitive" itself is a questionable concept because it depends on *time* which is meaningless without matter and almost constant repeatable action.

Mainstream orangutans are satisfied to categorise "set" as a primitive without even thinking about any of the consequences. They imagine this act gives them the right to dismiss a proper definition for the primitive concept, that is, in their syphilitic brains, one need not be too concerned about the definition of a primitive concept. Absurd and ridiculous.

Primitive concepts have definitions! And to be primitive is relative to a given time period.

Thus, if we try to start with the primitive notion of set, we see that it is a bunch of baloney:

"A set is a gathering together into a whole of definite, distinct objects of our perception or our thought—which are called elements of the set."

That definition prohibits a set without elements, but what the fuck are elements? Chuckle. Ultimately, we come down to the actual word that should have been used, that is, "object", but this still fails in the above ill-formed definition.

Turns out the morons of mainstream could not come up with a definition, so they designed circular definitions and rules (or the beliefs of ZFC) in an attempt to define set. Only problem is that set is used over and over in the 9 beliefs beginning with the very first belief.


In my brilliant presentation, I prove there are no axioms or postulates in sound mathematics:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vlU-PJeIk672bFwZyULD1ASTRFF3jXg8

[Eram semper recta]

The real foundations of mathematics are Euclid's Elements - least understood by stupid mainstream morons of mathematics. Even the Abel prize winner Karen Uhlenbeck is clueless as to what they actually mean:

https://youtu.be/1WepO8tFGto

In her laughable presentation, she claims that the Greeks had no good description of arbitrary curves which is outright false. In fact, they had a perfect description of all the curves that mattered using conics. She makes many other mistakes in her talk but the idiots who hang on her every word simply don't know any better.

Then she begins to talk about the "calculus of variations". Chuckle. There is only calculus and it's not about variations. What the moron means is that one can learn about optimisation, but this is already a part of calculus and has nothing to do with any kind of "variation". LMAO.

[Greg Cunt]

On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 7:01:33 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:

> Then she begins to talk about the "calculus of variations".

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_of_variations

[Greg Cunt]

On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 6:52:51 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:

> Primitive concepts have definitions

Errr... no, dumbo. That's why they are called "primitive".

"In mathematics, logic, philosophy, and formal systems, a primitive notion is a concept that is not defined"

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_notion)

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

sets are man's data order..
How does he choose his quantity set elements in
set element order?
A matrix is a diagonal set.
Man cannot store an infinite set's elements.
He could try forever and
it would not complete.
There is first quantity in a set.


Mitchell Raemsch

[Richard Cranium]

On 6/24/2021 9:52 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Any intelligent person can't help but be dumbstruck by the stupidity of mainstream academics.

Shut up imbecile.

[Dan Christensen]

On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 12:52:51 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka "John Gabriel") wrote:
> Any intelligent person can't help but be dumbstruck by the stupidity of ...

Even at his advanced age (60+?), John Gabriel is STILL struggling with basic, elementary-school arithmetic. As he has repeatedly posted here:

"There are no points on a line."
--April 12, 2021

"Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
--July 10, 2020

"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017

“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015

"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
--October 28, 2017

"Zero is not a number."
-- Dec. 2, 2019

"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017

“There is no such thing as an empty set.”
--Oct. 4, 2019

“3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
--Oct. 22, 2019

No math genius our JG, though he actually lists his job title as “mathematician” at Linkedin.com. Apparently, they do not verify your credentials.


Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated March 10, 2020) at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog a http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Quantum Bubbles]

On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 6:01:33 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:

"Even the Abel prize winner Karen Uhlenbeck is clueless..."

Uhlenbeck is an extremely talented true mathematician, having published work worthy of an Abel. Presuming to criticize her Mr Gabriel? You don't even have the balls to take me on in a friendly Mensa competition, and Uhlenbeck is far smarter than me :-) . If you ever grow a sac, you already know the terms of the competition/challenge. I might re-post the details and terms as a distinct conversation if it helps.

In the meantime this 20 minute video from a professional psychologist that explains the strategies that those with NPD use to make themselves look more intelligent than they really are, could be a real eye opener:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMkrosLHIEs

That is how it can seem of course, and the opinion most people, including students and potential employers, might form. There is however a way to show them Mr Gabriel, and it wouldn't require much effort from an actual high IQ genius to pull off:

https://www.us.mensa.org/


Kind Regards

[Eram semper recta]

Mr. Cunt.
According to the first woman to win the Abel Prize (Karen Uhlenbeck), she warns against Wackopedia (her own words!).

Do you have a university link that I might perhaps have a good laugh ridiculing?

I'll save you the homework because I know you're a moron:

A primitive notion is very well defined. It has a definition that falls into some timeline but no different from ANY other definition.

For example, "here" and "not here".

here: in, at, or to this place or position.

This is a primitive notion since "this place" is the first step toward defining "position".

Get it now, Mr. Cunt? :)

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 24 June 2021 at 18:36:50 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Thursday, 24 June 2021 at 13:26:11 UTC-4, Greg Cunt wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 6:52:51 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >
> > > Primitive concepts have definitions
> >
> > Errr... no, dumbo. That's why they are called "primitive".
> >
> > "In mathematics, logic, philosophy, and formal systems, a primitive notion is a concept that is not defined"
> >
> > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_notion)
> Mr. Cunt.
> According to the first woman to win the Abel Prize (Karen Uhlenbeck), she warns against Wackopedia (her own words!).

The real funny part is that this poor moron Uhlenbeck is unaware that Wackopedia is run by her colleagues in mainstream universities.

"...and let me tell you, don't trust Wackopedia. The university web sites are far more reliable."

https://youtu.be/1WepO8tFGto?t=110

ROTFLMFAO!!!!

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 24 June 2021 at 18:48:00 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Thursday, 24 June 2021 at 18:36:50 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Thursday, 24 June 2021 at 13:26:11 UTC-4, Greg Cunt wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 6:52:51 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >
> > > > Primitive concepts have definitions
> > >
> > > Errr... no, dumbo. That's why they are called "primitive".
> > >
> > > "In mathematics, logic, philosophy, and formal systems, a primitive notion is a concept that is not defined"
> > >
> > > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_notion)
> > Mr. Cunt.
> > According to the first woman to win the Abel Prize (Karen Uhlenbeck), she warns against Wackopedia (her own words!).
> The real funny part is that this poor moron Uhlenbeck is unaware that Wackopedia is run by her colleagues in mainstream universities.
>
> "...and let me tell you, don't trust Wackopedia. The university web sites are far more reliable."
>
> https://youtu.be/1WepO8tFGto?t=110
>
> ROTFLMFAO!!!!

I am certain that Arthur Rubin would be quite distressed at her statement since he was a major bullshit contributor for many years. :)

The insignificant Rubin even had a web page with a photograph of himself and his parrot. His accomplishments were his scat-thesis and that he came third in one of the Putnam competitions. Chuckle.

All it says now on his Wiki page is that he is "retired" because of the violent comments. He of course is a fine one to speak given his belligerent communication style. Sigh, ...

His parents (both mythmaticians) are purportedly dead. They gave birth to a fine moron in Rubin.

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 24 June 2021 at 15:16:13 UTC-4, ross.pro...@gmx.com wrote:

Fucking anonymous cowardly cunt from the UK.

Here's the deal: Give me your name and credentials and then I'll provide proof of my IQ.

LMAO.

You vile piece of English shit. I would literally knock your fucking head off your dandruff shoulders.

I am going to find out who you are and then I am going to write to your boss, you filthy scumbag!!!!

What you are doing is a repeat of what that cunt Gilbert Strang did some years ago. I am going to FUCK you thoroughly.

All in good time. All in good time. I am very patient and also unforgiving.

What you are doing is called harassment and bullying.

I have zero interest in your drivel or ANYTHING you have to say.

Come on champ, how about your real name? Give it a try but don't wait too long because I am going to find out who you are!

[Greg Cunt]

On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 12:52:59 AM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:

> Arthur R Rubin [...] His accomplishments were his [.]thesis and that he came third in one of the Putnam competitions.

Shut up, you lying piece of shit!

"As an undergraduate, Rubin was named a Putnam Fellow on four occasions, the first time in 1970, aged 14, making him the youngest Fellow to date. In 1972, he tied for third place in the first USA Mathematical Olympiad."

[Greg Cunt]

Moreover: "In 1979, Rubin co-authored a paper on list coloring of graphs with Paul Erdős, giving him an Erdős number of 1."

Hint: It's called "envy", you fucking asshole full of shit.

[Eram semper recta]

No, Mr. Cunt. In Rubin's case, it's called stupidity - you have a lot of it so you would know.

[Alan Mackenzie]

Eram semper recta <thenewc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 24 June 2021 at 15:16:13 UTC-4, ross.pro...@gmx.com wrote:

> Fucking anonymous cowardly cunt from the UK.

Hahahaha! You don't know much maths, so you try to compensate with
abuse. Who do you think you're kidding?

> Here's the deal: Give me your name and credentials and then I'll
> provide proof of my IQ.

Does it not occur to you that by taking up QB's proposition, you would
learn his identity?

> LMAO.

> You vile piece of English shit. I would literally knock your fucking
> head off your dandruff shoulders.

And now impotent threats. Wow, we are in a mood, aren't we?

Just as a matter of interest, threatening physical violence on the
internet isn't lawful. Why don't YOU disclose your name and address, so
that QB, should he so desire, can call law enforcement on you? Or are
you, in your own words, a "cowardly cunt"?

> I am going to find out who you are and then I am going to write to
> your boss, you filthy scumbag!!!!

More spam mail for the round filing cabinet.

> What you are doing is a repeat of what that cunt Gilbert Strang did
> some years ago. I am going to FUCK you thoroughly.

QB is a better person than you are. At least when he first appeared on
this group, he tried to be helpful towards you. You rejected that help
abusively.

And now, QB has offered you a way to demonstrate the high IQ you allege
you have. You don't have what it takes to take him up on his offer. It
seems clear that that alleged high IQ exists only in your imagination.

> All in good time. All in good time. I am very patient and also
> unforgiving.

You're just a nasty narcissist.

> What you are doing is called harassment and bullying.

Hahahaha! No, John, not at all. This post of yours, were it not so
impotent, might come into that category.

> I have zero interest in your drivel or ANYTHING you have to say.

So, why are you posting on sci.math?

> Come on champ, how about your real name? Give it a try but don't wait
> too long because I am going to find out who you are!

And write love letters to his boss? Hahahahaha!

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

[Eram semper recta]

There cannot be a more vile creature than a member of the BIG STUPID (mainstream academia). They are despicable, insecure, cowardly fucks and always will be.

[Quantum Bubbles]

Cheers for the kind words Alan. If Mr Gabriel ever does learn my real identity he is going to be somewhat disappointed at what he learns. But I will tell him this....

1) my shampoo-conditioner combo is ace, so I don't get dandruff.

2) When someone has me thoroughly, I prefer dinner and flowers first to get my oxytocin flowing. I prefer sunflowers, but won't insist (I'm not a snob).

I have looked into the American branch of Mensa in more detail and there seem to be some possible complications concerning how much information they can release to candidates concerning the specifics of their test performance (no such complications seem to exist for the UK version), so I need to modify the challenge/competition terms a little in order to to accommodate this possibility. However these alterations will mostly be in Mr Gabriel's favour (in the sense that it becomes harder for him to lose, but easier to draw). If he ever learns to not take himself so seriously and actually gives it a try, he might actually find it fun to take on my modified challenge regardless of the outcome.

My aim isn't for the Mensa test thing to be embarrassing to Mr Gabriel (after all even if he hasn't got an IQ of 160, but has one of 131, he would still qualify for Mensa), rather my hope would be that if it doesn't go as he would wish, that he would take that as a learning opportunity; an opportunity to perhaps re-conceptualize his outlook and think about his priorities. If his new YT video on Abel Prize laureates is anything to go by, he would really benefit from such souls searching after some nice warm humble pie...

Kind Regards

[Freda Parkins]

"Quantum Bubbles" <ross.pro...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:a7350fcc-f256-46a9...@googlegroups.com...

On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 11:46:26 AM UTC+1, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Eram semper recta <thenewc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 24 June 2021 at 15:16:13 UTC-4, ross.pro...@gmx.com wrote:
>

[...]

>
>My aim isn't for the Mensa test thing to be embarrassing to Mr Gabriel
>(after all even if he hasn't got an IQ of 160, but has one of 131, he would
>still qualify for Mensa), rather my hope would be that if it doesn't go as
>he >would wish, that he would take that as a learning opportunity; an
>opportunity to perhaps re-conceptualize his outlook and think about his
>priorities. If his new YT video on Abel Prize laureates is anything to go
>by, he >would really benefit from such souls searching after some nice warm
>humble pie...

You should ask Dr Grande whether or not he thinks that there is any value in
trying to get mentally ill people to see that they are mentally ill.

>Kind Regards

[Sergio]

FREDA PARKINS !!! Where have you been ? We miss you...

Tell Jame McGinn that Cladius is looking for him again.



Good Quote Freda! Right on Target!

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 24 June 2021 at 12:52:51 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:

Students:

Once again, you witness the sheer stupidity and incompetence of those who call themselves mainstream academics.

They have nothing to say, so they reveal their true selves - cowards, libelers, malicious dogs whose pathological jealousy knows no bounds.

All they can do is produce invective because their mothers were dogs and they were reared in feces.

[Dan Christensen]

Still no reply, Troll Boy???

[Alan Mackenzie]

Eram semper recta <thenewc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Students:

> Once again, you witness the sheer stupidity and incompetence of those
> who call themselves mainstream academics.

> They have nothing to say, so they reveal their true selves - cowards,
> libelers, malicious dogs whose pathological jealousy knows no bounds.

> All they can do is produce invective because their mothers were dogs
> and they were reared in feces.

Students, you have a choice. You can "learn" from sombody unqualified
(without a degree in maths), whose knowledge of maths seems to stop at
the late bronze age, who fails to understand the foundations of modern
maths, such as axiomatic formulation, set theory, and limits, and who,
when he fails to get his own way, descends into scatalogical abuse and
threats of physical violence.

Or you can learn from somebody with a higher degree in maths, who
understands fully the modern formulations of set theory, number, limits
and calculus, and far more besides, and talks and writes in a moderate
respectful fashion.

Your choice.

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, 25 June 2021 at 21:11:25 UTC-4, Anonymous UK coward aka Quantum Bubbles aka ross.pro...@gmx.com driveled:

> My aim isn't for the Mensa test thing to be embarrassing to Mr Gabriel (after all even if he hasn't got an IQ of 160, but has one of 131, he would still qualify for Mensa),

I am not a member of Mensa, but my official IQ is above 160.

> rather my hope would be that if it doesn't go as he would wish, that he would take that as a learning opportunity; an opportunity to perhaps re-conceptualize his outlook and think about his priorities.

To become a driveling, brainwashed moron like you?

> If his new YT video on Abel Prize laureates is anything to go by, he would really benefit from such souls searching after some nice warm humble pie...

The only time I would eat crow, is if you were able to prove me <<wrong>>. Thus far, all you have are objections that you don't like what I claim and you don't like me personally. This is fine. My advice to you is: fuck off. I do not tolerate fools gladly.

> Kind Regards

I am neither your friend nor acquaintance, so regards are unnecessary. LMAO.

Oh, don't interpret this singleton response as an indication that I am about to enter into a discussion with you! I know you have a lot of idle time on your hands and my suggestion is that you find something more constructive and rewarding to do with your time. Don't ask me what! LMAO.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 10:54:00 AM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, 25 June 2021 at 21:11:25 UTC-4, Anonymous UK coward aka Quantum Bubbles aka ross.pro...@gmx.com driveled:
> > My aim isn't for the Mensa test thing to be embarrassing to Mr Gabriel (after all even if he hasn't got an IQ of 160, but has one of 131, he would still qualify for Mensa),
> I am not a member of Mensa, but my official IQ is above 160.

You need to take their AI test to see how much of your intelligence is real Gabriel.
How much of your intelliignce is real and how would you know?

[Abram Husband]

never know that an IQ can be "official". You capitalists are all
*idiots*. An IQ test is a *stupidity_test*. If anybody capitalist, ever,
is asking you taking an "IQ_test", tell himself to take it and multiply
it by a number ranging from 4 to 10. You bio-weapon "vaccines"
capitalists promoters are idiots.

[Dan Christensen]

On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 1:54:00 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka "John Gabriel") wrote:

> The only time I would eat crow, is if you were able to prove me <<wrong>>.

Have done so repeatedly, Troll Boy. In basic arithmetic, you are unable to prove that 2+2=4 because your wonky notion of number and even mathematics itself is utterly and completely WRONG! Likewise your notion, in basic calculus, of the derivative of a function. Your goofy little system blows up even for determining the derivative of functions as simple as f(x) = |x|. What a moron.

How do you like your crow, Troll Boy? (HA, HA, HA!!!)

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com

Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 2:03:05 PM UTC-7, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 1:54:00 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka "John Gabriel") wrote:
>
> > The only time I would eat crow, is if you were able to prove me <<wrong>>.
> Have done so repeatedly, Troll Boy. In basic arithmetic, you are unable to prove that 2+2=4

Yea. But why would you need to?

[Quantum Bubbles]

On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 9:23:39 PM UTC+1, Abram Husband wrote:

"never know that an IQ can be "official". You capitalists are all *idiots*. An IQ test is a *stupidity_test*. If anybody capitalist, ever, is asking you taking an "IQ_test", tell himself to take it and multiply it by a number ranging from 4 to 10. You bio-weapon "vaccines" capitalists promoters are idiots."

I suspect Mr Gabriel means to suggest that he has taken something called an 'IQ test' somewhere and been awarded the result. Unfortunately the one's found online are generally considered invalid.

If Mr Gabriel had taken a widely recognized test and obtained a 99.997th percentile as he suggests, then he could have obtained membership at one of the more exclusive high IQ societies like the Triple Nine Society, which is for borderline geniuses and above in IQ terms: 3 standard deviations above average, or perhaps, depending on the test, the Prometheus Society, which requires a minimum of 4 standard deviations (e.g. IQ 160, SD=15). Mensa only requires 2 standard deviations above average, so either of these other societies has severely higher IQ entry requirements and accompanying 'prestige'.

Doing so would have given Mr Gabriel a vastly more effective platform for getting his ideas recognized, and his membership of such high IQ societies would both potentially enhance his job prospects, allow him to attract vastly more viewers and subscribers to his YouTube channel as well as provide him with some degree of prior intellectual credibility in those without significant backgrounds in mathematics. The fact that he shows no signs of being a member of those organizations speaks volumes...

People differ in their terminology, but I would consider myself a socialist. I want the economy automated as much as possible, and for citizens income to be introduced, (among other things) in order to free as many working class people as possible from both drudgery and the anxiety of being one or two paychecks away from homelessness. I am also scientifically literate like many regulars here and find anti-vaccine nonsense either boring or laughable, whether its from libertarians thinking the government is going to plant microchips in them, or leftists and greens who think its a corporate scam. So please don't bother.

I am sympathetic to IQ skeptic Ken Richardson (see his book 'Genes, Brains and Human Potential), who thinks intelligence is too complex and diverse a notion to be captured by something like IQ, and with Anders Ericsson, who emphasizes the importance of disciplined practice, commitment to a subject, and motivation over raw mental agility.

However the timed tests held by organizations like Mensa, can be thought of as plausibly providing a crude measure of a person's ability to analyze a variety of small amounts of mostly decontextualized information under timed conditions, when working alone. A high score on such designed tests can plausibly be taken as some indication of mental agility (why wouldn't it be?), even if it is too simple to capture intelligence in its entirety.

Mr Gabriel claims to be a genius with an astonishingly high IQ score. A cynic might suggest he is deluded. There are ways for him to prove them wrong...

Kind Regards

[Earle Jones]

On Thu Jun 24 09:52:44 2021 Eram semper recta wrote:
> Any intelligent person can't help but be dumbstruck by the stupidity of mainstream academics.

*
Then you, John Gabriel, and Archimedes Plutonium (Archie, AP) are the only dumbstruck intelligent people here -- most of the others have studied some mathematics and understand what they have studied.

earle
*

[Eram semper recta]

On Saturday, 26 June 2021 at 16:23:39 UTC-4, Abram Husband wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 10:54:00 AM UTC-7, Eram semper recta
> > wrote:
> >> On Friday, 25 June 2021 at 21:11:25 UTC-4, Anonymous UK coward aka

> >> Quantum Bubbles akadriveled:

> >> > My aim isn't for the Mensa test thing to be embarrassing to Mr
> >> > Gabriel (after all even if he hasn't got an IQ of 160, but has one of
> >> > 131, he would still qualify for Mensa),
> >> I am not a member of Mensa, but my official IQ is above 160.
> >
> > You need to take their AI test to see how much of your intelligence is
> > real Gabriel.
> > How much of your intelliignce is real and how would you know?
> never know that an IQ can be "official".

As in not one of those joke tests online.

> You capitalists are all *idiots*.

I am not a capitalist. Quite the opposite actually.

> An IQ test is a *stupidity_test*.

It's a test set by people (psychologists) with generally inferior intelligence to the majority of the population. Chuckle. It has become mainstream because psychologists want their wizardry to appear to be a science. Psychology is a pseudoscience.

[Eram semper recta]

Fuck off moron!

>
> earle
> *

[Dan Christensen]

To test your axioms for the natural numbers. If you cannot even prove 2+2=4, as with JG here, your system simply doesn't work.

[Bohr Child]

On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 5:52:51 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Any intelligent person can't help but be dumbstruck by the stupidity of mainstream academics.
>

> In the talk page of
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)
>
> you'll see them arguing amongst themselves about the definition of set. Some are content to call it a "primitive concept" which is laughable because primitive implies a chronology:
>
> primitive: relating to, denoting, or preserving the character of an early stage in the evolutionary or historical development of something.
>
> However, "primitive" itself is a questionable concept because it depends on *time* which is meaningless without matter and almost constant repeatable action.
>
> Mainstream orangutans are satisfied to categorise "set" as a primitive without even thinking about any of the consequences. They imagine this act gives them the right to dismiss a proper definition for the primitive concept, that is, in their syphilitic brains, one need not be too concerned about the definition of a primitive concept. Absurd and ridiculous.
>
> Primitive concepts have definitions! And to be primitive is relative to a given time period.
>
> Thus, if we try to start with the primitive notion of set, we see that it is a bunch of baloney:
>
> "A set is a gathering together into a whole of definite, distinct objects of our perception or our thought—which are called elements of the set."
>
> That definition prohibits a set without elements, but what the fuck are elements? Chuckle. Ultimately, we come down to the actual word that should have been used, that is, "object", but this still fails in the above ill-formed definition.
>
> Turns out the morons of mainstream could not come up with a definition, so they designed circular definitions and rules (or the beliefs of ZFC) in an attempt to define set. Only problem is that set is used over and over in the 9 beliefs beginning with the very first belief.
>
>
> In my brilliant presentation, I prove there are no axioms or postulates in sound mathematics:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vlU-PJeIk672bFwZyULD1ASTRFF3jXg8

Here's an easy example for you JG to help you understand how set theory can be applied directly to your life.

Let C be the set of all cranks. And let H be the set of all humans, then there exists an element j in H such that j = John Gabriel. It can be proven mathematically that j belongs to C. In fact if there is a function rank function r: C -> Z (the set of integers). Further if r(k) < r(l) then this implies that k has a higher crank value than that of l. It can easily be shown that f(j) < f(k), for all k =/= j, in H, where j = John Gabriel.

[Bohr Child]

Let C be the set of all cranks. And let H be the set of all humans, then there exists an element j in H such that j = John Gabriel. It can be proven mathematically that j belongs to C. In fact if there is a rank function r: C -> Z (the set of integers). Further if r(k) < r(l) then this implies that k has a higher crank value than that of l. It can easily be shown that r(j) < r(k), for all k =/= j, in H, where j = John Gabriel.

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 24 June 2021 at 12:52:51 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Any intelligent person can't help but be dumbstruck by the stupidity of mainstream academics.
>
> In the talk page of
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)
>
> you'll see them arguing amongst themselves about the definition of set. Some are content to call it a "primitive concept" which is laughable because primitive implies a chronology:
>
> primitive: relating to, denoting, or preserving the character of an early stage in the evolutionary or historical development of something.
>
> However, "primitive" itself is a questionable concept because it depends on *time* which is meaningless without matter and almost constant repeatable action.
>
> Mainstream orangutans are satisfied to categorise "set" as a primitive without even thinking about any of the consequences. They imagine this act gives them the right to dismiss a proper definition for the primitive concept, that is, in their syphilitic brains, one need not be too concerned about the definition of a primitive concept. Absurd and ridiculous.
>
> Primitive concepts have definitions! And to be primitive is relative to a given time period.
>
> Thus, if we try to start with the primitive notion of set, we see that it is a bunch of baloney:
>
> "A set is a gathering together into a whole of definite, distinct objects of our perception or our thought—which are called elements of the set."
>
> That definition prohibits a set without elements, but what the fuck are elements? Chuckle. Ultimately, we come down to the actual word that should have been used, that is, "object", but this still fails in the above ill-formed definition.
>
> Turns out the morons of mainstream could not come up with a definition, so they designed circular definitions and rules (or the beliefs of ZFC) in an attempt to define set. Only problem is that set is used over and over in the 9 beliefs beginning with the very first belief.
>
>
> In my brilliant presentation, I prove there are no axioms or postulates in sound mathematics:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vlU-PJeIk672bFwZyULD1ASTRFF3jXg8

Mainstream cranks are like Donald Trump supporters - the more evidence you show them, the more they are convinced their conspiracy theories are true.

[Mostowski Collapse]

Hey, bingo bongo, why does math use partial functions, like here:
https://www.desmos.com/api/v1.6/docs/examples/graphsettings.html

But in New Calculoose, they don't exist?

Eram semper recta schrieb am Donnerstag, 24. Juni 2021 um 18:52:51 UTC+2:
> ... gibberish ...

[Timothy Golden]

Whether your presentation is falsifiable or not, it is a serious attempt at least and you deserve credit for your work. And it is clearly a piece of work.

Set theory as a bridge over to and from philosophy and possibly back and forth to physics is relevant.
The idea of starting from nothing and building up principles is rather different that starting from the universe and settling for a small part to study.
The human is roughly a blank slate at birth. That we spend the first quarter of our lives downloading and getting programmed: this is a terrible system that we all have been through.

Concepts which can stand freely ought to stand freely and be introduced and trained into our minds in this way. When shared aspects of such free-standing knowledge form a principle the question arises as to whether that principle is free-standing. Various curricula ensue. At some level diversity ought to be maintained and discussed. That said, if a false belief is exposed or a fraudulent system ensues then a conflicted state has to be identified.

The issuance of the point as fundamental may be challenged. If for instance I were to shrink say my pencil down it would approach the quality of a point, yet wouldn't it still be a pencil? I suppose in reality we could arrive at the realization of the atom, which is still not actually a point; we might arrive at the electron and still admit that there is more quality than a point. Returning back to the pencil we see that the electron is more like a pencil than it is like a point. A point is like nothing; particularly in its ideal state of smallness, as is the line. The idea of Euclidean thought as very fine work in order to attempt geometrical perfection versus say the work of a carpenter who knows better than to refit a joint a thousand times in the name of perfection: I do believe that this was the original sensibility of Euclidean geometry that is now lost on an unskilled population. Within mathematics we likewise see that epsilon/delta is presented by some as proof of perfection, while in reality to me it is an acceptance that close enough is good enough, and if you like you can do better.

[Greg Cunt]

On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 1:32:06 PM UTC+2, timba...@gmail.com wrote:

> And it is clearly a piece of work.

Yeah, to produce a heap of shit is indeed a piece of work sometimes.

[Eram semper recta]

On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 07:04:42 UTC-4, Swiss moron Jan Burse aka Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> Hey, bingo bongo, why does math use partial functions, like here:
> https://www.desmos.com/api/v1.6/docs/examples/graphsettings.html

> But in New Calculus, they don't exist?

Who told you that y=x^2 {x>0} does not exist in the New Calculus? Have you been drinking again?

[Eram semper recta]

On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 07:32:06 UTC-4, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 6:51:37 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Thursday, 24 June 2021 at 12:52:51 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > Any intelligent person can't help but be dumbstruck by the stupidity of mainstream academics.
> > >
> > > In the talk page of
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)
> > >
> > > you'll see them arguing amongst themselves about the definition of set. Some are content to call it a "primitive concept" which is laughable because primitive implies a chronology:
> > >
> > > primitive: relating to, denoting, or preserving the character of an early stage in the evolutionary or historical development of something.
> > >
> > > However, "primitive" itself is a questionable concept because it depends on *time* which is meaningless without matter and almost constant repeatable action.
> > >
> > > Mainstream orangutans are satisfied to categorise "set" as a primitive without even thinking about any of the consequences. They imagine this act gives them the right to dismiss a proper definition for the primitive concept, that is, in their syphilitic brains, one need not be too concerned about the definition of a primitive concept. Absurd and ridiculous.
> > >
> > > Primitive concepts have definitions! And to be primitive is relative to a given time period.
> > >
> > > Thus, if we try to start with the primitive notion of set, we see that it is a bunch of baloney:
> > >
> > > "A set is a gathering together into a whole of definite, distinct objects of our perception or our thought—which are called elements of the set."
> > >
> > > That definition prohibits a set without elements, but what the fuck are elements? Chuckle. Ultimately, we come down to the actual word that should have been used, that is, "object", but this still fails in the above ill-formed definition.
> > >
> > > Turns out the morons of mainstream could not come up with a definition, so they designed circular definitions and rules (or the beliefs of ZFC) in an attempt to define set. Only problem is that set is used over and over in the 9 beliefs beginning with the very first belief.
> > >
> > >
> > > In my brilliant presentation, I prove there are no axioms or postulates in sound mathematics:
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vlU-PJeIk672bFwZyULD1ASTRFF3jXg8
> > Mainstream cranks are like Donald Trump supporters - the more evidence you show them, the more they are convinced their conspiracy theories are true.
> Whether your presentation is falsifiable or not, it is a serious attempt at least and you deserve credit for your work. And it is clearly a piece of work.

Thank you! I appreciate the acknowledgment. However, I'll tell you this: the work is not my own! All I did, was to place in perspective the concepts realised by the Ancient Greeks. And more importantly, I wanted to make it clear that the Ancient Greeks were not "gods" but humans and had they not realised these things, eventually other humans would have realised the same or at least had the potential to realise the same, because perfect concepts (noumena) exist independently of any sentient thought. To wit, if the entire universe perished with all sentient beings and a new one appeared with new sentient beings, do you think they would realise these perfect concepts any differently? Would pi no longer be the magnitude realised when an attempt is made to measure a circle's periphery using its diameter as unit? Of course not. Pi would be the same whether we thought about it or not.

So I do not take any credit for this presentation. However, I would like the mainstream to acknowledge they have been wrong about many things, especially with regards to the foundations.

At the end of our journey, we want to leave behind a world better than we found it.

>
> Set theory as a bridge over to and from philosophy and possibly back and forth to physics is relevant.
> The idea of starting from nothing and building up principles is rather different that starting from the universe and settling for a small part to study.
> The human is roughly a blank slate at birth.

I think we are born with the KATIS (knowledge acquisition through inferential suspension) feature. Other animals do not have this. Their actions are preprogrammed, hence instinct. KATIS is dynamic and reprograms itself - a sloppy analogy because our brains are not like computers and there is no algorithm which can reprogram itself.

> That we spend the first quarter of our lives downloading and getting programmed: this is a terrible system that we all have been through.

Getting brainwashed - yes.

>
> Concepts which can stand freely ought to stand freely and be introduced and trained into our minds in this way. When shared aspects of such free-standing knowledge form a principle the question arises as to whether that principle is free-standing. Various curricula ensue. At some level diversity ought to be maintained and discussed. That said, if a false belief is exposed or a fraudulent system ensues then a conflicted state has to be identified.

Right!

>
> The issuance of the point as fundamental may be challenged. If for instance I were to shrink say my pencil down it would approach the quality of a point, yet wouldn't it still be a pencil? I suppose in reality we could arrive at the realization of the atom, which is still not actually a point; we might arrive at the electron and still admit that there is more quality than a point. Returning back to the pencil we see that the electron is more like a pencil than it is like a point. A point is like nothing; particularly in its ideal state of smallness, as is the line. The idea of Euclidean thought as very fine work in order to attempt geometrical perfection versus say the work of a carpenter who knows better than to refit a joint a thousand times in the name of perfection: I do believe that this was the original sensibility of Euclidean geometry that is now lost on an unskilled population. Within mathematics we likewise see that epsilon/delta is presented by some as proof of perfection, while in reality to me it is an acceptance that close enough is good enough, and if you like you can do better.

Well, epsilonic arguments don't actually prove anything. These are merely an unremarkable confirmation of pre-acknowledged facts. For example, the standard limit definition for the derivative:

0 < |x-c|<delta => |f(x)-L|<epsilon

is just a statement of the definition in a very flawed form. For starters, it is circular because L must be known and L happens to be the derivative.

So it's all misguided knowledge which students never understand but thanks to KATIS, they are able to store away until such time as one reads about the right way in the New Calculus.

[Steve Parker]

On 6/27/2021 6:59 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 07:32:06 UTC-4, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 6:51:37 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 24 June 2021 at 12:52:51 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>>> Any intelligent person can't help but be dumbstruck by the stupidity of mainstream academics.
>>>>

Shut up imbecile.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

I went looking after foundations and mostly about understanding what is a foundation
for continuum analysis - after learning and figuring out a bunch about set theory, the
ordinary, then I was still left with some contradictions of some other usual things like
that the universe would be its own powerset while still I believe in a domain principle,
thus that I came to arrive at more replete models of reals: line reals / field reals / signal reals,
what with respect to continuum analysis are much the usual approches in the applied,
and why there are things like univalency or ultrafilters. Instead, with a post-modern retro-
classical approach, there is actually arrived at various formalisms for foundation that
equip these models of reals with measure theory after LUB, making for that it's in the
interest of foundations, I've written this up in 10000 posts to sci.math.

I only have a B.S. in Mathematics, though it was often so that I was among fastest computers.

Claims from the howler troll like "this is the actual calculus of real numbers" and so on,
I would reserve for nothing less than replete models of real numbers after line reals,
field reals, signal reals, ....

So, I arrived at one.

Set theory is by no means wrong: just incomplete in the ordinary. Still, reflection on the
extra-ordinary for "the theory must in the result have no mathematical or logical paradoxes,
at all", arrives at that foundations without a continuum as primary is bereft of one.

So, if you happen to know of similar approaches what attempt to mend and after
revisiting the formalism, apologetics in explanation for why the modern is a thing
and why this retro-classical post-modern is a thing: I would be under compatible idealogues.

Or, good luck Earle, if you happen to hear of a modern theory of standard infinitesimals
which works up itself the fundamental theorems of calculus, I have one here.

[Michael Moroney]

On 6/27/2021 6:51 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:

> Mainstream cranks are like Donald Trump supporters - the more evidence you show them, the more they are convinced their conspiracy theories are true.
>

Sounds like Jon Gabriel to me. The more evidence you show Gabriel, the
more he is convinced his bad math is true.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

What was the Russia Hoax Gabriel?
Hillary paid for it... remember...?

Mitchell Raemsch

[Dan Christensen]

On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 9:46:28 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 07:04:42 UTC-4, Swiss moron Jan Burse aka Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > Hey, bingo bongo, why does math use partial functions, like here:
> > https://www.desmos.com/api/v1.6/docs/examples/graphsettings.html
> > But in New Calculus, they don't exist?
>

> Who told you that y=x^2 {x>0} does not exist in the Wacky New Cal-CLUELESS?

I pointed out that, with his banning of irrational numbers, the inverse of f(x)=x^2 for x>0 doesn't exist in JG's goofy little system, rendering it quite useless in applications for this and many other reasons.

Even at his advanced age (60+?), John Gabriel is STILL struggling with basic, elementary-school arithmetic. As he has repeatedly posted here:

"There are no points on a line."
--April 12, 2021

"Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
--July 10, 2020

"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017

“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015

"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
--October 28, 2017

"Zero is not a number."
-- Dec. 2, 2019

"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017

“There is no such thing as an empty set.”
--Oct. 4, 2019

“3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
--Oct. 22, 2019

No math genius our JG, though he actually lists his job title as “mathematician” at Linkedin.com. Apparently, they do not verify your credentials.


Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated March 10, 2020) at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com

Visit my Math Blog a http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Eram semper recta]

Hey Moron.
There was no Russia hoax because Russia did interfere in the 2016 and 2020 elections.

[Dan Christensen]

You have shown your hand, Mitch. Now we see why you have been so keen to spread misinformation about science and math here---only to build an army of idiots for your idol, Trump. The dumber, the better, right, Mitch? Shame on you!!!

Dan

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 24 June 2021 at 12:52:51 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Any intelligent person can't help but be dumbstruck by the stupidity of mainstream academics.
>
> In the talk page of
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)
>
> you'll see them arguing amongst themselves about the definition of set. Some are content to call it a "primitive concept" which is laughable because primitive implies a chronology:
>
> primitive: relating to, denoting, or preserving the character of an early stage in the evolutionary or historical development of something.
>
> However, "primitive" itself is a questionable concept because it depends on *time* which is meaningless without matter and almost constant repeatable action.
>
> Mainstream orangutans are satisfied to categorise "set" as a primitive without even thinking about any of the consequences. They imagine this act gives them the right to dismiss a proper definition for the primitive concept, that is, in their syphilitic brains, one need not be too concerned about the definition of a primitive concept. Absurd and ridiculous.
>
> Primitive concepts have definitions! And to be primitive is relative to a given time period.
>
> Thus, if we try to start with the primitive notion of set, we see that it is a bunch of baloney:
>
> "A set is a gathering together into a whole of definite, distinct objects of our perception or our thought—which are called elements of the set."
>
> That definition prohibits a set without elements, but what the fuck are elements? Chuckle. Ultimately, we come down to the actual word that should have been used, that is, "object", but this still fails in the above ill-formed definition.
>
> Turns out the morons of mainstream could not come up with a definition, so they designed circular definitions and rules (or the beliefs of ZFC) in an attempt to define set. Only problem is that set is used over and over in the 9 beliefs beginning with the very first belief.
>
>
> In my brilliant presentation, I prove there are no axioms or postulates in sound mathematics:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vlU-PJeIk672bFwZyULD1ASTRFF3jXg8

I have always maintained that:

"The objects that arise from concepts in a mathematician's mind are only as appealing as they are well defined".

Being a real mathematician, is how I realised the above profound truth.

[Dan Christensen]

On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 11:50:19 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka "John Gabriel") wrote:

> I have always maintained that:
>
> "The objects that arise from concepts in a mathematician's mind are only as appealing as they are well defined".
>
> Being a real mathematician, is how I realised the above profound truth.

HA, HA, HA!!! You mean a FAKE mathematician who has banned 0, negative numbers, axioms and limits. No wonder you can't prove anything, not even 2+2=4 (requires axioms). What a moron!

Dan

[Sergio]

forget trump,

Brain Dead Biden trips over his walker again


https://i.pinimg.com/236x/c5/0a/72/c50a723d26ed622f016381809148e34b.jpg

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

What does assembling a set do for the mathematician?
Are they subject to operation order math?
Or are they just a man chosen whim?

Mitchell Raemsch

[Eram semper recta]

On Monday, 28 June 2021 at 14:47:07 UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> What does assembling a set do for the mathematician?

Nothing. It is sheer primitive stupidity. Neanderthals thought of numbers in terms of set theory.

They counted their cattle using the very backward concepts set theory uses today. Then came the brilliant Ancient Greeks and laid the perfect foundations, but these were abandoned by morons thousands of years later.

> Are they subject to operation order math?

They are pretty useless in every respect and require a lot of rules to prop them up. The main set of rules (beliefs) is otherwise known as the Zermelo Fraenkel Axioms (ZF). This is the official statement of doctrine in mythmatics.

> Or are they just a man chosen whim?

Fools have chosen this path and it has been supported by powerful and influential Jews in academia.

I have answered this question not because I think anything of your intelligence, but rather because these are off-chance good questions. You're an idiot, especially seeing that you supported Trump, a corrupt criminal who should have been hanged for treason.

While your lord and master "Jesus" was probably a good man, he was not the son of any god. In all probability, when Christ made such claims, he did not mean them literally, but in the sense that humans may have been created with the potential to become higher beings. There were many stupid Jews in his time who hated him about as much as I am hated today by the mental midgets in mainstream academia.

Trump and his supporters have nothing in common with Christ. There are many American morons who call themselves Christians but truth is they are the opposite in every way to those ideas which Christ had preached.

Christ was trying to make this a better world and he ended up paying for it.

Josephus Flavius in his History of Jewish Antiquities has nothing but good to say about Christ.

Great spirits are always violently opposed by mediocre minds.

Religion is ALL shit. Your bible is a piece of crap (I've studied it and read it from beginning to end in both Hebrew and Greek). The only somewhat reasonable books are the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, but all this knowledge was known long before these books were written by Jews. For example, Aesop's Fables had been around thousands of years before.

And back to mathematics: There is NO such thing as an infinitesimal, you silly fool!

Learn from me! I do know better than anyone else.

> Mitchell Raemsch

[zelos...@gmail.com]

torsdag 24 juni 2021 kl. 18:52:51 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> Any intelligent person can't help but be dumbstruck by the stupidity of mainstream academics.
>
> In the talk page of
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)
>
> you'll see them arguing amongst themselves about the definition of set. Some are content to call it a "primitive concept" which is laughable because primitive implies a chronology:
>
> primitive: relating to, denoting, or preserving the character of an early stage in the evolutionary or historical development of something.
>
> However, "primitive" itself is a questionable concept because it depends on *time* which is meaningless without matter and almost constant repeatable action.
>
> Mainstream orangutans are satisfied to categorise "set" as a primitive without even thinking about any of the consequences. They imagine this act gives them the right to dismiss a proper definition for the primitive concept, that is, in their syphilitic brains, one need not be too concerned about the definition of a primitive concept. Absurd and ridiculous.
>
> Primitive concepts have definitions! And to be primitive is relative to a given time period.
>
> Thus, if we try to start with the primitive notion of set, we see that it is a bunch of baloney:
>
> "A set is a gathering together into a whole of definite, distinct objects of our perception or our thought—which are called elements of the set."
>
> That definition prohibits a set without elements, but what the fuck are elements? Chuckle. Ultimately, we come down to the actual word that should have been used, that is, "object", but this still fails in the above ill-formed definition.
>
> Turns out the morons of mainstream could not come up with a definition, so they designed circular definitions and rules (or the beliefs of ZFC) in an attempt to define set. Only problem is that set is used over and over in the 9 beliefs beginning with the very first belief.
>
>
> In my brilliant presentation, I prove there are no axioms or postulates in sound mathematics:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vlU-PJeIk672bFwZyULD1ASTRFF3jXg8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_notion

Yes, primitive notion/concept has a meaning, it just means it is not defined in terms of other things. Sets in set theory fits that dandy.

[Eram semper recta]

It doesn't have to be defined in terms of other things, but a THING _IS_ defined by its attributes.

> Sets in set theory fits that dandy.

Chuckle. The 9 delusional beliefs of ZFC? LMAO.

[Mostowski Collapse]

"Bees do not need to explain the flies
that honey is better than shit."

So no comment needed.

Eram semper recta schrieb am Donnerstag, 24. Juni 2021 um 18:52:51 UTC+2:

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 24 June 2021 at 12:52:51 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:

Students:

The majority of mainstream mathematics academia has been such a dismal failure. I once knew a bisexual math professor (name withheld) at UCT in Cape Town, South Africa who had studied at Oxford. During one of our daily conversations, he remarked that the UCT math department should produce more papers to which I rolled my eyes whilst chuckling and remarked: "You mean they've run out of arse-wipes (existing papers) already?"

LMAO.

On a more serious note: Beliefs CANNOT be substituted for lack of mainstream understanding because a belief is NOT a fact!

"Believe in ZFC and you shall inherit eternal life" is obviously a myth.

[Dan Christensen]

On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 11:53:02 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:

> > In my brilliant presentation, I prove there are no axioms or postulates in sound mathematics:
> >

> Students:
>
> The majority of mainstream mathematics academia has been such a dismal failure.

Because he has banned axioms, among other things, in his goofy little system, he cannot derive even the most elementary results of basic arithmetic (e.g. that 2+2=4). What a moron!

****************************************
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't become a victim of JG's fake math

JG here claims to have a discovered as shortcut to mastering calculus without using limits. Unfortunately for him, this means he has no workable a definition of the derivative of a function. It blows up for functions as simple f(x)=|x|. Or even f(x)=0. As a result, he has had to ban 0, negative numbers and instantaneous rates of change rendering his goofy little system quite useless. What a moron!

Forget calculus. JG has also banned all axioms because he cannot even derive the most elementary results of basic arithmetic, e.g. 2+2=4. Such results require the use of axioms, so he must figure he's now off the hook. Again, what a moron!

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Zero math is real... but what about the empty set?
or the infinite set that could never be completed?
Where is man going to store it?

Mitchell Raemsch

[Dan Christensen]

Zero is a real number if that's what you mean.

> but what about the empty set?

It is a set without any elements, e.g. the set of JG's brilliant innovations in mathematics.

> or the infinite set that could never be completed?

You can't write out all the natural numbers if that's what you mean. So what?

> Where is man going to store it?
>

Mathematical sets are abstractions. They take up no space. They don't need to be "stored" anywhere.

Dan

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

No. It is an eternal no quantity..

> > but what about the empty set?
> It is a set without any elements, e.g. the set of JG's brilliant innovations in mathematics.
> > or the infinite set that could never be completed?
> You can't write out all the natural numbers if that's what you mean. So what?

It means you can't count to infinity either you moron....

> > Where is man going to store it?
> >
> Mathematical sets are abstractions. They take up no space. They don't need to be "stored" anywhere.

Where are they now then?
How do you know infinite elements just in your moron mind?

Mitchell Raemsch
>
> Dan

[Dan Christensen]

On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 2:21:13 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > Zero math is real..
> > Zero is a real number if that's what you mean.
> No. It is an eternal no quantity..
> > > but what about the empty set?
> > It is a set without any elements, e.g. the set of JG's brilliant innovations in mathematics.
> > > or the infinite set that could never be completed?
> > You can't write out all the natural numbers if that's what you mean. So what?

> It means you can't count to infinity either you moron....

How is that a problem, you pompous clown?

> > > Where is man going to store it?
> > >
> > Mathematical sets are abstractions. They take up no space. They don't need to be "stored" anywhere.

> Where are they now then?

Maybe you didn't know, but the number 5, like all other numbers, has no actual physical location.

I hope this helps, Clown Boy.

Dan

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 11:46:04 AM UTC-7, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 2:21:13 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > Zero math is real..
> > > Zero is a real number if that's what you mean.
> > No. It is an eternal no quantity..
> > > > but what about the empty set?
> > > It is a set without any elements, e.g. the set of JG's brilliant innovations in mathematics.
> > > > or the infinite set that could never be completed?
> > > You can't write out all the natural numbers if that's what you mean. So what?
>
> > It means you can't count to infinity either you moron....
> How is that a problem, you pompous clown?

Math can't claim it can do it...
It is going to have to admit it instead.
Like you you moron...

> > > > Where is man going to store it?
> > > >
> > > Mathematical sets are abstractions. They take up no space. They don't need to be "stored" anywhere.
>
> > Where are they now then?
> Maybe you didn't know, but the number 5, like all other numbers, has no actual physical location.

Five is an eternal quantity that as a name and can be written down.
Where are you hiding yours? Can't you give yours that location in math?
Or is it in your monkey brain that you inherited from evolution?

Mitchell Raemsch

[Dan Christensen]

On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 2:52:05 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 11:46:04 AM UTC-7, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 2:21:13 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > Zero math is real..
> > > > Zero is a real number if that's what you mean.
> > > No. It is an eternal no quantity..
> > > > > but what about the empty set?
> > > > It is a set without any elements, e.g. the set of JG's brilliant innovations in mathematics.
> > > > > or the infinite set that could never be completed?
> > > > You can't write out all the natural numbers if that's what you mean. So what?
> >
> > > It means you can't count to infinity either you moron....
> > How is that a problem, you pompous clown?

> Math can't claim it can do it...

The claim was that no one (including you) can count to infinity. A really STUPID thing to say, but we have come to expect that sort of idiocy from you on an hourly basis here, Clown Boy.

> It is going to have to admit it instead.
> Like you you moron...
> > > > > Where is man going to store it?
> > > > >
> > > > Mathematical sets are abstractions. They take up no space. They don't need to be "stored" anywhere.
> >
> > > Where are they now then?

> > Maybe you didn't know, but the number 5, like all other numbers, has no actual physical location.

> Five is an eternal quantity that as a name and can be written down.

It takes up no space and has no physical location. Deal with it, Clown Boy.

Dan

[Bruno Vanhorn]

Dan Christensen wrote:

>> Math can't claim it can do it...
>
> The claim was that no one (including you) can count to infinity. A
> really STUPID thing to say, but we have come to expect that sort of
> idiocy from you on an hourly basis here, Clown Boy.

lol, the story goes airliners forbids the *vaccinated* fly as passengers,
much less the pilots, a few already dead from the vaccines, due the high
alt blood cloths. Why they changed their story, because you can't cheat
Nature, you idiot.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 12:09:03 PM UTC-7, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 2:52:05 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 11:46:04 AM UTC-7, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 2:21:13 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > Zero math is real..
> > > > > Zero is a real number if that's what you mean.
> > > > No. It is an eternal no quantity..
> > > > > > but what about the empty set?
> > > > > It is a set without any elements, e.g. the set of JG's brilliant innovations in mathematics.
> > > > > > or the infinite set that could never be completed?
> > > > > You can't write out all the natural numbers if that's what you mean. So what?
> > >
> > > > It means you can't count to infinity either you moron....
> > > How is that a problem, you pompous clown?
>
> > Math can't claim it can do it...
> The claim was that no one (including you) can count to infinity. A really STUPID thing to say, but we have come to expect that sort of idiocy from you on an hourly basis here, Clown Boy.

It is stupid to say infinities are not countable?
Then show how you could do the unlimited in finite time?

Mitchell Raemsch

> > It is going to have to admit it instead.
> > Like you you moron...
> > > > > > Where is man going to store it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Mathematical sets are abstractions. They take up no space. They don't need to be "stored" anywhere.
> > >
> > > > Where are they now then?
>
> > > Maybe you didn't know, but the number 5, like all other numbers, has no actual physical location.
>
> > Five is an eternal quantity that as a name and can be written down.
> It takes up no space and has no physical location. Deal with it, Clown Boy.

Where is your infinite set now?
can you remember infinite elements in your monkey brain?

Mitchell Raemsch
> Dan

No. Dan you cannot do what you claim.
God creates gravity.

[Dan Christensen]

On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 9:23:40 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> >
> > > Math can't claim it can do it...
> > The claim was that no one (including you) can count to infinity. A really STUPID thing to say, but we have come to expect that sort of idiocy from you on an hourly basis here, Clown Boy.
> It is stupid to say infinities are not countable?

No, it makes perfect sense. The power set of the N is uncountable. See my formal proof at http://www.dcproof.com/Countable.htm

> Then show how you could do the unlimited in finite time?
>

A point particle going from x=0 to x=1 in a finite interval of time passes each of the infinitely many points in {1/n: n in N+}. Deal with it, Clown Boy.

> >
> > > > Maybe you didn't know, but the number 5, like all other numbers, has no actual physical location.
> >
> > > Five is an eternal quantity that as a name and can be written down.
> > It takes up no space and has no physical location. Deal with it, Clown Boy.

> Where is your infinite set now?

It has no location in space, Clown Boy.

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com

Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Mostowski Collapse]

How is the Pope doing, micro penis?

Bruno Vanhorn schrieb am Freitag, 16. Juli 2021 um 23:16:06 UTC+2:
> .. because you can't cheat Nature ..

[zelos...@gmail.com]

No moron, again you clearly do not understand primitive notions. Read up on it.

The 9 axioms of ZFC describes certain properties the sets have, or what sets you will always have, or pre-existing sets.

The notion if set is primitive in ZFC because a set is not defined in terms of anything else. It is just the objects of set theory and hte axioms tells properties and such.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

they are abstract concept, they exist nowhere physically

[Eram semper recta]

A primitive notion does not mean it cannot be well defined. How many times do I need to tell you this?

>
> The 9 axioms of ZFC describes certain properties the sets have, or what sets you will always have, or pre-existing sets.

Rubbish. These "axioms" are nothing but flawed beliefs like those of Trump supporters and his republican enablers.

>
> The notion if set is primitive in ZFC because a set is not defined in terms of anything else. It is just the objects of set theory and hte axioms tells properties and such.

intangible object : a concept that cannot be touched or seen

Numbers are intangible objects, but they have well-defined properties.

Sets are intangible objects, but they are mythical because their properties are based on BELIEF, not FACT.

[Dan Christensen]

Because you have rejected not only the axioms of set theory, but ALL axioms, you are unable to establish even the most elementary results of basic arithmetic (e.g. 2+2=4) in your goofy little system, Mr. Rectum. You are in no position to discuss higher mathematics.

Dan

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, July 18, 2021 at 1:04:44 PM UTC-7, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Saturday, July 17, 2021 at 9:42:47 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel) wrote:
> > > The 9 axioms of ZFC describes certain properties the sets have, or what sets you will always have, or pre-existing sets.
> > Rubbish. These "axioms" are nothing but flawed beliefs like those of Trump supporters and his republican enablers.
> > >
> > > The notion if set is primitive in ZFC because a set is not defined in terms of anything else. It is just the objects of set theory and hte axioms tells properties and such.
> > intangible object : a concept that cannot be touched or seen
> >
> > Numbers are intangible objects, but they have well-defined properties.

You mean they are quantities.
Math sets you up to believe sets.
A matrix is a diagonal set that
has no basis in order... only
in man's mind...

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Physical aetherial is where the math is at.

[Mostowski Collapse]

According to mereology storms in teacups are quite possible.
But mereology became less popular when Cantor and Peano devised set theory.

Eram semper recta schrieb am Donnerstag, 24. Juni 2021 um 18:52:51 UTC+2:

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 24 June 2021 at 12:52:51 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Any intelligent person can't help but be dumbstruck by the stupidity of mainstream academics.
>

> In the talk page of
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)
>
> you'll see them arguing amongst themselves about the definition of set. Some are content to call it a "primitive concept" which is laughable because primitive implies a chronology:
>
> primitive: relating to, denoting, or preserving the character of an early stage in the evolutionary or historical development of something.
>
> However, "primitive" itself is a questionable concept because it depends on *time* which is meaningless without matter and almost constant repeatable action.
>
> Mainstream orangutans are satisfied to categorise "set" as a primitive without even thinking about any of the consequences. They imagine this act gives them the right to dismiss a proper definition for the primitive concept, that is, in their syphilitic brains, one need not be too concerned about the definition of a primitive concept. Absurd and ridiculous.
>
> Primitive concepts have definitions! And to be primitive is relative to a given time period.
>
> Thus, if we try to start with the primitive notion of set, we see that it is a bunch of baloney:
>
> "A set is a gathering together into a whole of definite, distinct objects of our perception or our thought—which are called elements of the set."
>
> That definition prohibits a set without elements, but what the fuck are elements? Chuckle. Ultimately, we come down to the actual word that should have been used, that is, "object", but this still fails in the above ill-formed definition.
>
> Turns out the morons of mainstream could not come up with a definition, so they designed circular definitions and rules (or the beliefs of ZFC) in an attempt to define set. Only problem is that set is used over and over in the 9 beliefs beginning with the very first belief.
>
>

> In my brilliant presentation, I prove there are no axioms or postulates in sound mathematics:
>

> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vlU-PJeIk672bFwZyULD1ASTRFF3jXg8

Students:

In 9 eye-opening videos, I debunk all of the 9 ZFC beliefs.

See details section of the following video for links to every one of these videos in this thought provoking video about what mainstream academics themselves have to say:

https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w