What a degree from Oops-Allah (Uppsala) university will get you: (2x5)/2 means 2 is a factor of 5.

[Eram semper recta]

Two of the village idiots (Markus and Malum) just keep digging themselves in deeper.

" (h*f(x))/h means h is a factor of f(x)." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum

" (2*5)/2 means 2 is a factor of 5." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum

Apparently this is where "Pure Math" (or rather myth) comes in? LMAO.

Your ancestors were raiding savages because they were too stupid to invent anything.

[Dan Christensen]

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of JG's fake math

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 2:13:37 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel (JG), Troll Boy) wrote:
> Two of the village idiots (Markus and Malum) just keep digging themselves in deeper.
>

Speaking of village idiots...

JG here claims to have a discovered a 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!

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]

Anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen spammed:

> "There are no points on a line."

Lie. I never said that. What I did say is that a line does not consists of points. When we talk about points on a line, we really mean distances that are indicated much like road signs do for distances travelled along a road.

A line is one of innumerable distances between any two points.
A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.

> "Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"

True. Pi is merely a symbol for an incommensurable magnitude - apparently a concept too advanced for an imbecile like Dan Christensen.

> "1/2 not equal to 2/4"

Lie. I have NEVER said this. What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.

There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4. For example:

_ / _ _
_ _ / _ _ _ _

The length _ is not equal to the length _ _ .

> “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”

True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w

Also, my article on pi not being a number of any kind:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FFg_9XCkIwTZ9N1jbU4oMYfHHHuFHYf3

The true story of how we got numbers:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU

No such thing as a "real number" or a "real number line":

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMHVYcE8xcmRZRnc

There is no valid construction of "real number" - it's a myth:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU

> "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”

True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.

3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4

Actually, there is no "OR" part, so the logical disjunction is invalid.

> "Zero is not a number."

True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w2tt7IgoIu-ychDCoYi-4jOAzToy0ViM

> "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."

Half-truth. While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.

> “There is no such thing as an empty set.”

True. Even the father of all mainstream mathematical cranks rejected the idea of empty set. But let's not go too far ... there isn't even a definition of "set" in set theory!

https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w

https://youtu.be/1CcSsOG0okg

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

True. These are propositions that are implied by the given equations. For example, my historic geometric identity states:

[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = dy/dx + Q(x,h)

And so, f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)

The theorem:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

How it provides a rigorous definition of integral for the flawed mainstream calculus:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y

The day will come when this vicious anonymous troll Dan Christensen is convicted in a court of law.

Download for free the most important mathematics book ever written:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view

The New Calculus is proof that you CAN DO calculus without the use of LIMIT THEORY.

Don't believe me? Study it. You will be pleasantly surprised.

I am a genius and the greatest mathematician alive today.

[Eram semper recta]

Quite hilarious how the main sci.math troll Dan Christensen steps in when the lesser trolls and cranks Malum and Zelos are on lunch break. LMAO.

Folks, you can't make this shit up: "(2*5)/2 means 2 is a factor of 5." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum (both purported master math grads!)

[Eram semper recta]

Markus Klyver learned the meaning of "factor" from Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden. Is that another **public** university? Tsk, tsk.

So please do teach us Markus: Does (2*5)/2 means 2 is a factor of 5? I mean you did say that (h*f(x))/h means h is a factor of f(x). You're not going to deny it now, are you? Little piss-head that you are, you when and shat it out all over my threads.

Oh dear, how are you going to deny this one now? LMAO.

[Eram semper recta]

On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 09:13:37 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:

Quote from Markus Klyver, a master "math" graduate from Chalmers University, Sweden:

> f(x)=h*f(x)/h does mean you can factor out h from any f. Hence your Q is ILL-DEFINED.

Interpretation:
>>>>>>5=2*5/2 does mean you can factor out 2 from any 5. Hence your Q is ILL-DEFINED.<<<<

Classic!!! ROFLMAO.

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/-0HWHBaDhbM/m/ppAFLxZSAgAJ

I imagined Klyver would be embarrassed so I gently corrected him, but the idiot didn't stop spewing out his shit (like all other trolls on this newsgroup - Dan Christensen, Malum, Python (Jew cunt from France aka Jean Pierre Messager), etc)

I suppose the dimwit will just go ahead and deny it even though the proof is clear he said the above, not just in one thread, but in every fucking thread that he could. Can you say CRANK? LMAO.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

the point is, you imbecile, is that talking about "factors" in a field is rather meaningless because you can always add them willy nilly and not change the equality.

[Eram semper recta]

The point, you fucking retard, is that you are straw manning again. It's your usual style.

" (h*f(x))/h means h is a factor of f(x)." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum

" (2*5)/2 means 2 is a factor of 5." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum

How embarrassing! Tsk, tsk. Graduates of Oops-Allah (Malum) and Chambers (Klyver) universities.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

The retard is you and only you. That is why your "those that have factor h" is not a strong enough condition to make the derivative unique.

[Dan Christensen]

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of JG's fake math

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 8:16:20 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:

> > "1/2 not equal to 2/4"
> Lie. I have NEVER said this.

A direct quote from October 22, 2017 here at sci.math

> What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
> What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
> 2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.
>
> There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4. For example:
>

When will you learn, Troll Boy? 1/2 is ALWAYS EQUAL to 2/4.

[snip]

> > “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”

> True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail...

If you can't dazzle them brilliance, baffle them with bullshit, right, Troll Boy?

> > "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
> True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.
>
> 3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4
>

Since 3 < 4, it is true that 3 < 4 or 3 = 4 even though 3 =4 is false. Nothing "invalid" about it, Troll Boy.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table#Logical_disjunction_(OR)

[snip]

> > "Zero is not a number."
> True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.
>

It really is a number, Troll Boy. Deal with it.

> > "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."

> Half-truth.

Nope. Completely false. Both 0 and negative numbers are required in mathematics.

> While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.

<yawn!>

> > “There is no such thing as an empty set.”

> True.

Umm... What about the set of all your brilliant mathematical discoveries? Empty.

[snip]

> > “3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions”

> True.

Nope. The biconditional is logical connective. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_biconditional

3 is not a statement that is true or false. 3 is a number. So 3 <=> 2+1 would be an error in syntax. Deal with it, Troll Boy.


[snip]

> > 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

Also, all direct quotes from you, Troll Boy. To the extent that you will be remembered at all, history will not be kind to you. Time to cut your losses and move on Troll Boy.

Dan

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

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

[Eram semper recta]

I guess Klyver has no response? LMAO. Too embarrasses eh? And so you should be!

[markus...@gmail.com]

tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 08:13:37 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:

You are trying to define the derivative with [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h=f'(x)+Q(h), but you define Q(h) as the "function which has at least one factor of h in it". i pointed out that you can literally just factorise f(x)=(h*f(x))/h for any f. So your Q isn't unique.

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:07:47 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 08:13:37 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > Two of the village idiots (Markus and Malum) just keep digging themselves in deeper.
> >
> > " (h*f(x))/h means h is a factor of f(x)." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum
> >
> > " (2*5)/2 means 2 is a factor of 5." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum
> >
> > Apparently this is where "Pure Math" (or rather myth) comes in? LMAO.
> >
> > Your ancestors were raiding savages because they were too stupid to invent anything.

> You are trying to define the derivative with [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h=f'(x)+Q(x, h),

I am defining the derivative as f'(x) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - Q(x,h)

> but you define Q(x,h) as the "function which has at least one factor of h in it".

NO. Learn to read! I said Q(x,h) is the slope difference (between tangent line and non-parallel secant line) whose terms will contain at least one factor h. The only exception is when f is a straight line, in which case Q(x,h) = 0 since for any straight line slope = rise/run. A straight line cannot be tangent to itself.

> i pointed out that you can literally just factorise f(x)=(h*f(x))/h for any f. So your Q isn't unique.

To point out anything, you need to know things. Only idiots like YOU and Malum make the following claims because you have no clue about anything in mathematics:

"h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)

"π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)

:-)))))

[markus...@gmail.com]

So your definition of Q is rather "the slope difference (between tangent line and non-parallel secant line)"? Well, then your definition of Q depends on the tangent line, which is defined using f'.

[Eram semper recta]

Q(x,h) depends on both the slope of the tangent line and the non-parallel secant line.

However, I won't allow you to avoid your embarrassment: pi is NOT a factor of 6 because pi does NOT divide 6 without remainder.

You are a clown, Klyver!

[New Age Prophet]

On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 10:45 AM Eram semper recta wrote:

> Two of the village idiots (Markus and Malum) just keep digging themselves in deeper.
>
> " (h*f(x))/h means h is a factor of f(x)." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum
>
> " (2*5)/2 means 2 is a factor of 5." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum
>
> " (h*f(x))/h means h is a factor of f(x)." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum
>
> " (2*5)/2 means 2 is a factor of 5." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum

***A factor is a magnitude that measures another magnitude exactly.***

Or in mainstream terminology:

***A factor is a magnitude that "divides" another magnitude without remainder.***

2 is not a factor of 5 because 2 does not divide 5 without remainder.

A number is part of another (or the same) number, the lesser of the greater, when it measures the greater. - Elements, Book 7, Def. 3

Μέρος ἐστὶν ἀριθμὸς ἀριθμοῦ ὁ ἐλάσσων τοῦ μείζονος, ὅταν καταμετρῇ τὸν μείζονα. - Elements, Book 7, Def. 3

Literal word for word translation:

Part is number "of number" the minor of major, when measures the major.

Euclid could have added: "the greater of the lesser, when <<equal parts>> of the greater measures the lesser".

It is necessary to add <<equal parts>> because the parts must measure both the lesser and greater number.

There might have been an Ancient Greek word for factor, but I don't know it. The modern word is συντελεστή which can also mean proportion or rate.

These two graduates (Markus Klyver and Zelos Malum) of Sweden's public universities apparently did not know what is a factor. Can you believe it? It's true!

Sometimes it's tricky to know who is dumber between the two.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

you are still conflating an integral domain with a field. Different properties when it comes to factorization.

[Eram semper recta]

What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>. How embarrassing!

A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.

LMAO.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

integral domains and fields work differently. One has factor being meaningful, the other doesn't.

[Eram semper recta]

Also irrelevant. You're just trying to make your narrative seem like the right one, but the facts are clear that you are a bullshitter who knows nothing about mathematics.

To makes a statement like "integral domains and fields work differently" only shows that once again you are trying to pull the authority card. Chuckle. Poor Malum, it must be so embarrassing for you:

"h*f(x)/h means that h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)

Therefore by the "brilliant" logic of these two math master graduates, we arrive at the stunning result:

"pi*f(x)/pi means that pi is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)

Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk.

A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.

This has nothing to do with your bullshit of fields, rings, etc. LMAO.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

>Clearly you have no clue what it means for a "set " to be countable.

I do, again, a set is countable if it is in bijection with a subset of N

>It has EVERYTHING to do with indexing.

No it doesn't, given an index set can be any set so it is entirely worthless.

>A set is countable IF AND ONLY IF it can be indexed. When one talks about bijection between imaginary "real sets", there is nothing about countbility there, only that one set is scaled to another. Flags do not imply equinumerosity.

Sorry to inform you but it is about bijection with subset of N, not indexing because any set, even 2^N, can be used for indexing and 2^N is not countable.

>rrelevant. You're just trying to make your narrative seem like the right one, but the facts are clear that you are a bullshitter who knows nothing about mathematics.

Very relevant. The fact is still you do not understand the difference between fields and integral domains and that is the major issue for you.

I know mathematics much better than you :) I can cite sources you can only cite your own garbage.

>To makes a statement like "integral domains and fields work differently" only shows that once again you are trying to pull the authority card. Chuckle. Poor Malum, it must be so embarrassing for you:

I pulled no authority on it. I can DEMONSTRATE they work differently based on definitions. There is no authority on it.

>Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk.

Indeed tsk tsk tsk, you still fail to understand that integral domains and fields do work differently and factorization is only a relevant property in one of them.

[Eram semper recta]

That is what your baboon lecturers told you because they themselves did not understand what Cantor meant. Also, I told you it is WRONG because it leaves out your favourite bullshit called "infinite set".

All the following statements are equivalent:

A set is countable if it can be indexed.
A set is countable if its elements can be systematically named.
A set is countable if its elements can be systematically listed.
A set is countable if all its elements have names.
A set is countable if it can be placed into a bijection with N or a subset of N.

<drivel>

END OF DISCUSSION, you vile crank! Oops-Allah? LMAO

[zelos...@gmail.com]

>That is what your baboon lecturers told you because they themselves did not understand what Cantor meant.

Again, as I have told you, if Cantor said different and we changed after, does not matter. If cantor said wrong, we have moved on from it and that is not how it is NOW.

>Also, I told you it is WRONG because it leaves out your favourite bullshit called "infinite set".

Nope, it allows for infinite sets because N is a subset of N so N is countable because it is in bijection with itself.

>All the following statements are equivalent:

Nope

>A set is countable if it can be indexed.

R can be indexed but is not countable

>A set is countable if its elements can be systematically named.

do they need to be unique or can I just call all bob?
This one of yours is meaningless

>A set is countable if its elements can be systematically listed.

Does it have to be vertical or horizontal?
Again, meaningless.

>A set is countable if all its elements have names.

Can they be Bob and Alice?
Again, meaningless

>A set is countable if it can be placed into a bijection with N or a subset of N.

N is a subset of N you imbecile.

>END OF DISCUSSION, you vile crank! Oops-Allah? LMAO

Comes from the one that do not understand the difference between integral domains and fields, do not understand what subset means or anything. You fail at literally everything.

[FromTheRafters]

on 9/21/2021, zelos...@gmail.com supposed :

He apparently fails at understanding "equals" if he doesn't realize
that two sets can be 'subsets' of each other.

Equality, it's pretty basic stuff.

[Eram semper recta]

Mainstream academics do not even understand their own theory, and the above claims are proof of this fact.

Factor: A factor k is a magnitude that measures another magnitude p without remainder.

I'm sorry to say that 2 does not measure (divide) 5 without remainder.

Sadly, this is what an education from either Uppsala or Chambers university gets you.

[Python]

Crak John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 09:13:37 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
>> Two of the village idiots (Markus and Malum) just keep digging themselves in deeper.
>>
>> " (h*f(x))/h means h is a factor of f(x)." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum
>>
>> " (2*5)/2 means 2 is a factor of 5." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum
>>
>> Apparently this is where "Pure Math" (or rather myth) comes in? LMAO.
>>
>> Your ancestors were raiding savages because they were too stupid to invent anything.
>
> Mainstream academics do not even understand their own theory, and the above claims are proof of this fact.
>
> Factor: A factor k is a magnitude that measures another magnitude p without remainder.

Even by ancient greek standards 2 and 5 have a common measure.

> I'm sorry to say that 2 does not measure (divide) 5 without remainder.

In Q (and R) it does. This is the point you miss, that makes all of your
"new calculus" and "fixed calculus" pathetic pieces of nonsense.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

"Measure" in this context is not mathematical and you still fail to understand the difference between integral domain and a field.

[Eram semper recta]

On Wednesday, 22 September 2021 at 01:10:19 UTC+3, Psychopath crank Jean Pierre Messager aka YBM aka JPM aka Python wrote:

> > On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 09:13:37 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >> Two of the village idiots (Markus and Malum) just keep digging themselves in deeper.
> >>
> >> " (h*f(x))/h means h is a factor of f(x)." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum
> >>
> >> " (2*5)/2 means 2 is a factor of 5." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum
> >>
> >> Apparently this is where "Pure Math" (or rather myth) comes in? LMAO.
> >>
> >> Your ancestors were raiding savages because they were too stupid to invent anything.
> >
> > Mainstream academics do not even understand their own theory, and the above claims are proof of this fact.
> >
> > Factor: A factor k is a magnitude that measures another magnitude p without remainder.
> Even by ancient greek standards 2 and 5 have a common measure.

They do, but common measure although a necessity is not sufficient. It is qualified by the fact that there must be no remainder.

> > I'm sorry to say that 2 does not measure (divide) 5 without remainder.
> In Q (and R) it does.

It does not. We all know how vile and dishonest you are by quoting an incorrect example which referred to rational numbers.

pi is not a factor of 6 - EVER, even as a magnitude, never mind number.

The example of pi and 6 fails the first step, that is, NO COMMON MEASURE. It doesn't even get to the next step of remainder.

You are too stupid to understand these things.

> This is the point you miss, that makes all of your
> "new calculus" and "fixed calculus" pathetic pieces of nonsense.

You're just jealous because you are too stupid to accomplish what I have. You have proved it over and over again, you pathetic, vile crank!

Crank Malum driveled:

> "Measure" in this context is not mathematical and you still fail to understand the difference between integral domain and a field.

Mathematics is the science of measure and number.

I'm sorry that you haven't learned this yet.

[Eram semper recta]

On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 09:13:37 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Two of the village idiots (Markus and Malum) just keep digging themselves in deeper.
>
> " (h*f(x))/h means h is a factor of f(x)." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum
>
> " (2*5)/2 means 2 is a factor of 5." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum
>
> Apparently this is where "Pure Math" (or rather myth) comes in? LMAO.
>
> Your ancestors were raiding savages because they were too stupid to invent anything.

Let's clarify further:

A magnitude p is called a FACTOR of magnitude q IF AND ONLY IF, p measures q EXACTLY.

In other words, 2 is NOT a factor of 5 because 2 does not measure 5 exactly. This is what factor meant to the Ancient Greeks.

There is no mention of the concept of "factor" in the Elements because it is implied directly by measure alone and reconfirmed throughout the text of Book 7 which also introduces prime numbers whose ONLY factors (modern Greek παράγοντας) are 1 and itself.

To the Ancient Greeks, a factor is a magnitude or number that measures another exactly (using the whole and NOT parts of it if there is a common measure which is INSUFFICIENT), ie, without remainder.

Only the most ignorant and dishonest academics will try to twist meanings and play on words in order to support their bullshit.

Also, ONLY the utter fools (like Malum) will claim that measure has no context in this discussion of factor. Oops-Allah (Uppsala university of prime idiots). LMAO.

Mathematics is FIRST about measure and then about NUMBER. In this order.

[Eram semper recta]

The word "measure" appears at least 1200 times in the Elements. How anyone could fathom that measure has no significance in the context of factor is clearly cranky beyond belief!

My latest video explains what the trolls on this newsgroup have never understood where the concept of "factor" is concerned:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApjHZkv96Bg

[zelos...@gmail.com]

You're the one that has failed to learn it is not part of mathematics anymore as you want it to be.

>Mathematics is FIRST about measure and then about NUMBER. In this order.

it isn't, you want it to but it isn't.

[NewAge Prophet]

Refreshed due to troll activity.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

It isn't trolling pointing out where you're wrong.

[NewAge Prophet]

It is trolling when you confirm with your every comment that you are a troll and that's what you do. I mean even the infamous troll Dan Christensen seems to have mellowed compared to you. Now that's a poke in your eye. LMAO.

If you have nothing to say, the best practice is to abstain from taking a dump on the thread by repeating your drivel over and over again - so typical of a troll.

I know your fellow Swedes are cringing when they hear you make stupid comments like:

2 is a factor of 5

and

pi is a factor of 6

and

h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)

But of course you have made far more idiotic statements:

"Mathematics is not the science of measure and number" - probably the most cranky of all

"Mathematics is better explained using symbols rather than words" - almost as cranky because symbols are explained using words, usually the ones in a dictionary which you loathe since it prevents you from bullshitting freely.

"Multiplication is defined using fields and rings without geometry" - just plain ignorant

"But what does ____ even mean?" - your typical whining when you don't understand the English and are too lazy to check the dictionary.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

To be a troll I have to say things for the purpsoe of antagonizing people. I have no intent of antagonizing anyone. My intent is correcting you where you're wrong and boy there are many places where you are!

You repeat your drivel, so by your definition, you are a troll!

You are quite the hypocrite!

And you are again demonstrating you do not understand the difference between an integral domain and a field and how factorization works.

> "Mathematics is not the science of measure and number" - probably the most cranky of all

Nothing cranky there, that is YOUR idea what YOU want it to be about. It is NOT what mathematics is it is NOT what ANY REAL mathematician would say (You're not a mathematician) so it is VERY accurate.

>"Multiplication is defined using fields and rings without geometry"

Of course, you do not get the construction needed for euclidean spaces before a field is constructed. But that is too advanced for an idiot like you.

[NewAge Prophet]

All we have are troll comments and nothing of substance.

[markus...@gmail.com]

But you are trying to use Q to define the tangent line, clearly circular.

[Eram semper recta]

Spoiler Alert: This topic is about factorisation.