Mathematics and the long illusion

[bassam king karzeddin]

What is the true story behind most of the mathematical science being based on obvious fallacies and common illusions, started by accepting (Pi) and inventing cube root of (2) as real existing numbers on the real number line (with rigorous proof of impossibility of any locations on the real line number)?

Mainly by conventions, intuitive conclusions and personal interest (based on incomprehensible concept of infinity), and without any rigorous proofs,

so unlike the real revolution that discovered the construct-able numbers as the only real existing numbers on the real line number, with a rigorous proof

Adding to that the invention of negative number concept which was followed by a more ridiculous concept of imaginary numbers, which make the mathematics not better than any interesting games as chess, but very misleading to other branches of science, especially physics!

[Dan Christensen]

Mathematics forms the basis for most if not all of the engineering and scientific marvels of the past century. It's hard to argue with that kind of success. It actually works. The kooks and cranks here can't seem to get around that fact.

Dan

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

[John Gabriel]

Mathematics works but not mythmatics. The great inventions of the past century had ZERO to do with the father of all mathematical cranks - Georg Cantor. The only numbers used in every field of science and technology are RATIONAL NUMBERS. Mythologies such as irrational number and real number do not exist.

There are a lot of baboons in mainstream academia who would lose their jobs in an instant if students were actually smart enough to refuse taking courses in bullshit such as set theory and real analysis (a topic about a non-existent object called a "real" number).

These baboons are the burden of students. To name but a few: Gilbert Strang, Jack Huizenga and Anders Kaesorg. Oh, and in case you didn't know, even this forum has its own baboon troll Dan Christensen who knows shit about mathematics. Best to ignore the troll. He is a crank who can't be cured.

As for calculus, it's methods generally work, but its formulation is a farce.

[Dan Christensen]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:51:57 AM UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 06:15:15 UTC-7, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > What is the true story behind most of the mathematical science being based on obvious fallacies and common illusions, started by accepting (Pi) and inventing cube root of (2) as real existing numbers on the real number line (with rigorous proof of impossibility of any locations on the real line number)?
> >
> > Mainly by conventions, intuitive conclusions and personal interest (based on incomprehensible concept of infinity), and without any rigorous proofs,
> >
> > so unlike the real revolution that discovered the construct-able numbers as the only real existing numbers on the real line number, with a rigorous proof
> >
> > Adding to that the invention of negative number concept which was followed by a more ridiculous concept of imaginary numbers, which make the mathematics not better than any interesting games as chess, but very misleading to other branches of science, especially physics!
>

> Mathematics works but...

Speaking of cranks...

What readers should know about Psycho Troll John Gabriel, in his own words:

JG's God Complex:

“I am the Creator of this galaxy.”
-- March 19, 2015

“I am the greatest mathematician ever.”
-- June 21, 2016

“I am the last word on everything.”
-- May 6, 2015

“Whatever I imagine is real because whatever I imagine is well defined.”
-- March 26, 2015

“Unless I think it's logic, it's not... There are no rules in mathematics... As I have repeatedly stated, if there were to be rules, I'd be making the rules.”
-- March 17, 2015

"There are no axioms required when concepts are well defined. My mathematics is well defined."
--June 21, 2016


JG's Final Solution:

“Hitler was a genius and a very talented artist... As from a moral point of view, again his actions can't be judged, because his morals are different.” (Like JG's morals?)
-- March 18, 2015

“All those who don't accept New Calculus, you better say goodbye to your kids. Because John Gabriel is coming.”
-- July 9, 2014

Some months later, JG claimed this posting of July 9, was the work of an impostor. Do we believe him? I'm not inclined to since only four days later, on July 13, he also posted and subsequently confirmed:

"I will point out a few facts about Hitler that most of you arrogant idiots didn't know or refused to acknowledge because your Jewish overlords do not allow you... Unfortunately, Hitler's henchmen got the wrong Jews...

“In the early 20th century, there was a eugenics program in the United States. Too bad it was halted... It would be a very good idea to round up all the academic idiots, gas them and incinerate the useless lot. Only those that pass John Gabriel's exam should be allowed to live.”
-- July 13, 2014

(Links to an archive of original postings available on request. Serious enquiries only.)


JG's Just Plain Stupid:

“100 years have shown that nothing Einstein predicted is correct.” (“Jewish” science, right, JG?)
-- March 23, 2016

“To claim that all the natural numbers are in the set N, one must be able to list them all from beginning to the end.”
-- December 2, 2015

“1/0 is not undefined.”
-- May 19, 2015

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

“The square root of 2 and pi are NOT numbers.”
-- May 28, 2015

“By definition, a line is the distance between two points.”
-- April 13, 2015

“So, 'is a member of' = 'is a subset of.'”
-- May 16, 2015

“A set by definition, cannot be empty.” *** NEW ***
-- July 27, 2016

“There is no such thing as a continuous real number line.”
-- March 24, 2015

“Indeed, there is no such thing as an instantaneous speed -- certainly not with respect to the calculus.” (Note: Instantaneous speed is indicated by the speedometer in a car. Another international Jewish conspiracy, JG?)
-- March 17, 2015

“Proofs had nothing to do with calculus.”
-- May 30, 2015

"You don't need associativity or commutativity or any other crap."
--June 21, 2016

“Axioms not required in mathematics.”
-- July 4, 2016

JG doesn't like proofs. In his wacky system, he cannot even prove that 2+2=4. It seems unlikely to me that he would have anything worthwhile to say about mathematics. On the contrary, it seems he is deliberately trying to mislead and confuse students here.

A special word of caution to students: Do not attempt to use JG's “system” in any course work in any high school, college or university on the planet. You will fail miserably. His system is certainly no “shortcut” to success in mathematics. It is truly a dead-end.

[John Gabriel]

The New Calculus is the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history:

http://thenewcalculus.weebly.com

[Dan Christensen]

Students beware. Like I said, JG's "system" is truly a dead end.

Dan

[John Gabriel]

Crank! The majority of my followers are students who make you look this a prehistoric baboon. Chuckle. My New Calculus is the first and only rigorous calculus. There's nothing you can about it except to carry on eating my shit as you have. Dead dog - you will be soon!

[Dan Christensen]

What is a majority of zero followers, Troll Boy? Last I heard, your one and only follower quit your weird little anti-math cult in disgust.

Dan

[Bill]

Avoid this obvious JG post. Go water the cat, or something else more
useful.

[bassam king karzeddin]

It is really the time where everything must be redefined in mathematics; it is the time to free the mathematicians from their illusions with those real numbers that aren't constructible

It is really not their fault nor their fathers fault nor any body's fault, it was old in the history of (Pi), when (Pi) was born in human mind kind only, it was too difficult to understand that the nature counting is so unlike our own easy counting, and that was needed desperately in order to know the area of the circle, but unfortunately it is still unknown exactly.

The (Pi) deception was the first main reason I suppose, then heaven was created for the poor, where no one can get them out of it.

They found it full of Joy and very sweet and pleasant, everybody can create his own numbers beyond limits, it is an easy game that was forbidden for the honest Greek, the Greek proved rigorously that a cube root of (2) was impossible number, but the Devil is cleverer, he convinced them that if you consider it a number, then I shall open a heaven for you where you can infinitely create whatever you like, ignoring the fact that all numbers were created from one and only one by the help of Pythagorean.

I understand that it is too hard and sad to get out of heaven, but alas, the fact must stand above all standards

See also here:

https://www.quora.com/When-and-Who-was-the-first-to-break-the-mathematics/answer/Bassam-Karzeddin-1

[bassam king karzeddin]

[besto...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 11:10:26 AM UTC-7, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:15:15 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > What is the true story behind most of the mathematical science being based on obvious fallacies and common illusions, started by accepting (Pi) and inventing cube root of (2) as real existing numbers on the real number line (with rigorous proof of impossibility of any locations on the real line number)?
> >
> > Mainly by conventions, intuitive conclusions and personal interest (based on incomprehensible concept of infinity), and without any rigorous proofs,
> >
> > so unlike the real revolution that discovered the construct-able numbers as the only real existing numbers on the real line number, with a rigorous proof
> >
> > Adding to that the invention of negative number concept which was followed by a more ridiculous concept of imaginary numbers, which make the mathematics not better than any interesting games as chess, but very misleading to other branches of science, especially physics!
>
>
> It is really the time where everything must be redefined in mathematics; it is the time to free the mathematicians from their illusions with those real numbers that aren't constructible
>
> It is really not their fault nor their fathers fault nor any body's fault, it was old in the history of (Pi), when (Pi) was born in human mind kind only,

Pi was not born in the human mind or any other mind. The perfect concept that is ratio of circumference : diameter has existed in past perpetuity and shall continue to exist indefinitely and independently of the human mind or any other mind. The misconception 3.14159... was born in the human mind, but that is not pi.

[konyberg]

I get that you don't believe in infinite as a limit. Comparing polygons inscribing and circumscribing a circle? Increasing the number of edges and then compare them.

KON

[Dan Christensen]

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 2:10:26 PM UTC-4, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:15:15 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > What is the true story behind most of the mathematical science being based on obvious fallacies and common illusions, started by accepting (Pi) and inventing cube root of (2) as real existing numbers on the real number line (with rigorous proof of impossibility of any locations on the real line number)?
> >
> > Mainly by conventions, intuitive conclusions and personal interest (based on incomprehensible concept of infinity), and without any rigorous proofs,
> >
> > so unlike the real revolution that discovered the construct-able numbers as the only real existing numbers on the real line number, with a rigorous proof
> >
> > Adding to that the invention of negative number concept which was followed by a more ridiculous concept of imaginary numbers, which make the mathematics not better than any interesting games as chess, but very misleading to other branches of science, especially physics!
>
>
> It is really the time where everything must be redefined in mathematics; it is the time to free the mathematicians from their illusions with those real numbers that aren't constructible
>

Go ahead and try to reformulate the foundations of mathematics, Bassam. Several kooks, cranks and trolls here have tried and failed miserably over the years. They were unable to derive even the most elementary results in their goofy systems. One could not prove that 2+2=4. Another could not even prove that 1=/=2. Learn from their mistakes. You don't want to turn out like them -- bitter over a wasted life, disillusioned and friendless.

[Virgil]

In article <15a6d2f1-c8f7-4093...@googlegroups.com>,

bassam king karzeddin <sophy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:15:15 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > What is the true story behind most of the mathematical science being based
> > on obvious fallacies and common illusions, started by accepting (Pi) and
> > inventing cube root of (2) as real existing numbers on the real number line
> > (with rigorous proof of impossibility of any locations on the real line
> > number)?

Since geometrically, there must exist a cube whose
volume equals 2, it must have an edge length of
cube root of 2.
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)

[Peter Percival]

bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:15:15 PM UTC+3, bassam king
> karzeddin wrote:
>> What is the true story behind most of the mathematical science
>> being based on obvious fallacies and common illusions, started by
>> accepting (Pi) and inventing cube root of (2) as real existing
>> numbers on the real number line (with rigorous proof of
>> impossibility of any locations on the real line number)?

That there is a one-to-one correspondence between the real numbers and
points on "the" line is neither a fallacy nor a common illusion; but the
frequency with which one comes across the phrase "the number line" might
lead people to think that not only is there a one-to-one correspondence,
but that it is an identity.

--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan

[John Gabriel]

On Thursday, 25 August 2016 13:45:24 UTC-7, Peter Percival wrote:
> bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:15:15 PM UTC+3, bassam king
> > karzeddin wrote:
> >> What is the true story behind most of the mathematical science
> >> being based on obvious fallacies and common illusions, started by
> >> accepting (Pi) and inventing cube root of (2) as real existing
> >> numbers on the real number line (with rigorous proof of
> >> impossibility of any locations on the real line number)?
>
> That there is a one-to-one correspondence between the real numbers and
> points on "the" line is neither a fallacy nor a common illusion;

Of course it's a fallacy. There is no greater idiocy than to accept this belief. It's not possible to reify every distance on the number line. In order to reify a distance, the following are required:

1. The distance must be constructible (possible in most cases)
2. A measure of the distance, that is, a number corresponding to its length must be produced. It's not possible to do this with any incommensurable magnitude.

[bassam king karzeddin]

Didn't Andrew wiles and Taylor prove FLT, (n^3 + n^3 = m^3), has absolutely no solution, but near solution in the heaven of infinity is there, so go to infinity and bring it back exactly not missing any term, exactness is the powerful tool of mathematics, but not nearly equal

Didn't the ancient mathematicians prove that 2n^3 = m^3, has no solution even in constractible numbers (n, m)?

[Peter Percival]

bassam king karzeddin wrote:

> Didn't Andrew wiles and Taylor prove FLT, (n^3 + n^3 = m^3), has absolutely no solution,

That would be that the cube root of 2 is not rational, nor is it
constructible using a straight edge and a pair of compasses. The latter
result is Wanzel's, I think.

[bassam king karzeddin]

So, it isn't rational, nor constructible

Can we imagine how dense rational numbers on the real number line are?,

Didn't they say that rationals can go also to infinity?

Adding to them the density of constructible numbers that aren't rationals,

So,where this poor number (CubRoot 2) can find a place among those constructible numbers,

The only suitable place or location for them to exist is the mathematicians minds, it can contain many many more endlessly, because it is not governed by gravity or any physical objection,

but remember that number line is originally physics, so objection must be there?

See also here: https://www.quora.com/Does-sqrt-3-2-really-exist-on-the-real-number-line-or-does-it-exist-only-in-our-minds/answer/Bassam-Karzeddin-1

[Peter Percival]

bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> So, it isn't rational, nor constructible
>
> Can we imagine how dense rational numbers on the real number line are?,
>
> Didn't they say that rationals can go also to infinity?
>
> Adding to them the density of constructible numbers that aren't rationals,
>
> So,where this poor number (CubRoot 2) can find a place among those constructible numbers,

Keep in mind that it (cbrt 2) is not constructible using a straight edge
and a pair of compasses. There are other notions of constructibility.

> The only suitable place or location for them to exist is the mathematicians minds, it can contain many many more endlessly, because it is not governed by gravity or any physical objection,
>
> but remember that number line is originally physics, so objection must be there?
>
> See also here: https://www.quora.com/Does-sqrt-3-2-really-exist-on-the-real-number-line-or-does-it-exist-only-in-our-minds/answer/Bassam-Karzeddin-1
>

[bassam king karzeddin]

Origami or other methods can indeed construct the cube root of a number that has indeed an existent cube root in cons.nos. which isn't any significant addition.

otherwise, there is some approximation, see the critic of those methods, but right now I forgot the references

[John Gabriel]

On Saturday, 27 August 2016 10:03:50 UTC-7, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> So, it isn't rational, nor constructible
>
> Can we imagine how dense rational numbers on the real number line are?,
>
> Didn't they say that rationals can go also to infinity?
>
> Adding to them the density of constructible numbers that aren't rationals,
>
> So,where this poor number (CubRoot 2) can find a place among those constructible numbers,

1. There is no such thing as a constructible number, only a constructible distance. It is not true to think that in order for a distance to be constructible, it must be demonstrated by a compass and straight edge.

Secret revealed for the first time in human knowledge:

Compass and straight edge constructions are only visualisations of the perfect forms/concepts. _____ is NOT a line, only a visualisation of a line. O is not an ellipse, only a visualisation of an ellipse. "." is NOT a point, it's only a visualisation of a point.

2. A number is the measure of a magnitude such as distance. That's right, measure came long before number. Ratios of magnitudes came long before natural numbers were established.

The measure of a magnitude is that which determines a number describing its size, dimension or extent.

>
> The only suitable place or location for them to exist is the mathematicians minds, it can contain many many more endlessly, because it is not governed by gravity or any physical objection,
>
> but remember that number line is originally physics, so objection must be there?

The number line is not originally derived from physics. The first number line is constructed from the abstraction called a UNIT.

The derivation is not hard:

a. The comparison of two magnitudes of length AB and CD is written as AB:CD and read as: AB compared with CD.
b. At this stage, you can say very little about AB and CD if you can tell visually they are different, that is, either AB is greater than CD or vice versa. But you can't for example, tell how much greater or less than either magnitude is compared to the other. This is QUALITATIVE measurement, that is, measurement without NUMBERS. At this stage we cannot tell what is the difference, only that there is a difference.
c. So we establish a measure from any distance we like, say U:U and call it the UNIT. U:U is the comparison of U with itself.
d. Now, if both magnitudes are determined EXACTLY from U and they are different, then we can tell EXACTLY how different one is from the other in terms of UNITS.
e. Next, we call these magnitudes ratios of unit multiples to the unit and derive the natural numbers from these: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...
f. Fractions are ratios of these ratios, that is, p/q is a ratio of the unit multiple p to the unit multiple q. From these we have the RATIONAL Numbers.

This is where it ends as far as NUMBERS are concerned. It should be evident now that only those distances that are measurable EXACTLY by the unit or parts of the unit, are NUMBERS.

g. What about those distances that cannot be measured by the UNIT? These are called INCOMMENSURABLE MAGNITUDES, that is, there is NO number describing these magnitudes. Did you get that morons? Chuckle. There is no number describing sqrt(2) cuberoot(2), pi, e, etc. So, sqrt(2) cuberoot(2), pi, e, etc, are NOT numbers, but INCOMMENSURABLE MAGNITUDES, and that is NOT equivalent to IRRATIONAL NUMBERS. Stupid, stupid morons!

[bassam king karzeddin]

John Gabril said:

sqrt(2) cuberoot(2), pi, e, etc, are NOT numbers, but INCOMMENSURABLE MAGNITUDES, and that is NOT equivalent to IRRATIONAL NUMBERS. Stupid, stupid morons!

In short: sqrt is (2) INCOMMENSURABLE MAGNITUDES

I do agree about other numbers you mentioned or any other non-constructible numbers, because this was my issue long ago when I realized and proved the fallacy of (0.999... = 1) at sci.math 10 years ago, (at least to my self)

but I don't agree on any constructible number being incomprehensible (except by you stupid moron)

So a diagonal of a square with unity side isn't comprehensible to you yet, and can't be a number, nor it is comparable with a unit, so here you completely fail to learn from the best revolution in history of mathematics!

It is true that sqrt(2) isn't rational, but rationals aren't exactly adjacent or continuous on the naumer line defined from unity

Every constructible number has it's exact unique location on the number line, exactly as any unique rational number, comparable with unity defined, where both together form the continuity of a number line or a distance derived from a unity as like.

finally, all the sensible numbers (in positive sense) are created from one

where one is defined as a distance between two points we choose, then repeating the one would create integers, comparing them would create the rationals, diagonalizing them would create the constructibles, and nothing else can be created by something else but an illusions

About, the negative is really a mirror image that is not into existence, where as it is actually and only a direction and (nothing more),

but they allowed it's existence for a conspiracy, (creating tons of unnecessary myth), and the imaginary was illegal birth by convention or agreement from nothingness, to be mixed later with real and produce the complex, where all of these are nonsense but a mind games (that are completely useless)

Number theory is the challenge, especially those riddles, which are centuries or thousands of years old but alas mythematickers,

The rest and everything else should be left to the ...?

Best we should create a second class mathematics for this purpose, and another lower class for the rest of mathematics!

I wonder, how you are leading a revolution if you still can't learn!
Go and learn moron

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:15:15 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:

7/19/2017
BKK

[Markus Klyver]

So what's the ratio, then?

[Markus Klyver]

Define "constructible", "measure", "magnitude", "length" and "point" please.

[Markus Klyver]

This assumes "lengths" and "magnitudes", which you never probably define anyway. Also, you never define a "measure".

[burs...@gmail.com]

One problem that facinattes BKK, using x instead of r, and
using p,q,s instead of x,y,z is as follows:

Given p,q,s integer find real x such that:

p^x + q^x = s^x

Unfortunately BKK then goes crazy and thinks this is FLT.
But anyway, we can divide both sides by s^x and do get:

(p/s)^x + (q/s)^x = 1

And taking log(p/s)=a and log(q/s)=b we get:

exp(a*x) + exp(b*x) = 1

as the problem statement. If we further assume
log(y)=x, we get this formula:

y^a + y^b = 1

So our unknown has wandered from exponent to base.
The more general equation:

y^a + z*y^b = 1

has a series solutions, from which further solutions can be obtained:
y_0(z) = \frac1{n} \sum_{r=0}^\infty \frac{(-)^r}{r!} \frac{\Gamma(\frac{1+br}{a}) z^r}{\Gamma(\frac{1+br}{a}+1-r)}

https://eikonal.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/trinomial-equation-related-to-mellin-transform/
Source: “The Functions of Mathematical Physics” by Harry Hochstadt

[burs...@gmail.com]

Given that Hjalmar Mellin died 1933
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjalmar_Mellin

The thingy must be quite old, Harry Hochstadt explicitly
states in his booklet, that Mellin attacked the trinomial.

[burs...@gmail.com]

Corr.:
y_0(z) = \frac1{a} \sum_{r=0}^\infty \frac{(-)^r}{r!} \frac{\Gamma(\frac{1+br}{a}) z^r}{\Gamma(\frac{1+br}{a}+1-r)}

Am Freitag, 28. Juli 2017 01:11:18 UTC+2 schrieb burs...@gmail.com:

[bassam king karzeddin]

Markus still funnily asking:

> So what's the ratio, then?

There isn't any ratio in reality, but of course only in your mind for sure

And (Pi) is really still laughing so loudly on all humans, wonder!


BKK

[Markus Klyver]

Although, you said it existed. I quote you: "The perfect concept that is ratio of circumference : diameter has existed in past perpetuity and shall continue to exist indefinitely and independently of the human mind or any other mind."

[bassam king karzeddin]

Markus wrote:
> Although, you said it existed. I quote you: "The perfect concept that is ratio of circumference : diameter has existed in past perpetuity and shall continue to exist indefinitely and independently of the human mind or any other mind."

show me where did I say this?

The whole problem in the definition is that the perfect circle (that contains (Pi)), doesn't exist absolutely in any reality, thus (Pi) itself doesn't exist, and that is the true genius reason that it is impossible to construct exactly in any reality for sure
You must forget about any alleged and deceiving method of constructing (Pi), with or without unmarked straight edge and a compass

What you construct is actually the sum of the sides of some regular polygon with very tiny side relative to any diameter you choose, so your outcom is always and forever a constructible number, so unlike that number in your mind which is not constructible

Doesn't the around (13) billions of digits obtained for (Pi) represent only a constructible number? wonder
Can you deny that very loudly and so frankly now? wonder again

Or do you think that if you get many more digits of (Pi), say trillion times than the current known digits of (Pi), your number then may become constructible? wonder!

The (Pi) we get in reality is always and forever a constructible number where this reality is against and contradicting the (Pi) that is inherited in your mind since what is in your mind isn't anywhere in any reality for suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure

So, the (Pi) in mind is an obvious illusion for sure

BKK

[Markus Klyver]

I quoted you. You said that. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/k6MDC-8CQ2A/40tpehwnCgAJ

So you seem to accept the idea that pi, exists, but refuse we can represent it because it's not rational. Or are you saying circles don't exist at all? Because, in that case, do you disagree that planes, lines and points exist as well?

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:15:15 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> What is the true story behind most of the mathematical science being based on obvious fallacies and common illusions, started by accepting (Pi) and inventing cube root of (2) as real existing numbers on the real number line (with rigorous proof of impossibility of any locations on the real line number)?
>
> Mainly by conventions, intuitive conclusions and personal interest (based on incomprehensible concept of infinity), and without any rigorous proofs,
>
> so unlike the real revolution that discovered the construct-able numbers as the only real existing numbers on the real line number, with a rigorous proof
>
> Adding to that the invention of negative number concept which was followed by a more ridiculous concept of imaginary numbers, which make the mathematics not better than any interesting games as chess, but very misleading to other branches of science, especially physics!

Yes, where many of them had been refuted with numbers and before everyone's eyes for sure
BKK

[Serg io]

On 12/17/2017 2:59 AM, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016

> BKK
>

old shit

[Zelos Malum]

You have refuted absolutely nothing.

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:15:15 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> What is the true story behind most of the mathematical science being based on obvious fallacies and common illusions, started by accepting (Pi) and inventing cube root of (2) as real existing numbers on the real number line (with rigorous proof of impossibility of any locations on the real line number)?
>
> Mainly by conventions, intuitive conclusions and personal interest (based on incomprehensible concept of infinity), and without any rigorous proofs,
>
> so unlike the real revolution that discovered the construct-able numbers as the only real existing numbers on the real line number, with a rigorous proof
>
> Adding to that the invention of negative number concept which was followed by a more ridiculous concept of imaginary numbers, which make the mathematics not better than any interesting games as chess, but very misleading to other branches of science, especially physics!

So, after all those lectures of mine, how many intelligent people have already realized any of so many illusions that were well-exposed in my posts about the foundations of mathematics? wonder!
BKK

[Zelos Malum]

None because you ahve exposed nothing but your own idiocy.

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:15:15 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> What is the true story behind most of the mathematical science being based on obvious fallacies and common illusions, started by accepting (Pi) and inventing cube root of (2) as real existing numbers on the real number line (with rigorous proof of impossibility of any locations on the real line number)?
>
> Mainly by conventions, intuitive conclusions and personal interest (based on incomprehensible concept of infinity), and without any rigorous proofs,
>
> so unlike the real revolution that discovered the construct-able numbers as the only real existing numbers on the real line number, with a rigorous proof
>
> Adding to that the invention of negative number concept which was followed by a more ridiculous concept of imaginary numbers, which make the mathematics not better than any interesting games as chess, but very misleading to other branches of science, especially physics!

Yes, so many well-known and very long illusions in mathematics were very well exposed, refuted very badly and so easily in my posts, therefore, I direct honest and noble researchers or historians (if at all existing) to enlighten the human minds about them immediately before they GET shamed with them, for sure
BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:15:15 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> What is the true story behind most of the mathematical science being based on obvious fallacies and common illusions, started by accepting (Pi) and inventing cube root of (2) as real existing numbers on the real number line (with rigorous proof of impossibility of any locations on the real line number)?
>
> Mainly by conventions, intuitive conclusions and personal interest (based on incomprehensible concept of infinity), and without any rigorous proofs,
>
> so unlike the real revolution that discovered the construct-able numbers as the only real existing numbers on the real line number, with a rigorous proof
>
> Adding to that the invention of negative number concept which was followed by a more ridiculous concept of imaginary numbers, which make the mathematics not better than any interesting games as chess, but very misleading to other branches of science, especially physics!

Did you really summarize and understand truly how many so long illusions were living in your mathematics? wonder!

But, it doesn't ANY matter, For sure

BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

Not yet, sure
BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

Wenzel's (and despite his famous proof in 1837) didn't strictly understand the proof of the impossibility of constructing some distances exactly, because he never understood their true non-existence for sure
So, is his proof valid anymore? wonder!
otherwise, how can an existing distance be impossible to construct relative to unity and a scale? wonder!

And if the Greeks had well-understood this reason, then you would have never heard about any problem they had famously raised in the old history of mathematics
And more utterly, when facts are truly spread globally and freely, people still refuse to understand it, wonder!
Where this is truly the biggest shame upon all the alleged genius people on this very foolish planet FOR SURE

BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:41:37 PM UTC+3, Dan Christensen wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:15:15 AM UTC-4, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > What is the true story behind most of the mathematical science being based on obvious fallacies and common illusions, started by accepting (Pi) and inventing cube root of (2) as real existing numbers on the real number line (with rigorous proof of impossibility of any locations on the real line number)?
> >
> > Mainly by conventions, intuitive conclusions and personal interest (based on incomprehensible concept of infinity), and without any rigorous proofs,
> >
> > so unlike the real revolution that discovered the construct-able numbers as the only real existing numbers on the real line number, with a rigorous proof
> >
> > Adding to that the invention of negative number concept which was followed by a more ridiculous concept of imaginary numbers, which make the mathematics not better than any interesting games as chess, but very misleading to other branches of science, especially physics!
>

> Dan C-T wrote

> Mathematics forms the basis for most if not all of the engineering and scientific marvels of the past century. It's hard to argue with that kind of success. It actually works. The kooks and cranks here can't seem to get around that fact.
>
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

No, you always understand actual things in reversed orders Dan, sure

There wasn't a group of people called proffissinal mathematicians as these days, there used to be many Eingineers and Scientiest who were usually with mathematical talents as in our days

And they had to invent some mathematics to solve their intended problems practically that never require the perfection that pure mathematics strictly requires, where then their mathematics had become as the mathematics you know today, with all its foundation made by those Engineers and Scientists

Where there was no independent turn at all for pure mathematicians to set anything that scientist and engineers don't approve it for them since the later were more important category those days and certainly up to our days

So, everything was and is well-designed for mathematicians to follow despite their long noses, SO this is always the case for sure

But the facts are upside down in the Troll heads to think that they are any meaningful existence even in comparison with a little skilled footballer KID in our days, sure
BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:15:15 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> What is the true story behind most of the mathematical science being based on obvious fallacies and common illusions, started by accepting (Pi) and inventing cube root of (2) as real existing numbers on the real number line (with rigorous proof of impossibility of any locations on the real line number)?
>
> Mainly by conventions, intuitive conclusions and personal interest (based on incomprehensible concept of infinity), and without any rigorous proofs,
>
> so unlike the real revolution that discovered the construct-able numbers as the only real existing numbers on the real line number, with a rigorous proof
>
> Adding to that the invention of negative number concept which was followed by a more ridiculous concept of imaginary numbers, which make the mathematics not better than any interesting games as chess, but very misleading to other branches of science, especially physics!

Illusions are far better to clear nowadays, and they would certainly get more clear by the days, FOR SURE
BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:15:15 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> What is the true story behind most of the mathematical science being based on obvious fallacies and common illusions, started by accepting (Pi) and inventing cube root of (2) as real existing numbers on the real number line (with rigorous proof of impossibility of any locations on the real line number)?
>
> Mainly by conventions, intuitive conclusions and personal interest (based on incomprehensible concept of infinity), and without any rigorous proofs,
>
> so unlike the real revolution that discovered the construct-able numbers as the only real existing numbers on the real line number, with a rigorous proof
>
> Adding to that the invention of negative number concept which was followed by a more ridiculous concept of imaginary numbers, which make the mathematics not better than any interesting games as chess, but very misleading to other branches of science, especially physics!

Now, it had been proven that the circle existence was the oldest historical illusion in the entire history of mathematics, where this illusion might had caused many other great illusions in YOUR mythmatics, where then, you simply turned to a nut *MATHEMATICKERs* FOR SURE
BKK

[bassam karzeddin]

Let us see who is the courageous independent academic thinkers (not necessarily professional mathematicians) who did arrive at this fact and dare to confess it openly with their truer identity names?

BKK

[bassam karzeddin]

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:10:26 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:15:15 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > What is the true story behind most of the mathematical science being based on obvious fallacies and common illusions, started by accepting (Pi) and inventing cube root of (2) as real existing numbers on the real number line (with rigorous proof of impossibility of any locations on the real line number)?
> >
> > Mainly by conventions, intuitive conclusions and personal interest (based on incomprehensible concept of infinity), and without any rigorous proofs,
> >
> > so unlike the real revolution that discovered the construct-able numbers as the only real existing numbers on the real line number, with a rigorous proof
> >
> > Adding to that the invention of negative number concept which was followed by a more ridiculous concept of imaginary numbers, which make the mathematics not better than any interesting games as chess, but very misleading to other branches of science, especially physics!
>
>

> It is really the time where everything must be redefined in mathematics; it is the time to free the mathematicians from their illusions with those real numbers that aren't constructible
>

> It is really not their fault nor their fathers fault nor any body's fault, it was old in the history of (Pi), when (Pi) was born in human mind kind only, it was too difficult to understand that the nature counting is so unlike our own easy counting, and that was needed desperately in order to know the area of the circle, but unfortunately it is still unknown exactly.

[bassam karzeddin]

[bassam karzeddin]

[bassam karzeddin]

[bassam karzeddin]