söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4, zelos....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main property:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope, lets check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > You got the wrong definition, so you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Your definition might be necessary, but it is INSUFFICIENT.
> > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence."
> > > > > > > > > > > The above definition is both necessary and sufficient.. It does not rely on the approval or the blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad wind. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."
> > > > > > > > > > Incorrect, that is not at all what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see, what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > > > > > "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been corrected.
> > > > > > > > That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are too dumb to understand
> > > > > > > You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course, you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > > > Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > > You fit that definition.
> > > > > You have yet to show this.
> > > > Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept second only to Euler's S = Lim S.
> > > > even when you get it presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything from the real case to the complex case.
> > > You cannot transfer everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept. Do you understand?
> > > > You have to modify the definition of the logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > >
> > > Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never happens. Chuckle.
> > But you can have different definitions in different cases. The definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different.
>
> But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to algebra via the abstract unit.
> >
> > So of course you can have different definitions in the real and complex case.
> You can't because by definition:
>
> A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.
>
> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.

"No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different."

It is really not that different. And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.

fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > >You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main property:
> > > > > > > > Nope, lets check
> > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > You got the wrong definition, so you are as always, wrong
> > > > > See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The latter is usually your practice.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your definition might be necessary, but it is INSUFFICIENT.
> > > > > "Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence."
> > > > > The above definition is both necessary and sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad wind. LMAO.
> > > >
> > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."
> > > > Incorrect, that is not at all what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see, what you say ain't in it.
> > > "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been corrected.
> > That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are too dumb to understand
> You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course, you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
>
> The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
>
> Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!

"Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."

Sorry but this is the definition used, so you are the crank, not me :)

And as always, we see you having the "only one" mentality and of course, it is only yours

On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main property:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope, lets check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You got the wrong definition, so you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Your definition might be necessary, but it is INSUFFICIENT.
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence."
> > > > > > > > > > > > The above definition is both necessary and sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad wind. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."
> > > > > > > > > > > Incorrect, that is not at all what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see, what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > > > > > > "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been corrected.
> > > > > > > > > That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are too dumb to understand
> > > > > > > > You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course, you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > > > > Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > > > You fit that definition.
> > > > > > You have yet to show this.
> > > > > Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept second only to Euler's S = Lim S.
> > > > > even when you get it presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything from the real case to the complex case.
> > > > You cannot transfer everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept. Do you understand?
> > > > > You have to modify the definition of the logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > >
> > > > Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never happens. Chuckle.
> > > But you can have different definitions in different cases. The definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different.
> >
> > But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to algebra via the abstract unit.
> > >
> > > So of course you can have different definitions in the real and complex case.
> > You can't because by definition:
> >
> > A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.
> >
> > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
>
>
> "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different."
> It is really not that different.

It is very different.

> And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.

It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is no such thing as a "real number".

måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4, zelos....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main property:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope, lets check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You got the wrong definition, so you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Your definition might be necessary, but it is INSUFFICIENT.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The above definition is both necessary and sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad wind. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."
> > > > > > > > > > > > Incorrect, that is not at all what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see, what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > > > > > > > "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been corrected.
> > > > > > > > > > That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are too dumb to understand
> > > > > > > > > You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course, you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > > > > > Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > > > > You fit that definition.
> > > > > > > You have yet to show this.
> > > > > > Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > > Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept second only to Euler's S = Lim S.
> > > > > > even when you get it presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything from the real case to the complex case.
> > > > > You cannot transfer everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept. Do you understand?
> > > > > > You have to modify the definition of the logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > > Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never happens. Chuckle.
> > > > But you can have different definitions in different cases. The definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different.
> > >
> > > But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > >
> > > > So of course you can have different definitions in the real and complex case.
> > > You can't because by definition:
> > >
> > > A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.
> > >
> > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> >
> >
> > "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different."
> > It is really not that different.
> It is very different.
> > And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is no such thing as a "real number".
Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational matrices as well.

You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.

On 8/16/2021 1:11 AM, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:

>> The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
>> Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
>> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
>>
>> Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
>
> "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."
>
> Sorry but this is the definition used, so you are the crank, not me :)
>
> And as always, we see you having the "only one" mentality and of course, it is only yours
>

What's funny is Gabriel meets _both_ definitions of crank. Not only the
correct definition you keep showing him, but his own, "a person who
cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence." Despite
overwhelming evidence, he cannot be convinced. So even Gabriel agrees
that Gabriel is a crank. :-)

måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 17:30:42 UTC+2 skrev Michael Moroney:
> On 8/16/2021 1:11 AM, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
>
> >> The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> >> Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> >> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> >>
> >> Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> >
> > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."
> >
> > Sorry but this is the definition used, so you are the crank, not me :)
> >
> > And as always, we see you having the "only one" mentality and of course, it is only yours
> >
> What's funny is Gabriel meets _both_ definitions of crank. Not only the
> correct definition you keep showing him, but his own, "a person who
> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence." Despite
> overwhelming evidence, he cannot be convinced. So even Gabriel agrees
> that Gabriel is a crank. :-)
The ultimate irony, indeed.

On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main property:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope, lets check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You got the wrong definition, so you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your definition might be necessary, but it is INSUFFICIENT.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above definition is both necessary and sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad wind. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Incorrect, that is not at all what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see, what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been corrected.
> > > > > > > > > > > That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are too dumb to understand
> > > > > > > > > > You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course, you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > > > > > > Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > > > > > You fit that definition.
> > > > > > > > You have yet to show this.
> > > > > > > Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > > > Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept second only to Euler's S = Lim S.
> > > > > > > even when you get it presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything from the real case to the complex case.
> > > > > > You cannot transfer everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept. Do you understand?
> > > > > > > You have to modify the definition of the logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > > > Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never happens. Chuckle.
> > > > > But you can have different definitions in different cases. The definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different.
> > > >
> > > > But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > >
> > > > > So of course you can have different definitions in the real and complex case.
> > > > You can't because by definition:
> > > >
> > > > A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.
> > > >
> > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > >
> > >
> > > "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different."
> > > It is really not that different.
> > It is very different.
> > > And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is no such thing as a "real number".
> Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational matrices as well.

No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to contain number entries.

>
> You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.

No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this is due to the reason that you are a baboon.

måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main property:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope, lets check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You got the wrong definition, so you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your definition might be necessary, but it is INSUFFICIENT.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above definition is both necessary and sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad wind. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Incorrect, that is not at all what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see, what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been corrected.
> > > > > > > > > > > > That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are too dumb to understand
> > > > > > > > > > > You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course, you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > > > > > > You fit that definition.
> > > > > > > > > You have yet to show this.
> > > > > > > > Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > > > > Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept second only to Euler's S = Lim S.
> > > > > > > > even when you get it presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything from the real case to the complex case.
> > > > > > > You cannot transfer everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept. Do you understand?
> > > > > > > > You have to modify the definition of the logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > > > > Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never happens. Chuckle.
> > > > > > But you can have different definitions in different cases. The definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > > No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different.
> > > > >
> > > > > But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So of course you can have different definitions in the real and complex case.
> > > > > You can't because by definition:
> > > > >
> > > > > A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.
> > > > >
> > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different."
> > > > It is really not that different.
> > > It is very different.
> > > > And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is no such thing as a "real number".
> > Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational matrices as well.
> No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to contain number entries.
> >
> > You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this is due to the reason that you are a baboon.

"No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."

Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.

måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 17:49:08 UTC+2 skrev markus...@gmail.com:
> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 17:30:42 UTC+2 skrev Michael Moroney:
> > On 8/16/2021 1:11 AM, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> >
> > >> The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > >> Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > >> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > >>
> > >> Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > >
> > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."
> > >
> > > Sorry but this is the definition used, so you are the crank, not me :)
> > >
> > > And as always, we see you having the "only one" mentality and of course, it is only yours
> > >
> > What's funny is Gabriel meets _both_ definitions of crank. Not only the
> > correct definition you keep showing him, but his own, "a person who
> > cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence." Despite
> > overwhelming evidence, he cannot be convinced. So even Gabriel agrees
> > that Gabriel is a crank. :-)
> The ultimate irony, indeed.
Indeed, as pointed out many times.

On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4, zelos....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main property:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope, lets check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You got the wrong definition, so you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your definition might be necessary, but it is INSUFFICIENT.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above definition is both necessary and sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad wind. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Incorrect, that is not at all what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see, what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been corrected.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are too dumb to understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course, you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > > > > > > > You fit that definition.
> > > > > > > > > > You have yet to show this.
> > > > > > > > > Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > > > > > Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept second only to Euler's S = Lim S.
> > > > > > > > > even when you get it presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything from the real case to the complex case.
> > > > > > > > You cannot transfer everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept. Do you understand?
> > > > > > > > > You have to modify the definition of the logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > > > > > Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never happens. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > But you can have different definitions in different cases. The definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > > > No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So of course you can have different definitions in the real and complex case.
> > > > > > You can't because by definition:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different."
> > > > > It is really not that different.
> > > > It is very different.
> > > > > And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > > It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is no such thing as a "real number".
> > > Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational matrices as well.
> > No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to contain number entries.
> > >
> > > You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
>
> "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.

tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main property:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope, lets check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You got the wrong definition, so you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your definition might be necessary, but it is INSUFFICIENT.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above definition is both necessary and sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad wind. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Incorrect, that is not at all what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see, what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been corrected.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are too dumb to understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course, you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > > > > > > > > You fit that definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > You have yet to show this.
> > > > > > > > > > Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > > > > > > Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept second only to Euler's S = Lim S.
> > > > > > > > > > even when you get it presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything from the real case to the complex case.
> > > > > > > > > You cannot transfer everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept. Do you understand?
> > > > > > > > > > You have to modify the definition of the logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > > > > > > Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never happens. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > But you can have different definitions in different cases. The definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > > > > No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So of course you can have different definitions in the real and complex case.
> > > > > > > You can't because by definition:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different."
> > > > > > It is really not that different.
> > > > > It is very different.
> > > > > > And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > > > It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is no such thing as a "real number".
> > > > Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational matrices as well.
> > > No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to contain number entries.
> > > >
> > > > You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > > No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> >
> > "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*. There are no other numbers.
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
But that wasn't my argument. The argument was that you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example matrices.

On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 21:50:46 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You are a confirmed crank, Malum.. You fit the main property:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope, lets check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You got the wrong definition, so you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your definition might be necessary, but it is INSUFFICIENT.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above definition is both necessary and sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad wind. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Incorrect, that is not at all what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see, what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been corrected.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are too dumb to understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course, you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You fit that definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > You have yet to show this.
> > > > > > > > > > > Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > > > > > > > Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept second only to Euler's S = Lim S.
> > > > > > > > > > > even when you get it presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything from the real case to the complex case.
> > > > > > > > > > You cannot transfer everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept. Do you understand?
> > > > > > > > > > > You have to modify the definition of the logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > > > > > > > Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never happens. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > But you can have different definitions in different cases.. The definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > > > > > No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So of course you can have different definitions in the real and complex case.
> > > > > > > > You can't because by definition:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different."
> > > > > > > It is really not that different.
> > > > > > It is very different.
> > > > > > > And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > > > > It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is no such thing as a "real number".
> > > > > Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational matrices as well.
> > > > No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to contain number entries.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > > > No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> > >
> > > "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > > Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> > The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*. There are no other numbers.
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> But that wasn't my argument.

tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main property:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope, lets check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You got the wrong definition, so you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your definition might be necessary, but it is INSUFFICIENT.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above definition is both necessary and sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad wind. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Incorrect, that is not at all what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see, what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been corrected.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are too dumb to understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course, you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > > > > > > > > You fit that definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > You have yet to show this.
> > > > > > > > > > Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > > > > > > Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept second only to Euler's S = Lim S.
> > > > > > > > > > even when you get it presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything from the real case to the complex case.
> > > > > > > > > You cannot transfer everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept. Do you understand?
> > > > > > > > > > You have to modify the definition of the logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > > > > > > Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never happens. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > But you can have different definitions in different cases. The definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > > > > No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So of course you can have different definitions in the real and complex case.
> > > > > > > You can't because by definition:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different."
> > > > > > It is really not that different.
> > > > > It is very different.
> > > > > > And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > > > It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is no such thing as a "real number".
> > > > Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational matrices as well.
> > > No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to contain number entries.
> > > >
> > > > You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > > No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> >
> > "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*. There are no other numbers.
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w

On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 01:30:41 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You are a confirmed crank, Malum.. You fit the main property:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope, lets check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You got the wrong definition, so you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your definition might be necessary, but it is INSUFFICIENT.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above definition is both necessary and sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad wind. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Incorrect, that is not at all what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see, what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been corrected.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are too dumb to understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course, you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You fit that definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > You have yet to show this.
> > > > > > > > > > > Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > > > > > > > Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept second only to Euler's S = Lim S.
> > > > > > > > > > > even when you get it presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything from the real case to the complex case.
> > > > > > > > > > You cannot transfer everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept. Do you understand?
> > > > > > > > > > > You have to modify the definition of the logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > > > > > > > Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never happens. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > But you can have different definitions in different cases.. The definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > > > > > No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So of course you can have different definitions in the real and complex case.
> > > > > > > > You can't because by definition:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different."
> > > > > > > It is really not that different.
> > > > > > It is very different.
> > > > > > > And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > > > > It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is no such thing as a "real number".
> > > > > Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational matrices as well.
> > > > No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to contain number entries.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > > > No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> > >
> > > "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > > Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> > The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*. There are no other numbers.
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> This is only your personal opinion, the rest of mathematics disagree as we got many types.

onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:18:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 21:50:46 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main property:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope, lets check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You got the wrong definition, so you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your definition might be necessary, but it is INSUFFICIENT.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above definition is both necessary and sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad wind. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Incorrect, that is not at all what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see, what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been corrected.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are too dumb to understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course, you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You fit that definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You have yet to show this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > > > > > > > > Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept second only to Euler's S = Lim S.
> > > > > > > > > > > > even when you get it presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything from the real case to the complex case.
> > > > > > > > > > > You cannot transfer everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept. Do you understand?
> > > > > > > > > > > > You have to modify the definition of the logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > > > > > > > > Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never happens. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > But you can have different definitions in different cases. The definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > > > > > > No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So of course you can have different definitions in the real and complex case.
> > > > > > > > > You can't because by definition:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different."
> > > > > > > > It is really not that different.
> > > > > > > It is very different.
> > > > > > > > And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > > > > > It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is no such thing as a "real number".
> > > > > > Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational matrices as well.
> > > > > No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to contain number entries.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > > > > No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> > > >
> > > > "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > > > Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> > > The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*. There are no other numbers.
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > But that wasn't my argument.
> You've never had any arguments. Everything you write is drivel. Scatterbrain is your name.
> > The argument was that you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example matrices.
> You cannot. Whatever you think of "multiplication" is something else with matrices or "other stuff" as you call it.
So when I'm multiplying matrices, it's not multiplication? When I compute the cross product, it's not multiplication? When I multiply two sets (forming the Cartesian product), is it not multiplication of two sets? Of course it is, it's just not multiplication of rational numbers.

onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 16:45:51 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 01:30:41 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main property:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope, lets check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You got the wrong definition, so you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your definition might be necessary, but it is INSUFFICIENT.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above definition is both necessary and sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad wind. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Incorrect, that is not at all what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see, what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been corrected.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are too dumb to understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course, you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You fit that definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You have yet to show this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > > > > > > > > Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept second only to Euler's S = Lim S.
> > > > > > > > > > > > even when you get it presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything from the real case to the complex case.
> > > > > > > > > > > You cannot transfer everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept. Do you understand?
> > > > > > > > > > > > You have to modify the definition of the logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > > > > > > > > Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never happens. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > But you can have different definitions in different cases. The definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > > > > > > No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So of course you can have different definitions in the real and complex case.
> > > > > > > > > You can't because by definition:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different."
> > > > > > > > It is really not that different.
> > > > > > > It is very different.
> > > > > > > > And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > > > > > It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is no such thing as a "real number".
> > > > > > Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational matrices as well.
> > > > > No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to contain number entries.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > > > > No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> > > >
> > > > "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > > > Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> > > The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*. There are no other numbers.
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > This is only your personal opinion, the rest of mathematics disagree as we got many types.
> Nope. It is NOT my personal opinion, but my expert discovery based on the knowledge of my ancestors whose arse holes you are not worthy to lick. Chuckle.
>
> Who is "mathematics"? You don't know SHIT about mathematics. You don't even have a degree in mathematics. What you have is a certificate of memorisation. You're stupid beyond belief.

On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:00:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:18:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 21:50:46 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main property:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope, lets check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You got the wrong definition, so you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your definition might be necessary, but it is INSUFFICIENT.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above definition is both necessary and sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad wind. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Incorrect, that is not at all what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see, what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been corrected.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are too dumb to understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course, you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You fit that definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have yet to show this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept second only to Euler's S = Lim S.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > even when you get it presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything from the real case to the complex case.
> > > > > > > > > > > > You cannot transfer everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept. Do you understand?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You have to modify the definition of the logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never happens. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > > But you can have different definitions in different cases. The definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > > > > > > > No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So of course you can have different definitions in the real and complex case.
> > > > > > > > > > You can't because by definition:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different."
> > > > > > > > > It is really not that different.
> > > > > > > > It is very different.
> > > > > > > > > And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > > > > > > It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is no such thing as a "real number".
> > > > > > > Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational matrices as well.
> > > > > > No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to contain number entries.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > > > > > No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers.. There aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> > > > >
> > > > > "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > > > > Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> > > > The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*. There are no other numbers.
> > > >
> > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > But that wasn't my argument.
> > You've never had any arguments. Everything you write is drivel. Scatterbrain is your name.
> > > The argument was that you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example matrices.
> > You cannot. Whatever you think of "multiplication" is something else with matrices or "other stuff" as you call it.

torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:51:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:00:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:18:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 21:50:46 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main property:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope, lets check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You got the wrong definition, so you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your definition might be necessary, but it is INSUFFICIENT.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above definition is both necessary and sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence are the ONLY things that matters.. All else is just bad wind. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Incorrect, that is not at all what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see, what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been corrected.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are too dumb to understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course, you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You fit that definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have yet to show this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept second only to Euler's S = Lim S.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > even when you get it presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything from the real case to the complex case..
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You cannot transfer everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept. Do you understand?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have to modify the definition of the logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never happens. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > > > But you can have different definitions in different cases. The definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > > > > > > > > No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > So of course you can have different definitions in the real and complex case.
> > > > > > > > > > > You can't because by definition:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different."
> > > > > > > > > > It is really not that different.
> > > > > > > > > It is very different.
> > > > > > > > > > And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > > > > > > > It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is no such thing as a "real number".
> > > > > > > > Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational matrices as well.
> > > > > > > No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to contain number entries.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > > > > > > No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > > > > > Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> > > > > The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*. There are no other numbers.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > But that wasn't my argument.
> > > You've never had any arguments. Everything you write is drivel. Scatterbrain is your name.
> > > > The argument was that you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example matrices.
> > > You cannot. Whatever you think of "multiplication" is something else with matrices or "other stuff" as you call it.
>
>
> > So when I'm multiplying matrices, it's not multiplication?
> Part of it is, but it's not just multiplication.
> > When I compute the cross product, it's not multiplication? When I multiply two sets (forming the Cartesian product), is it not multiplication of two sets? Of course it is, it's just not multiplication of rational numbers.
> Multiplication is very well defined:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
>
> Definition: The product (or multiplication) of two positive numbers is the quotient of either positive number with the reciprocal of the other.
>
> The above can be extended easily to negative numbers.

zelos...@gmail.com submitted this idea :
> torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:51:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
>> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:00:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:18:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
>>>> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 21:50:46 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
>>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets check
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> holds an unshakable belief that most of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contemporaries consider to be false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bingo! That is YOU!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false. You got the wrong definition, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are as always, wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter is usually your practice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your definition might be necessary, but it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INSUFFICIENT. "Crank is a term used for a person who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence." The above definition is both necessary and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wind. LMAO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false." Incorrect, that is not at all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you say ain't in it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too dumb to understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the face of overwhelming evidence. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You fit that definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to show this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second only to Euler's S = Lim S. even when you get it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the real case to the complex case. You cannot transfer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand? You have to modify the definition of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-formed definition they never requires modification.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens. Chuckle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you can have different definitions in different cases. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're
>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about rational numbers or matrices.
>>>>>>>>>>>> No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
>>>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
>>>>>>>>>>>> something very different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to
>>>>>>>>>>>> algebra via the abstract unit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So of course you can have different definitions in the real and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex case.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't because by definition:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude
>>>>>>>>>>>> or size.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
>>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
>>>>>>>>>>> something very different." It is really not that different. It is
>>>>>>>>>>> very different. And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what
>>>>>>>>>>> it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
>>>>>>>>>> It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that
>>>>>>>>>> you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is
>>>>>>>>>> no such thing as a "real number".
>>>>>>>>> Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational
>>>>>>>>> matrices as well. No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are
>>>>>>>>> two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to
>>>>>>>>> contain number entries.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
>>>>>>>> No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There
>>>>>>>> aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this
>>>>>>>> is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
>>>>>>> Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
>>>>>> The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*.
>>>>>> There are no other numbers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
>>>>> But that wasn't my argument. You've never had any arguments. Everything
>>>>> you write is drivel. Scatterbrain is your name. The argument was that
>>>>> you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example
>>>>> matrices.
>>>> You cannot. Whatever you think of "multiplication" is something else with
>>>> matrices or "other stuff" as you call it.
>>
>>
>>> So when I'm multiplying matrices, it's not multiplication? Part of it is,
>>> but it's not just multiplication. When I compute the cross product, it's
>>> not multiplication? When I multiply two sets (forming the Cartesian
>>> product), is it not multiplication of two sets? Of course it is, it's just
>>> not multiplication of rational numbers.
>> Multiplication is very well defined:
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
>>
>> Definition: The product (or multiplication) of two positive numbers is the
>> quotient of either positive number with the reciprocal of the other.
>>
>> The above can be extended easily to negative numbers.
>
> That is ONE multiplication, there are many more.

On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 05:27:20 UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> zelos...@gmail.com submitted this idea :
> > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:51:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> >> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:00:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:18:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> >>>> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 21:50:46 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> >>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> >>>>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets check
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> holds an unshakable belief that most of their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contemporaries consider to be false.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bingo! That is YOU!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false. You got the wrong definition, so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are as always, wrong
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter is usually your practice.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your definition might be necessary, but it is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INSUFFICIENT. "Crank is a term used for a person who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence." The above definition is both necessary and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wind. LMAO.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false." Incorrect, that is not at all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you say ain't in it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too dumb to understand
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the face of overwhelming evidence. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You fit that definition.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to show this.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second only to Euler's S = Lim S. even when you get it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the real case to the complex case. You cannot transfer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand? You have to modify the definition of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens. Chuckle.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you can have different definitions in different cases. The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> >>>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> something very different.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but
> >>>>>>>>>>>> multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> algebra via the abstract unit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So of course you can have different definitions in the real and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> complex case.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't because by definition:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude
> >>>>>>>>>>>> or size.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> >>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> >>>>>>>>>>> something very different." It is really not that different. It is
> >>>>>>>>>>> very different. And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what
> >>>>>>>>>>> it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> >>>>>>>>>> It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that
> >>>>>>>>>> you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is
> >>>>>>>>>> no such thing as a "real number".
> >>>>>>>>> Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational
> >>>>>>>>> matrices as well. No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are
> >>>>>>>>> two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to
> >>>>>>>>> contain number entries.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> >>>>>>>> No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There
> >>>>>>>> aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this
> >>>>>>>> is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> >>>>>>> Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> >>>>>> The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*.
> >>>>>> There are no other numbers.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> >>>>> But that wasn't my argument. You've never had any arguments. Everything
> >>>>> you write is drivel. Scatterbrain is your name. The argument was that
> >>>>> you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example
> >>>>> matrices.
> >>>> You cannot. Whatever you think of "multiplication" is something else with
> >>>> matrices or "other stuff" as you call it.
> >>
> >>
> >>> So when I'm multiplying matrices, it's not multiplication? Part of it is,
> >>> but it's not just multiplication. When I compute the cross product, it's
> >>> not multiplication? When I multiply two sets (forming the Cartesian
> >>> product), is it not multiplication of two sets? Of course it is, it's just
> >>> not multiplication of rational numbers.
> >> Multiplication is very well defined:
> >>
> >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> >>
> >> Definition: The product (or multiplication) of two positive numbers is the
> >> quotient of either positive number with the reciprocal of the other.
> >>
> >> The above can be extended easily to negative numbers.
> >
> > That is ONE multiplication, there are many more.
> Here comes one now:
>
> https://textbooks.math.gatech.edu/ila/matrix-multiplication.html

fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:31:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 05:27:20 UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > zelos...@gmail.com submitted this idea :
> > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:51:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > >> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:00:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:18:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > >>>> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 21:50:46 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > >>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > >>>>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail..com
> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets check
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> holds an unshakable belief that most of their
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contemporaries consider to be false.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bingo! That is YOU!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false. You got the wrong definition, so
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are as always, wrong
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter is usually your practice.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your definition might be necessary, but it is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INSUFFICIENT. "Crank is a term used for a person who
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence." The above definition is both necessary and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wind. LMAO.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false." Incorrect, that is not at all
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you say ain't in it.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too dumb to understand
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the face of overwhelming evidence. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You fit that definition.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to show this.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second only to Euler's S = Lim S. even when you get it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the real case to the complex case. You cannot transfer
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand? You have to modify the definition of the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens. Chuckle.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you can have different definitions in different cases.. The
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> something very different.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> algebra via the abstract unit.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So of course you can have different definitions in the real and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> complex case.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't because by definition:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> or size.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > >>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > >>>>>>>>>>> something very different." It is really not that different. It is
> > >>>>>>>>>>> very different. And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what
> > >>>>>>>>>>> it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > >>>>>>>>>> It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that
> > >>>>>>>>>> you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is
> > >>>>>>>>>> no such thing as a "real number".
> > >>>>>>>>> Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational
> > >>>>>>>>> matrices as well. No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are
> > >>>>>>>>> two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to
> > >>>>>>>>> contain number entries.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > >>>>>>>> No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There
> > >>>>>>>> aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this
> > >>>>>>>> is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > >>>>>>> Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> > >>>>>> The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*.
> > >>>>>> There are no other numbers.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > >>>>> But that wasn't my argument. You've never had any arguments. Everything
> > >>>>> you write is drivel. Scatterbrain is your name. The argument was that
> > >>>>> you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example
> > >>>>> matrices.
> > >>>> You cannot. Whatever you think of "multiplication" is something else with
> > >>>> matrices or "other stuff" as you call it.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> So when I'm multiplying matrices, it's not multiplication? Part of it is,
> > >>> but it's not just multiplication. When I compute the cross product, it's
> > >>> not multiplication? When I multiply two sets (forming the Cartesian
> > >>> product), is it not multiplication of two sets? Of course it is, it's just
> > >>> not multiplication of rational numbers.
> > >> Multiplication is very well defined:
> > >>
> > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> > >>
> > >> Definition: The product (or multiplication) of two positive numbers is the
> > >> quotient of either positive number with the reciprocal of the other.
> > >>
> > >> The above can be extended easily to negative numbers.
> > >
> > > That is ONE multiplication, there are many more.
> > Here comes one now:
> >
> > https://textbooks.math.gatech.edu/ila/matrix-multiplication.html
> The above link **proves** that matrix multiplication is not the same thing as multiplying two numbers.
>
> Multiply 4 by 5:
>
> (1+2+1) x (2+2+1) = 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 + 2*2 + 2*2 + 2*1 + 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 = 2 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 20
>
> Multiply 1x3 matrix by 3x1 where 1x3 matrix = (1,2,1) and 3x1 matrix = (2,2,1):
>
> (1, 2, 1) x (2, 2, 1) = (7)
>
> How is (7) the same as 20?
>
> I am RIGHT and you are WRONG. You are simply too stupid to debate me.

On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 08:24:47 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:31:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 05:27:20 UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > > zelos...@gmail.com submitted this idea :
> > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:51:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > >> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:00:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:18:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > >>>> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 21:50:46 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > >>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > >>>>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail..com
> > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets check
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> holds an unshakable belief that most of their
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false. You got the wrong definition, so
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are as always, wrong
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter is usually your practice.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your definition might be necessary, but it is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INSUFFICIENT. "Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence." The above definition is both necessary and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wind. LMAO.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false." Incorrect, that is not at all
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you say ain't in it.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too dumb to understand
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO..
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the face of overwhelming evidence. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You fit that definition.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to show this.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second only to Euler's S = Lim S. even when you get it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the real case to the complex case. You cannot transfer
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand? You have to modify the definition of the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens. Chuckle.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you can have different definitions in different cases. The
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something very different.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So of course you can have different definitions in the real and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> complex case.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't because by definition:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> or size.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> something very different." It is really not that different. It is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> very different. And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that
> > > >>>>>>>>>> you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is
> > > >>>>>>>>>> no such thing as a "real number".
> > > >>>>>>>>> Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational
> > > >>>>>>>>> matrices as well. No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are
> > > >>>>>>>>> two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to
> > > >>>>>>>>> contain number entries.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > > >>>>>>>> No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There
> > > >>>>>>>> aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this
> > > >>>>>>>> is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > > >>>>>>> Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> > > >>>>>> The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*.
> > > >>>>>> There are no other numbers.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > >>>>> But that wasn't my argument. You've never had any arguments. Everything
> > > >>>>> you write is drivel. Scatterbrain is your name. The argument was that
> > > >>>>> you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example
> > > >>>>> matrices.
> > > >>>> You cannot. Whatever you think of "multiplication" is something else with
> > > >>>> matrices or "other stuff" as you call it.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> So when I'm multiplying matrices, it's not multiplication? Part of it is,
> > > >>> but it's not just multiplication. When I compute the cross product, it's
> > > >>> not multiplication? When I multiply two sets (forming the Cartesian
> > > >>> product), is it not multiplication of two sets? Of course it is, it's just
> > > >>> not multiplication of rational numbers.
> > > >> Multiplication is very well defined:
> > > >>
> > > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> > > >>
> > > >> Definition: The product (or multiplication) of two positive numbers is the
> > > >> quotient of either positive number with the reciprocal of the other.
> > > >>
> > > >> The above can be extended easily to negative numbers.
> > > >
> > > > That is ONE multiplication, there are many more.
> > > Here comes one now:
> > >
> > > https://textbooks.math.gatech.edu/ila/matrix-multiplication.html
> > The above link **proves** that matrix multiplication is not the same thing as multiplying two numbers.
> >
> > Multiply 4 by 5:
> >
> > (1+2+1) x (2+2+1) = 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 + 2*2 + 2*2 + 2*1 + 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 = 2 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 20
> >
> > Multiply 1x3 matrix by 3x1 where 1x3 matrix = (1,2,1) and 3x1 matrix = (2,2,1):
> >
> > (1, 2, 1) x (2, 2, 1) = (7)
> >
> > How is (7) the same as 20?
> >
> > I am RIGHT and you are WRONG. You are simply too stupid to debate me.

måndag 23 augusti 2021 kl. 15:25:41 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 08:24:47 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:31:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 05:27:20 UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > > > zelos...@gmail.com submitted this idea :
> > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:51:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > >> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:00:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >>> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:18:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > >>>> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 21:50:46 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >>>>> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > >>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus....@gmail.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets check
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> holds an unshakable belief that most of their
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false. You got the wrong definition, so
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are as always, wrong
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter is usually your practice.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your definition might be necessary, but it is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INSUFFICIENT. "Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence." The above definition is both necessary and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wind. LMAO.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false." Incorrect, that is not at all
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you say ain't in it.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too dumb to understand
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the face of overwhelming evidence. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You fit that definition.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to show this.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second only to Euler's S = Lim S. even when you get it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the real case to the complex case. You cannot transfer
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand? You have to modify the definition of the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens. Chuckle.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you can have different definitions in different cases. The
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something very different.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So of course you can have different definitions in the real and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> complex case.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't because by definition:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> or size.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them.. It is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> something very different." It is really not that different. It is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> very different. And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> no such thing as a "real number".
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational
> > > > >>>>>>>>> matrices as well. No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are
> > > > >>>>>>>>> two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to
> > > > >>>>>>>>> contain number entries.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > > > >>>>>>>> No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There
> > > > >>>>>>>> aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this
> > > > >>>>>>>> is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > > > >>>>>>> Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> > > > >>>>>> The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*.
> > > > >>>>>> There are no other numbers.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > >>>>> But that wasn't my argument. You've never had any arguments. Everything
> > > > >>>>> you write is drivel. Scatterbrain is your name. The argument was that
> > > > >>>>> you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example
> > > > >>>>> matrices.
> > > > >>>> You cannot. Whatever you think of "multiplication" is something else with
> > > > >>>> matrices or "other stuff" as you call it.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> So when I'm multiplying matrices, it's not multiplication? Part of it is,
> > > > >>> but it's not just multiplication. When I compute the cross product, it's
> > > > >>> not multiplication? When I multiply two sets (forming the Cartesian
> > > > >>> product), is it not multiplication of two sets? Of course it is, it's just
> > > > >>> not multiplication of rational numbers.
> > > > >> Multiplication is very well defined:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Definition: The product (or multiplication) of two positive numbers is the
> > > > >> quotient of either positive number with the reciprocal of the other.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The above can be extended easily to negative numbers.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is ONE multiplication, there are many more.
> > > > Here comes one now:
> > > >
> > > > https://textbooks.math.gatech.edu/ila/matrix-multiplication.html
> > > The above link **proves** that matrix multiplication is not the same thing as multiplying two numbers.
> > >
> > > Multiply 4 by 5:
> > >
> > > (1+2+1) x (2+2+1) = 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 + 2*2 + 2*2 + 2*1 + 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 = 2 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 20
> > >
> > > Multiply 1x3 matrix by 3x1 where 1x3 matrix = (1,2,1) and 3x1 matrix = (2,2,1):
> > >
> > > (1, 2, 1) x (2, 2, 1) = (7)
> > >
> > > How is (7) the same as 20?
> > >
> > > I am RIGHT and you are WRONG. You are simply too stupid to debate me.
>
>
> > No one said they are the same multiplication,
> Markus Klyver did.
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/TGCYYxYk0Us/m/eIdetN_iBQAJ
> > only that your "there is only one" is wrong.
> FUN FACT: There is only one kind of multiplication in geometry and algebra, and it IS defined in geometry first.
only chronologically, structurally today the algebraic definitions of multiplication comes before geometry. And there are many multiplications there.

On Tuesday, 24 August 2021 at 01:27:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 23 augusti 2021 kl. 15:25:41 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 08:24:47 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:31:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 05:27:20 UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > > > > zelos...@gmail.com submitted this idea :
> > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:51:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > >> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:00:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >>> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:18:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > >>>> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 21:50:46 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > >>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets check
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> holds an unshakable belief that most of their
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false. You got the wrong definition, so
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are as always, wrong
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your definition might be necessary, but it is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INSUFFICIENT. "Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence." The above definition is both necessary and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wind. LMAO.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false." Incorrect, that is not at all
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too dumb to understand
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the face of overwhelming evidence. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You fit that definition.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to show this.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second only to Euler's S = Lim S. even when you get it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the real case to the complex case. You cannot transfer
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand? You have to modify the definition of the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens. Chuckle.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you can have different definitions in different cases. The
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something very different.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So of course you can have different definitions in the real and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> complex case.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't because by definition:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> or size.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> something very different." It is really not that different. It is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> very different. And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> no such thing as a "real number".
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> matrices as well. No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> contain number entries.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There
> > > > > >>>>>>>> aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this
> > > > > >>>>>>>> is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > > > > >>>>>>> Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> > > > > >>>>>> The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*.
> > > > > >>>>>> There are no other numbers.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > > >>>>> But that wasn't my argument. You've never had any arguments.. Everything
> > > > > >>>>> you write is drivel. Scatterbrain is your name. The argument was that
> > > > > >>>>> you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example
> > > > > >>>>> matrices.
> > > > > >>>> You cannot. Whatever you think of "multiplication" is something else with
> > > > > >>>> matrices or "other stuff" as you call it.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> So when I'm multiplying matrices, it's not multiplication? Part of it is,
> > > > > >>> but it's not just multiplication. When I compute the cross product, it's
> > > > > >>> not multiplication? When I multiply two sets (forming the Cartesian
> > > > > >>> product), is it not multiplication of two sets? Of course it is, it's just
> > > > > >>> not multiplication of rational numbers.
> > > > > >> Multiplication is very well defined:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Definition: The product (or multiplication) of two positive numbers is the
> > > > > >> quotient of either positive number with the reciprocal of the other.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The above can be extended easily to negative numbers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is ONE multiplication, there are many more.
> > > > > Here comes one now:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://textbooks.math.gatech.edu/ila/matrix-multiplication.html
> > > > The above link **proves** that matrix multiplication is not the same thing as multiplying two numbers.
> > > >
> > > > Multiply 4 by 5:
> > > >
> > > > (1+2+1) x (2+2+1) = 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 + 2*2 + 2*2 + 2*1 + 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 = 2 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 20
> > > >
> > > > Multiply 1x3 matrix by 3x1 where 1x3 matrix = (1,2,1) and 3x1 matrix = (2,2,1):
> > > >
> > > > (1, 2, 1) x (2, 2, 1) = (7)
> > > >
> > > > How is (7) the same as 20?
> > > >
> > > > I am RIGHT and you are WRONG. You are simply too stupid to debate me.
> >
> >
> > > No one said they are the same multiplication,
> > Markus Klyver did.
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/TGCYYxYk0Us/m/eIdetN_iBQAJ
> > > only that your "there is only one" is wrong.
> > FUN FACT: There is only one kind of multiplication in geometry and algebra, and it IS defined in geometry first.

fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:31:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 05:27:20 UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > zelos...@gmail.com submitted this idea :
> > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:51:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > >> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:00:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:18:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > >>>> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 21:50:46 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > >>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > >>>>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail..com
> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets check
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> holds an unshakable belief that most of their
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contemporaries consider to be false.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bingo! That is YOU!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false. You got the wrong definition, so
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are as always, wrong
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter is usually your practice.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your definition might be necessary, but it is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INSUFFICIENT. "Crank is a term used for a person who
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence." The above definition is both necessary and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wind. LMAO.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false." Incorrect, that is not at all
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you say ain't in it.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too dumb to understand
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the face of overwhelming evidence. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You fit that definition.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to show this.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second only to Euler's S = Lim S. even when you get it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the real case to the complex case. You cannot transfer
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand? You have to modify the definition of the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens. Chuckle.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you can have different definitions in different cases.. The
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> something very different.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> algebra via the abstract unit.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So of course you can have different definitions in the real and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> complex case.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't because by definition:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> or size.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > >>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > >>>>>>>>>>> something very different." It is really not that different. It is
> > >>>>>>>>>>> very different. And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what
> > >>>>>>>>>>> it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > >>>>>>>>>> It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that
> > >>>>>>>>>> you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is
> > >>>>>>>>>> no such thing as a "real number".
> > >>>>>>>>> Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational
> > >>>>>>>>> matrices as well. No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are
> > >>>>>>>>> two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to
> > >>>>>>>>> contain number entries.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > >>>>>>>> No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There
> > >>>>>>>> aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this
> > >>>>>>>> is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > >>>>>>> Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> > >>>>>> The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*.
> > >>>>>> There are no other numbers.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > >>>>> But that wasn't my argument. You've never had any arguments. Everything
> > >>>>> you write is drivel. Scatterbrain is your name. The argument was that
> > >>>>> you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example
> > >>>>> matrices.
> > >>>> You cannot. Whatever you think of "multiplication" is something else with
> > >>>> matrices or "other stuff" as you call it.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> So when I'm multiplying matrices, it's not multiplication? Part of it is,
> > >>> but it's not just multiplication. When I compute the cross product, it's
> > >>> not multiplication? When I multiply two sets (forming the Cartesian
> > >>> product), is it not multiplication of two sets? Of course it is, it's just
> > >>> not multiplication of rational numbers.
> > >> Multiplication is very well defined:
> > >>
> > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> > >>
> > >> Definition: The product (or multiplication) of two positive numbers is the
> > >> quotient of either positive number with the reciprocal of the other.
> > >>
> > >> The above can be extended easily to negative numbers.
> > >
> > > That is ONE multiplication, there are many more.
> > Here comes one now:
> >
> > https://textbooks.math.gatech.edu/ila/matrix-multiplication.html
> The above link **proves** that matrix multiplication is not the same thing as multiplying two numbers.
>
> Multiply 4 by 5:
>
> (1+2+1) x (2+2+1) = 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 + 2*2 + 2*2 + 2*1 + 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 = 2 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 20
>
> Multiply 1x3 matrix by 3x1 where 1x3 matrix = (1,2,1) and 3x1 matrix = (2,2,1):
>
> (1, 2, 1) x (2, 2, 1) = (7)
>
> How is (7) the same as 20?
>
> I am RIGHT and you are WRONG. You are simply too stupid to debate me.
I didn't say a the product of two matrices would be a scalar. I said both are multiplication operators.