On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:44 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:47:12 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 01:12:10 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 01:05:31 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:39:57 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 00:55:36 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > >A fool is known by his words is not the same as "quote mining" which you and the chief troll (Dan Christensen) on this newsgroup employ as your modus operandi.
> > > > > > > Never said it, you did however quote mine her. You only took the piece that fit you and then rejected the second part of it that didn't fit you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is typical quote mining, a creationist tactic.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You are just like flat earthers and creationists.
> > > > > > You're a CRANK and always will be a CRANK.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You were born a Catholic and will die a Catholic!
> > > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false"
> > > > >
> > > > > So no, I am not a crank
> > > > >
> > > > > And catholic? I am atheist thank you very much :) My father was atheist and my mother is protestant so you're just making up things now.
> > > > You are and always will be a crank according to the ONLY valid definition of crank:
> > > >
> > > > A crank is one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > Your idea of "Valid" is always "Whatever fits Gabriel"
> > >
> > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."
> > >
> > > Is the definition the rest goes on and that is you :)
> >
> > A crank is one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > Therefore, by definition, YOU Zelos Malum are a CRANK!
> Nah, they are not.

You're saying that a crank is NOT one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence?

Essentially what you are telling me is that when you are proved wrong with FACTS and you refuse to admit you are wrong, that you are not a crank? LMAO.

Chuckle.

lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:51:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:44 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:47:12 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 01:12:10 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 01:05:31 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:39:57 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 00:55:36 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > >A fool is known by his words is not the same as "quote mining" which you and the chief troll (Dan Christensen) on this newsgroup employ as your modus operandi.
> > > > > > > > Never said it, you did however quote mine her. You only took the piece that fit you and then rejected the second part of it that didn't fit you.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That is typical quote mining, a creationist tactic.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You are just like flat earthers and creationists.
> > > > > > > You're a CRANK and always will be a CRANK.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You were born a Catholic and will die a Catholic!
> > > > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So no, I am not a crank
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And catholic? I am atheist thank you very much :) My father was atheist and my mother is protestant so you're just making up things now.
> > > > > You are and always will be a crank according to the ONLY valid definition of crank:
> > > > >
> > > > > A crank is one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > Your idea of "Valid" is always "Whatever fits Gabriel"
> > > >
> > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."
> > > >
> > > > Is the definition the rest goes on and that is you :)
> > >
> > > A crank is one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > Therefore, by definition, YOU Zelos Malum are a CRANK!
> > Nah, they are not.
> You're saying that a crank is NOT one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence?
>
> Essentially what you are telling me is that when you are proved wrong with FACTS and you refuse to admit you are wrong, that you are not a crank? LMAO.
>
> Chuckle.
No, I'm saying that person is you.

On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 12:00:21 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:51:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:44 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:47:12 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 01:12:10 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 01:05:31 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:39:57 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 00:55:36 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >A fool is known by his words is not the same as "quote mining" which you and the chief troll (Dan Christensen) on this newsgroup employ as your modus operandi.
> > > > > > > > > Never said it, you did however quote mine her. You only took the piece that fit you and then rejected the second part of it that didn't fit you.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That is typical quote mining, a creationist tactic.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You are just like flat earthers and creationists.
> > > > > > > > You're a CRANK and always will be a CRANK.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You were born a Catholic and will die a Catholic!
> > > > > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So no, I am not a crank
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And catholic? I am atheist thank you very much :) My father was atheist and my mother is protestant so you're just making up things now.
> > > > > > You are and always will be a crank according to the ONLY valid definition of crank:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A crank is one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > Your idea of "Valid" is always "Whatever fits Gabriel"
> > > > >
> > > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the definition the rest goes on and that is you :)
> > > >
> > > > A crank is one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > Therefore, by definition, YOU Zelos Malum are a CRANK!
> > > Nah, they are not.
> > You're saying that a crank is NOT one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence?
> >
> > Essentially what you are telling me is that when you are proved wrong with FACTS and you refuse to admit you are wrong, that you are not a crank? LMAO.
> >
> > Chuckle.
> No, I'm saying that person is you.

No one gives a fuck what you say or think. You mean that you haven't noticed yet? LMAO.

You pathetic crank!

lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:31:28 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 12:00:21 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:51:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:44 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:47:12 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 01:12:10 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 01:05:31 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > > > onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:39:57 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 00:55:36 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >A fool is known by his words is not the same as "quote mining" which you and the chief troll (Dan Christensen) on this newsgroup employ as your modus operandi.
> > > > > > > > > > Never said it, you did however quote mine her. You only took the piece that fit you and then rejected the second part of it that didn't fit you.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That is typical quote mining, a creationist tactic.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You are just like flat earthers and creationists.
> > > > > > > > > You're a CRANK and always will be a CRANK.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You were born a Catholic and will die a Catholic!
> > > > > > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So no, I am not a crank
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And catholic? I am atheist thank you very much :) My father was atheist and my mother is protestant so you're just making up things now.
> > > > > > > You are and always will be a crank according to the ONLY valid definition of crank:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A crank is one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > Your idea of "Valid" is always "Whatever fits Gabriel"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is the definition the rest goes on and that is you :)
> > > > >
> > > > > A crank is one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > Therefore, by definition, YOU Zelos Malum are a CRANK!
> > > > Nah, they are not.
> > > You're saying that a crank is NOT one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence?
> > >
> > > Essentially what you are telling me is that when you are proved wrong with FACTS and you refuse to admit you are wrong, that you are not a crank? LMAO.
> > >
> > > Chuckle.
> > No, I'm saying that person is you.
> No one gives a fuck what you say or think. You mean that you haven't noticed yet? LMAO.
>
> You pathetic crank!
You are a quite sad chapter of humanity I think. Have you ever considered that you might not know everything? Have you actually tried studying math instead of assuming everything and everyone is wrong because you're so good and perfect?

On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 16:56:46 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:31:28 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 12:00:21 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:51:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:44 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:47:12 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 01:12:10 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 01:05:31 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:39:57 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 00:55:36 UTC-4, zelos....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >A fool is known by his words is not the same as "quote mining" which you and the chief troll (Dan Christensen) on this newsgroup employ as your modus operandi.
> > > > > > > > > > > Never said it, you did however quote mine her. You only took the piece that fit you and then rejected the second part of it that didn't fit you.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That is typical quote mining, a creationist tactic.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You are just like flat earthers and creationists.
> > > > > > > > > > You're a CRANK and always will be a CRANK.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You were born a Catholic and will die a Catholic!
> > > > > > > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So no, I am not a crank
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And catholic? I am atheist thank you very much :) My father was atheist and my mother is protestant so you're just making up things now.
> > > > > > > > You are and always will be a crank according to the ONLY valid definition of crank:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A crank is one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > Your idea of "Valid" is always "Whatever fits Gabriel"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is the definition the rest goes on and that is you :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A crank is one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > Therefore, by definition, YOU Zelos Malum are a CRANK!
> > > > > Nah, they are not.
> > > > You're saying that a crank is NOT one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence?
> > > >
> > > > Essentially what you are telling me is that when you are proved wrong with FACTS and you refuse to admit you are wrong, that you are not a crank? LMAO.
> > > >
> > > > Chuckle.
> > > No, I'm saying that person is you.
> > No one gives a fuck what you say or think. You mean that you haven't noticed yet? LMAO.
> >
> > You pathetic crank!
> You are a quite sad chapter of humanity I think.

If that were said by someone respectable, I might have been worried. LMAO.

> Have you ever considered that you might not know everything?

I DO NOT know everything. However, that which I know, I know better than anyone else.

<drivel>

söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 18:00:45 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 16:56:46 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:31:28 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 12:00:21 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:51:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:44 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:47:12 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 01:12:10 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 01:05:31 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:39:57 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 00:55:36 UTC-4, zelos....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >A fool is known by his words is not the same as "quote mining" which you and the chief troll (Dan Christensen) on this newsgroup employ as your modus operandi.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Never said it, you did however quote mine her. You only took the piece that fit you and then rejected the second part of it that didn't fit you.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > That is typical quote mining, a creationist tactic.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You are just like flat earthers and creationists.
> > > > > > > > > > > You're a CRANK and always will be a CRANK.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You were born a Catholic and will die a Catholic!
> > > > > > > > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false"
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So no, I am not a crank
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And catholic? I am atheist thank you very much :) My father was atheist and my mother is protestant so you're just making up things now.
> > > > > > > > > You are and always will be a crank according to the ONLY valid definition of crank:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A crank is one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > Your idea of "Valid" is always "Whatever fits Gabriel"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is the definition the rest goes on and that is you :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A crank is one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > Therefore, by definition, YOU Zelos Malum are a CRANK!
> > > > > > Nah, they are not.
> > > > > You're saying that a crank is NOT one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence?
> > > > >
> > > > > Essentially what you are telling me is that when you are proved wrong with FACTS and you refuse to admit you are wrong, that you are not a crank? LMAO.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chuckle.
> > > > No, I'm saying that person is you.
> > > No one gives a fuck what you say or think. You mean that you haven't noticed yet? LMAO.
> > >
> > > You pathetic crank!
> > You are a quite sad chapter of humanity I think.
> If that were said by someone respectable, I might have been worried. LMAO..
> > Have you ever considered that you might not know everything?
> I DO NOT know everything. However, that which I know, I know better than anyone else.
>
> <drivel>
Yeah yea, sure. And you work is worth a million Abel prizes despite making elementary mistakes about limits and math in general. I see how the rationale goes. Too sad you can't fool reality, really.

fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:47:12 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 01:12:10 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 01:05:31 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:39:57 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 00:55:36 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >A fool is known by his words is not the same as "quote mining" which you and the chief troll (Dan Christensen) on this newsgroup employ as your modus operandi.
> > > > > > Never said it, you did however quote mine her. You only took the piece that fit you and then rejected the second part of it that didn't fit you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is typical quote mining, a creationist tactic.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are just like flat earthers and creationists.
> > > > > You're a CRANK and always will be a CRANK.
> > > > >
> > > > > You were born a Catholic and will die a Catholic!
> > > > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false"
> > > >
> > > > So no, I am not a crank
> > > >
> > > > And catholic? I am atheist thank you very much :) My father was atheist and my mother is protestant so you're just making up things now.
> > > You are and always will be a crank according to the ONLY valid definition of crank:
> > >
> > > A crank is one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > Your idea of "Valid" is always "Whatever fits Gabriel"
> >
> > "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false."
> >
> > Is the definition the rest goes on and that is you :)
>
> A crank is one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> Therefore, by definition, YOU Zelos Malum 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."

Ah sorry, you used the wrong definition, that is the correct one, crank :)

On Sunday, 8 August 2021 at 08:11:00 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> From your very own Abel Prize winner!
>
> "Don't trust Wackopedia."
>
> https://youtu.be/1WepO8tFGto?t=103
>
> LMAO

Students:

The problem with mainstream math academics is not only their lack of intellect, but also their inability to be corrected. It's a shame.

On 8/16/2021 7:41 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Sunday, 8 August 2021 at 08:11:00 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
>> From your very own Abel Prize winner!
>>
>> "Don't trust Wackopedia."
>>
>> https://youtu.be/1WepO8tFGto?t=103
>>
>> LMAO
>
> Students:

You have no students.
>
> The problem with mainstream math academics is not only their lack of intellect, but also their inability to be corrected. It's a shame.
>

The problem with YOU is not only your lack of intellect, but also your
inability to be corrected. It's a shame.

On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 5:11:00 AM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> From your very own Abel Prize winner!
>
> "Don't trust Wackopedia."
>
> https://youtu.be/1WepO8tFGto?t=103
>
> LMAO

Haha, Karen is great. When I was a student, we took surfing lessons in San Diego.
Seriously, there was such a thing at the university Mission Bay Aquatic Center.
On the first day of classes they had us swim in the bay to prove we could swim
and then we went to the ocean, using foam boards first.

This was at the time of Simon Donaldson's big breakthroughs (1984-5) which relied on
some of Karen's earlier work on convergence of connections on 4D manifolds.

--
Jan

Sounds legit, doing beach parties, when your hired
ghost writer copy pastes your PhD dissertation.

Jan schrieb am Mittwoch, 18. August 2021 um 10:23:15 UTC+2:
> On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 5:11:00 AM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > From your very own Abel Prize winner!
> >
> > "Don't trust Wackopedia."
> >
> > https://youtu.be/1WepO8tFGto?t=103
> >
> > LMAO
> Haha, Karen is great. When I was a student, we took surfing lessons in San Diego.
> Seriously, there was such a thing at the university Mission Bay Aquatic Center.
> On the first day of classes they had us swim in the bay to prove we could swim
> and then we went to the ocean, using foam boards first.
>
> This was at the time of Simon Donaldson's big breakthroughs (1984-5) which relied on
> some of Karen's earlier work on convergence of connections on 4D manifolds.
>
> --
> Jan

On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 04:23:15 UTC-4, Jan wrote:
> On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 5:11:00 AM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > From your very own Abel Prize winner!
> >
> > "Don't trust Wackopedia."
> >
> > https://youtu.be/1WepO8tFGto?t=103
> >
> > LMAO
> Haha, Karen is great.

She's nothing but an idiot - just like you.

> When I was a student, we took surfing lessons in San Diego.
> Seriously, there was such a thing at the university Mission Bay Aquatic Center.
> On the first day of classes they had us swim in the bay to prove we could swim
> and then we went to the ocean, using foam boards first.
>
> This was at the time of Simon Donaldson's big breakthroughs (1984-5) which relied on
> some of Karen's earlier work on convergence of connections on 4D manifolds.
>
> --
> Jan

On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 00:55:30 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:41:09 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Sunday, 8 August 2021 at 08:11:00 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > From your very own Abel Prize winner!
> > >
> > > "Don't trust Wackopedia."
> > >
> > > https://youtu.be/1WepO8tFGto?t=103
> > >
> > > LMAO
> > Students:
> >
> > The problem with mainstream math academics is not only their lack of intellect, but also their inability to be corrected. It's a shame.
> This come from the one that fails to correct himself after it has been explicitly explained many times by many peopel that it is
> S=lim S_n and NOT S=lim S, the latter being non-sense.

S = Lim S is valid notation, is unambiguous and very clear.

S = Lim S in English: "S is equal to the limit of S".

There is NO difference between the above and

S = Lim S_n in English: "S is equal to the limit of the partial sums of S".

Because, S is defined by its partial sums, you incorrigibly stupid product of a Swedish public university!

You don't have S without its partial sums, you fucking moron!!!! How many times must this be taught to you?

onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 16:43:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 00:55:30 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:41:09 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Sunday, 8 August 2021 at 08:11:00 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > From your very own Abel Prize winner!
> > > >
> > > > "Don't trust Wackopedia."
> > > >
> > > > https://youtu.be/1WepO8tFGto?t=103
> > > >
> > > > LMAO
> > > Students:
> > >
> > > The problem with mainstream math academics is not only their lack of intellect, but also their inability to be corrected. It's a shame.
> > This come from the one that fails to correct himself after it has been explicitly explained many times by many peopel that it is
> > S=lim S_n and NOT S=lim S, the latter being non-sense.
> S = Lim S is valid notation, is unambiguous and very clear.
>
> S = Lim S in English: "S is equal to the limit of S".
>
> There is NO difference between the above and
>
> S = Lim S_n in English: "S is equal to the limit of the partial sums of S".
>
> Because, S is defined by its partial sums, you incorrigibly stupid product of a Swedish public university!
>
> You don't have S without its partial sums, you fucking moron!!!! How many times must this be taught to you?
The limit of S is trivially just S, because S is a constant. The limit of a constant sequence is the constant.

But S is not defined as itself, S = S. That would be circular. We define S to be the limit lim_n S_n of the partial sums S_n. S *IS NOT* S_3, or S_1006 or S_77578875 or any other S_n. S is the limit of the S_n's.

This isn't hard to understand, Gabriel. Stop jumping around the point. No one is using deceitful notation except for you.

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

On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 4:44:20 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:

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

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

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

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

[snip]

> > “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
> True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail...

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

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

Nothing "invalid" about it, Troll Boy.

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

It means 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4, which is always truly.

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

[snip]

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

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

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

> Half-truth.

Nope. Completely false.

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

<yawn!>

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

> True.

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

[snip]

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

> True.

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

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

[snip]

> > Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated March 10, 2020) at

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ

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

Dan

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

On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 2:22:10 AM UTC-7, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> Sounds legit, doing beach parties,

No beach parties, just a surfing class on weekends.

> when your hired
> ghost writer copy pastes your PhD dissertation.

Not sure what you are alluding to here.

--
Jan

> Jan schrieb am Mittwoch, 18. August 2021 um 10:23:15 UTC+2:
> > On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 5:11:00 AM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > From your very own Abel Prize winner!
> > >
> > > "Don't trust Wackopedia."
> > >
> > > https://youtu.be/1WepO8tFGto?t=103
> > >
> > > LMAO
> > Haha, Karen is great. When I was a student, we took surfing lessons in San Diego.
> > Seriously, there was such a thing at the university Mission Bay Aquatic Center.
> > On the first day of classes they had us swim in the bay to prove we could swim
> > and then we went to the ocean, using foam boards first.
> >
> > This was at the time of Simon Donaldson's big breakthroughs (1984-5) which relied on
> > some of Karen's earlier work on convergence of connections on 4D manifolds.
> >
> > --
> > Jan

On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 7:39:35 AM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 04:23:15 UTC-4, Jan wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 5:11:00 AM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > From your very own Abel Prize winner!
> > >
> > > "Don't trust Wackopedia."
> > >
> > > https://youtu.be/1WepO8tFGto?t=103
> > >
> > > LMAO
> > Haha, Karen is great.
> She's nothing but an idiot - just like you.

Well, I strongly suspect you wouldn't be able to understand any of her work.
Hence, you get no ticket to play.

--
Jan

> > When I was a student, we took surfing lessons in San Diego.
> > Seriously, there was such a thing at the university Mission Bay Aquatic Center.
> > On the first day of classes they had us swim in the bay to prove we could swim
> > and then we went to the ocean, using foam boards first.
> >
> > This was at the time of Simon Donaldson's big breakthroughs (1984-5) which relied on
> > some of Karen's earlier work on convergence of connections on 4D manifolds.
> >
> > --
> > Jan

On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 14:14:40 UTC-4, Jan wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 7:39:35 AM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 04:23:15 UTC-4, Jan wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 5:11:00 AM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > From your very own Abel Prize winner!
> > > >
> > > > "Don't trust Wackopedia."
> > > >
> > > > https://youtu.be/1WepO8tFGto?t=103
> > > >
> > > > LMAO
> > > Haha, Karen is great.
> > She's nothing but an idiot - just like you.
> Well, I strongly suspect you wouldn't be able to understand any of her work.

Fef. You know nothing about me.

> Hence, you get no ticket to play.

Better than being a gay boy like you in the Bay Area?
Zelos Malum:

>S = Lim S is valid notation, is unambiguous and very clear.

>> It isn't because same variable can be substituted for the same things

It is. There are no variables anywhere, so straw man argument again?

>> So if I set S=(0,0.9,0.99,0.999,....)

Well, you never get to set anything. The above is a sequence which converges to 1 and there are NO variables anywhere in it.

>> we get

>> (0,0.9,0.99,0.999,....)=Lim (0,0.9,0.99,0.999,....)

>> Which is non-sense

Of course it is nonsense. It is CLASSIC S = Lim S which is EXACTLY what you do when you say 0.999... = 1

because S = (0,0.9,0.99,0.999,....) and Lim S = Lim (0,0.9,0.99,0.999,....)

>> You are failing basic variable substitution understanding here.

Actually it is you who are failing at your hand waving attempts to support your non-existent arguments.

>It is. There are no variables anywhere, so straw man argument again?

There is, S is a variable here.

>Well, you never get to set anything. The above is a sequence which converges to 1 and there are NO variables anywhere in it.

I can set things

x+3
x=4
x+3=4+3=7

Basic math you are failing agian.

>Of course it is nonsense. It is CLASSIC S = Lim S which is EXACTLY what you do when you say 0.999... = 1
>
>because S = (0,0.9,0.99,0.999,....) and Lim S = Lim (0,0.9,0.99,0.999,....)

which means we have (0,0.9,0.99,0.999,....) = Lim (0,0.9,0.99,0.999,....)

Which is nonsense

>Actually it is you who are failing at your hand waving attempts to support your non-existent arguments.

I am demonstrating you cannot do basic variable subtitution

On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:05:09 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >It is. There are no variables anywhere, so straw man argument again?
> There is, S is a variable here.

LMAO. S is NOT a variable anywhere.

<1 yr old drivel>

fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:12:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:05:09 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >It is. There are no variables anywhere, so straw man argument again?
> > There is, S is a variable here.
> LMAO. S is NOT a variable anywhere.
>
> <1 yr old drivel>

it is in S = Lim S.

On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 08:24:34 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:12:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:05:09 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >It is. There are no variables anywhere, so straw man argument again?
> > > There is, S is a variable here.
> > LMAO. S is NOT a variable anywhere.
> >
> > <1 yr old drivel>
> it is in S = Lim S.

You're stepping in the shit again. You can't have it both ways.

If S is a variable, then you don't have 0.333...

If S is not a variable, then you have the series 0.333...

So once again, S is NOT a variable anywhere. Series do not have the property of being variable. LMAO.

S = Lim S is indeed what Euler wrote.

The more you deny it, the dumber you look!

måndag 23 augusti 2021 kl. 15:28:04 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 08:24:34 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:12:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:05:09 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >It is. There are no variables anywhere, so straw man argument again?
> > > > There is, S is a variable here.
> > > LMAO. S is NOT a variable anywhere.
> > >
> > > <1 yr old drivel>
> > it is in S = Lim S.
> You're stepping in the shit again. You can't have it both ways.
>
> If S is a variable, then you don't have 0.333...
>
> If S is not a variable, then you have the series 0.333...
>
> So once again, S is NOT a variable anywhere. Series do not have the property of being variable. LMAO.
>
> S = Lim S is indeed what Euler wrote.
>
> The more you deny it, the dumber you look!

S is a variable because it can be (0,0.3,0.33,0.333,....) or (0.1,0.12, 0.123, ....) and so on. The sequence is not determined or specific.

On Tuesday, 24 August 2021 at 01:26:24 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 23 augusti 2021 kl. 15:28:04 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 08:24:34 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:12:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:05:09 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >It is. There are no variables anywhere, so straw man argument again?
> > > > > There is, S is a variable here.
> > > > LMAO. S is NOT a variable anywhere.
> > > >
> > > > <1 yr old drivel>
> > > it is in S = Lim S.
> > You're stepping in the shit again. You can't have it both ways.
> >
> > If S is a variable, then you don't have 0.333...
> >
> > If S is not a variable, then you have the series 0.333...
> >
> > So once again, S is NOT a variable anywhere. Series do not have the property of being variable. LMAO.
> >
> > S = Lim S is indeed what Euler wrote.
> >
> > The more you deny it, the dumber you look!
> S is a variable because it can be (0,0.3,0.33,0.333,....) or (0.1,0.12, 0..123, ....) and so on. The sequence is not determined or specific.

No, no, no. Neither (0,0.3,0.33,0.333,....) nor (0.1,0.12, 0.123, ....) are variables, but fixed sequences.

Evidently, you have no clue what is a variable. Perhaps a small lesson might help...

What is the "x" in 3x = 6 called?

[A] x is called a "variable".
[B] x is called the "unknown constant".
[C] Spanish letter used to denote "the unknown".

Only one of the above statements is wrong. Which? Chuckle.

There is NOTHING "variable" about S(n)= (1/3) [1 - 10^(-n)] which is the **sequence formula** that generates (0,0.3,0.33,0.333,....) except for n which acts as a counting number index.

Notations, symbols and names are ALL very important in mathematics and it behooves us to be diligent in how we think of all these things. Oh, by the way, we think using ****natural language!****

LMAO.

tisdag 24 augusti 2021 kl. 14:33:55 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 24 August 2021 at 01:26:24 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > måndag 23 augusti 2021 kl. 15:28:04 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 08:24:34 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:12:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:05:09 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >It is. There are no variables anywhere, so straw man argument again?
> > > > > > There is, S is a variable here.
> > > > > LMAO. S is NOT a variable anywhere.
> > > > >
> > > > > <1 yr old drivel>
> > > > it is in S = Lim S.
> > > You're stepping in the shit again. You can't have it both ways.
> > >
> > > If S is a variable, then you don't have 0.333...
> > >
> > > If S is not a variable, then you have the series 0.333...
> > >
> > > So once again, S is NOT a variable anywhere. Series do not have the property of being variable. LMAO.
> > >
> > > S = Lim S is indeed what Euler wrote.
> > >
> > > The more you deny it, the dumber you look!
> > S is a variable because it can be (0,0.3,0.33,0.333,....) or (0.1,0.12, 0.123, ....) and so on. The sequence is not determined or specific.
> No, no, no. Neither (0,0.3,0.33,0.333,....) nor (0.1,0.12, 0.123, ....) are variables, but fixed sequences.
>
> Evidently, you have no clue what is a variable. Perhaps a small lesson might help...
>
> What is the "x" in 3x = 6 called?
>
> [A] x is called a "variable".
> [B] x is called the "unknown constant".
> [C] Spanish letter used to denote "the unknown".
>
> Only one of the above statements is wrong. Which? Chuckle.
>
> There is NOTHING "variable" about S(n)= (1/3) [1 - 10^(-n)] which is the **sequence formula** that generates (0,0.3,0.33,0.333,....) except for n which acts as a counting number index.
>
> Notations, symbols and names are ALL very important in mathematics and it behooves us to be diligent in how we think of all these things. Oh, by the way, we think using ****natural language!****
>
>
> LMAO.
S(n) is obviously highly dependent on n.