On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 18:40:26 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Le 07/05/2023 à 18:29, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> > On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 18:25:46 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> Great logician Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 18:13:34 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >>>> Genious physicist Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 17:59:34 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >>>>>> Genious engineer Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>> ...Anyone can check real
> >>>>>>> clocks - no time dilation exists, and pion
> >>>>>>> beams still are as they are.
> >>>>>> Physics 101 by Maciej Wozniak (one of the best logicians Humanity
> >>>>>> ever had) :
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Chapter 1. Things are what they are.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> End.
> >>>>> And what a function is?
> >>>> You have already forgotten? I told you yesterday.
> >>>
> >>> And your answer was wrong. Again.
> >>> Bourbaki's definition is (as expected)
> >>> basically the same what the usual one.
> >> What is wrong, Maciej? My answer?
> >
> > Yes.
> Oh, really :-)

Oh really.
> >> The most usual definition requires also that :
> >>
> >> \forall x \in E, \exists y : (x,y) \in F
true
> >>
> >> Bourbaki though doesn't require this
bullshit

> >> What is your definition of function Maciej ?
> >
> > I don't have my own, I use the ordinary
> > one. But in opposition to you, I'm able to use
> > it correctly.
> "My" definition being the ordinary one, this is
> quite weird. In your world the same definition
> is correct or not according to who write it down,
> isn't it?

It isn't. You fabricate and slander, like
always.
And, BTW, don't call me "Genious physicist",
please. I prefer "janitor".

Genious Janitor, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
....
>>>> The most usual definition requires also that :
>>>>
>>>> \forall x \in E, \exists y : (x,y) \in F
> true

Nice, you started to learn!

>>>>
>>>> Bourbaki though doesn't require this
> bullshit

You haven't read Bourbaki's then. Not a problem, but
don't pretend to know what Bourbaki wrote in "his" books...

On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 20:09:49 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Genious Janitor, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> ...
> >>>> The most usual definition requires also that :
> >>>>
> >>>> \forall x \in E, \exists y : (x,y) \in F
> > true
> Nice, you started to learn!
> >>>>
> >>>> Bourbaki though doesn't require this
> > bullshit
> You haven't read Bourbaki's then. Not a problem, but
> don't pretend to know what Bourbaki wrote in "his" books...

Bullshit. But you're free to pretend to know what
Bourbaki wrote in "his" books.

Le 07/05/2023 à 21:13, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 20:09:49 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Genious Janitor, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> ...
>>>>>> The most usual definition requires also that :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> \forall x \in E, \exists y : (x,y) \in F
>>> true
>> Nice, you started to learn!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bourbaki though doesn't require this
>>> bullshit
>> You haven't read Bourbaki's then. Not a problem, but
>> don't pretend to know what Bourbaki wrote in "his" books...
>
> Bullshit. But you're free to pretend to know what
> Bourbaki wrote in "his" books.

You do know that Bourbaki was not a single person, right?

http://tomlr.free.fr/Math%E9matiques/Bourbaki/Theorie%20Des%20Ensembles.pdf

p. 65:

" Soient A et B deux ensembles; on appelle _application de A dans B_
une fonction f dont l'ensemble de départ (égal à l'ensemble de
définition) est égal à A et dont l'ensemble d'arrivée est égal à B;
on dit aussi qu'une telle fonction est _définie dans A et prend ses
valeurs dans B. "

On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 21:41:51 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Le 07/05/2023 à 21:13, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> > On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 20:09:49 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> Genious Janitor, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> ...
> >>>>>> The most usual definition requires also that :
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> \forall x \in E, \exists y : (x,y) \in F
> >>> true
> >> Nice, you started to learn!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Bourbaki though doesn't require this
> >>> bullshit
> >> You haven't read Bourbaki's then. Not a problem, but
> >> don't pretend to know what Bourbaki wrote in "his" books...
> >
> > Bullshit. But you're free to pretend to know what
> > Bourbaki wrote in "his" books.
> You do know that Bourbaki was not a single person, right?

I do.

>
> http://tomlr.free.fr/Math%E9matiques/Bourbaki/Theorie%20Des%20Ensembles.pdf
>
> p. 65:
>
> " Soient A et B deux ensembles; on appelle _application de A dans B_
> une fonction f dont l'ensemble de départ (égal à l'ensemble de
> définition) est égal à A et dont l'ensemble d'arrivée est égal à B;
> on dit aussi qu'une telle fonction est _définie dans A et prend ses
> valeurs dans B. "

Buhahahahahahahaha.
And that mentioned "application" (english "mapping") is...?
Why won't you quote whole definition 9, poor halfbrain?
Too many uncomprehendable for you symbols?

Le 07/05/2023 à 22:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 21:41:51 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Le 07/05/2023 à 21:13, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>> On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 20:09:49 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>> Genious Janitor, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> The most usual definition requires also that :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> \forall x \in E, \exists y : (x,y) \in F
>>>>> true
>>>> Nice, you started to learn!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bourbaki though doesn't require this
>>>>> bullshit
>>>> You haven't read Bourbaki's then. Not a problem, but
>>>> don't pretend to know what Bourbaki wrote in "his" books...
>>>
>>> Bullshit. But you're free to pretend to know what
>>> Bourbaki wrote in "his" books.
>> You do know that Bourbaki was not a single person, right?
>
> I do.
>
>>
>> http://tomlr.free.fr/Math%E9matiques/Bourbaki/Theorie%20Des%20Ensembles.pdf
>>
>> p. 65:
>>
>> " Soient A et B deux ensembles; on appelle _application de A dans B_
>> une fonction f dont l'ensemble de départ (égal à l'ensemble de
>> définition) est égal à A et dont l'ensemble d'arrivée est égal à B;
>> on dit aussi qu'une telle fonction est _définie dans A et prend ses
>> valeurs dans B. "
>
> Buhahahahahahahaha.
> And that mentioned "application" (english "mapping") is...?

a function with a specific property that not all functions have.

> Why won't you quote whole definition 9, poor halfbrain?

so according to you Bourbaki goofed when defining applications
as a specific kind of functions because their definition of
functions always makes functions being applications. Interesting?

Did you learn French in the same place you "learnt" engineering :-) ?

> Too many uncomprehendable for you symbols?

Still digging, Maciej?

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 3:40:03 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
> Time Dilation effect derived from the Lorentz Transformation in SR is a temporary psychological effect, not a permanent physical effect, FOR OTHERS.
> Correspondingly, all the velocity superposition formulas, moving mass, and mass-energy conversions derived from the Lorentz transformation must be understood and explained under the premise of subjective perspective, and cannot be regarded as objective physical phenomena.

Nonsense.

--
Jan

Le 07/05/2023 à 22:55, Python a écrit :
> Le 07/05/2023 à 22:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>> On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 21:41:51 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>> Le 07/05/2023 à 21:13, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>>> On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 20:09:49 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>>> Genious Janitor, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> The most usual definition requires also that :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> \forall x \in E, \exists y : (x,y) \in F
>>>>>> true
>>>>> Nice, you started to learn!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bourbaki though doesn't require this
>>>>>> bullshit
>>>>> You haven't read Bourbaki's then. Not a problem, but
>>>>> don't pretend to know what Bourbaki wrote in "his" books...
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit. But you're free to pretend to know what
>>>> Bourbaki wrote in "his" books.
>>> You do know that Bourbaki was not a single person, right?
>>
>> I do.

Good.

>>> http://tomlr.free.fr/Math%E9matiques/Bourbaki/Theorie%20Des%20Ensembles.pdf
>>>
>>> p. 65:
>>>
>>> " Soient A et B deux ensembles; on appelle _application de A dans B_
>>> une fonction f dont l'ensemble de départ (égal à l'ensemble de
>>> définition) est égal à A et dont l'ensemble d'arrivée est égal à B;
>>> on dit aussi qu'une telle fonction est _définie dans A et prend ses
>>> valeurs dans B. "
>>
>> Buhahahahahahahaha.
>> And that mentioned "application" (english "mapping")  is...?
>
> a function with a specific property that not all functions have.
>
>> Why won't you quote whole definition 9, poor halfbrain?

definition 9 refers to "functional relations" defined on p 41.
take care not to confuse "functional relations" with "functions",
the choice of wording by Bourbaki is not great there...

" Soit R une relation de T. La relation :
« (∃x)R et il existe *au plus un x* tel que R »

[the next line is an obvious typo, go figure !]
"

"there is at most one [i.e. maybe none] x so that R"

(refer to previous definitions to know what it means)

Maciej, this stuff was the basis of teaching, including
in high schools, when I was a student. Don't pretend to
teach me what Bourbaki stated or not...

Also practice your French, if you wish, there:

https://les-mathematiques.net/vanilla/index.php?p=discussion/347392#Comment_347392

JanPB wrote:
>
> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 3:40:03 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
> > Time Dilation effect derived from the Lorentz Transformation in SR is a temporary psychological effect, not a permanent physical effect, FOR OTHERS.
> > Correspondingly, all the velocity superposition formulas, moving mass, and mass-energy conversions derived from the Lorentz transformation must be understood and explained under the premise of subjective perspective, and cannot be regarded as objective physical phenomena.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> --
> Jan

Is Time Dilation a fact of Nature?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 22:55:03 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Le 07/05/2023 à 22:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> > On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 21:41:51 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> Le 07/05/2023 à 21:13, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> >>> On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 20:09:49 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >>>> Genious Janitor, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>>>>>>> The most usual definition requires also that :
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> \forall x \in E, \exists y : (x,y) \in F
> >>>>> true
> >>>> Nice, you started to learn!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Bourbaki though doesn't require this
> >>>>> bullshit
> >>>> You haven't read Bourbaki's then. Not a problem, but
> >>>> don't pretend to know what Bourbaki wrote in "his" books...
> >>>
> >>> Bullshit. But you're free to pretend to know what
> >>> Bourbaki wrote in "his" books.
> >> You do know that Bourbaki was not a single person, right?
> >
> > I do.
> >
> >>
> >> http://tomlr.free.fr/Math%E9matiques/Bourbaki/Theorie%20Des%20Ensembles.pdf
> >>
> >> p. 65:
> >>
> >> " Soient A et B deux ensembles; on appelle _application de A dans B_
> >> une fonction f dont l'ensemble de départ (égal à l'ensemble de
> >> définition) est égal à A et dont l'ensemble d'arrivée est égal à B;
> >> on dit aussi qu'une telle fonction est _définie dans A et prend ses
> >> valeurs dans B. "
> >
> > Buhahahahahahahaha.
> > And that mentioned "application" (english "mapping") is...?
> a function with a specific property that not all functions have.

Oh, really? Was Bourbaki defining function
with a special case of - function?
You can't read. No surprise of course.

> > Why won't you quote whole definition 9, poor halfbrain?
> so according to you Bourbaki goofed when defining applications
> as a specific kind of functions because their definition of
> functions always makes functions being applications. Interesting?

No. Just another fabricated by you slander.
So, why won't you quote whole definition 9, poor
halfbrain?

On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 23:30:31 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Le 07/05/2023 à 22:55, Python a écrit :
> > Le 07/05/2023 à 22:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> >> On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 21:41:51 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >>> Le 07/05/2023 à 21:13, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> >>>> On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 20:09:49 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >>>>> Genious Janitor, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>> The most usual definition requires also that :
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> \forall x \in E, \exists y : (x,y) \in F
> >>>>>> true
> >>>>> Nice, you started to learn!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Bourbaki though doesn't require this
> >>>>>> bullshit
> >>>>> You haven't read Bourbaki's then. Not a problem, but
> >>>>> don't pretend to know what Bourbaki wrote in "his" books...
> >>>>
> >>>> Bullshit. But you're free to pretend to know what
> >>>> Bourbaki wrote in "his" books.
> >>> You do know that Bourbaki was not a single person, right?
> >>
> >> I do.
> Good.
> >>> http://tomlr.free.fr/Math%E9matiques/Bourbaki/Theorie%20Des%20Ensembles.pdf
> >>>
> >>> p. 65:
> >>>
> >>> " Soient A et B deux ensembles; on appelle _application de A dans B_
> >>> une fonction f dont l'ensemble de départ (égal à l'ensemble de
> >>> définition) est égal à A et dont l'ensemble d'arrivée est égal à B;
> >>> on dit aussi qu'une telle fonction est _définie dans A et prend ses
> >>> valeurs dans B. "
> >>
> >> Buhahahahahahahaha.
> >> And that mentioned "application" (english "mapping") is...?
> >
> > a function with a specific property that not all functions have.
> >
> >> Why won't you quote whole definition 9, poor halfbrain?
> definition 9 refers to "functional relations" defined on p 41.

Just read it, trash. Wanna some English translation?

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
....
>>>> http://tomlr.free.fr/Math%E9matiques/Bourbaki/Theorie%20Des%20Ensembles.pdf
>>>>
>>>> p. 65:
>>>>
>>>> " Soient A et B deux ensembles; on appelle _application de A dans B_
>>>> une fonction f dont l'ensemble de départ (égal à l'ensemble de
>>>> définition) est égal à A et dont l'ensemble d'arrivée est égal à B;
>>>> on dit aussi qu'une telle fonction est _définie dans A et prend ses
>>>> valeurs dans B. "
>>>
>>> Buhahahahahahahaha.
>>> And that mentioned "application" (english "mapping") is...?
>> a function with a specific property that not all functions have.
>
> Oh, really? Was Bourbaki defining function

Bourbaki was defining *application* not function, pay
attention.

> with a special case of - function?

*application* as a special case of function.

> You can't read. No surprise of course.

You can't read, no doubt about that.

On Monday, 8 May 2023 at 13:15:55 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> ...
> >>>> http://tomlr.free.fr/Math%E9matiques/Bourbaki/Theorie%20Des%20Ensembles.pdf
> >>>>
> >>>> p. 65:
> >>>>
> >>>> " Soient A et B deux ensembles; on appelle _application de A dans B_
> >>>> une fonction f dont l'ensemble de départ (égal à l'ensemble de
> >>>> définition) est égal à A et dont l'ensemble d'arrivée est égal à B;
> >>>> on dit aussi qu'une telle fonction est _définie dans A et prend ses
> >>>> valeurs dans B. "
> >>>
> >>> Buhahahahahahahaha.
> >>> And that mentioned "application" (english "mapping") is...?
> >> a function with a specific property that not all functions have.
> >
> > Oh, really? Was Bourbaki defining function
> Bourbaki was defining *application* not function, pay
> attention.

"on appelle _application de A dans B_
une fonction ..." How do you translate that,
poor halfbrain?

> > You can't read. No surprise of course.
> You can't read, no doubt about that.

So, have you already read definition 9?
"une correspondance f=(F,A,B) est une fonction
si [..] pour tout x apparlenant a l'ensemble de
depart A" - what does it mean, in your opinion?

Le 08/05/2023 à 13:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Monday, 8 May 2023 at 13:15:55 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> ...
>>>>>> http://tomlr.free.fr/Math%E9matiques/Bourbaki/Theorie%20Des%20Ensembles.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> p. 65:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> " Soient A et B deux ensembles; on appelle _application de A dans B_
>>>>>> une fonction f dont l'ensemble de départ (égal à l'ensemble de
>>>>>> définition) est égal à A et dont l'ensemble d'arrivée est égal à B;
>>>>>> on dit aussi qu'une telle fonction est _définie dans A et prend ses
>>>>>> valeurs dans B. "
>>>>>
>>>>> Buhahahahahahahaha.
>>>>> And that mentioned "application" (english "mapping") is...?
>>>> a function with a specific property that not all functions have.
>>>
>>> Oh, really? Was Bourbaki defining function
>> Bourbaki was defining *application* not function, pay
>> attention.
>
> "on appelle _application de A dans B_
> une fonction ..." How do you translate that,

"We call application from A to B a function ..."

This means that an application is a function, not
that any function is an application. *sigh*

> poor halfbrain

Still signing in the middle of your posts, weird...

>>> You can't read. No surprise of course.
>> You can't read, no doubt about that.
>
> So, have you already read definition 9?
> "une correspondance f=(F,A,B) est une fonction
> si [..] pour tout x apparlenant a l'ensemble de
> depart A" - what does it mean, in your opinion?
>

Read further, it is referring to the definition of "relation
fonctionnelle" [witch does NOT mean function !] in page
41.

" Soit R une relation de T. La relation :
« (∃x)R et il existe *au plus un x* tel que R »

i.e. Let R be a relation of T. The relation
« (∃x)R and it exists *at most one x* so that R »

Reading Bourbaki's, in French, is definitely out of your
capacity Maciej.

On Monday, 8 May 2023 at 13:57:16 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Le 08/05/2023 à 13:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> > On Monday, 8 May 2023 at 13:15:55 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> ...
> >>>>>> http://tomlr.free.fr/Math%E9matiques/Bourbaki/Theorie%20Des%20Ensembles.pdf
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> p. 65:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> " Soient A et B deux ensembles; on appelle _application de A dans B_
> >>>>>> une fonction f dont l'ensemble de départ (égal à l'ensemble de
> >>>>>> définition) est égal à A et dont l'ensemble d'arrivée est égal à B;
> >>>>>> on dit aussi qu'une telle fonction est _définie dans A et prend ses
> >>>>>> valeurs dans B. "
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Buhahahahahahahaha.
> >>>>> And that mentioned "application" (english "mapping") is...?
> >>>> a function with a specific property that not all functions have.
> >>>
> >>> Oh, really? Was Bourbaki defining function
> >> Bourbaki was defining *application* not function, pay
> >> attention.
> >
> > "on appelle _application de A dans B_
> > une fonction ..." How do you translate that,
> "We call application from A to B a function ..."
>
> This means that an application is a function, not
> that any function is an application. *sigh*

*sigh*, indeed. So, where, precisely, is that
definition of function allegedly supporting
your nonsensical claim
"\forall x \in E, \exists y : (x,y) \in F
- Bourbaki doesn't require this?"

It's not definition 9, it's not the quote you
provided directly in your answer - you've
fabricated it, right, poor halfbrain?

> > So, have you already read definition 9?
> > "une correspondance f=(F,A,B) est une fonction
> > si [..] pour tout x apparlenant a l'ensemble de
> > depart A" - what does it mean, in your opinion?
> >
> Read further, it is referring to the definition of "relation
> fonctionnelle" [witch does NOT mean function !]

And "une correspondance f=(F,A,B) est une fonction"?
Is it about a function or not, poor halfbrain?
If definition 9 doesn't define a function, how can
NB use the term in C46, right below it?

Le 08/05/2023 à 14:28, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Monday, 8 May 2023 at 13:57:16 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Le 08/05/2023 à 13:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>> On Monday, 8 May 2023 at 13:15:55 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> http://tomlr.free.fr/Math%E9matiques/Bourbaki/Theorie%20Des%20Ensembles.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> p. 65:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> " Soient A et B deux ensembles; on appelle _application de A dans B_
>>>>>>>> une fonction f dont l'ensemble de départ (égal à l'ensemble de
>>>>>>>> définition) est égal à A et dont l'ensemble d'arrivée est égal à B;
>>>>>>>> on dit aussi qu'une telle fonction est _définie dans A et prend ses
>>>>>>>> valeurs dans B. "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Buhahahahahahahaha.
>>>>>>> And that mentioned "application" (english "mapping") is...?
>>>>>> a function with a specific property that not all functions have.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, really? Was Bourbaki defining function
>>>> Bourbaki was defining *application* not function, pay
>>>> attention.
>>>
>>> "on appelle _application de A dans B_
>>> une fonction ..." How do you translate that,
>> "We call application from A to B a function ..."
>>
>> This means that an application is a function, not
>> that any function is an application. *sigh*
>
> *sigh*, indeed. So, where, precisely, is that
> definition of function allegedly supporting
> your nonsensical claim
> "\forall x \in E, \exists y : (x,y) \in F
> - Bourbaki doesn't require this?"
>
> It's not definition 9, it's not the quote you
> provided directly in your answer - you've
> fabricated it, right, poor halfbrain?
>
>
>>> So, have you already read definition 9?
>>> "une correspondance f=(F,A,B) est une fonction
>>> si [..] pour tout x apparlenant a l'ensemble de
>>> depart A" - what does it mean, in your opinion?
>>>
>> Read further, it is referring to the definition of "relation
>> fonctionnelle" [witch does NOT mean function !]
>
> And "une correspondance f=(F,A,B) est une fonction"?
> Is it about a function or not, poor halfbrain?
> If definition 9 doesn't define a function, how can
> NB use the term in C46, right below it?

Wozniak, your level of confusion is beyond limits...

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 6:40:03 PM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:
> Time Dilation effect derived from the Lorentz Transformation in SR is a temporary psychological effect, not a permanent physical effect, FOR OTHERS.
> Correspondingly, all the velocity superposition formulas, moving mass, and mass-energy conversions derived from the Lorentz transformation must be understood and explained under the premise of subjective perspective, and cannot be regarded as objective physical phenomena.

The only time exists is absolute time and absolute time is not dilatable. So you ask: What about clock time? Clock time is dilatable. The relationship between clock time and absolute time is as follows:
1. Absolute time is not sensitive to gravity or absolute motion of the clock.
2. The rate of passage of Clock time is sensitive to the state of absolute motion and gravity potentials of
the clock.
3. A clock second will represent a specific interval of absolute time at the rest frame f the clock.
4. The LT is used to predict a specific interval of absolute time on the observe's clock (such as a clock
second) to the value on a clock moving wrt the observer.
One second on the observer's clock=1/gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt the observer.
OR
One second on the observe's clock=gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt the observer..

On Monday, 8 May 2023 at 14:33:10 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Le 08/05/2023 à 14:28, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> > On Monday, 8 May 2023 at 13:57:16 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> Le 08/05/2023 à 13:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> >>> On Monday, 8 May 2023 at 13:15:55 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>>>>>>> http://tomlr.free.fr/Math%E9matiques/Bourbaki/Theorie%20Des%20Ensembles.pdf
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> p. 65:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> " Soient A et B deux ensembles; on appelle _application de A dans B_
> >>>>>>>> une fonction f dont l'ensemble de départ (égal à l'ensemble de
> >>>>>>>> définition) est égal à A et dont l'ensemble d'arrivée est égal à B;
> >>>>>>>> on dit aussi qu'une telle fonction est _définie dans A et prend ses
> >>>>>>>> valeurs dans B. "
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Buhahahahahahahaha.
> >>>>>>> And that mentioned "application" (english "mapping") is...?
> >>>>>> a function with a specific property that not all functions have.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Oh, really? Was Bourbaki defining function
> >>>> Bourbaki was defining *application* not function, pay
> >>>> attention.
> >>>
> >>> "on appelle _application de A dans B_
> >>> une fonction ..." How do you translate that,
> >> "We call application from A to B a function ..."
> >>
> >> This means that an application is a function, not
> >> that any function is an application. *sigh*
> >
> > *sigh*, indeed. So, where, precisely, is that
> > definition of function allegedly supporting
> > your nonsensical claim
> > "\forall x \in E, \exists y : (x,y) \in F
> > - Bourbaki doesn't require this?"
> >
> > It's not definition 9, it's not the quote you
> > provided directly in your answer - you've
> > fabricated it, right, poor halfbrain?
> >
> >
> >>> So, have you already read definition 9?
> >>> "une correspondance f=(F,A,B) est une fonction
> >>> si [..] pour tout x apparlenant a l'ensemble de
> >>> depart A" - what does it mean, in your opinion?
> >>>
> >> Read further, it is referring to the definition of "relation
> >> fonctionnelle" [witch does NOT mean function !]
> >
> > And "une correspondance f=(F,A,B) est une fonction"?
> > Is it about a function or not, poor halfbrain?
> > If definition 9 doesn't define a function, how can
> > NB use the term in C46, right below it?
> Wozniak, your level of confusion is beyond limits...

:))))))
And "une correspondance f=(F,A,B) est une fonction"?
Is it about a function or not, poor halfbrain?

Well, you can't run, sorry, trash. But you can hide.

On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 7:32:37 AM UTC-5, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 6:40:03 PM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:
> > Time Dilation effect derived from the Lorentz Transformation in SR is a temporary psychological effect, not a permanent physical effect, FOR OTHERS.
> > Correspondingly, all the velocity superposition formulas, moving mass, and mass-energy conversions derived from the Lorentz transformation must be understood and explained under the premise of subjective perspective, and cannot be regarded as objective physical phenomena.
> The only time exists is absolute time and absolute time is not dilatable. So you ask: What about clock time? Clock time is dilatable. The relationship between clock time and absolute time is as follows:
> 1. Absolute time is not sensitive to gravity or absolute motion of the clock.
> 2. The rate of passage of Clock time is sensitive to the state of absolute motion and gravity potentials of
> the clock.
> 3. A clock second will represent a specific interval of absolute time at the rest frame f the clock.
> 4. The LT is used to predict a specific interval of absolute time on the observe's clock (such as a clock
> second) to the value on a clock moving wrt the observer.
> One second on the observer's clock=1/gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt the observer.
> OR
> One second on the observe's clock=gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt the observer..

Agree with you expect the notion of absolute motion.
I can tell that you agree with me that Time Dilation effect must be understood and explained under the premise of subjective perspective from other observer.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view Chapter 6

On Monday, 8 May 2023 at 15:45:32 UTC+2, Jack Liu wrote:
> On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 7:32:37 AM UTC-5, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 6:40:03 PM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:
> > > Time Dilation effect derived from the Lorentz Transformation in SR is a temporary psychological effect, not a permanent physical effect, FOR OTHERS.
> > > Correspondingly, all the velocity superposition formulas, moving mass, and mass-energy conversions derived from the Lorentz transformation must be understood and explained under the premise of subjective perspective, and cannot be regarded as objective physical phenomena.
> > The only time exists is absolute time and absolute time is not dilatable. So you ask: What about clock time? Clock time is dilatable. The relationship between clock time and absolute time is as follows:
> > 1. Absolute time is not sensitive to gravity or absolute motion of the clock.
> > 2. The rate of passage of Clock time is sensitive to the state of absolute motion and gravity potentials of
> > the clock.
> > 3. A clock second will represent a specific interval of absolute time at the rest frame f the clock.
> > 4. The LT is used to predict a specific interval of absolute time on the observe's clock (such as a clock
> > second) to the value on a clock moving wrt the observer.
> > One second on the observer's clock=1/gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt the observer.
> > OR
> > One second on the observe's clock=gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt the observer..
> Agree with you expect the notion of absolute motion.
> I can tell that you agree with me that Time Dilation effect must be understood and explained under the premise of subjective perspective from other observer.
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view Chapter 6

Time dilation effect is nothing more than emperor's clothes
effect, and should be understood and explained the same
way.

Le 08/05/2023 à 14:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Monday, 8 May 2023 at 14:33:10 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Le 08/05/2023 à 14:28, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>> On Monday, 8 May 2023 at 13:57:16 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>> Le 08/05/2023 à 13:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>>>> On Monday, 8 May 2023 at 13:15:55 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> http://tomlr.free.fr/Math%E9matiques/Bourbaki/Theorie%20Des%20Ensembles.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> p. 65:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> " Soient A et B deux ensembles; on appelle _application de A dans B_
>>>>>>>>>> une fonction f dont l'ensemble de départ (égal à l'ensemble de
>>>>>>>>>> définition) est égal à A et dont l'ensemble d'arrivée est égal à B;
>>>>>>>>>> on dit aussi qu'une telle fonction est _définie dans A et prend ses
>>>>>>>>>> valeurs dans B. "
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Buhahahahahahahaha.
>>>>>>>>> And that mentioned "application" (english "mapping") is...?
>>>>>>>> a function with a specific property that not all functions have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, really? Was Bourbaki defining function
>>>>>> Bourbaki was defining *application* not function, pay
>>>>>> attention.
>>>>>
>>>>> "on appelle _application de A dans B_
>>>>> une fonction ..." How do you translate that,
>>>> "We call application from A to B a function ..."
>>>>
>>>> This means that an application is a function, not
>>>> that any function is an application. *sigh*
>>>
>>> *sigh*, indeed. So, where, precisely, is that
>>> definition of function allegedly supporting
>>> your nonsensical claim
>>> "\forall x \in E, \exists y : (x,y) \in F
>>> - Bourbaki doesn't require this?"
>>>
>>> It's not definition 9, it's not the quote you
>>> provided directly in your answer - you've
>>> fabricated it, right, poor halfbrain?
>>>
>>>
>>>>> So, have you already read definition 9?
>>>>> "une correspondance f=(F,A,B) est une fonction
>>>>> si [..] pour tout x apparlenant a l'ensemble de
>>>>> depart A" - what does it mean, in your opinion?
>>>>>
>>>> Read further, it is referring to the definition of "relation
>>>> fonctionnelle" [witch does NOT mean function !]
>>>
>>> And "une correspondance f=(F,A,B) est une fonction"?
>>> Is it about a function or not, poor halfbrain?
>>> If definition 9 doesn't define a function, how can
>>> NB use the term in C46, right below it?
>> Wozniak, your level of confusion is beyond limits...
>
> :))))))
> And "une correspondance f=(F,A,B) est une fonction"?
> Is it about a function or not, poor halfbrain?
>
> Well, you can't run, sorry, trash. But you can hide.

Maciej, you are completely loosing your marbles, again.

You are not fluent in French, I'm a native speaker. You
never seriously studied mathematics, I did. Bourbaki's
style is not easy. Back in the 70s and 80s, when I was in
elementary then high school, Bourbaki was inspiring how math
was taught in France, from kindergarten to University.

For instance we were taught about equivalence classes
at the age of 14, and using other bases than 10
at the age of 6, go figure !

Anyway a single question illustrates how silly are your claims: why
Bourbaki would have defined *functions* and *applications* if both are
exactly the same?

EOD.

On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 8:49:35 AM UTC-5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 8 May 2023 at 15:45:32 UTC+2, Jack Liu wrote:
> > On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 7:32:37 AM UTC-5, Ken Seto wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 6:40:03 PM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:
> > > > Time Dilation effect derived from the Lorentz Transformation in SR is a temporary psychological effect, not a permanent physical effect, FOR OTHERS.
> > > > Correspondingly, all the velocity superposition formulas, moving mass, and mass-energy conversions derived from the Lorentz transformation must be understood and explained under the premise of subjective perspective, and cannot be regarded as objective physical phenomena.
> > > The only time exists is absolute time and absolute time is not dilatable. So you ask: What about clock time? Clock time is dilatable. The relationship between clock time and absolute time is as follows:
> > > 1. Absolute time is not sensitive to gravity or absolute motion of the clock.
> > > 2. The rate of passage of Clock time is sensitive to the state of absolute motion and gravity potentials of
> > > the clock.
> > > 3. A clock second will represent a specific interval of absolute time at the rest frame f the clock.
> > > 4. The LT is used to predict a specific interval of absolute time on the observe's clock (such as a clock
> > > second) to the value on a clock moving wrt the observer.
> > > One second on the observer's clock=1/gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt the observer.
> > > OR
> > > One second on the observe's clock=gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt the observer..
> > Agree with you expect the notion of absolute motion.
> > I can tell that you agree with me that Time Dilation effect must be understood and explained under the premise of subjective perspective from other observer.
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view Chapter 6
> Time dilation effect is nothing more than emperor's clothes
> effect, and should be understood and explained the same
> way.

You might be right but too rough.
More precisely Time Dilation effect must be understood and explained under the premise of subjective perspective from other observer.

On Monday, 8 May 2023 at 16:41:59 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Le 08/05/2023 à 14:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> > On Monday, 8 May 2023 at 14:33:10 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> Le 08/05/2023 à 14:28, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> >>> On Monday, 8 May 2023 at 13:57:16 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >>>> Le 08/05/2023 à 13:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> >>>>> On Monday, 8 May 2023 at 13:15:55 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>> http://tomlr.free.fr/Math%E9matiques/Bourbaki/Theorie%20Des%20Ensembles.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> p. 65:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> " Soient A et B deux ensembles; on appelle _application de A dans B_
> >>>>>>>>>> une fonction f dont l'ensemble de départ (égal à l'ensemble de
> >>>>>>>>>> définition) est égal à A et dont l'ensemble d'arrivée est égal à B;
> >>>>>>>>>> on dit aussi qu'une telle fonction est _définie dans A et prend ses
> >>>>>>>>>> valeurs dans B. "
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Buhahahahahahahaha.
> >>>>>>>>> And that mentioned "application" (english "mapping") is...?
> >>>>>>>> a function with a specific property that not all functions have.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Oh, really? Was Bourbaki defining function
> >>>>>> Bourbaki was defining *application* not function, pay
> >>>>>> attention.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "on appelle _application de A dans B_
> >>>>> une fonction ..." How do you translate that,
> >>>> "We call application from A to B a function ..."
> >>>>
> >>>> This means that an application is a function, not
> >>>> that any function is an application. *sigh*
> >>>
> >>> *sigh*, indeed. So, where, precisely, is that
> >>> definition of function allegedly supporting
> >>> your nonsensical claim
> >>> "\forall x \in E, \exists y : (x,y) \in F
> >>> - Bourbaki doesn't require this?"
> >>>
> >>> It's not definition 9, it's not the quote you
> >>> provided directly in your answer - you've
> >>> fabricated it, right, poor halfbrain?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> So, have you already read definition 9?
> >>>>> "une correspondance f=(F,A,B) est une fonction
> >>>>> si [..] pour tout x apparlenant a l'ensemble de
> >>>>> depart A" - what does it mean, in your opinion?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Read further, it is referring to the definition of "relation
> >>>> fonctionnelle" [witch does NOT mean function !]
> >>>
> >>> And "une correspondance f=(F,A,B) est une fonction"?
> >>> Is it about a function or not, poor halfbrain?
> >>> If definition 9 doesn't define a function, how can
> >>> NB use the term in C46, right below it?
> >> Wozniak, your level of confusion is beyond limits...
> >
> > :))))))
> > And "une correspondance f=(F,A,B) est une fonction"?
> > Is it about a function or not, poor halfbrain?
> >
> > Well, you can't run, sorry, trash. But you can hide.
> Maciej, you are completely loosing your marbles, again.
>
> You are not fluent in French, I'm a native speaker. You

That's why I'm asking you, poor halfbrain:
"une correspondance f=(F,A,B) est une fonction"
Is this about a function or not?

> never seriously studied mathematics, I did. Bourbaki's
> style is not easy.

I can see it's too much for you...

On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 10:43:51 AM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:
> On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 8:49:35 AM UTC-5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 8 May 2023 at 15:45:32 UTC+2, Jack Liu wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 7:32:37 AM UTC-5, Ken Seto wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 6:40:03 PM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:
> > > > > Time Dilation effect derived from the Lorentz Transformation in SR is a temporary psychological effect, not a permanent physical effect, FOR OTHERS.
> > > > > Correspondingly, all the velocity superposition formulas, moving mass, and mass-energy conversions derived from the Lorentz transformation must be understood and explained under the premise of subjective perspective, and cannot be regarded as objective physical phenomena.
> > > > The only time exists is absolute time and absolute time is not dilatable. So you ask: What about clock time? Clock time is dilatable. The relationship between clock time and absolute time is as follows:
> > > > 1. Absolute time is not sensitive to gravity or absolute motion of the clock.
> > > > 2. The rate of passage of Clock time is sensitive to the state of absolute motion and gravity potentials of
> > > > the clock.
> > > > 3. A clock second will represent a specific interval of absolute time at the rest frame f the clock.
> > > > 4. The LT is used to predict a specific interval of absolute time on the observe's clock (such as a clock
> > > > second) to the value on a clock moving wrt the observer.
> > > > One second on the observer's clock=1/gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt the observer.
> > > > OR
> > > > One second on the observe's clock=gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt the observer..
> > > Agree with you expect the notion of absolute motion.
> > > I can tell that you agree with me that Time Dilation effect must be understood and explained under the premise of subjective perspective from other observer.
> > > >https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6>S8Dh9nRbdC/view Chapter 6
How did you get your book online?

> > Time dilation effect is nothing more than emperor's clothes
> > effect, and should be understood and explained the same
> > way.
> You might be right but too rough.
> More precisely Time Dilation effect must be understood and explained under the premise of subjective perspective from other observer.

On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 11:51:54 AM UTC-5, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 10:43:51 AM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:
> > On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 8:49:35 AM UTC-5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > On Monday, 8 May 2023 at 15:45:32 UTC+2, Jack Liu wrote:
> > > > On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 7:32:37 AM UTC-5, Ken Seto wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 6:40:03 PM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:
> > > > > > Time Dilation effect derived from the Lorentz Transformation in SR is a temporary psychological effect, not a permanent physical effect, FOR OTHERS.
> > > > > > Correspondingly, all the velocity superposition formulas, moving mass, and mass-energy conversions derived from the Lorentz transformation must be understood and explained under the premise of subjective perspective, and cannot be regarded as objective physical phenomena.
> > > > > The only time exists is absolute time and absolute time is not dilatable. So you ask: What about clock time? Clock time is dilatable. The relationship between clock time and absolute time is as follows:
> > > > > 1. Absolute time is not sensitive to gravity or absolute motion of the clock.
> > > > > 2. The rate of passage of Clock time is sensitive to the state of absolute motion and gravity potentials of
> > > > > the clock.
> > > > > 3. A clock second will represent a specific interval of absolute time at the rest frame f the clock.
> > > > > 4. The LT is used to predict a specific interval of absolute time on the observe's clock (such as a clock
> > > > > second) to the value on a clock moving wrt the observer.
> > > > > One second on the observer's clock=1/gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt the observer.
> > > > > OR
> > > > > One second on the observe's clock=gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt the observer..
> > > > Agree with you expect the notion of absolute motion.
> > > > I can tell that you agree with me that Time Dilation effect must be understood and explained under the premise of subjective perspective from other observer.
> > > > >https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6>S8Dh9nRbdC/view Chapter 6

> How did you get your book online?

go to https://drive.google.com/ , then upload