In Mückenheim's famous textbook for beginners we find the following proof of the triangle inequality:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zXboJy8fCP7UK6vk9FcPcrFu-VTsHxSw/view?usp=share_link

The most egregious error isn't that he shamelessly assumes what he is purportedly proving. Can you find the other flaw?

Annalena Baerbock kudos on Leopard tanks to Ukraine, but meaning to talk to you about drones to Ukraine, better than Iran drones.

W.Mueckenheim on Germany's crappy drones but superior Leopard tanks, why even Iran has better drones. Muck the Puke, is it because Germany still sees the slant cut of cone is ellipse when in reality that is the Oval? Or is it because Germany still uses the insane Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction for Boole & Jevons screwed up royally with AND truth table of TFFF when in reality it is TTTF. Perhaps that is why Hitler was a insane kook believing in Boole Logic.

William spamming imbecile
WF more spamming idiocy -- to go order --
76
unread,
Who recognizes these true pioneers of dark numbers?
Crank Wolfgang Mückenheim, aka WM wrote: > William schrieb am Dienstag, 24. Januar 2023 um 16:50:
12:02 PM

JVR's profile photo
JVR
unread,
A Muckeatical Proof
In Mückenheim's famous textbook for beginners we find the following proof of the triangle
11:34 AM



> How many Bayraktar TB2 has Pentcho Valev flown, knocking out Moscow electric lines???
>
> Valev bragging in sci.math and sci.physics
>
> ██۞██ Moscow electric blackouts██۞██
> Kibo Parry M. is he using bola or javelin short circuit weapons???
>
> Kibo, does bow and arrow with aluminum foil streamers tied to arrow, work better than javelin or bola???
>
> Kibo Parry CIA undercover
> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 10:26:03 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> Kibo Parry Moroney in 1997 blows his CIA cover-- to the entire world, mind you---
> Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
> >> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> > >
>
> > Moscow electric Blackouts██۞██
>
> James Parry dunce in sci.math & sci,physics
> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 11:49:40 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Pluto, so you finally tracked down James Parry in Moscow?
> >
> > But once again, that sentence no verb.
> >
> > Kibo WAS short circuiting Moscow electricity?
> > Kibo WILL BE short circuiting Moscow electricity?
> > Kibo PLANS ON short circuiting Moscow electricity?
> > Kibo THINKS ABOUT short circuiting Moscow electricity?
> >
> > ..?
> >
> > Now that you found Kibo, will you stop pretending that I am Kibo?
> > Hopefully he won't be using your aluminum pole idea, otherwise there
> > will be an ex-Kibo. As in:
> >
> > Kibo WAS VAPORIZED WHILE short circuiting Moscow electricity.
>
> Kibo, is Xi aware of the fact that Outer Manchuria is 28 times bigger than Taiwan????
> >
> >
> >
> > > And as the Baby Xi grew up from the rice paddies and reeds of Outer Manchuria, stolen by the Naxi and Zani Dictator Putin in Moscow, Xi learned in school in chemical engineering that Taiwan was 1/28 the size of Outer Manchuria, as Putin bombs Ukraine. And the nascent Xi orders 1,000 divisions to the Outer Manchuria border to regain back the stolen Old China.
>
> > > > > > > Kibo in a javelin throw to knock out Moscow high voltage lines
> > > > > > >> ........///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////|
> > > > > > >> ......///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////..|
> > > > > > >> ....///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////....| Moscow
> > > > > > >> ..///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////......| Electric
> > > > > > >> ///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////........| Tower
> > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|......../
> > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|....../
> > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|..../
> > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|../
> > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|/
>
>
> > Vitaly a freedom fighter in Russia
> ..............................^
> ..............................||
> ..............................||
> .....................//////// ||
> .....................|:---[.] ||
> ......................|( _J ||
> ....................| ^ ( _| ||
> ................../ \_____)|| Kibo Parry with fake wig
> ................. / _____ \|| Long Aluminum **javelin** to throw to short circuit
> ..................... | / \ |...||
> ..................... | | | |...||
> ................. \ /\ /\__ | ||
> ..................... | | \/--- ||
> ...................... \ \ )....||
> ................... | >____||/_____)
> ................... \______||____/
> ......................... / \
> ...................... | | ~~
> ..................... \ \\
> .................... \ |\
> ...................., \ | \
> .................... \ | |
> .................... | | |
> .................... | | |
> ..................... | / |
> .................... |___/____|
> .................... (____)____)
> ==============================
> freedom fighter from the tiresome dictator
> Yea, the dictator has no power and no hot water, no heat, no electricity for his house, offices.

JVR <jrennenkampff@googlemail.com> writes:

> In Mückenheim's famous textbook for beginners we find the following
> proof of the triangle inequality:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zXboJy8fCP7UK6vk9FcPcrFu-VTsHxSw/view?usp=share_link
>
> The most egregious error isn't that he shamelessly assumes what he is
> purportedly proving. Can you find the other flaw?

Good grief! I presume you mean the assumption that

|A-C||C-B| = |AC + BC - AB - CC|

where A, B and C are vectors in ℝ³ and AB, BC etc are dot products. (I
have removed a factor of 2 for clarity.)

Also, the notation is far from ideal (in an introductory text!) because
the right hand side |...|s are a vector magnitudes but the left hand
side |...| is scalar absolute value.

Not only that, in WM's original, scalar multiplication is written with a
dot (where simply juxtaposition is more normal) and he omits the dot
from the dot products! He has

2·|A – C|·|C – B| expanding to |2AC + 2BC - 2AB - 2CC|

where I would write (if I were to reproduce the error)

2∥A - C∥∥C - B∥ expanding to |2A·C + 2B·C - 2A·B - 2C·C|.

--
Ben.

On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 12:14:05 AM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> JVR <jrenne...@googlemail.com> writes:
>
> > In Mückenheim's famous textbook for beginners we find the following
> > proof of the triangle inequality:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zXboJy8fCP7UK6vk9FcPcrFu-VTsHxSw/view?usp=share_link
> >
> > The most egregious error isn't that he shamelessly assumes what he is
> > purportedly proving. Can you find the other flaw?
> Good grief! I presume you mean the assumption that
>
> |A-C||C-B| = |AC + BC - AB - CC|
>
> where A, B and C are vectors in ℝ³ and AB, BC etc are dot products. (I
> have removed a factor of 2 for clarity.)
>
> Also, the notation is far from ideal (in an introductory text!) because
> the right hand side |...|s are a vector magnitudes but the left hand
> side |...| is scalar absolute value.
>
> Not only that, in WM's original, scalar multiplication is written with a
> dot (where simply juxtaposition is more normal) and he omits the dot
> from the dot products! He has
>
> 2·|A – C|·|C – B| expanding to |2AC + 2BC - 2AB - 2CC|
>
> where I would write (if I were to reproduce the error)
>
> 2∥A - C∥∥C - B∥ expanding to |2A·C + 2B·C - 2A·B - 2C·C|.
>
> --
> Ben.

Evidently in Mückenhausen the product of the absolute values is the
absolute value of the dot product. Do you think Mücke will understand that
there is a small problem if we point out that it happens occasionally that 2 vectors
are orthogonal?
My bet is that he won't admit the error. I posted this in the German group were
he is already in denial. He also insisted that the triangle inequality was
called the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality when he 'learned' it.
Shall we ask him what they called the Hölder and the Minkowski inequalities
when he 'learned' about those?

JVR <jrennenkampff@googlemail.com> writes:

> On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 12:14:05 AM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> JVR <jrenne...@googlemail.com> writes:
>>
>> > In Mückenheim's famous textbook for beginners we find the following
>> > proof of the triangle inequality:
>> >
>> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zXboJy8fCP7UK6vk9FcPcrFu-VTsHxSw/view?usp=share_link
>> >
>> > The most egregious error isn't that he shamelessly assumes what he is
>> > purportedly proving. Can you find the other flaw?
>> Good grief! I presume you mean the assumption that
>>
>> |A-C||C-B| = |AC + BC - AB - CC|
>>
>> where A, B and C are vectors in ℝ³ and AB, BC etc are dot products. (I
>> have removed a factor of 2 for clarity.)
>>
>> Also, the notation is far from ideal (in an introductory text!) because
>> the right hand side |...|s are a vector magnitudes but the left hand
>> side |...| is scalar absolute value.
>>
>> Not only that, in WM's original, scalar multiplication is written with a
>> dot (where simply juxtaposition is more normal) and he omits the dot
>> from the dot products! He has
>>
>> 2·|A – C|·|C – B| expanding to |2AC + 2BC - 2AB - 2CC|
>>
>> where I would write (if I were to reproduce the error)
>>
>> 2∥A - C∥∥C - B∥ expanding to |2A·C + 2B·C - 2A·B - 2C·C|.
>>
>
> Evidently in Mückenhausen the product of the absolute values is the
> absolute value of the dot product.

I'm not sure what the root cause is. I thought it was just an error
based on over-eager symbol manipulation partly driven by bad notation:
having written a scalar multiplication with a dot, he just "multiplied
out" as if |a-b| was a bracket and got dot products.

> Do you think Mücke will understand
> that there is a small problem if we point out that it happens
> occasionally that 2 vectors are orthogonal? My bet is that he won't
> admit the error.

Maybe he will just ignore the thread.

> I posted this in the German group were he is already
> in denial. He also insisted that the triangle inequality was called
> the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality when he 'learned' it.

I'm having flashbacks! The very first undergraduate lecture I went to
was for a course on vector spaces. The lecturer declared finite
dimensions to be boring, so we'd be "working in an infinite dimensional
vector space of real functions over an interval where the inner product
is the following integral...". It seems quite reasonable now, but at
the time I thought I'd made a dreadful mistake.

It's possible the algebra error above might even have come from
miss-remembering how you derive the triangle equality from
Cauchy-Schwarz. It has something of the same shape.

> Shall we ask him
> what they called the Hölder and the Minkowski inequalities when he
> 'learned' about those?

I don't remember but they might have been lectures two and three!

--
Ben.

JVR wrote:
> In Mückenheim's famous textbook for beginners we find the following proof of the triangle inequality:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zXboJy8fCP7UK6vk9FcPcrFu-VTsHxSw/view?usp=share_link
>
> The most egregious error isn't that he shamelessly assumes what he is purportedly proving. Can you find the other flaw?

This atrocious book has clearly not be reviewed by anyone competent.
What's the hell is happening in Germany?

Meanwhile one of the few Müeckenheim's disciple (Walter Gomide, from
Brazil) is "proving" that 0/0 is ... God:
https://www.academia.edu/s/d23dae3974

Python <python@invalid.org> writes:

> JVR wrote:
>> In Mückenheim's famous textbook for beginners we find the following
>> proof of the triangle inequality:
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zXboJy8fCP7UK6vk9FcPcrFu-VTsHxSw/view?usp=share_link
>> The most egregious error isn't that he shamelessly assumes what he is
>> purportedly proving. Can you find the other flaw?

Kudos for finding this. I wonder how many other trivial mistakes there
are. Sadly I have no German, so it's hard work for me.

> This atrocious book has clearly not be reviewed by anyone
> competent. What's the hell is happening in Germany?

I think you mean it had no competent editor or proof reader. It has had
at least one pretty shocking review from an academic. On Amazon, it
gets five stars from one John Gabriel (of these parts) who admits to not
having read it!

> Meanwhile one of the few Müeckenheim's disciple (Walter Gomide, from
> Brazil) is "proving" that 0/0 is ... God:
> https://www.academia.edu/s/d23dae3974

Is there a connection to WM?

A while back there was a small movement in the Christian right (mainly
in the US) that objected to some mathematical idea being taught at all.
It was all the usual suspects -- Cantor, Turing, Gödel -- and all the
usual theorems (uncountable sets, undecidable sets, arithmetic
incompleteness). It appeared to be riding on the coat tails of
"intelligent design", but seems to have petered out.

--
Ben.

Le 26/01/2023 à 16:31, Ben Bacarisse a écrit :
> Python <python@invalid.org> writes:
>
>> JVR wrote:
>>> In Mückenheim's famous textbook for beginners we find the following
>>> proof of the triangle inequality:
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zXboJy8fCP7UK6vk9FcPcrFu-VTsHxSw/view?usp=share_link
>>> The most egregious error isn't that he shamelessly assumes what he is
>>> purportedly proving. Can you find the other flaw?
>
> Kudos for finding this. I wonder how many other trivial mistakes there
> are. Sadly I have no German, so it's hard work for me.
>
>> This atrocious book has clearly not be reviewed by anyone
>> competent. What's the hell is happening in Germany?
>
> I think you mean it had no competent editor or proof reader. It has had
> at least one pretty shocking review from an academic. On Amazon, it
> gets five stars from one John Gabriel (of these parts) who admits to not
> having read it!
>
>> Meanwhile one of the few Müeckenheim's disciple (Walter Gomide, from
>> Brazil) is "proving" that 0/0 is ... God:
>> https://www.academia.edu/s/d23dae3974
>
> Is there a connection to WM?

Yes, Gomide wrote a few articles mentioning "dark numbers" that refer
to Mückenheim explicitely.

> A while back there was a small movement in the Christian right (mainly
> in the US) that objected to some mathematical idea being taught at all.
> It was all the usual suspects -- Cantor, Turing, Gödel -- and all the
> usual theorems (uncountable sets, undecidable sets, arithmetic
> incompleteness). It appeared to be riding on the coat tails of
> "intelligent design", but seems to have petered out.

Well, a pastor form USA once claimed that using UNIX was demoniac
because of chmod 666, the worst being BSD because of its mascot :-),
Christians should use MS Windows instead...

Python <python@invalid.org> writes:

> Le 26/01/2023 à 16:31, Ben Bacarisse a écrit :
>> Python <python@invalid.org> writes:

>>> Meanwhile one of the few Müeckenheim's disciple (Walter Gomide, from
>>> Brazil) is "proving" that 0/0 is ... God:
>>> https://www.academia.edu/s/d23dae3974
>>
>> Is there a connection to WM?
>
> Yes, Gomide wrote a few articles mentioning "dark numbers" that refer
> to Mückenheim explicitely.

Ah. Maybe he can define them? Or maybe he can prove that WMaths has
sets e and P with e ∈ P and P \ {e} = P because WM can't, despite
asserting this "surprising result".

--
Ben.