https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJACwh1txqA

Ha Ha, N J Wildberger, the other Prof Wolfrath Mückenschleim from Australia.
But nevermind he knows more than WM. This for example is quite nice:

The extended rational numbers in practice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMQkLojL2ek

Can you solve the Circle Rational number riddle he poses at the end?

sobriquet schrieb am Freitag, 27. Januar 2023 um 14:25:52 UTC+1:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJACwh1txqA

On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 2:54:05 PM UTC+1, Mostowski Collapse wrote:

> Ha Ha, N J Wildberger, the other Prof Wolfrath Mückenschleim from Australia.
> But nevermind he knows more than WM.

Sure. He knows his (!) math.

But the following ... is just ... horrible! :-(

https://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~norman/papers/SetTheory.pdf

Just "bad math". => https://www.sreb.org/sites/main/files/imagecache/thumbnail/main-images/yesterday_x_equals_2.jpg

Does he even substantiate is skepticism in that he
proposes some alternative? I guess its harder than
only rational numbers. Most of these generic Ultra-

and otherwise Finitists Trolls are trolling in that they
a) ignore most of recursion theory and/or theoretical
computer science, b) ignore the scope and idea

of a set theory, and c) cannot propose on their own
something in either direction. His SetTheory.pdf
abruptly ends in the nowhere.

LoL

Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Freitag, 27. Januar 2023 um 17:49:34 UTC+1:
> On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 2:54:05 PM UTC+1, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>
> > Ha Ha, N J Wildberger, the other Prof Wolfrath Mückenschleim from Australia.
> > But nevermind he knows more than WM.
> Sure. He knows his (!) math.
>
> But the following ... is just ... horrible! :-(
>
> https://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~norman/papers/SetTheory.pdf
>
> Just "bad math". => https://www.sreb.org/sites/main/files/imagecache/thumbnail/main-images/yesterday_x_equals_2.jpg

And it looks that N J Wildberger lacks some mathematical sensibility:

"I have been a working mathematician for more than twenty
years, and none of this resembles in any way, shape, or form
the subject as I have come to experience it. In my studies of
Lie theory, hypergroups and geometry, there has never
been a point at which I have pondered–should I assume this
postulate about the mathematical world, or that postulate?
Of course one makes decisions all the time about which
definitions to focus on, but the nature of the mathematical
world that I investigate appears to me to be absolutely fixed."

How did he work in the fields he listed, as a lumberjack?

LoL

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 27. Januar 2023 um 18:16:52 UTC+1:
> Does he even substantiate is skepticism in that he
> proposes some alternative? I guess its harder than
> only rational numbers. Most of these generic Ultra-
>
> and otherwise Finitists Trolls are trolling in that they
> a) ignore most of recursion theory and/or theoretical
> computer science, b) ignore the scope and idea
>
> of a set theory, and c) cannot propose on their own
> something in either direction. His SetTheory.pdf
> abruptly ends in the nowhere.
>
> LoL
> Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Freitag, 27. Januar 2023 um 17:49:34 UTC+1:
> > On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 2:54:05 PM UTC+1, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> >
> > > Ha Ha, N J Wildberger, the other Prof Wolfrath Mückenschleim from Australia.
> > > But nevermind he knows more than WM.
> > Sure. He knows his (!) math.
> >
> > But the following ... is just ... horrible! :-(
> >
> > https://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~norman/papers/SetTheory.pdf
> >
> > Just "bad math". => https://www.sreb.org/sites/main/files/imagecache/thumbnail/main-images/yesterday_x_equals_2.jpg

On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 2:54:05 PM UTC+1, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> Ha Ha, N J Wildberger, the other Prof Wolfrath Mückenschleim from Australia.
> But nevermind he knows more than WM. This for example is quite nice:
>
> The extended rational numbers in practice
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMQkLojL2ek
>
> Can you solve the Circle Rational number riddle he poses at the end?

I'm kinda lost way before that. He introduces 'special rational numbers' like 1/0
and 0/0, but he doesn't really specify how these special rational numbers are
to be used. Like how do you perform arithmetic operations with those?

For instance, he defines addition on his extended rational numbers as
(a/b)+(c/d) = (ad + bc) / (bd), but that seems to imply 1/0 + 1/0 = (0+0)/0 = 0/0
whereas intuitively I'd expect 1/0 + 1/0 = 1/0 (infinity + infinity = infinity).
>
> sobriquet schrieb am Freitag, 27. Januar 2023 um 14:25:52 UTC+1:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJACwh1txqA

0.1..Not needed... to decimate the squares..
It is used to transform the squares into Volumes.
Because.... 3 factors.... produce Volumes.

If..10i *10i =100i^2 == 1m^2.
1i *10i *10i =100i^3 =0.1m^3.

If.. 20i *20i = 400i^2 ==4m^2. => for 2/0.1=20i.
1i *20i *20i = 400i^3 =0.4m^3.

If..30i *30i = 900i^2 == 9m^2.
1i *30i *30i = 900i^3 =0.9m^3.

If.. 10i *100i = 1000i^2=10m^2.
1i *10i *100i = 1000i^3 ==1m^3.

It means that you are wrong not to start from 1dm-:)))
What you say is the result of lies and unconsciousness.
Can you tell : 1m*1m =1.suit. e.. not 1i^3 =1kg of seeds.

Greetings from Socratis. 0.3 *3 *3 = 2.7m^3 = 2'700i^3.
====================> 3 *3 *3 = 27m^3 = 27'000i^3.

On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 09:51:13 UTC+1 alexP wrote:
> On 01/27/2023 04:33, Socratis T.n.p. he wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately Prof. Geni really thinks that 1dm *1dm *1dm = 1mm.
> But why do you persist in not answering and going around it?
> The thing you wrote is FALSE and nobody ever thought/said/wrote it

What is false is that the Profs do not conceive... that Volumes exist...
if 0.1= 1dm...then 0.001m^3 = 1kg. Alias c10^3 = 1000c^3 = 1000g = 1kg.
The law says that 3 factors give a Volume..5i *5i *20i =200i^3 =0.5m^3.=> for 2/i =20i.
Transgressing Logic..means... self-demolishing one's own....and the..others'..certainties.

Mathematics is used to measure the things of the world, therefore it must have a Logic..
clear, that everyone understands it, and this is my job, to make it simple...
Before me, the Profs thought that 0.1 * 1 * 10 was 1 and that's it .. now
know that it is 1m^3...Because : 1dm *10dm *100dm = 1000dm^3.

To make it simple you have to start from 1i=1dm, so 1m is 10i..
for 1/0.1 = 10i.... 10/0.1 =100i..and...100/0.1 = 1000i..you can and must say...
1i *10i *100i = 1000i^3..as you say 10i *100i = 1000i^2 = 10m^2.
If..1i *100i = 100i^2..1i *1i *100i = 100i^3..this is Logic.

> Trying to screw someone up with falsehoods is petty.
They are the ignorant Profs.. who try to screw up me who teach the Truth.
I can't, I mustn't.. and I don't want to... make myself an accomplice to injustices.
But you.. who understood.. you could and should enlighten yourself with the T.n.p. direct-:)))

Greetings from Socratis => 3^3 = 15i *30i *60i = 27'000i^3 = 27m^3. => for 3/i = 30i.

1c*1c*1c = 1g.== 0.01*0.01*0.01= 0.000001m^3
1c*1c*10c =10g === 0.01*0.01*0.1= 0.00001m^3
1c*10c*10c =100g = 1hg =1c *1i * 1i = 0.0001m^3
5 *10c *10c == 500g = 5hg = 5c *1i*1i =0.0005m^3
10c*10c*10c == 1000g =1kg = 1i *1i *1i= 0.001m^3

1c*20c*100c=2000c^3=2kg = 0.01*00.2 *1m = 0.0002m^3
5c*10c*100c = 5'000c^3 = 5kg = 0.05 *0.1* 1m = 0.005m^3
10c*10c*100c =10'000c^3 =10kg = 0.01*0.1 *1m= 0.01m^3
10c*100c*100c=1000000c^3=100kg =0.1 *1m *1m = 0.1m^3
100c*100c*100c=1000'000c^3 =1000kg = 1m*1m*1m= 1m^3

Using the T.d.i. we have : 0.1 *0.1= 0.01m^2 = a small square = 1 cent. of m^2. and therefore 1i^2.
Therefore 0.1 *0.1 *100 =1000i^3 => for 100m =1000i. => how to say 1i *1i *1000i =1000i^3-
So..Only Prof. Cretinis...for not being able to recognize the difference between m^2 and m^3...
they may think that small Units become +small..which is False -:)))

Greetings from Lucrezio T.n.p. => 0.5 *0.5 *2 = 0.5m^3 = 500kg. like 5i *5i *20i =500i^3.
When the..Geniuses think...that 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25..is False...it means 0.25m^2 = 25i^2.

The best system m. direct starts from 1cm = 1c.

=> System in cm. ==> System in cm T.d.i. <===1c*1c*1c = 1g.==> 0.01*0.01*0.01= 0.000001m^3
1c*1c*10c =10g ===> 0.01*0.01*0.1= 0.00001m^3
1c*10c*10c =100g => 1hg =1c *1i * 1i = 0.0001m^3
5 *10c *10c == 500g => 5hg = 5c *1i*1i =0.0005m^3
10c*10c*10c == 1000g =>1kg = 1i *1i *1i= 0.001m^3

1c*20c*100c=2000c^3=2kg = 0.01*00.2 *1m = 0.0002m^3
5c*10c*100c = 5'000c^3 = 5kg = 0.05 *0.1* 1m = 0.005m^3
10c*10c*100c =10'000c^3 =10kg = 0.01*0.1 *1m= 0.01m^3
10c*100c*100c=1000000c^3=100kg =0.1 *1m *1m = 0.1m^3
100c*100c*100c=1000'000c^3 =1000kg = 1m*1m*1m= 1m^3

System in dm.T.n.p ===> System in dm.T.d.i.==> System in m. T.d.i..
5i * 5i * 10i=== 250i^3 => 0.5 * 0.5 *1= 0.25.m^3 => 5 *5 *10 = 250m^3
5i *10i *20i = 1000i^3 => 0.5 * 1 *2.======1m^3 => 5*10*20 =1000m^3
6i *12i *24i = 1'728i^3 => 0.6*1.2 *2.4=1.728m^3 => 6*12*24 = 1728m^3
7i *14i *28i = 2'744i^3 => 0.7*1.4 *2.8 =2.744m^3 => 7*14*28 =2744m^3
8i *16i *32i = 4'096i^3 => 0.8°1.6 *3.2 =4.096m^3 => 8*16*32 = 4096m^3
9i *18i ^36i = 5'832i^3 => 0.9*1.8 *3.6 = 5.832m^3 => 9*18*36 =5832m^3
10i*20i*40i = 8'000i^3 => 1 **2 **4======= 8'm^3 =>10*20*40 =8000m^3

In the 3rd group..there is : 0.5m *0.5m *1m = 0.25 m^3. = 250i^3...so it would stand. to us
having to understand that 1m = 10dm =100cm =1000mm. therefore, 10i/2i = 5i = half.m = 5dm..
like 100c/10c =10c =1dm. I could say that 2i *5i =10i =1m…but also 2i *20i=40i=4m

If the T.d.i. is Derivative. comes from the fact that half-m = 0.5m = 5i Which..happens if I divide
10i/20i = 5i/10i....if that were the case I could say: 5i *20i = 100i = 10m. It would resolve the matter of
have only integers. In fact I would have…100i/20i =5i => 5i *20i =10m..e…10i *20i =200i =20m.

So using 5i..instead of 0.5 could avoid the Integer problem well. And still he would give us
squares and Volumes if 1i *5i *20i=100i^3 exists. I think such a system could be applied
to the bits of computers that could be very fast to be able to use numbers and letters..I'll think about it.

Greetings from T.n.p. =>If 10i *20i =200i^2 =>1i *10i *20i = 200i^3.. in the sea of dm. you should
say that 1m =10i =>to be able to understand =>5i *5i = 25i^2 =>1i *5i *10i = 50i^3..1i *5i *50i = 250i^3
1i *5i *100i = 500i^3. Where it is clear that we would not need…neither the m^2 nor .from the m^3.