man is in the negative...
He tries to create quantity
below no quantity.
He aspires to infinity
but that can only be
the measure of his stupidity.

YOu Not a aNgEl ?⠀⠀😃⠀⠀

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:12:59 PM UTC+2, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> man is in the negative...
> He tries to create quantity
> below no quantity.
> He aspires to infinity
> but that can only be
> the measure of his stupidity.

onsdag 22 februari 2023 kl. 21:12:59 UTC+1 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
> man is in the negative...
> He tries to create quantity
> below no quantity.
> He aspires to infinity
> but that can only be
> the measure of his stupidity.
the stupidity is all yours.

Negative numbers exist, grow up retard

On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 10:25:56 AM UTC-8, Y A wrote:
> YOu Not a aNgEl ?⠀⠀😃⠀⠀
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:12:59 PM UTC+2, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > man is in the negative...
> > He tries to create quantity
> > below no quantity.
> > He aspires to infinity
> > but that can only be
> > the measure of his stupidity.

Negative quantities are only subtractions from an equal or more positive.
Anti quantities are negative math myth as they cannot subtract from no quantity.

On 2/23/2023 2:05 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 10:25:56 AM UTC-8, Y A wrote:
>> YOu Not a aNgEl ?⠀⠀😃⠀⠀
>> On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:12:59 PM UTC+2, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> man is in the negative...
>>> He tries to create quantity
>>> below no quantity.
>>> He aspires to infinity
>>> but that can only be
>>> the measure of his stupidity.
>
> Negative quantities are only subtractions from an equal or more positive.
> Anti quantities are negative math myth as they cannot subtract from no quantity.
>
And yet I can still subtract 5 coulombs of charge from something charged
to 3 coulombs, and the result is -2 coulombs of charge. And 5 is larger
than 3, yet I can still subtract 5 from 3.

Zelos is correct; you are simply too stupid to understand negative numbers.

Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█

_drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity

Knock out electricity in
Novosibirsk
Yekaterinburg
Novgorod
Samara
Omsk
Kazan
Rostov-na-Donu
Chelyabinsk
Ufa
Perm

_Every Russian missile fired into Ukraine met with a drone from Ukraine knocking out Moscow electric power lines

_Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity

NO ONE CAN WIN A FIGHT UNLESS THEY HAVE AN OFFENSE!!!!!!
_No one can win a fight or war without any offense, West, Biden give Ukraine drones that knock out electricity inside Russia

_End the Ukraine war by March 2023 as the Russian people depose the dictator

_rolling electric blackouts and give Iran to Iraq-- a blooming democracy, not a stupid dictator

_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.

_Xi has 1,000 divisions on Vladivostok border ready to swoop in and reclaim the stolen land of Outer Manchuria. See reconnaissance photo above of 1,000 divisions.

NATO and the West has just two good options here, for Putin should have been removed in 2006 with Litvinenko poisoning. Now the insane Putin can poison the entire world with a nuclear war. Putin needed to go in 2006, for insanity just gets worse and worse.

Either
(1) give Ukraine drones to knock out electric power in Moscow and beyond
Or
(2) give Ukraine NATO membership and tell Russia to clear out in a week or NATO forces go in and clear them out.

Of course, every day Putin and Russia needs reminding that if he presses nuclear buttons or nuclear bomb on Ukraine that Russia will be a nuclear ash pile before the day is out.

What should have been done in 2006, unfortunately that delay to 2022. Same can be said of Hitler-- he should have been removed in the early 1930s before his insanity got going.

AP

On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 11:25:15 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 2/23/2023 2:05 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 10:25:56 AM UTC-8, Y A wrote:
> >> YOu Not a aNgEl ?⠀⠀😃⠀⠀
> >> On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:12:59 PM UTC+2, mitchr....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> man is in the negative...
> >>> He tries to create quantity
> >>> below no quantity.
> >>> He aspires to infinity
> >>> but that can only be
> >>> the measure of his stupidity.
> >
> > Negative quantities are only subtractions from an equal or more positive.
> > Anti quantities are negative math myth as they cannot subtract from no quantity.
> >
> And yet I can still subtract 5 coulombs of charge from something charged
> to 3 coulombs, and the result is -2 coulombs of charge. And 5 is larger
> than 3, yet I can still subtract 5 from 3.

No. That is overshooting.

>
> Zelos is correct; you are simply too stupid to understand negative numbers.

They can only be relatives. As there is nothing below no quantity...

On 2/23/2023 7:43 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 11:25:15 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> On 2/23/2023 2:05 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 10:25:56 AM UTC-8, Y A wrote:
>>>> YOu Not a aNgEl ?⠀⠀😃⠀⠀
>>>> On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:12:59 PM UTC+2, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> man is in the negative...
>>>>> He tries to create quantity
>>>>> below no quantity.
>>>>> He aspires to infinity
>>>>> but that can only be
>>>>> the measure of his stupidity.
>>>
>>> Negative quantities are only subtractions from an equal or more positive.
>>> Anti quantities are negative math myth as they cannot subtract from no quantity.
>>>
>> And yet I can still subtract 5 coulombs of charge from something charged
>> to 3 coulombs, and the result is -2 coulombs of charge. And 5 is larger
>> than 3, yet I can still subtract 5 from 3.
>
> No. That is overshooting.

No "overshooting", Roy. That's just how the math and physics works. No
matter how much you whine that it can't happen, it does happen. 3
coulombs - 5 coulombs = -2 coulombs.
>
>>
>> Zelos is correct; you are simply too stupid to understand negative numbers.
>
> They can only be relatives. As there is nothing below no quantity...

Again, Zelos is correct. You are too stupid to understand negative
numbers. But instead of learning, you just whine "impossible".

torsdag 23 februari 2023 kl. 20:06:02 UTC+1 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
> On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 10:25:56 AM UTC-8, Y A wrote:
> > YOu Not a aNgEl ?⠀⠀😃⠀⠀
> > On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:12:59 PM UTC+2, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > man is in the negative...
> > > He tries to create quantity
> > > below no quantity.
> > > He aspires to infinity
> > > but that can only be
> > > the measure of his stupidity.
> Negative quantities are only subtractions from an equal or more positive.
> Anti quantities are negative math myth as they cannot subtract from no quantity.
Negative numbers exist.

There is no "subtraction" in a ring.

fredag 24 februari 2023 kl. 01:44:03 UTC+1 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
> On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 11:25:15 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> > On 2/23/2023 2:05 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 10:25:56 AM UTC-8, Y A wrote:
> > >> YOu Not a aNgEl ?⠀⠀😃⠀⠀
> > >> On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:12:59 PM UTC+2, mitchr....@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>> man is in the negative...
> > >>> He tries to create quantity
> > >>> below no quantity.
> > >>> He aspires to infinity
> > >>> but that can only be
> > >>> the measure of his stupidity.
> > >
> > > Negative quantities are only subtractions from an equal or more positive.
> > > Anti quantities are negative math myth as they cannot subtract from no quantity.
> > >
> > And yet I can still subtract 5 coulombs of charge from something charged
> > to 3 coulombs, and the result is -2 coulombs of charge. And 5 is larger
> > than 3, yet I can still subtract 5 from 3.
> No. That is overshooting.
> >
> > Zelos is correct; you are simply too stupid to understand negative numbers.
> They can only be relatives. As there is nothing below no quantity...
there are negative numbers you retard

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 3:12:59 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> man is in the negative...
> He tries to create quantity
> below no quantity.
> He aspires to infinity
> but that can only be
> the measure of his stupidity.

In some way there is a crux in whether subtraction actually exists.
We simulate it, say when there are five oranges on the table and you take a few away and then there are two oranges on the table, and you ask somebody how many you 'took away', but in truth we know not only that the inverse orange does not exist to cancel out the ordinary orange, but further even the destruction of the orange will not delete the parts of that orange, though it's form may have changed so that it no longer fits the category 'orange' and some of it might have been turned to 'orange juice' or some such as a proper conversion and as a productive process.

The term 'register' today gets associated with computer hardware, but back in time the correspondence to a sort of paper system was its meaning, which got translated; reinterpreted. Likewise 'file' has such background, but when we get to the for loop things are getting more convoluted. Still, so many operations are done in the terms of for loops, and there no subtractive concept need exist. You sweep through, and then you are swept and move on. We all will be applying such an algorithm as we count the oranges on the table, and should we err, then this procedure is likely to blame. Back at this humble mode of counting we might even concern ourselves over the uniqueness of oranges, or even the quantity of oranges in the universe, though the original question of how many oranges are on the table was intended to be a simple measure. Still, when the three went away we should understand that they were not eliminated from existence. And of course to reach Mitch's condition having taken away all oranges off the table top the game is up, and so the physical correspondence of the inverse orange again is not possible. Fortunately the problem does halt, and whether our counting algorithm actually involved inverting the oranges and so forth can be digressed upon as you see fit.

It would be interesting if a numerical system exists that takes this discrete counting seriously; that as well lacks the inverse form that sign brings to the table. As to whether sign is a value or an operator... modern mathematics is too happy to blur the situation. Still, as we approach mathematics from such a fundamental level, and this is what I believe Mitch is attempting, though to do so in such short form is unlikely to catch on, and possibly even long forms like this are not apt to catch on; well; at some point mimicing the status quo grows old and cold, and then such fresh attempts take meaning. For Mitch it appears from here, and I don't mean to put words into his mouth at all, and I mean my words respectfully, as though he is dealing in terms of pure thought which this plethora of words contaminates. You could roll it all up into a tight terse form, and that would be good, but here a slow form for one so bored in a troubled world... perhaps even a post-apocalyptic world... we do not know what the future will bring, but at this time it does not appear as though 'doing the right thing' is on the minds of the powerful, and the sorts of power that they wield are considerable.. At least the UN still exists, and in one moment it appears decent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_EX-VwKjng

The radix one numbers carry physical correspondence to the oranges upon the table. The radix one numbers have but one glyph. When there are three oranges on the table we register: 111 as the value that represents that quantity, and what we witness is pretty much a direct transcription. The uniqueness of the oranges is gone within the representation, and to qualify such things will have to take place elsewhere than in this numerical type. We have arrived at a primitive form of number, and furthermore in hindsight of those numbers which do allow a recalibration of unity we see that a value such as 111.11 is just the same meaning as 11111; whereas in any other radix this is not the case. In this regard, and it is in hindsight of the full radix technology which allows computers to run at radix two and humans to work by convention in radix ten, and even with the inclusion of a unique notation known formally as the 'radix point' though most will regularly call it the decimal point, and this notation need not rely upon any rational analysis, which is surely even more contaminated than the simple situation we are investigating here: the radix one system truly preserves discrete character. But does it preserve a one-signed sensibility?

Historically the natural number takes its place already, and that is a philosophical concern as much as it is an arithmetic one. Arguments can be made that the successor function of Peano is a sloppy version of the radix one number construction. Certainly the simpler is the radix one version. Then the integer gets born without ever concerning ones self about the radix two properties of sign. Here I intentionally confuse modulo and radix, and the truth is that these sensibilities have accumulated enough meaning through the development of polysign numbers that the terminology should be fixed more carefully, but for now I suppose this blurring is quite appropriate. That the terminology of the radix encounters multiple digits as well as accommodates such things as a radix point; while sign fixed traditionally at modulo two gets married to a traditionally radix ten value; that even the zero sign goes overlooked to this day; these details really state clearly the sense of mathematics as stuck in the mud. Well it is a good thing that your steed is halted in the deep mud because the bridge ahead is rotten. It will give you some time to sess things out a bit.

Those who turn their head when mathematics bumps into physical correspondence have to turn their heads very far. Three or four times around it will have to go, and you'd better hope your body follows. As if you could stick their nose in it. Then bridging up to cosmology we find out that on average the universe is isotropic... mystery of mysteries... and you think there's nothing wrong with math?