lördag 8 augusti 2020 kl. 10:27:08 UTC+2 skrev bassam karzeddin:
> I saw very clearly and since long ago the discontinuity of the so-called real number in modern mathematics (as simple as it is)
>
> And please forget completely about the many tonnes of complete nonsense written about it in huge volumes by many cranks of alleged scientists like from the middle ages like those of (Godel, Hilbert, Cantor, Defdikined, Cauchy, Kant, ..., etc)
>
> Since the irrefutable proof is only two lines and of middle school levels FOR SURE
>
> Proof: Consider any true existing number saying arbitrary like sqrt(3), then ask yourself (but never ask your alleged best teachers in this particular issue) the following two questions
>
> 1) What is the greatest real number that is strictly less than sqrt(3)?
>
> The correct answer (without your very silly opinions), it doesn't exist FOR SURE
>
> 2) What is the least real number that is strictly greater than sqrt(3)
>
> Answer: It doesn't exist, hence real numbers are isolated and discontinuous and they are certainly discrete numbers
>
> However, the real numbers are only described as "constructible" numbers as distinct existing distances on the real number line
>
> Repeating those too elementary lessons for several times in many occasions for the academic mainstreams trolls in theoretical sciences and mathematics as well is mainly to shame them perpetually for their absolute (dishonesty, cowardness, in nobility, layers, severe mental retardation, ..., etc)
>
> And purposely for a truer future natural historical record that is never oriented by the imbeciles wishes as "Donkeyoedia" anonymous writers for the sake of protecting the global ignorance about their own silly and too unnecessary business FOR SURE
>
> Copyright (c), 2020
> Bassam Karzeddin
Neither 1) nor 2) disproves the real numbers.

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 11:20:07 AM UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> lördag 8 augusti 2020 kl. 10:27:08 UTC+2 skrev bassam karzeddin:
> > I saw very clearly and since long ago the discontinuity of the so-called real number in modern mathematics (as simple as it is)
> >
> > And please forget completely about the many tonnes of complete nonsense written about it in huge volumes by many cranks of alleged scientists like from the middle ages like those of (Godel, Hilbert, Cantor, Defdikined, Cauchy, Kant, ..., etc)
> >
> > Since the irrefutable proof is only two lines and of middle school levels FOR SURE
> >
> > Proof: Consider any true existing number saying arbitrary like sqrt(3), then ask yourself (but never ask your alleged best teachers in this particular issue) the following two questions
> >
> > 1) What is the greatest real number that is strictly less than sqrt(3)?
> >
> > The correct answer (without your very silly opinions), it doesn't exist FOR SURE
> >
> > 2) What is the least real number that is strictly greater than sqrt(3)
> >
> > Answer: It doesn't exist, hence real numbers are isolated and discontinuous and they are certainly discrete numbers
> >
> > However, the real numbers are only described as "constructible" numbers as distinct existing distances on the real number line
> >
> > Repeating those too elementary lessons for several times in many occasions for the academic mainstreams trolls in theoretical sciences and mathematics as well is mainly to shame them perpetually for their absolute (dishonesty, cowardness, in nobility, layers, severe mental retardation, ..., etc)
> >
> > And purposely for a truer future natural historical record that is never oriented by the imbeciles wishes as "Donkeyoedia" anonymous writers for the sake of protecting the global ignorance about their own silly and too unnecessary business FOR SURE
> >
> > Copyright (c), 2020
> > Bassam Karzeddin
> Neither 1) nor 2) disproves the real numbers.

Nothing would disprove a dogmatic common blind believer as the mainstream academic proffessional mathematicians
For sure

BKK

fredag 4 augusti 2023 kl. 11:48:26 UTC+2 skrev bassam karzeddin:
> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 11:20:07 AM UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > lördag 8 augusti 2020 kl. 10:27:08 UTC+2 skrev bassam karzeddin:
> > > I saw very clearly and since long ago the discontinuity of the so-called real number in modern mathematics (as simple as it is)
> > >
> > > And please forget completely about the many tonnes of complete nonsense written about it in huge volumes by many cranks of alleged scientists like from the middle ages like those of (Godel, Hilbert, Cantor, Defdikined, Cauchy, Kant, ..., etc)
> > >
> > > Since the irrefutable proof is only two lines and of middle school levels FOR SURE
> > >
> > > Proof: Consider any true existing number saying arbitrary like sqrt(3), then ask yourself (but never ask your alleged best teachers in this particular issue) the following two questions
> > >
> > > 1) What is the greatest real number that is strictly less than sqrt(3)?
> > >
> > > The correct answer (without your very silly opinions), it doesn't exist FOR SURE
> > >
> > > 2) What is the least real number that is strictly greater than sqrt(3)
> > >
> > > Answer: It doesn't exist, hence real numbers are isolated and discontinuous and they are certainly discrete numbers
> > >
> > > However, the real numbers are only described as "constructible" numbers as distinct existing distances on the real number line
> > >
> > > Repeating those too elementary lessons for several times in many occasions for the academic mainstreams trolls in theoretical sciences and mathematics as well is mainly to shame them perpetually for their absolute (dishonesty, cowardness, in nobility, layers, severe mental retardation, ..., etc)
> > >
> > > And purposely for a truer future natural historical record that is never oriented by the imbeciles wishes as "Donkeyoedia" anonymous writers for the sake of protecting the global ignorance about their own silly and too unnecessary business FOR SURE
> > >
> > > Copyright (c), 2020
> > > Bassam Karzeddin
> > Neither 1) nor 2) disproves the real numbers.
> Nothing would disprove a dogmatic common blind believer as the mainstream academic proffessional mathematicians
> For sure
>
> BKK
You haven't explained why real numbers are inherit inconsistent.

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 3:14:49 AM UTC-7, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> fredag 4 augusti 2023 kl. 11:48:26 UTC+2 skrev bassam karzeddin:
> > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 11:20:07 AM UTC+3, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > lördag 8 augusti 2020 kl. 10:27:08 UTC+2 skrev bassam karzeddin:
> > > > I saw very clearly and since long ago the discontinuity of the so-called real number in modern mathematics (as simple as it is)
> > > >
> > > > And please forget completely about the many tonnes of complete nonsense written about it in huge volumes by many cranks of alleged scientists like from the middle ages like those of (Godel, Hilbert, Cantor, Defdikined, Cauchy, Kant, ..., etc)
> > > >
> > > > Since the irrefutable proof is only two lines and of middle school levels FOR SURE
> > > >
> > > > Proof: Consider any true existing number saying arbitrary like sqrt(3), then ask yourself (but never ask your alleged best teachers in this particular issue) the following two questions
> > > >
> > > > 1) What is the greatest real number that is strictly less than sqrt(3)?
> > > >
> > > > The correct answer (without your very silly opinions), it doesn't exist FOR SURE
> > > >
> > > > 2) What is the least real number that is strictly greater than sqrt(3)
> > > >
> > > > Answer: It doesn't exist, hence real numbers are isolated and discontinuous and they are certainly discrete numbers
> > > >
> > > > However, the real numbers are only described as "constructible" numbers as distinct existing distances on the real number line
> > > >
> > > > Repeating those too elementary lessons for several times in many occasions for the academic mainstreams trolls in theoretical sciences and mathematics as well is mainly to shame them perpetually for their absolute (dishonesty, cowardness, in nobility, layers, severe mental retardation, ..., etc)
> > > >
> > > > And purposely for a truer future natural historical record that is never oriented by the imbeciles wishes as "Donkeyoedia" anonymous writers for the sake of protecting the global ignorance about their own silly and too unnecessary business FOR SURE
> > > >
> > > > Copyright (c), 2020
> > > > Bassam Karzeddin
> > > Neither 1) nor 2) disproves the real numbers.
> > Nothing would disprove a dogmatic common blind believer as the mainstream academic proffessional mathematicians
> > For sure
> >
> > BKK
> You haven't explained why real numbers are inherit inconsistent.

In the continuum hypothesis quantity is continuous.