On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 4:24:40 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 10/23/2020 2:33 PM, konyberg wrote:
> > fredag 23. oktober 2020 22.15.04 UTC+2 skrev Chris M. Thomasson følgende:
> >> On 10/22/2020 5:43 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 5:09:30 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>> On 10/22/2020 4:04 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 3:50:31 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/22/2020 3:42 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 3:07:30 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 10/21/2020 6:16 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 4:23:27 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2020 3:37 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 2:23:19 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2020 1:23 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 12:24:26 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2020 9:17 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 2:30:55 PM UTC-7, Chris M.. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2020 10:48 AM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 2:26:50 AM UTC-7, zelos....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tisdag 20 oktober 2020 kl. 08:23:41 UTC+2 skrev mitchr....@gmail.com:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 10:47:22 PM UTC-7, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tisdag 20 oktober 2020 kl. 05:04:18 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 2:21:36 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/16/2020 10:34 AM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why math named it their imaginary.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Negative quantities are only the subtraction
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operation where at zero there is nothing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> left to take...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow. The imaginary axis is the y axis! Have you never used the y axis
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are off your axis you moron...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The moron is you whom do not understand basic mathematics
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I must have done something right zelos the moron...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zero math is my win. Show me where I am wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zero is the no quantity limit on subtraction.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're wrong everywhere
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are negatives
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those are only subtraction math
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtraction is defiend as the addition of negative numbers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no limit in integers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never said there was...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no next element to zero in real numbers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What is unreal about the Calculus first quantity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> first after no quantity math?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What comes after zero then you moron?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any positive number greater than zero? ;^)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is directly after zero you moron?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What scale are you using? S
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The quantity scale.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Show where first after zero is not fundamental you moron...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0 + 1 = 1
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, the next unit after zero is one.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No. If units are fractions or ratios there is always quantity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> below your 1 unit...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The quantity after the no quantity zero
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is where calclulus started and is also a fundamental unit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calculus started there did it not?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are literally wrong everywhere in mathematics
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Infinitesimals are real units no matter what catagory you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> want to put them in...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> lol. Okay, so:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 0 + (1 - .999...) = first_quantity?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes. That is initial after the no quantity zero.
> >>>>>>>>>> Perfect! It is fractal.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What is a fractal? I don't think so. You have
> >>>>>>>>> gone nuts. There is first after zero you moron...
> >>>>>>>>> Show your fractal.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Here is an interesting one:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> http://paulbourke.net/fractals/logspiral
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You can define"i" but you can not prove it...
> >>>>>>> Why does your fractal mean anything?
> >>>>>> fractals are very useful in the real world.
> >>>>>>> Is it because I won?
> >>>>>> I am not sure what you mean? Were we fighting?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You bet we are. You are a moron for pretending.
> >>>> Why are you so strange?
> >>>>>>> Closest quanitities are like fractal math similarity.
> >>>>>>> What is your fractal math proof?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Fractal math proof? Not sure what you mean. Its obvious that they have
> >>>>>> infinite precision.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No There is no calculating to an infinite fractal.
> >>>> Fractals have infinite precision regardless.
> >>>
> >>> Then make an infinite calculation and get back to me.
> >>
> >> The infinite calculation is contained in a simple formula. Say:
> >>
> >> z = z^n+c
> >>
> >> It depends how deep you want to go.
> >>
> >>
> >>> For your precision what is the size
> >>> of your fractal's elements?
> >>
> >> They are so small that you can zoom in on them forever. Ahhh, whatever..
> >> Never mind. You are very bot'ish. Over and out.
> > r
> > Or better: z(n+1) = z(n)^m + c
> Indeed. The recursive form. It is better.
>
> Fwiw, the Mandelbrot mode for each iteration starts at zero, so:
>
> c = the current point under consideration
>
> z(0) = 0
> z(n+1) = z(n)^m+c
>
>
> Okay. Now a Julia is a little different. Say:
>
> p = the current point under consideration
> c = a constant, say (-.75+.1i)
>
> So:
>
> z(0) = p
> z(n+1) = z(n)^m+c
>
>
> Therefore the Mandelbrot is a map of all Julia sets. ;^)

On 8/3/2023 3:01 PM, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 4:24:40 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
[...]
> Immaginary numbers had been refuted long ago ..

Do you know how to use them?

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:15:42 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 8/3/2023 3:01 PM, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 4:24:40 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> [...]
> > Immaginary numbers had been refuted long ago ..
> Do you know how to use them?

Imaginary math is the i formula that has no solution.
There is no negative one below zero or the absence of quantity.
It creates that imaginary instead.

On 8/4/2023 5:55 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:15:42 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 8/3/2023 3:01 PM, bassam karzeddin wrote:
>>> On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 4:24:40 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Immaginary numbers had been refuted long ago ..
>> Do you know how to use them?
>
> Imaginary math is the i formula that has no solution.
> There is no negative one below zero or the absence of quantity.
> It creates that imaginary instead.

I do not think you know how to use them.

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 11:15:42 PM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 8/3/2023 3:01 PM, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 4:24:40 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> [...]
> > Immaginary numbers had been refuted long ago ..
> Do you know how to use them?
There is already a catalog about how to use them in such a way that there mustn't be any contradiction to the most knowledgeable people of those immaginary illegal numbers

However my profile is still containing many well-proven many contradictions

And one of good examples is the following odd degree polynomial like (x^{p^2} + x^p = 1), where (p) is odd prime number, where this polonomial must have at least one real root, where every alleged real root must be immediately a counter example to Fermat's last theorem, which of course impossible, hence no real root ever exists nor do exist the other derived complex roots that are strictly associated with that alleged existing real root that never exists 😉

In short, the whole fundamental theorem of algebra is quite false since it is based solely on fake immaginary numbers

Are the academic proffessional mathematicians able to simply well-understand this irreducible counter example?
Wonder!

But I only know why can't they say anything in this regard under their true identity names & positions as well

But many annymous acadimics are of course free to say anything they like

Good failure for sure 👌

Bassam Karzeddin