On Tuesday, November 3, 2020 at 9:59:13 AM UTC+2, Bassam Karzeddin wrote:
> On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 11:05:55 AM UTC+3, Bassam Karzeddin wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 24, 2007 at 5:32:12 PM UTC+3, neilist wrote:
> > > James Harris ... er, I mean Bassam King Karzeddin aka Assing King
> > > Crazy-man is declaring war on you.
> > >
> > > (I wonder what was the First World War against mathematicians?
> > > Godel's Incompleteness Theorem?)
> > >
> > > Either way, enjoy your war, you hapless souls. Here's his Declaration
> > > of War from another thread:
> > >
> > > >I really don't have time for that as to prepare my self to launch my
> > > >SECOND WORLD WAR AGAINST mathematicians EVERY WHERE on the planet,
> > > >Where my strategy will be based on shooting some equations, formulas, and conjectures.. etc, and the >mathematicians are asked therefore (as there last chance) to release and announce immediately every thing >they conclude and knew secretly and think it is new but still can not make use of it, and that is only for the sake >of the Queen's librations, since there is no point or guarantee that will not die with them for only a narrow >purpose and selfishness.
> > > >Only then they don't have the right to claim it when it is published here and announced before their eyes
> > >
> > > >AND THE journals WILL BE PUZZLED and get fed up with the many short proofs for their UNSOLVED >PROBLEMS suddenly at a time, where the mathematical minds will be collapsed for their own bad heritage and >a new era of the human history will begin where also no place for the FOOT and... etc to be replaced by the >HEAD and the QUEEN'S FACE WILL SMILE AGAIN WHEN THE RULES WILL BE DOOMED TO DEATH
> > >
> > > >Regards
> > > >Bassam Karzeddin
> >
> > Let us see what are the traitor's reactions to their own profession that usually (feeds, clothes, and drinks them as well) when facing a simple fact like a rocket like here would be able to do in order to justify their perpetual mental retardation and strictly in **mathematics**, FOR SURE
> >
> > See how many wrong common old refuted beliefs among mathematicians so simply:
> >
> > [sin(pi/4) = cos(pi/4) = 0.7071067811865475244...]
> >
> > This is an absolutely very wrong common practice among all mathematicians **Globally** I swear
> >
> > Simply because the **Rational-Decimal-Approximation** of an irrational number as [1/sqrt{2}] as (sine(pi/4), cos(pi/4) and one) are impossible to form any right angle triangle
> >
> > See here how people simply get deceived by those **fake** non-existing alleged real numbers (with endless digital forms or terms) as [sin(pi/4) = cos(pi/4) = 0.7071067811865475244...), where those usually completed by meaningless three ellipses that means more and more digits or terms without any end
> >
> > So, where is that right angle triangle with those alleged real numbers for legs of the triangle as sin and cosine of 45 degrees? wonder
> >
> > So you are supposed to have a right angle triangle with equal legs and hypotenuse one as (1, 0.7071067811865475244..., 0.7071067811865475244...)
> >
> > Of course, making similar triangles with integers are not forbidden in mathematics where your same triangle would seem like this (without affecting the angles FOR SURE), LIKE this:
> >
> > (10^n, 7071067811865475244..., 7071067811865475244...), where (n) represents the natural number of accurate digits that **YOU** think would be suitable to make your right angle triangle true in the real sense of exactness meaning **strictly in mathematics**
> >
> > So, start approximating and observe that your right angle triangle is an absolutely impossible achievement with more and more of those accurate digits you do usually believe in and exactly the same way that you're grand master mathematicians were so deceived like you are here
> >
> > Look the first approximation with a triangle (10, 7, 7), where this is absolutely not any right angle triangle, since square differences (10^2 - 7^2 - 7^2 = 2), see the difference here is only 2
> >
> > Try more accurate digits (in the hope that the difference get vanished ultimately), so consider the second approximation with a triangle
> > (100, 70, 70), and the square difference becomes (100^2 - 70^2 - 70^2 = 200 > 0)
> >
> > Try more accurate digits say (3), with a triangle (1000, 707, 707), and still, the square differences must be exactly
> > (Hypotenious^2 - leg(1)^2 - leg(2)^2 = 0), but we actually have (1000^2 - 2*707^2 = 302 > 0), hence not a right angle triangle
> >
> > ***Important note: the difference is absolutely increasing with more digits of accuracy we may consider, where it is absolutely impossible to have a right angle triangle for sin and cosine of the pi/4 angle, just from the first look on the first digits you use***
> >
> > Consider 10 accurate digits and check the difference of squares, please
> >
> > for a triangle (10^10, 7071067811, 7071067811) and we have a much larger squre differences as (10^20 - 2*(7071067811)^2 = 24479336558 >> 0)
> >
> > Do you want more, there are of course an endless number of pieces of evidence for our rarest claim ever made in the history of mathematics
> >
> > Consider more accurate digits as with the same triangle:
> > ( 10^19, 7071067811865475244, 7071067811865475244) and the square differences that make it impossible to form the right angle triangle becomes much larger as here (10^38 - 2*(7071067811865475244)^2 = 238821668046280928 >>>> 0)
> >
> > But that doesn't mean at all that the angle (pi/4 = 45 degrees) don't exist since it is indeed existing constructible angle with exact terms as real irrational constructible numbers as:
> > sin(pi/4) = cos(pi/4) = 1/sqrt{2} =/= 0.7071067811865475244...
> >
> > So what are those unfinished numbers generally completed by the most foolish notation of three ellipses or dots as those (0.7071067811865475244...)? WONDER!
> >
> > As for years by now, we are teaching you freeeeeeeeeeely here that those are non-existing and fake numbers (as simple as that)
> >
> > since **true** existing real irrational numbers (named as constructible numbers in mathematics) are impossible to be equated absolutely with a rational-decimal form number no matter however large size you are capable to present it
> >
> > Now, wise clever school students are kindly requested to explain this simple mere fact to their own teachers in details, where their teachers have to go immediately to their alleged best masters in order to correct many huge errors where their greatest living masters are kindly requested to come here before the true "KING" to learn more about more **bitter** important lessons that had never occurred to their so **delusional** minds, FOR SURE
> >
> > *************************
> >
> > **Note that for non-mathematical works as carpentry and engineering, no harm of approximating things since, in practice, most of those problems never require any perfection that only and strictly mathematics require**
> >
> > So to say, it is not at all advisable for the expert professional mathematicians to mimic exactly the carpenters and the engineering problem solving and hide very foolishly under their protection
> >
> > Mathematicians must be finally liberated from all the imposed things on mathematics by many others sciences under so many practical issues that require a little drop of mathematics
> >
> > Let see who can understand this old repeated long lesson? Wonder!
> >
> > And naturally, the shameless is shameless as always as usual, FOR SURETR
> >
> > BKK

It is a war against the human global ignorance FOR SURE

BKK