it does not apply...

måndag 28 augusti 2023 kl. 20:30:15 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
> it does not apply...
-1 is a thing though.

On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:50:56 PM UTC-7, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 28 augusti 2023 kl. 20:30:15 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
> > it does not apply...
> -1 is a thing though.

It is only a subtraction.

On 8/29/2023 10:40 AM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:50:56 PM UTC-7, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
>> måndag 28 augusti 2023 kl. 20:30:15 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
>>> it does not apply...
>> -1 is a thing though.
>
> It is only a subtraction.

0 - 1 = -1

See?

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 1:40:58 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 8/29/2023 10:40 AM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:50:56 PM UTC-7, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> måndag 28 augusti 2023 kl. 20:30:15 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
> >>> it does not apply...
> >> -1 is a thing though.
> >
> > It is only a subtraction.
> 0 - 1 = -1
>
> See?

Yes. As I said it your are using a subtraction...
And it overshoots no quantity.
There is nothing below.
You can attach a negative sign
to a positive but it doesn't create
a negative quantity just a
form of subtraction. And
that has a limit at zero.

On 8/29/2023 1:52 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 1:40:58 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 8/29/2023 10:40 AM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:50:56 PM UTC-7, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> måndag 28 augusti 2023 kl. 20:30:15 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
>>>>> it does not apply...
>>>> -1 is a thing though.
>>>
>>> It is only a subtraction.
>> 0 - 1 = -1
>>
>> See?
>
> Yes. As I said it your are using a subtraction...
> And it overshoots no quantity.
> There is nothing below.
> You can attach a negative sign
> to a positive but it doesn't create
> a negative quantity just a
> form of subtraction. And
> that has a limit at zero.
>

-1 is perfect fine, and I know what it means. Little kids know this. Why
do you seem to have a hard time understanding the concept of a negative
number?

On 8/29/2023 4:52 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 1:40:58 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 8/29/2023 10:40 AM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:50:56 PM UTC-7, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> måndag 28 augusti 2023 kl. 20:30:15 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
>>>>> it does not apply...
>>>> -1 is a thing though.
>>>
>>> It is only a subtraction.
>> 0 - 1 = -1
>>
>> See?
>
> Yes. As I said it your are using a subtraction...

And subtraction is defined in terms of negative numbers and the unitary
negation operator. Number system rings have addition and negative
numbers, but not subtraction.

> And it overshoots no quantity.
> There is nothing below.

Which is why negative number math is superior to Mitch math. Negative
numbers are very useful and follow ordinary math.

> You can attach a negative sign
> to a positive but it doesn't create
> a negative quantity

That is the unitary function of negation. It is how to get subtraction
from addition. a - b is really a + (-b). The unitary negation makes a
negative number out of b. b itself can be negative, and in this case
unitary negation makes it into a positive number.

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 2:08:08 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 8/29/2023 4:52 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 1:40:58 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >> On 8/29/2023 10:40 AM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:50:56 PM UTC-7, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> måndag 28 augusti 2023 kl. 20:30:15 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail..com:
> >>>>> it does not apply...
> >>>> -1 is a thing though.
> >>>
> >>> It is only a subtraction.
> >> 0 - 1 = -1
> >>
> >> See?
> >
> > Yes. As I said it your are using a subtraction...
> And subtraction is defined in terms of negative numbers and the unitary
> negation operator. Number system rings have addition and negative
> numbers, but not subtraction.
> > And it overshoots no quantity.
> > There is nothing below.
> Which is why negative number math is superior to Mitch math. Negative
> numbers are very useful and follow ordinary math.
> > You can attach a negative sign
> > to a positive but it doesn't create
> > a negative quantity
> That is the unitary function of negation. It is how to get subtraction
> from addition. a - b is really a + (-b). The unitary negation makes a
> negative number out of b. b itself can be negative, and in this case
> unitary negation makes it into a positive number.

You are holding on to something that cannot serve your ego volney...
There is nothing below zero magnitude to subtract from.

On 8/29/2023 9:17 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 2:08:08 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/29/2023 4:52 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> You can attach a negative sign
>>> to a positive but it doesn't create
>>> a negative quantity
>> That is the unitary function of negation. It is how to get subtraction
>> from addition. a - b is really a + (-b). The unitary negation makes a
>> negative number out of b. b itself can be negative, and in this case
>> unitary negation makes it into a positive number.
>
> You are holding on to something that cannot serve your ego volney...

Nope. I know math. You don't know math, Roy.

> There is nothing below zero magnitude to subtract from.
>
True only if you are counting pears or something. False if you are
measuring electric charge. I can subtract 3 coulombs from something
charged to 1 coulomb and it will wind up charged with -2 coulombs of
charge, no matter how much you whimper about it. And you aren't able to
contradict this.

On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 4:26:00 AM UTC+3, Volney wrote:
> On 8/29/2023 9:17 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 2:08:08 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/29/2023 4:52 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> You can attach a negative sign
> >>> to a positive but it doesn't create
> >>> a negative quantity
> >> That is the unitary function of negation. It is how to get subtraction
> >> from addition. a - b is really a + (-b). The unitary negation makes a
> >> negative number out of b. b itself can be negative, and in this case
> >> unitary negation makes it into a positive number.
> >
> > You are holding on to something that cannot serve your ego volney...
> Nope. I know math. You don't know math, Roy.
> > There is nothing below zero magnitude to subtract from.
> >
> True only if you are counting pears or something. False if you are
> measuring electric charge. I can subtract 3 coulombs from something
> charged to 1 coulomb and it will wind up charged with -2 coulombs of
> charge, no matter how much you whimper about it. And you aren't able to
> contradict this.

If (3 = 3) is a true statement but so meaningless statement, then why the hell a mathematicker would rewrite it in a more meaningless form as (3 - 3= 0)?

Simply to create a very meaningless & illegal number like Zero, beside making so unnecessary illegal mathematical operations like the so-called negative opinion, where then they can create more of fun mythematics with their illegal babies of those square roots of negatives as those called immaginary or complex numbers generally, infact, there is nothing more stupid than this art fart of human mythematics

Again, if (1 + 2 = 3) is a very meaningful statement, then why the hell human mathematickers do rewrite it in another deformed shapes like (1 + 2 - 3 = 0), or (-1 -2 + 3 = 0), or (1 -3 +2 = 0), or , ..., etc

In short, every true math statement can be brought in a natural meaningful form like ( a + b = c), without the need of zero nor the need of negative also 😀

Example: (23 + ?? = 65)?
In other simple words,what is the first digit added to 3 would results the digit 5? 2, Right ✅️?
Similarly for the second digit which is 4, hence your missing number would be 42, Right ✅️?

Can't this simple & natural logic be learned so easily to AI , without all that so unnecessary zero & negatives? Wonder!
Hence, negative opinion in mythematics is not at all any meaningful or true math operation, nor does the so-called zero number in all human languages is true number but false & widely believed number among humans 😉

BKK 🔊

On 8/29/2023 7:57 PM, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 4:26:00 AM UTC+3, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/29/2023 9:17 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 2:08:08 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 8/29/2023 4:52 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> You can attach a negative sign
>>>>> to a positive but it doesn't create
>>>>> a negative quantity
>>>> That is the unitary function of negation. It is how to get subtraction
>>>> from addition. a - b is really a + (-b). The unitary negation makes a
>>>> negative number out of b. b itself can be negative, and in this case
>>>> unitary negation makes it into a positive number.
>>>
>>> You are holding on to something that cannot serve your ego volney...
>> Nope. I know math. You don't know math, Roy.
>>> There is nothing below zero magnitude to subtract from.
>>>
>> True only if you are counting pears or something. False if you are
>> measuring electric charge. I can subtract 3 coulombs from something
>> charged to 1 coulomb and it will wind up charged with -2 coulombs of
>> charge, no matter how much you whimper about it. And you aren't able to
>> contradict this.
>
> If (3 = 3) is a true statement but so meaningless statement, then why the hell a mathematicker would rewrite it in a more meaningless form as (3 - 3= 0)?
>
> Simply to create a very meaningless & illegal number like Zero, beside making so unnecessary illegal mathematical operations like the so-called negative opinion, where then they can create more of fun mythematics with their illegal babies of those square roots of negatives as those called immaginary or complex numbers generally, infact, there is nothing more stupid than this art fart of human mythematics
>
>
> Again, if (1 + 2 = 3) is a very meaningful statement, then why the hell human mathematickers do rewrite it in another deformed shapes like (1 + 2 - 3 = 0), or (-1 -2 + 3 = 0), or (1 -3 +2 = 0), or , ..., etc
>
> In short, every true math statement can be brought in a natural meaningful form like ( a + b = c), without the need of zero nor the need of negative also 😀

a + b = -42

No problem!

>
> Example: (23 + ?? = 65)?
> In other simple words,what is the first digit added to 3 would results the digit 5? 2, Right ✅️?
> Similarly for the second digit which is 4, hence your missing number would be 42, Right ✅️?
>
> Can't this simple & natural logic be learned so easily to AI , without all that so unnecessary zero & negatives? Wonder!
> Hence, negative opinion in mythematics is not at all any meaningful or true math operation, nor does the so-called zero number in all human languages is true number but false & widely believed number among humans 😉
>
> BKK 🔊
>

On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 6:15:19 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 8/29/2023 7:57 PM, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 4:26:00 AM UTC+3, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/29/2023 9:17 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 2:08:08 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 8/29/2023 4:52 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> You can attach a negative sign
> >>>>> to a positive but it doesn't create
> >>>>> a negative quantity
> >>>> That is the unitary function of negation. It is how to get subtraction
> >>>> from addition. a - b is really a + (-b). The unitary negation makes a
> >>>> negative number out of b. b itself can be negative, and in this case
> >>>> unitary negation makes it into a positive number.
> >>>
> >>> You are holding on to something that cannot serve your ego volney...
> >> Nope. I know math. You don't know math, Roy.
> >>> There is nothing below zero magnitude to subtract from.
> >>>
> >> True only if you are counting pears or something. False if you are
> >> measuring electric charge. I can subtract 3 coulombs from something
> >> charged to 1 coulomb and it will wind up charged with -2 coulombs of
> >> charge, no matter how much you whimper about it. And you aren't able to
> >> contradict this.
> >
> > If (3 = 3) is a true statement but so meaningless statement, then why the hell a mathematicker would rewrite it in a more meaningless form as (3 - 3= 0)?
> >
> > Simply to create a very meaningless & illegal number like Zero, beside making so unnecessary illegal mathematical operations like the so-called negative opinion, where then they can create more of fun mythematics with their illegal babies of those square roots of negatives as those called immaginary or complex numbers generally, infact, there is nothing more stupid than this art fart of human mythematics
> >
> >
> > Again, if (1 + 2 = 3) is a very meaningful statement, then why the hell human mathematickers do rewrite it in another deformed shapes like (1 + 2 - 3 = 0), or (-1 -2 + 3 = 0), or (1 -3 +2 = 0), or , ..., etc
> >
> > In short, every true math statement can be brought in a natural meaningful form like ( a + b = c), without the need of zero nor the need of negative also 😀
> a + b = -42
>
> No problem!
> >
> > Example: (23 + ?? = 65)?
> > In other simple words,what is the first digit added to 3 would results the digit 5? 2, Right ✅️?
> > Similarly for the second digit which is 4, hence your missing number would be 42, Right ✅️?
> >
> > Can't this simple & natural logic be learned so easily to AI , without all that so unnecessary zero & negatives? Wonder!
> > Hence, negative opinion in mythematics is not at all any meaningful or true math operation, nor does the so-called zero number in all human languages is true number but false & widely believed number among humans 😉
> >
> > BKK 🔊
> >

On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 6:15:19 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 8/29/2023 7:57 PM, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 4:26:00 AM UTC+3, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/29/2023 9:17 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 2:08:08 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 8/29/2023 4:52 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> You can attach a negative sign
> >>>>> to a positive but it doesn't create
> >>>>> a negative quantity
> >>>> That is the unitary function of negation. It is how to get subtraction
> >>>> from addition. a - b is really a + (-b). The unitary negation makes a
> >>>> negative number out of b. b itself can be negative, and in this case
> >>>> unitary negation makes it into a positive number.
> >>>
> >>> You are holding on to something that cannot serve your ego volney...
> >> Nope. I know math. You don't know math, Roy.
> >>> There is nothing below zero magnitude to subtract from.
> >>>
> >> True only if you are counting pears or something. False if you are
> >> measuring electric charge. I can subtract 3 coulombs from something
> >> charged to 1 coulomb and it will wind up charged with -2 coulombs of
> >> charge, no matter how much you whimper about it. And you aren't able to
> >> contradict this.
> >
> > If (3 = 3) is a true statement but so meaningless statement, then why the hell a mathematicker would rewrite it in a more meaningless form as (3 - 3= 0)?
> >
> > Simply to create a very meaningless & illegal number like Zero, beside making so unnecessary illegal mathematical operations like the so-called negative opinion, where then they can create more of fun mythematics with their illegal babies of those square roots of negatives as those called immaginary or complex numbers generally, infact, there is nothing more stupid than this art fart of human mythematics
> >
> >
> > Again, if (1 + 2 = 3) is a very meaningful statement, then why the hell human mathematickers do rewrite it in another deformed shapes like (1 + 2 - 3 = 0), or (-1 -2 + 3 = 0), or (1 -3 +2 = 0), or , ..., etc
> >
> > In short, every true math statement can be brought in a natural meaningful form like ( a + b = c), without the need of zero nor the need of negative also 😀
> a + b = -42
>
> No problem!
> >
> > Example: (23 + ?? = 65)?
> > In other simple words,what is the first digit added to 3 would results the digit 5? 2, Right ✅️?
> > Similarly for the second digit which is 4, hence your missing number would be 42, Right ✅️?
> >
> > Can't this simple & natural logic be learned so easily to AI , without all that so unnecessary zero & negatives? Wonder!
> > Hence, negative opinion in mythematics is not at all any meaningful or true math operation, nor does the so-called zero number in all human languages is true number but false & widely believed number among humans 😉
> >
> > BKK 🔊
> >

When I say natural or sensible form, I hence do mean (a, b) are positive in common perception, then why the hell is the sum of two positive would abnormally results in negative 🤔?

Oops 😬, (x^2 + 1 = 0), and the mathematickers usually belive it! No wonderS!
BKK 🔊

On 8/29/2023 9:07 PM, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 6:15:19 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 8/29/2023 7:57 PM, bassam karzeddin wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 4:26:00 AM UTC+3, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 8/29/2023 9:17 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 2:08:08 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/29/2023 4:52 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> You can attach a negative sign
>>>>>>> to a positive but it doesn't create
>>>>>>> a negative quantity
>>>>>> That is the unitary function of negation. It is how to get subtraction
>>>>>> from addition. a - b is really a + (-b). The unitary negation makes a
>>>>>> negative number out of b. b itself can be negative, and in this case
>>>>>> unitary negation makes it into a positive number.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are holding on to something that cannot serve your ego volney...
>>>> Nope. I know math. You don't know math, Roy.
>>>>> There is nothing below zero magnitude to subtract from.
>>>>>
>>>> True only if you are counting pears or something. False if you are
>>>> measuring electric charge. I can subtract 3 coulombs from something
>>>> charged to 1 coulomb and it will wind up charged with -2 coulombs of
>>>> charge, no matter how much you whimper about it. And you aren't able to
>>>> contradict this.
>>>
>>> If (3 = 3) is a true statement but so meaningless statement, then why the hell a mathematicker would rewrite it in a more meaningless form as (3 - 3= 0)?
>>>
>>> Simply to create a very meaningless & illegal number like Zero, beside making so unnecessary illegal mathematical operations like the so-called negative opinion, where then they can create more of fun mythematics with their illegal babies of those square roots of negatives as those called immaginary or complex numbers generally, infact, there is nothing more stupid than this art fart of human mythematics
>>>
>>>
>>> Again, if (1 + 2 = 3) is a very meaningful statement, then why the hell human mathematickers do rewrite it in another deformed shapes like (1 + 2 - 3 = 0), or (-1 -2 + 3 = 0), or (1 -3 +2 = 0), or , ..., etc
>>>
>>> In short, every true math statement can be brought in a natural meaningful form like ( a + b = c), without the need of zero nor the need of negative also 😀
>> a + b = -42
>>
>> No problem!
>>>
>>> Example: (23 + ?? = 65)?
>>> In other simple words,what is the first digit added to 3 would results the digit 5? 2, Right ✅️?
>>> Similarly for the second digit which is 4, hence your missing number would be 42, Right ✅️?
>>>
>>> Can't this simple & natural logic be learned so easily to AI , without all that so unnecessary zero & negatives? Wonder!
>>> Hence, negative opinion in mythematics is not at all any meaningful or true math operation, nor does the so-called zero number in all human languages is true number but false & widely believed number among humans 😉
>>>
>>> BKK 🔊
>>>
>
> When I say natural or sensible form, I hence do mean (a, b) are positive in common perception, then why the hell is the sum of two positive would abnormally results in negative 🤔?

Then you really do need to clearly state that a, b and c are unsigned
integers wrt your rules.

[...]

On 8/29/2023 9:07 PM, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 6:15:19 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
[...]
> Oops 😬, (x^2 + 1 = 0), and the mathematickers usually belive it! No wonderS!

Wrt (x^2 + 1 = 0), the roots are -i and i.

Therefore:

(-i)^2 + 1 = 0+0i
(i)^2 + 1 = 0+0i

See?