On Sunday, June 21, 2020 at 3:21:55 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/11917/who-was-the-first-person-in-the-history-that-constructed-exactly-the-cube-root-o
>
> A forbidden old question of mine to uncover the truth by all the possible means strictly in very Moderated sites run by so many unnoticeable Trolls as moderators
>
> Once I commented that I would be adding another proof of the untold fact that cube root two isn't a real number since it doesn't exist (except in the minds of its blind believers)
>
> Then, the Trollish unnamed moderators immediately closed this issue of mine (as always as usual) in order to prevent it from being realized simply even by interested laypersons, amateurs, Middle-school students and generally by any educated people
>
> Of course, one alone can't immediately realize the so many huge consequences like how much large the huge size of false flawed mathematics that constitutes most of the foundations of the Modern mathematics of today world where only a few people may realize and how much damaging is that flawed Fantazia mathematics to the innocent school students minds (globally) and their entire societies by this very old and simple untold story that gave the true idiots the greatest chances to keep adding more and more of such fictions and also were regarded as a true genius people in history and societies they severely betrayed either by innocent plain stupidly or very intentionally by exploiting very badly the less intellectual abilities of the public mainstream people
>
> Where this, once well-understood must be regarded as an old and modern act exactly as a criminal act and brute humiliation to all human minds mercilessly FOR SURE
>
> For the very clueless persons in this regard, this problem was one of three impossible construction problems called "the impossibility of doubling the cube" by an unmarked straight edge and a compass within a known number of steps that were raised by the Ancient Greeks thousands of years back
>
> And in 1837, a historical mathematicians "Wentzel" proved this impossibility that was accepted officially by mathematicians and was published
>
> Hence, and in accordance with Wentzel proof, the cube root of two mustn't be regarded as a real existing number since that was proved impossible construction
>
> Of course, Wentzel never doubted the non-existence of such number but a common belief among the mathematicians that it still exists despite the fact of its impossible construction, and they went much further by relating its non-existence due to the tools and conditions stated by the Greeks to exactly construct it, where they started developing hundreds of many other methods to claim its true existence among real numbers where then they considered it so as the real existing number
>
> Of course, all the other methods were basically much less accurate than any numerical approximations even by trial and error and even before BC
>
> Those methods, generally are pleasing to a layperson who is deeply clueless about the deeply hidden theme behind this great puzzle
>
> However, those many alleged methods of exact construction were not so different from the Carpenter's skills to solve it such that it pleases everyone
>
> Exactly like asking the skiled carpenter to make a cube wooden box of two unit volume, where that is a very easy task for him and for YOU too
>
> Similarly with your modern mathematics with its thousands of methods of approximations even by using supercomputers for the task in order to seem like a true intellectual breakthrough
>
> This art started early in history by Archimedes, with human eyes marking, by carpenter's square method, and recently by many alleged methods like Origami, Paper folding, Neiuss or many many more like names ...
>
> So, if all these methods claim was true about exact constructing of cube root two, then why the hell in mathematics they are still considering 2^{1/3} as a non-constructible number? Wonders
>
> It should be named "constructible" number if ever any alleged construction method was true in its exact construction, which is why I asked those imbeciles of history sections in Stalk Exchange where instead of answering who was that big lier first in the human history to make it by any tools or means, they simply and immediately closed the issue and never wanting the public opinion to bonder about that because they came to know from my many earlier hidden and deleted topics in their sites the full truth about such impossibility by any means and not only by the Greeks tools
>
> So, we have reached such a very shameful stage of complete dishonesty, denial, unbelievable stupidity and open lies strictly among the academic professional mathematicians and the most knowledgeable people in this field and more especially among English Language speakers since I do write the facts in this language (in few older posts, publicly published by too elementary proofs about the non-existence of such number like cube root two, and many more)
>
> But here, let us remind you again with only one direct and fast proof that is most suitable to elementary school students to fully understand in a few minutes FOR SURE
>
>
> Probably elementary proof number (9) from my older posts
>
> 1) Cube root two is still classified as "Non-constructible number" in mathematics,
>
> hence you can't describe it geometrically exactly like the case of sqrt(2), that is the ratio of the diagonal (y), of a square to its side (x), where both exactly exist in this form as constructible numbers equations
>
> (y^2 = 2x^2)
>
> But note very carefully that the decimal representation of sqrt(2) isn't the same as sqrt(2), but only for comparison and approximations which comes as perpetual approximations from the following solvable Diapghontine Equations with an uncountable number of integer solutions
>
> (n^2 = 2m^2 - 1),
>
> and the decimal or rational approximation is simply (n/m), and since the largest solutions don't exist, so the "ENDLESS" decimal representation isn't a number itself and generally VALID for any constructible number decimal expansion wither if it is with repeated patterns for rationals or with no known patterns for truly constructible irrationals
>
> 2) Having well-understood the above, then you have only the numerical expression for cube root two to check wither it is truly a number
>
> Then forger for few minutes only about using the decimal notation in order to get it by the fastest way every human must be able to (with no excuse at all, except by ignorance, stubbornness and open global denial of the proven facts) FOR SURE
>
> 2^{1/3} IS approximated as (1.2599210498)
>
> So, simply you can express it without decimal notation like this
>
> (12599210498/10^10)
>
> And if they get more digits of approximations like this for example
>
>
> (1.259921049894) = (1259921049894/10^12)
>
> And in general, the cube root two is approximated in the rational following form
> A(n) / 10^n, where A(n) is integer with (n + 1) digits, Right?!
>
> And what would happens to that rational number when your natural number index (n) tends to be no number like your infinity in your mathematics
>
> 1) It is an impossible task by any assumed technology, Right?!
>
> 2) It is not permissible in the holy principles of mathematics since then you would have a ratio of two non-existing integers, which is also no number Right?!
>
> 3) So, you are left alone in your perpetual rational approximation form Right?!
>
> 4) Then where is that irrational (algebraic) number (staying only in mind) you are hopelessly searching for?! Wonders!
>
>
> Oops it doesn't exist For SURE
>
> And if they con your head by decimal notation again and again like this
>
> (1.259921049894...)
>
> Tell them this is the same as this
>
> (1259921049894.../1000000000000...) = No number/No number = NO NUMBER, FOR (100%) SURE
>
> Free your minds and Go fast to teach your innocent teachers in mathematics FOR SURE
>
> Congratulations and Regards for clever students
>
> Bassam Karzeddin