On Sunday, 13 August 2023 at 10:56:59 UTC-4, jean pierre messager (aka JPM, YBM and Python) wrote:
> Crank John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Saturday, 12 August 2023 at 10:34:54 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> >> On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 2:43:36 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >>
> >>> y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation
> >> It's clear that you are suffering from a psyhosis (or some sort of mental breakdown), man.
> >
> > You are definitely suffering from psychosis because no one will deny that y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation.
> Definitely John ! especially if b = 0 !

b cannot be 0, you idiotic cretin. There is no such thing as k/0 because 0 is not a number.

y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation which is algebraically correct and something that is learned in primary school.

Crank John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Sunday, 13 August 2023 at 10:56:59 UTC-4, jean pierre messager (aka JPM, YBM and Python) wrote:
>> Crank John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 12 August 2023 at 10:34:54 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 2:43:36 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation
>>>> It's clear that you are suffering from a psyhosis (or some sort of mental breakdown), man.
>>>
>>> You are definitely suffering from psychosis because no one will deny that y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation.
>> Definitely John ! especially if b = 0 !
>
> b cannot be 0,

Oh really? So the equation ax = c does not exist, and does not describe
a vertical line (if a =/= 0) in the (x,y) plane?

You are degrading John, this is sad.

måndag 14 augusti 2023 kl. 14:20:08 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Sunday, 13 August 2023 at 10:56:59 UTC-4, jean pierre messager (aka JPM, YBM and Python) wrote:
> > Crank John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 12 August 2023 at 10:34:54 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > >> On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 2:43:36 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation
> > >> It's clear that you are suffering from a psyhosis (or some sort of mental breakdown), man.
> > >
> > > You are definitely suffering from psychosis because no one will deny that y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation.
> > Definitely John ! especially if b = 0 !
>
> b cannot be 0, you idiotic cretin. There is no such thing as k/0 because 0 is not a number.
>
> y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation which is algebraically correct and something that is learned in primary school.
You're assuming b is not zero in the first one. In the second one, it can be zero and describes a vertical line (namely x=c/a, unless a is zero of course).

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 3:04:45 PM UTC+2, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 14 augusti 2023 kl. 14:20:08 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Sunday, 13 August 2023 at 10:56:59 UTC-4, jean pierre messager (aka JPM, YBM and Python) wrote:
> > > Crank John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, 12 August 2023 at 10:34:54 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > > >> On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 2:43:36 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation
> > > >>>
> > > >> It's clear that you are suffering from a psychosis (or some sort of mental breakdown), man.
> > > >
> > > > You are definitely suffering from psychosis because no one will deny that y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation.
> > > >
> > > Definitely John ! especially if b = 0 !
> > >
> > b cannot be 0, you idiotic cretin. There is no such thing as k/0 because 0 is not a number.
> >
> > y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation which is algebraically correct and something that is learned in primary school.
> >
> You're assuming b is not zero in the first one. In the second one, it can be zero and describes a vertical line (namely x=c/a, unless a is zero of course).

Seems that our local genius is too dumb to get a simple fact:

| [The equation] y = (c - ax)/b may specify ANY line _which is not a vertical line_. [ -> It CAN'T specify a vertical line. ]
| | On the other hand [the equation] ax + by = c may specify EACH AND EVERY line.

So they can hardly be (called) "the SAME". :-)

[ ... one might think. ]

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 3:46:26 PM UTC+2, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 3:04:45 PM UTC+2, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > måndag 14 augusti 2023 kl. 14:20:08 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Sunday, 13 August 2023 at 10:56:59 UTC-4, jean pierre messager (aka JPM, YBM and Python) wrote:
> > > > Crank John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, 12 August 2023 at 10:34:54 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > > > >> On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 2:43:36 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> It's clear that you are suffering from a psychosis (or some sort of mental breakdown), man.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are definitely suffering from psychosis because no one will deny that y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation.
> > > > >
> > > > Definitely John ! especially if b = 0 !
> > > >
> > > b cannot be 0, you idiotic cretin. There is no such thing as k/0 because 0 is not a number.
> > >
> > > y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation which is algebraically correct and something that is learned in primary school.
> > >
> > You're assuming b is not zero in the first one. In the second one, it can be zero and describes a vertical line (namely x=c/a, unless a is zero of course).
> >
> Seems that our local genius is too dumb to get a simple fact:
>
> | [The equation] y = (c - ax)/b may specify ANY line _which is not a vertical line_. [ -> It CAN'T specify a vertical line. ]
> |
> | On the other hand [the equation] ax + by = c may specify EACH AND EVERY line.
>
> So they can hardly be (called) "the SAME". :-)
>
> [ ... one might think. ]

Note that we have 3 different (incompatible) claims from our genius now, concerning the status of the equation "y = (c - ax)/b":

1. "[the] equation [of a line] by the way, is y = (c - ax)/b. Chuckle." [ He thought it's worthwhile to mention that, after seeing the usual equation ax + by = c in my post. ]

2. "I said y = (c - ax)/b specifies a HORIZONTAL, you dipshit!" [ After I told him that the equation y = (c - ax)/b [...] does not specify a vertical line. ]

3. Finally: "y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation."

This is a rather fascination development.

Hegel would be proud, I guess: Thesis, antithesis, synthesis!

On Monday, 14 August 2023 at 09:46:26 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 3:04:45 PM UTC+2, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > måndag 14 augusti 2023 kl. 14:20:08 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Sunday, 13 August 2023 at 10:56:59 UTC-4, jean pierre messager (aka JPM, YBM and Python) wrote:
> > > > Crank John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, 12 August 2023 at 10:34:54 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > > > >> On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 2:43:36 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> It's clear that you are suffering from a psychosis (or some sort of mental breakdown), man.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are definitely suffering from psychosis because no one will deny that y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation.
> > > > >
> > > > Definitely John ! especially if b = 0 !
> > > >
> > > b cannot be 0, you idiotic cretin. There is no such thing as k/0 because 0 is not a number.
> > >
> > > y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation which is algebraically correct and something that is learned in primary school.
> > >
> > You're assuming b is not zero in the first one. In the second one, it can be zero and describes a vertical line (namely x=c/a, unless a is zero of course).
> Seems that our local genius is too dumb to get a simple fact:
>
> | [The equation] y = (c - ax)/b may specify ANY line _which is not a vertical line_. [ -> It CAN'T specify a vertical line. ]
> |
> | On the other hand [the equation] ax + by = c may specify EACH AND EVERY line.
>
> So they can hardly be (called) "the SAME". :-)
>
> [ ... one might think. ]

They are the same equation, you incorrigibly stupid Kraut!

On Monday, 14 August 2023 at 08:26:26 UTC-4, jean pierre messager (aka JPM, YBM and Python) wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, 12 August 2023 at 10:34:54 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 2:43:36 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation
> >>>> It's clear that you are suffering from a psyhosis (or some sort of mental breakdown), man.
> >>>
> >>> You are definitely suffering from psychosis because no one will deny that y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation.
> >> Definitely John ! especially if b = 0 !
> >
> > b cannot be 0,
> Oh really? So the equation ax = c does not exist, and does not describe
> a vertical line (if a =/= 0) in the (x,y) plane?

ax=c and x = c/a represents the trajectory of a vertical line.

What are you babbling about, stupid? No one said anything like that.

<drivel>

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 12:46:48 AM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Monday, 14 August 2023 at 09:46:26 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 3:04:45 PM UTC+2, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > måndag 14 augusti 2023 kl. 14:20:08 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Sunday, 13 August 2023 at 10:56:59 UTC-4, jean pierre messager (aka JPM, YBM and Python) wrote:
> > > > > Crank John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, 12 August 2023 at 10:34:54 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > > > > >> On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 2:43:36 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> It's clear that you are suffering from a psychosis (or some sort of mental breakdown), man.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are definitely suffering from psychosis because no one will deny that y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Definitely John ! especially if b = 0 !
> > > > >
> > > > b cannot be 0, you idiotic cretin. There is no such thing as k/0 because 0 is not a number.
> > > >
> > > > y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation which is algebraically correct and something that is learned in primary school.
> > > >
> > > You're assuming b is not zero in the first one. In the second one, it can be zero and describes a vertical line (namely x=c/a, unless a is zero of course).
> > Seems that our local genius is too dumb to get a simple fact:
> >
> > | [The equation] y = (c - ax)/b may specify ANY line _which is not a vertical line_. [ -> It CAN'T specify a vertical line. ]
> > |
> > | On the other hand [the equation] ax + by = c may specify EACH AND EVERY line.
> >
> > So they can hardly be (called) "the SAME". :-)
> >
> > [ ... one might think. ]
> >
> They are the same equation [...].

I always thought that no human being can be more stupid than WM. I stand corrected.

On 8/14/2023 7:35 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 12:46:48 AM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
>> On Monday, 14 August 2023 at 09:46:26 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
>>> Seems that our local genius is too dumb to get a simple fact:
>>>
>>> | [The equation] y = (c - ax)/b may specify ANY line _which is not a vertical line_. [ -> It CAN'T specify a vertical line. ]
>>> |
>>> | On the other hand [the equation] ax + by = c may specify EACH AND EVERY line.
>>>
>>> So they can hardly be (called) "the SAME". :-)
>>>
>>> [ ... one might think. ]
>>>
>> They are the same equation [...].
>
> I always thought that no human being can be more stupid than WM. I stand corrected.

That's the problem with geniuses. Some geniuses are SO STOOPID!!

On Saturday, 22 July 2023 at 08:23:18 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> https://www.academia.edu/104816568/How_to_use_a_Chat_Bot_most_effectively_the_number_line

What the mainstream church of academia should learn from the above dialogue is that there is no such thing as a "real number line" and more importantly that lines DO NOT consist of points.

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 6:49:49 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:

"y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation." (Mr. Rectum)

No, they aren't.

Hint: The strings "y = (c - ax)/b" and "ax + by = c" differ. Hence the two equations "y = (c - ax)/b" and "ax + by = c" are (formally) not "the same".

Moreover "y = (c - ax)/b" is not just a "trivial variant" of "ax + by = c" like, say, the expression "2ax + 2by = 2c".

Actually, these two equations are not even "equivalent", since the equation "ax + by = c" HAS solutions for b = 0, while "y = (c - ax)/b" doesn't have solutions for b = 0 (since it is not even a "valid" expression with b = 0).

Did you get that, you moron?

"ax + by = c" is a general equation for (describing) a line, while "y = (c - ax)/b" only works for NONVERTICAL lines.

Hence, no, "y = (c - ax)/b" and "ax + by = c" are NOT "the SAME equation."

Hope this helps.

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 7:41:02 PM UTC+2, Fritz Feldhase wrote:

> "ax + by = c" is a general equation for (describing) a line, while "y = (c - ax)/b" only works for NONVERTICAL lines.

That's why "ax + by = c" is used in the following paragraph (instead of "y = (c - ax)/b"):

"Every line L (including vertical lines) is the set of all points whose coordinates (x, y) satisfy a linear equation; that is,

L = {(x, y) : ax + by = c},

where a, b and c are fixed real numbers (called coefficients) such that a and b are not both zero." (Wikipedia)

On Tuesday, 15 August 2023 at 13:41:02 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 6:49:49 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> "y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation." (Mr. Rectum)
>
> No, they aren't.

Yes, they are, you incorrigible moron.

<drivel>

On 8/12/2023 12:24 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson explained on 8/12/2023 :
>> On 8/12/2023 5:52 AM, Mild Shock wrote:
>>>
>>> What are you smoking all day? Must be a hell of a drug.
>>> I have never heard more crazy gibberish.
>>>
>>> Hint: The line is infinite at both ends, nothing to do
>>> with DISTANCE between two points. You are confusing
>> [...]
>>
>> Right. Give me a point and a normalized direction and I can construct
>> a line that extends for infinity from that point in the direction.
>
> And the other opposite direction, else it is a ray. Also, the said line
> must be assumed to be straight.
>
> Some say all "lines" are straight lines, other say  straight line is a
> special case of line (lines can be curved) like a square is a special
> case of rectangle and circle a special case of ellipse.
>
> Like "series" refers to sums of certain infinite sequences, yet some say
> "infinite series" which is redundant and "straight line" is redundant if
> your "lines" are defined as being straight as most folks believe.
>
>> Give me a normalized direction only and I can create an infinite line
>> from any origin point, in n-ary.
>
> Point slope form.
>
> https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/line-equation-point-slope.html

Try to build of a curve from a shitload of straight lines? An example
using some experimental code of mine:

https://youtu.be/UpNDkOKdcjk

On 8/12/2023 12:24 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson explained on 8/12/2023 :
>> On 8/12/2023 5:52 AM, Mild Shock wrote:
>>>
>>> What are you smoking all day? Must be a hell of a drug.
>>> I have never heard more crazy gibberish.
>>>
>>> Hint: The line is infinite at both ends, nothing to do
>>> with DISTANCE between two points. You are confusing
>> [...]
>>
>> Right. Give me a point and a normalized direction and I can construct
>> a line that extends for infinity from that point in the direction.
>
> And the other opposite direction, else it is a ray. Also, the said line
> must be assumed to be straight.
>
> Some say all "lines" are straight lines, other say  straight line is a
> special case of line (lines can be curved) like a square is a special
> case of rectangle and circle a special case of ellipse.
>
> Like "series" refers to sums of certain infinite sequences, yet some say
> "infinite series" which is redundant and "straight line" is redundant if
> your "lines" are defined as being straight as most folks believe.
>
>> Give me a normalized direction only and I can create an infinite line
>> from any origin point, in n-ary.
>
> Point slope form.
>
> https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/line-equation-point-slope.html

https://youtu.be/DZwJAGmOfpw

ACTIVE KETO GUMMIES
THE MOST POWERFUL KETO Gummies
FULL SPECTRUM KETO BHB SALTS

MELT FAT FAST!
WITHOUT DIET OR EXERCISE

Powerfull New Formula Triggers Fat-Burning Ketosis!
- Burn Fat for Energy not Carbs
- Release Fat Stores
- Increase Energy Naturally
- Love the Way You Feel
RISK FREE ORDER
60-DAY SATISFACTION GUARANTEE

RUSH MY ORDER

CLICK HERE
https://fnnl-fwd.com/?a=5322&oc=17988&c=48963&m=3&s1=

tisdag 15 augusti 2023 kl. 00:49:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 14 August 2023 at 08:26:26 UTC-4, jean pierre messager (aka JPM, YBM and Python) wrote:
> > >>> On Saturday, 12 August 2023 at 10:34:54 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > >>>> On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 2:43:36 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation
> > >>>> It's clear that you are suffering from a psyhosis (or some sort of mental breakdown), man.
> > >>>
> > >>> You are definitely suffering from psychosis because no one will deny that y = (c - ax)/b and ax + by = c are the SAME equation.
> > >> Definitely John ! especially if b = 0 !
> > >
> > > b cannot be 0,
> > Oh really? So the equation ax = c does not exist, and does not describe
> > a vertical line (if a =/= 0) in the (x,y) plane?
> ax=c and x = c/a represents the trajectory of a vertical line.
>
> What are you babbling about, stupid? No one said anything like that.
>
> <drivel>
Assuming a is not zero.