On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 11:40:06 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > The problem is only in your mind BKK.
> >
> > Am Samstag, 29. Juli 2017 16:02:59 UTC+2 schrieb
> > bassam king karzeddin:
> > > On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 4:14:08 PM UTC+3,
> > burs...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Lets call an ambulance, BKK is about to jump out
> > > > of the window because of all this black magic in
> > math.
> > > >
> > > > Dont do this BKK, dont feel deceived by math,
> > only
> > > > because you have no clue about it. In one place
> > you
> > > >
> > > > freely use log(x/y) in your FLT like formula, and
> > > > then next you say irrational numbers don't exist,
> > > >
> > > > so again you are probably schizo, besides brain
> > farto
> > > > and bird brain, you are the math schizo here.
> > > >
> > > > Am Samstag, 29. Juli 2017 14:40:03 UTC+2 schrieb
> > bassam king karzeddin:
> > > > > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 11:51:32 PM
> > UTC+3, Markus Klyver wrote:
> > > > > > Den tisdag 18 juli 2017 kl. 18:26:08 UTC+2
> > skrev bassam king karzeddin:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 5:55:34 PM
> > UTC+3, Markus Klyver wrote:
> > > > > > > > Den tisdag 18 juli 2017 kl. 13:41:19
> > UTC+2 skrev bassam king karzeddin:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 6:13:26
> > PM UTC+3, Markus Klyver wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Den lördag 15 juli 2017 kl. 15:35:17
> > UTC+2 skrev bassam king karzeddin:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at
> > 10:31:20 PM UTC+3, Markus Klyver wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Den lördag 8 oktober 2016 kl.
> > 14:21:55 UTC+2 skrev bassam king karzeddin:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at
> > 7:36:18 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It happens many times where
> > you have to follow strict rules in order to arrive at
> > the desired and designed results that wouldn't
> > contradict the illegal creation of those called
> > imaginary or generally complex numbers!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where those type of rules
> > become as holy rules and unquestionable,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you must do step one
> > before step two, or you must recognize yourself what
> > is to choose the more suitable answer, ...etc, but
> > there may be cases where even strict rules wouldn't
> > save the situation and everything collapses
> > immediately!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So unlike normal and
> > sensible mathematics, may be because it was
> > originated basically from imagination, that wasn't
> > any significant discovery, How?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > .....?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bassam King Karzeddin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4th, OCT, 2016
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at
> > 7:36:18 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It happens many times where
> > you have to follow strict rules in order to arrive at
> > the desired and designed results that wouldn't
> > contradict the illegal creation of those called
> > imaginary or generally complex numbers!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where those type of rules
> > become as holy rules and unquestionable,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you must do step one
> > before step two, or you must recognize yourself what
> > is to choose the more suitable answer, ...etc, but
> > there may be cases where even strict rules wouldn't
> > save the situation and everything collapses
> > immediately!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So unlike normal and
> > sensible mathematics, may be because it was
> > originated basically from imagination, that wasn't
> > any significant discovery, How?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > .....?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bassam King Karzeddin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4th, OCT, 2016
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It is really surprising how
> > always the authorized official or professional
> > opinions would come first as an obvious answer for so
> > many questions in mathematics, where also people
> > would much appreciate them as they confine to their
> > own learning, even though they aren’t of anything
> > new, but a repletion of some materials that were long
> > time well established and so available everywhere
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you simply Google the words
> > (contradiction in complex numbers), then you would
> > certainly find so many issues in this regard, and if
> > you go after them carefully, you would be surprised
> > to find this not better than many other huge fallacy
> > in mathematics, consider at least this recent
> > Wikipedia reference below:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:
> > 0mK7ybi4DY4J:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematica
> > l_fallacy+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=sa
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Which most likely trying to
> > outline the public concern, even without referring to
> > the many actual public opinions or discussions, but
> > considering some official reference as the general
> > behaviors of wiki writers or researchers
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And if this is really a
> > fallacy, then there must be something that went
> > unquestionable or unnoticeable and had been quite
> > wrong from the early beginning, even though it
> > appears as useful concept in little matters that had
> > been so designed for
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > With strict rules on how to
> > properly use it, as you must do this step first, then
> > the second step should be arranged as this, or else,
> > you wouldn’t get it correctly, and there are other
> > cases where you have to choose the correct answer
> > yourself, as if you must need a catalogs on how to
> > use the imaginary or generally the complex numbers,
> > so unlike the natural or the normal beautiful
> > mathematics!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > After so much comparison and
> > investigations in this matter, I was convinced more
> > than ever, that was only another huge fallacy in
> > mathematics, despite its apparent usefulness that had
> > been designed for, which also could had been done
> > without all those extra magical tools that was never
> > of any great discovery but rather a convention or
> > better word was only an agreement, just to convey the
> > unnecessarily talents and extra baseless volume of
> > nonsense mathematics!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To show this fallacy to a
> > layperson, remember that one day there weren’t the
> > negative integers or zero concepts, but zero was
> > introduced as an integer to facilitate the
> > calculations mainly, even it is really meaningless to
> > be called as real object as any other positive
> > integer on the real line number, but zero was the
> > bridge to further create the set of negative integers
> > which are actually nothing but a mirror image of the
> > natural integers on the number line (by the
> > definition),
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Where also the set behavior of
> > negative integers under division or multiplication
> > operations had been defined wrongly for a purpose as
> > this:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Negative times negative is
> > equal to positive (unbelievable huge mistake), then
> > how? I would like to explain it to a layperson:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Just consider the simple
> > example of multiplication (3*5 = 15), on a number
> > line (say, positive X-axis), then mark the three
> > numbers on the positive X-axis, (3, 5, and 15), now,
> > consider Y-axis acting like a mirror (being the
> > artificial symmetry we do create deliberately for our
> > own narrow purpose only),
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, observe the mirror image
> > of the multiplication operation marked on the
> > positive X-axis, in the mirror, where naturally the
> > image would be seen as this (-3)*(-5) = (-15)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Since we do accept that (-3) is
> > the mirror image of 3, and similarly (-5) is the
> > mirror image of (-5),
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But oddly we deny the product
> > image of (-3)*(-5) = (-15) as the mirror image of the
> > actual product (3)*(5) = (15), where this was another
> > huge fallacy in mathematics for so many reasons!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Or more precisely (-1)*(-1) =
> > (-1), so Sqrt(-1) = -1, and not even the legendary
> > fake imaginary number (i)?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > How come people can be fooled
> > to this limit and for so many centuries!?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I think I do understand
> > why the ancient mathematicians as (Babel yon,
> > Egyptians, Arabs, Indians, Chinese Greek,
> > Muslims,…etc), all had missed that genius idea of
> > negative integer concept basically,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise they would certainly
> > discover most of the mathematics we know today within
> > few years as an immediate subsequent results, (if
> > they allowed themselves to establish so easily such
> > concepts)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But I think they were even
> > much wiser, even not to accept the negative integers,
> > because they knew from the definition of the line,
> > that is the shortest distance joining two points and
> > extend endlessly in both opposite directions, nothing
> > was being defined as negative in the elementary
> > definition of a line or generally a number line, but
> > only two opposite direction,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, the Y-axis is
> > only made to show an artificial symmetry (+, -) that
> > is never a natural symmetry, which would create later
> > the fake “fundamental theorem of algebra” and many
> > more, which is easily refutable if you go back in
> > time and question this type of fake symmetries, or
> > genius discoveries of this form,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the solution of (x + 1
> > = 0)?, so easy discovery, let there be negative
> > integers, but truly speaking, I can’t show you the
> > negative sheep
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the solution of (x^2 +
> > 1 = 0)?, much easier, let there be imaginary numbers,
> > but truly speaking, this isn’t interesting
> > imagination, but boring magic nations
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the Solution of (x^3 +
> > 2 = 0), So silly problem, let there be a cube root of
> > (2), but truly speaking at the paradise of fools, you
> > would infinitely find infinitely many more of this
> > type of numbers (without a single proof and unlike
> > the case of Sqrt(2) with rigorous proof)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I also do appreciate other
> > answers provided here which authors had no
> > responsibilities or any guilt, because this was being
> > so as global education adopted
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hopping also a tolerance for
> > my own point of view in this regard!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanking You Sincerely and
> > Best Regards
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bassam King Karzeddin
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 8TH, Oct, 2016
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > -1 * -1 is usually defined tot be
> > 1. If you want to, you can view the negative integers
> > as pairs of naturals. More precisely, a negative
> > integer is an equivalence class of pairs of naturals.
> > We say that two pairs (a, b) and (c, d) are
> > equivalent if and only if a + d = b + c. Let's say
> > we want to define multiplication between two integers
> > A and B. Let the pair (a,b) be contained in A and (c,
> > d) be contained in B. Then A*B is defined as
> > equivalence class which contains the pair (ac + bd,
> > ad + bc).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Now let A = B = -1 and consider
> > the pair (0,1). We get, (0,1) * (0, 1) = (1, 0). So
> > we have -1 * -1 = 1.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > the most sensible logic would be
> > up to similarity, if: (+)*(+) = (+), then
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > (-)*(-) = (-), otherwise there is
> > something so unobvious for sure
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > BKK
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Did you even bother to read my post?
> > I gave you the LITERAL DEFINITION and DERIVED -1 * -1
> > = 1 for you.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If we make deliberately something
> > truly unreal, then no point of performing the known
> > valid mathematical operations for reals on that truly
> > unreal, otherwise we do create unnecessarily new
> > unsolved puzzles
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Example, we say infinity is an unreal
> > number by definition, then what is the point of
> > (adding, multiplying, division, subtraction, or the
> > square root of infinity) a real number to infinity?
> > wonder!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > or what is the sum of a tree plus
> > seven? wonder
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > All that had been established about
> > truly unreal numbers are truly nonsense, and
> > therefore must create very silly puzzles for sure
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > BKK
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But the integers are not the real
> > numbers. You obviously have no idea or understanding
> > about what I just proved to you. I defined THE
> > INTEGERS from the naturals, defined multiplikation
> > between integers and showed -1 * -1 = 1.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tell me please where is that negative
> > space coordinations around your head (in reality)
> > that you get once applying the negative (XYZ)
> > coordinations adopted up to date in mathematics?
> > wonder!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And did you KNOW why did they make it like
> > that?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Or do you feel very cold once you move
> > into those three negative coordinates?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And can't you jump suddenly in time once
> > you go into those very complex coordinations? WONDER!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Total brain fault and obvious
> > hallucination for sure
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > BKK
> > > > > >
> > > > > Markus wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I don't understand your post at all. How is a
> > three dimensional vector space a problem for me?
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't say anything about vector space but
> > yes for negative coordinations
> > > > >
> > > > > Even though I had already written so much
> > about the (xyz-axis)
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the (say X-axis)?
> > > > > It is simply a straight line with no beginning
> > nor an end
> > > > >
> > > > > Then someone might ask, what is the original
> > definition of the straight line?
> > > > >
> > > > > It is the shortest distance between any two
> > distinct assumed fixed locations (in space) that also
> > extend endlessly beyond those defined two locations
> > > > >
> > > > > Then what is the location in space?
> > > > >
> > > > > It is a description of lengths (created by
> > unity) with respect to some chosen location by
> > definition as a reference frame
> > > > >
> > > > > Another Q: was the straight line originally
> > being with positive and negative lengths
> > > > >
> > > > > Answer: Never, it is only conventional
> > notations that were made by mathematicians from a
> > chosen location to create the negatives and call it
> > real
> > > > >
> > > > > Q: Did the negative sheep exist?
> > > > > A: Yes in mirror
> > > > >
> > > > > Q: Is the image of a sheep real?
> > > > >
> > > > > A: The sheep itself is real, but not its image
> > is fake sheep
> > > > >
> > > > > Q: Do the sheep know that her image is UNreal?
> > > > >
> > > > > A: Of course not at all, since the brain
> > masters mathematicians do think firmly that the
> > mirror image is really real, wonder!
> > > > > Q: Why do they believe so then?
> > > > > A: Because there was no other easy way to make
> > or manufacture or discover great theorems, and
> > mathematics was indeed too difficult for them
> > > > > Q: But how did they invented this silly game?
> > > > > A: They simply made and assumed wrongly a
> > natural symmetry from a location, where then they
> > assumed a mirror perpendicular to a straight line
> > where every location on the right side of a straight
> > line corresponding to its mirror image location on
> > the left side (thus deleting the rear left side of a
> > real straight line location and replacing it by
> > mirror image of locations from the right side
> > > > >
> > > > > Q: Did they make use of that mirror image too?
> > > > > A: Of course for sure, their abilities were so
> > peculiar in this regard, they could further milk that
> > very poor mirror image sheep like a cow, and
> > convinced her that she possesses an imaginary and so
> > wonderful sheep too but with so many restrictions
> > that need a user catalogue
> > > > >
> > > > > Q: Are they going to make something more
> > interesting from that last wonderful sheep they had
> > already made in the near future?
> > > > >
> > > > > A: Most likely they are planning to convince
> > that imaginary sheep that she is actually a hen since
> > a henS can bleaches MUCH more gold too
> > > > >
> > > > > Q: But where are the other so many authorities
> > from all that harmful nonsense then?
> > > > >
> > > > > A: They are actually very corrupted and so
> > afraid of them thinking that they are very clever and
> > represent symbol of justice with their equal signs
> > they always pretend to use and also the seriousness
> > and the modesty they show, but they are also very
> > lucky to keep away from so many things that they
> > think wrongly that it is impossible to digest
> > > > >
> > > > > Q: For how long had they been practising those
> > black magical games?
> > > > >
> > > > > A: Almost since thousands of years by now, or
> > since (Pi), or since they killed that Pythagorean who
> > truly discovered the true irrational numbers that are
> > only constructible numbers obeying the existing
> > principle of physical reality
> > > > >
> > > > > Q: What could be the end of this old and very
> > dirty game that spoils almost the whole life?
> > > > >
> > > > > A: Mainly the new generations that had not
> > been affected so badly by those silly tricks yet
> > > > >
> > > > > Q: And if this doesn't work immediately?
> > > > > A: Then hopes are soon held on those new borns
> > called the artificial Intelligence made generally by
> > normal practical mathematicians and usually called
> > scientists and Engineers (with generally much higher
> > scores since childhood)
> > > > >
> > > > > So, let us all pray and hope again that full
> > justice would rain again above the whole planet and
> > free the so innocent and deceived mathematicians and
> > the science from all the many inherited fictions for
> > a better role in this life, for sure
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > Bassam King Karzeddin
> > > > > 07/29/2017
> > >
> > > As if you could really solve any of my many
> > puzzles that you were especially entangled with them
> > >
> > > I swear that you (in particular) know the full
> > truth by now since I had successfully installed them
> > very well in your very stubborn and thick skull
> > >
> > > But what can you hope from a real cheater who
> > keeps playing the innocent protector role of fallen
> > mathematics for a selfish purpose? wonder!
> > >
> > > And naturally, I have to encounter many of your
> > like for sure
> > >
> > > But, never be happy because I would never throw
> > myself from a window since much more puzzles would be
> > thrown above your head on the way, and you would
> > never be able to finalize them the well-exposed way
> > you do usually
> > >
> > > And you would stay as helpless as usual, but
> > adding little fun and more nonsense with so much
> > cheating for sure
> > >
> > > BKK
> >
>
> The complex numbers concept had fallen immediately once had been invented (not discovered), for sure
>
> BKK

| Where do the Complex numbers fail completely?

Nowhere.