On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 12:14:26 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> Under so many fake names and many allies masks
>
> The issue is the imaginary numbers fabrication in mathematics foundation
>
> From recent and earlier discussions here on sci.math launched by me and JG and maybe others as well, it was shown with proofs that were a pile of total rubbish and were too harmful and so insulting to all **innocent** human minds as well
>
> Where all those defenders had failed miserably to meet the "KING" challenge in this regard,
>
> However, this intellectual challenge had been shown not related to any previous or similar cases those jugglers of mathematics tried simply and falsely to relate it since in those well-known cases they had convenced themselves that they were able somehow to escape with it, but never with this following one any more, and FOR SURE
>
> OK, For all those defenders of the legality of imaginary numbers in modern mathematics is a VERY important notice to consider
>
> You don't have to invent many new methods in order to defend it, but you have to go to its origin birth and review carefully and see again how "EXACTLY" it was **mercilessly** planted into your *EMPTY* heads so coolly, where then you may be able to defend it **HOPEFULLY**
>
> And you have to check if it was any real discovery for any real standing problem those days, or was it simply a definition? and if it was so, wasn't that definition just like a decision?
> and if so, wasn't that decision a clever or a very foolish decision? Wonder!
>
> where you have to check the motives of those old decision makers also, for sure
>
> Did they make it or claim it for a solution to polynomial equations like the general quadratics or cubic ones? Wonder!
>
> And one more thing you have to ask, where you have to use the ***same logic*** without any restriction or any further juggling and see the contradiction clearly here with both **happy** and **sad** ends but without being any biased or discriminators as always as usual
>
> Otherwise, let them use the same logic to illustrate this following subtle discrepancy in order to justify the fixed ***perpetual*** contradictions in their false reasoning for surer
>
> By the way, here is another and so easy example (out of so many others) to understand strictly the total ***fictionality*** of fabricating such numbers in the core foundation of mathematics
>
> Consider this ***two***so elementary mathematics
>
> (-1)^5 = (-1)*(-1)*(-1)*(-1)*(-1) = (-1) ----(1)
>
> Now take the square root of both sides of Eqn. (1), you get:
>
> (Sqrt(-1))*(Sqrt(-1))*(Sqrt(-1))*(Sqrt(-1))*(Sqrt(-1)) = (Sqrt(-1)), Hence,
>
> i^5 = i, divide by (i), you get (i^4 = 1)
>
> Oops, this is absolutely so correct and confirms the (definition or the decision) of imaginary unit (i = Sqrt(-1)), so very *happy* end here, and no objection from any professional experts you would certainly encounter
>
> But wait a while, and consider a very similar argument here:
>
> (-1)^3 = (-1)*(-1)*(-1) = (-1) ------(2)
>
> Now take the square root of both sides of Eqn. (2), you get:
>
> (Sqrt(-1))*(Sqrt(-1))*(Sqrt(-1)) = Sqrt(-1), this implies
>
> (i^3 = i), divide by (i), Implies (i^2 = 1)
>
> Oops, this contrary and **contradicting** to the basic definition of (i^2 = - 1)
>
> And kindly, don't manufacture some an instructional manual on how to use the imaginary numbers such that you mustn't arrive at any contradictions that strictly invalidates them since this is not any *true* mathematics to practice, but definitely very ***bad*** mathematics to make so much silly *business* out of nothing, sure
>
> So, can you do it? defenders (KON, Zelos, Bill, Me, Dan C-T, J4n bur, Python, Sergio, Shio, ..., etc), Wonder!
>
> And for all the other agents of Wikipedia and Journals and Universities have the full right to shift my challenge to all their alleged **masters** sleeping peacefully over there
>
> In fact, they must do *take* my challengeS too seriously to their highest levels FOR SURER
>
> Otherwise, I will do it for surest
>
> BKK