I have been asked why I do not quote others in most of my articles. The reasons are numerous but here are just a few:

1. They are usually wrong in their opinions.
2. They have nothing interesting to say.
3. I am a pioneer in my research meaning there isn't material out there that has any relevance to my great work.
4. In order to quote someone else, that someone must have made a pithy statement or discovered some great knowledge - in both cases, neither apply.
5. I have no intellectual equals in the mainstream mathematics community - the majority are incorrigible morons who don't know shit about mathematics and what they do is NOT mathematics.

It's not always true that I don't quote others. In my recent book

https://www.academia.edu/105399167/The_Ultimate_Book_of_Numbers

I quote Tolstoy:

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." -Tolstoy

Those who are desiring to be quoted need to produce relevant quotes worthy of being quoted.

On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 08:45:16 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> I have been asked why I do not quote others in most of my articles. The reasons are numerous but here are just a few:
>
> 1. They are usually wrong in their opinions.
> 2. They have nothing interesting to say.
> 3. I am a pioneer in my research meaning there isn't material out there that has any relevance to my great work.
> 4. In order to quote someone else, that someone must have made a pithy statement or discovered some great knowledge - in both cases, neither apply.
> 5. I have no intellectual equals in the mainstream mathematics community - the majority are incorrigible morons who don't know shit about mathematics and what they do is NOT mathematics.
>
> It's not always true that I don't quote others. In my recent book
>
> https://www.academia.edu/105399167/The_Ultimate_Book_of_Numbers
>
> I quote Tolstoy:
>
> "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." -Tolstoy
>
> Those who are desiring to be quoted need to produce relevant quotes worthy of being quoted.

Some of those false conclusions:

"The calculus was made rigorous..."
"The foundations of mathematics are set theory and ZFC..."
"0.333... = 1/3"
"The limit is at the heart of calculus..." - In actual fact, the limit is not required at all in calculus as I have proved with my HGT:

https://www.academia.edu/105028579/Most_advanced_AI_Claude_admits_my_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020_is_profound_discovery

"Real numbers are defined as infinite decimal expansions..."
etc.

onsdag 6 september 2023 kl. 14:49:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 08:45:16 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > I have been asked why I do not quote others in most of my articles. The reasons are numerous but here are just a few:
> >
> > 1. They are usually wrong in their opinions.
> > 2. They have nothing interesting to say.
> > 3. I am a pioneer in my research meaning there isn't material out there that has any relevance to my great work.
> > 4. In order to quote someone else, that someone must have made a pithy statement or discovered some great knowledge - in both cases, neither apply..
> > 5. I have no intellectual equals in the mainstream mathematics community - the majority are incorrigible morons who don't know shit about mathematics and what they do is NOT mathematics.
> >
> > It's not always true that I don't quote others. In my recent book
> >
> > https://www.academia.edu/105399167/The_Ultimate_Book_of_Numbers
> >
> > I quote Tolstoy:
> >
> > "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." -Tolstoy
> >
> > Those who are desiring to be quoted need to produce relevant quotes worthy of being quoted.
> Some of those false conclusions:
>
> "The calculus was made rigorous..."
> "The foundations of mathematics are set theory and ZFC..."
> "0.333... = 1/3"
> "The limit is at the heart of calculus..." - In actual fact, the limit is not required at all in calculus as I have proved with my HGT:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/105028579/Most_advanced_AI_Claude_admits_my_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020_is_profound_discovery
>
> "Real numbers are defined as infinite decimal expansions..."
> etc.
Why would the foundations of math be set theory? Are you aware of the existence of other foundations?

On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 15:59:42 UTC-4, markus..

erous but here are just a few:
> > >
> > > 1. They are usually wrong in their opinions.
> > > 2. They have nothing interesting to say.
> > > 3. I am a pioneer in my research meaning there isn't material out there that has any relevance to my great work.
> > > 4. In order to quote someone else, that someone must have made a pithy statement or discovered some great knowledge - in both cases, neither apply.
> > > 5. I have no intellectual equals in the mainstream mathematics community - the majority are incorrigible morons who don't know shit about mathematics and what they do is NOT mathematics.
> > >
> > > It's not always true that I don't quote others. In my recent book
> > >
> > > https://www.academia.edu/105399167/The_Ultimate_Book_of_Numbers
> > >
> > > I quote Tolstoy:
> > >
> > > "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." -Tolstoy
> > >
> > > Those who are desiring to be quoted need to produce relevant quotes worthy of being quoted.
> > Some of those false conclusions:
> >
> > "The calculus was made rigorous..."
> > "The foundations of mathematics are set theory and ZFC..."
> > "0.333... = 1/3"
> > "The limit is at the heart of calculus..." - In actual fact, the limit is not required at all in calculus as I have proved with my HGT:
> >
> > https://www.academia.edu/105028579/Most_advanced_AI_Claude_admits_my_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020_is_profound_discovery
> >
> > "Real numbers are defined as infinite decimal expansions..."
> > etc.
> Why would the foundations of math be set theory? Are you aware of the existence of other foundations?

Yes, stupid! I am because I am educated and know the foundation of mathematics is Euclid's Elements - this and nothing else.

onsdag 6 september 2023 kl. 22:40:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 15:59:42 UTC-4, markus..
> erous but here are just a few:
> > > >
> > > > 1. They are usually wrong in their opinions.
> > > > 2. They have nothing interesting to say.
> > > > 3. I am a pioneer in my research meaning there isn't material out there that has any relevance to my great work.
> > > > 4. In order to quote someone else, that someone must have made a pithy statement or discovered some great knowledge - in both cases, neither apply.
> > > > 5. I have no intellectual equals in the mainstream mathematics community - the majority are incorrigible morons who don't know shit about mathematics and what they do is NOT mathematics.
> > > >
> > > > It's not always true that I don't quote others. In my recent book
> > > >
> > > > https://www.academia.edu/105399167/The_Ultimate_Book_of_Numbers
> > > >
> > > > I quote Tolstoy:
> > > >
> > > > "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." -Tolstoy
> > > >
> > > > Those who are desiring to be quoted need to produce relevant quotes worthy of being quoted.
> > > Some of those false conclusions:
> > >
> > > "The calculus was made rigorous..."
> > > "The foundations of mathematics are set theory and ZFC..."
> > > "0.333... = 1/3"
> > > "The limit is at the heart of calculus..." - In actual fact, the limit is not required at all in calculus as I have proved with my HGT:
> > >
> > > https://www.academia.edu/105028579/Most_advanced_AI_Claude_admits_my_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020_is_profound_discovery
> > >
> > > "Real numbers are defined as infinite decimal expansions..."
> > > etc.
> > Why would the foundations of math be set theory? Are you aware of the existence of other foundations?
> Yes, stupid! I am because I am educated and know the foundation of mathematics is Euclid's Elements - this and nothing else.

No, why would a 2000 years old flawed understanding of mathematics be the only foundation?

On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 18:50:09 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> onsdag 6 september 2023 kl. 22:40:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 15:59:42 UTC-4, markus..
> > erous but here are just a few:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. They are usually wrong in their opinions.
> > > > > 2. They have nothing interesting to say.
> > > > > 3. I am a pioneer in my research meaning there isn't material out there that has any relevance to my great work.
> > > > > 4. In order to quote someone else, that someone must have made a pithy statement or discovered some great knowledge - in both cases, neither apply.
> > > > > 5. I have no intellectual equals in the mainstream mathematics community - the majority are incorrigible morons who don't know shit about mathematics and what they do is NOT mathematics.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's not always true that I don't quote others. In my recent book
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.academia.edu/105399167/The_Ultimate_Book_of_Numbers
> > > > >
> > > > > I quote Tolstoy:
> > > > >
> > > > > "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." -Tolstoy
> > > > >
> > > > > Those who are desiring to be quoted need to produce relevant quotes worthy of being quoted.
> > > > Some of those false conclusions:
> > > >
> > > > "The calculus was made rigorous..."
> > > > "The foundations of mathematics are set theory and ZFC..."
> > > > "0.333... = 1/3"
> > > > "The limit is at the heart of calculus..." - In actual fact, the limit is not required at all in calculus as I have proved with my HGT:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.academia.edu/105028579/Most_advanced_AI_Claude_admits_my_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020_is_profound_discovery
> > > >
> > > > "Real numbers are defined as infinite decimal expansions..."
> > > > etc.
> > > Why would the foundations of math be set theory? Are you aware of the existence of other foundations?
> > Yes, stupid! I am because I am educated and know the foundation of mathematics is Euclid's Elements - this and nothing else.
> No, why would a 2000 years old flawed understanding of mathematics be the only foundation?

The biggest flaw (second only to Archimedes Plutonium) on this news group is a 💩 who goes by the name Markus Klyver.

On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 18:50:09 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> onsdag 6 september 2023 kl. 22:40:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 15:59:42 UTC-4, markus..
> > erous but here are just a few:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. They are usually wrong in their opinions.
> > > > > 2. They have nothing interesting to say.
> > > > > 3. I am a pioneer in my research meaning there isn't material out there that has any relevance to my great work.
> > > > > 4. In order to quote someone else, that someone must have made a pithy statement or discovered some great knowledge - in both cases, neither apply.
> > > > > 5. I have no intellectual equals in the mainstream mathematics community - the majority are incorrigible morons who don't know shit about mathematics and what they do is NOT mathematics.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's not always true that I don't quote others. In my recent book
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.academia.edu/105399167/The_Ultimate_Book_of_Numbers
> > > > >
> > > > > I quote Tolstoy:
> > > > >
> > > > > "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." -Tolstoy
> > > > >
> > > > > Those who are desiring to be quoted need to produce relevant quotes worthy of being quoted.
> > > > Some of those false conclusions:
> > > >
> > > > "The calculus was made rigorous..."
> > > > "The foundations of mathematics are set theory and ZFC..."
> > > > "0.333... = 1/3"
> > > > "The limit is at the heart of calculus..." - In actual fact, the limit is not required at all in calculus as I have proved with my HGT:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.academia.edu/105028579/Most_advanced_AI_Claude_admits_my_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020_is_profound_discovery
> > > >
> > > > "Real numbers are defined as infinite decimal expansions..."
> > > > etc.
> > > Why would the foundations of math be set theory? Are you aware of the existence of other foundations?
> > Yes, stupid! I am because I am educated and know the foundation of mathematics is Euclid's Elements - this and nothing else.
> No, why would a 2000 years old flawed understanding of mathematics be the only foundation?

There is no such thing as "2000 years old mathematics". Mathematics that is well formed, is eternal, but how could a shithead like you know...

Mainstream mathematics is flawed and leaves much to be desired.

torsdag 7 september 2023 kl. 13:49:57 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 18:50:09 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > onsdag 6 september 2023 kl. 22:40:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 15:59:42 UTC-4, markus..
> > > erous but here are just a few:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. They are usually wrong in their opinions.
> > > > > > 2. They have nothing interesting to say.
> > > > > > 3. I am a pioneer in my research meaning there isn't material out there that has any relevance to my great work.
> > > > > > 4. In order to quote someone else, that someone must have made a pithy statement or discovered some great knowledge - in both cases, neither apply.
> > > > > > 5. I have no intellectual equals in the mainstream mathematics community - the majority are incorrigible morons who don't know shit about mathematics and what they do is NOT mathematics.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's not always true that I don't quote others. In my recent book
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/105399167/The_Ultimate_Book_of_Numbers
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I quote Tolstoy:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." -Tolstoy
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Those who are desiring to be quoted need to produce relevant quotes worthy of being quoted.
> > > > > Some of those false conclusions:
> > > > >
> > > > > "The calculus was made rigorous..."
> > > > > "The foundations of mathematics are set theory and ZFC..."
> > > > > "0.333... = 1/3"
> > > > > "The limit is at the heart of calculus..." - In actual fact, the limit is not required at all in calculus as I have proved with my HGT:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.academia.edu/105028579/Most_advanced_AI_Claude_admits_my_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020_is_profound_discovery
> > > > >
> > > > > "Real numbers are defined as infinite decimal expansions..."
> > > > > etc.
> > > > Why would the foundations of math be set theory? Are you aware of the existence of other foundations?
> > > Yes, stupid! I am because I am educated and know the foundation of mathematics is Euclid's Elements - this and nothing else.
> > No, why would a 2000 years old flawed understanding of mathematics be the only foundation?
> There is no such thing as "2000 years old mathematics". Mathematics that is well formed, is eternal, but how could a shithead like you know...
>
> Mainstream mathematics is flawed and leaves much to be desired.
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is flawed.

On Thursday, 7 September 2023 at 12:32:55 UTC-4, markus..
> > > > erous but here are just a few:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. They are usually wrong in their opinions.
> > > > > > > 2. They have nothing interesting to say.
> > > > > > > 3. I am a pioneer in my research meaning there isn't material out there that has any relevance to my great work.
> > > > > > > 4. In order to quote someone else, that someone must have made a pithy statement or discovered some great knowledge - in both cases, neither apply.
> > > > > > > 5. I have no intellectual equals in the mainstream mathematics community - the majority are incorrigible morons who don't know shit about mathematics and what they do is NOT mathematics.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's not always true that I don't quote others. In my recent book
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/105399167/The_Ultimate_Book_of_Numbers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I quote Tolstoy:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." -Tolstoy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Those who are desiring to be quoted need to produce relevant quotes worthy of being quoted.
> > > > > > Some of those false conclusions:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The calculus was made rigorous..."
> > > > > > "The foundations of mathematics are set theory and ZFC..."
> > > > > > "0.333... = 1/3"
> > > > > > "The limit is at the heart of calculus..." - In actual fact, the limit is not required at all in calculus as I have proved with my HGT:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/105028579/Most_advanced_AI_Claude_admits_my_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020_is_profound_discovery
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Real numbers are defined as infinite decimal expansions..."
> > > > > > etc.
> > > > > Why would the foundations of math be set theory? Are you aware of the existence of other foundations?
> > > > Yes, stupid! I am because I am educated and know the foundation of mathematics is Euclid's Elements - this and nothing else.
> > > No, why would a 2000 years old flawed understanding of mathematics be the only foundation?
> > There is no such thing as "2000 years old mathematics". Mathematics that is well formed, is eternal, but how could a shithead like you know...
> >
> > Mainstream mathematics is flawed and leaves much to be desired.
> Just because you don't understand it means it's garbage?

Yes, indeed! Garbage cannot be understood.