On Saturday, July 20, 2019 at 4:01:47 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> On Saturday, July 20, 2019 at 2:18:07 PM UTC+3, Simply Curious wrote:
> > "Galois, Raffani and Able theories weren't any true theories"
> >
> > Please pick up a book on the topic.
> >
> > "[...]since this proven previously in my posts and I can't teach everybody separately about it online"
> >
> > Then just send the link.
> >
> > "[...]and most likely there was no Galois person at all in the well-forged history of mathematics but was an obvious fabrication by some jugglers of mathematics to make business from a talented boy who was discovered *SUDDENLY* years after his sad death as a genius mathematician where this is impossible to believe due to the so clear (dishonesty, in nobility, immorality and disabilities) of the traditional professional mathematicians even in today's world of open recorded book"
> >
> > HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> >
> > OH MY GOD I WAS FUCKING JOKING WITH THE CONSPIRACY!
> >
> > I didn't actually expect that you think that, nay, not even the ideas are fabricated, but the actual fucking existence of a mathematician!
> >
> > I can't stop laughing, help! Oh god, I laughed so hard I started choking on myself.
> >
> > So you actually think there is a business interest in the entire history of mathematics. They invented galois just to sell galois theory books!
> >
> > God, this is even WORSE then fucking flat earthers! Yeah, FLAT EARTHERS!(God, you might even be one of them!)
> >
> > Watch out for the BIG GALOIS, behind BIG PHARMA and BIG GLOBE!
> >
> > "So, how a fool can simply believe in such a well-fabricated story? Wonder!"
> >
> > Okay, I have regained my cool.
> >
> > It seems to me that these quite remarkable 'prodigies' are unbelievable to you, which I can't help but interpret that what you are really saying is 'I can't stand people are smarter then me'.
> >
> > "To understand it in very simple words before you read my posts in this regard, just think about this *******INSOLVABLE***** Diaophontine Equation
> >
> > (n^5 - n*m^4 = m^5), and see whether there are any *existing integers* where the ratio of (n/m) would mean any existing real number?
> >
> > And do understand please how simply the older ancestors Jugglers of mathematics would fabricate 5 non-existing roots from the same non-solvable Diaophontine Equation
> >
> > And you wouldn't like the fact FOR SURE, just because it is tooooooooooooooo ... simple to understand and hence killing the fake business mathematics in the spot FOR SURER"
> > "
> >
> > Argument against irrationals because a diophantine equation doesn't have solutions that are rational? Uhm... What exactly is your argument here
> >
> Still struggling hard to understand that insolvable Diaophontin equation
>
> OK, Let me help you with this regard in the hope that you may be intrigued by anything useful instead of going deeply into a fictional delusional world of professional mathematicians where I doubt that you are a fact searcher
>
> (n^5 - n*m^4 = m^5) Eqn. 1
> The same form can be simply reduced to a case where gcd(n, m) = 1, where any beginner in number theory would know immediately that there are no *EXISTING* natural numbers (n, m) that can strictly satisfy this Diaphonite equation simply by noting that (n) divides exactly the LHS but doesn't divide the RHS
> And hence the ratio of (n/m) doesn't exist (Proof *FINISHED*) FOR SURE
>
> But observe *CAREFULLY* how the **ALLEGED** TOP-MOST genius smart mathematicians think and can make five roots from the same insolvable Diaophontine Eqn. (1) where then the sheep mainstream mathematicians are so excited to a SO unbeilavable limit of *STUPIDITY* and for many centuries as well
>
> They simply would not let go simply as it is, but they start by dividing both sides of Eqn. (1) by (m^5), where they simply get
>
> (n/m)^5 - (n/m) - 1 = 0, Eqn. (2)
>
> Then they assume (x = n/m), where they get the following *WONDERFUL* irreducible polynomial
>
> (x^5 - x - 1 = 0)
>
> that must have five roots where one is at least real root and the other four roots are strictly associated with that real invented or *fabricated* real root
>
> And in 10base number system, they simply assume (m = 10^k), and (n) is a natural number n(k+1) but with (k + 1) number of sequence digits,
>
> And their fabricated real root would be in this form x = n(k+1)/10^k
>
> And they claim this is true when (k--> Infinity), but note that becomes non-existing number when (k--> 00), since then it becomes (x = No number/No number = No number) confirming this truth that had been proven above in only one line
>
> Otherwise, their alleged real root solution would remain as a rational number approximation obeying indefinitely the rational solution form [n(k+1)/10^k] that is never that *irrational number* they wrongly defined in their minds
>
> See how Wolfram-Alpha is too expert of those roots
>
> https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x%5E5+-+x+-+1+%3D+0
>
> For (k = 1, 2, 3, ..., 10, ..., n) the approximation of non-existing real root
>
> for (x = 11/10 = 1.1, 116/100 = 1.16, 1167/1000 = 1.167, ..., 11673039782/10^10 = 1.1673039782, ..., n(k+1)/10^k = rational number, since it becomes invalid when k-->00), FOR SURE
>
> But they can simply tell the fact first (that no real root exists) and say frankly that they can imagine a real root to some degree of accuracy that technology is capable to do
>
> And guess what is the fact of those other four alleged roots that are associated strictly with this fake root? can you? NO WONDER
>
> If a beginner in mathematics can't understand truly these simple facts then he would never be able to understand anything further FOR SURE
>
> However, many other elementary proofs were previously ***PUBLISHED*** in my ***posts***
> This is for ***NATURAL HISTORICAL RECORD*** for true mathematics, sure
> > "Consider the triangle with sides (2, 2, Sqrt(2(5 - sqrt(5)))
> >
> > Doesn't this triangle with well-determined sides exist in only one way even without any tools of construction? wonder"
> >
> > So in short, in your geometry, you remove the axiom of circle, but accept a new ability to conjure up any triangle of whatever sides and there it is?
> >
> > Why not just use Analytic Geometry then and decide everything is based on a certain 'distance' measure?
> >
> > And from there, define a circle about a point (c_1,c_2) to be all points (x_1,x_2) such that sqrt((x_1-c_1)^2+(x_2-c_s)^2)=r for some r. Or, abstract further with metric space.
> >
> > The entire point of the geometry of Euclid is that it is based purely on geometry in that of shape: the notion of 'number' to it only came, I think(no historian), when Descartes unified algebra and geometry.
> Go and understand correctly what I teach you first, and before you juggle about Euclide or so
> BKK

How can talented number theoristS (if ever existing) help other mainstream academic proffessional mathematicians to easily understand this too simple problem about the fabrication of the so-called polonomial stories & the quintic equation directly from insolvable Diophantine Equation?

And why don't honnest, nobel & clever historians mathematicians (if ever existing ) make this very serious & too important historical investigations inorder to save many more human talented mathematicians to be merely a so naive victims of such too silly dirty numerical games that cheat easily even the allegedly top-most talented mathematicians?

What an obvious proven scandal in the heart of mathematics foundations that is avoided by the specialists even under the sun light 🤔?
Or must that take few more centuries to waste (just not to injure the so sensitive feelings of the allegedly top-most living mathematicians? Wonder!

N
Bassam Karzeddin