On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 2:40:29 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 1:56:27 PM UTC+3, konyberg wrote:
> > lørdag 20. juni 2020 12.08.44 UTC+2 skrev bassam karzeddin følgende:
> > > On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 12:42:15 PM UTC+3, konyberg wrote:
> > > > lørdag 20. juni 2020 10.54.00 UTC+2 skrev bassam karzeddin følgende:
> > > > > On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 10:43:20 AM UTC+3, konyberg wrote:
> > > > > > fredag 19. juni 2020 14.21.48 UTC+2 skrev bassam karzeddin følgende:
> > > > > > > @ KON
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You say that this polonomial (x^9 - x^3 - 1 = 0), Right? Wonder
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I simply said No, and never with a recent (an irrefuitable proof) published on MSA on Stak Exchange, where it seems nobody is capable to refute my proof
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And it seems they got completely stucked with my proof, and started downvoting my contents (as always as usually the unnamed moderators react to all my contents)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, I offered them a bounty of 100, but they are still standing still for the fifth day,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, would you so kindly go lmmeadeatly over their and save them all from my brutal attack upon their most sacred mathematics they still beileav in?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > GO and refute my claimed proofs just before the bounty finishes and before they delete the entire challenge they are constantly running away from facing
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bless for you in your greatest mission to save the whole world of mathematics from a non-mathematician Devil person like myself
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For sure
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bassam Karzeddin
> > > > > >
> > > > > KON wrote:
> > > > > > How can you prove that x^9 - x^3 - 1 = 0, has no real root, when it has?
> > > > > > KON
> > > > >
> > > > > Any root you claim (no matter if you can fill the galaxy size with your number of digits) is so simply a counterexample to Fermat's last theorem that was proved by Tayler and Wiles in 1995, (Right?)
> > > > >
> > > > > Then, you would say (like everyone else), No, that is only an approximation, where the real root is irrational
> > > > >
> > > > > Then we ask you, can you please describe your root as an exact distance for example, like the way when someone says sqrt(2) is a ratio of the diagonal of a square to its side
> > > > >
> > > > > Then we say, No, since Wentzel in (1837) proved the impossibility of constructing such roots that requires a cube root operation that isn't supported by any known theorem like the case of constructible numbers due to the Pythagorean theorem
> > > > >
> > > > > Then you and (everyone else) would say, but that number cube root of two exists since that could be constructed exactly by other tools and means that weren't stated by the ancient Greeks, and many other ways as well from many historical resources
> > > > >
> > > > > Then we say if your claims are true, then they should have announced long ago that cube root two is simply a constructible number but the fact is, on the contrary, it is called and considered as a non-constructible number up to this moment as far as I know
> > > > >
> > > > > And we did explain it to you and everybody else many times earlier, that the density of constructible numbers is too dense where one easily find many uncountable numbers of cubes that seem to us so close to two with a constructible number root (where all of those engineering terms like, so close, tending to approach fast, converging to, limits by epsilon-delta, ...., etc) are absolutely impossible to replace the equal sign denoted by "=" since the density of constructible numbers is also and simply endless (i.e not bounded by any fictions like infinity)
> > > > >
> > > > > And then you are still saying, no the real root is irrational and as per Cardano Formula
> > > > >
> > > > > And we tell you again and again that Cardano formula was illegally based on a global conspiracy in mathematics about the generality of the invalid cube root operation that explained to you repeatedly
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And you say, the graph of a function x^3 crosses the X-axes
> > > > >
> > > > > And we say always that is true but doesn't necessarily imply an intersection point on the X-axis due to the proven fact about real numbers are strictly discrete numbers and continuity of real numbers was simply engineering works and never truer mathematics with a two lines proofs only we did publish publically many times earlier in my posts
> > > > >
> > > > > Proof again: consider any constructible number, saying 2 for example, then ask your own self the following questions again and again until you get it correctly as I immediately did since ages
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) What is the "GREATEST" real number that is "LESS THAN TWO"
> > > > >
> > > > > A: It doesn't exist, (Right?) sure
> > > > >
> > > > > Then as the other question
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) What is the "LEAST" real number that is "GREATER THAN TWO"
> > > > >
> > > > > A: It doesn't exist, (Right?) sure
> > > > >
> > > > > Then we prove that whatever our real numbers are, they are simply isolated numbers, that is they are discrete numbers for sure
> > > > >
> > > > > Hence, the continuity of real numbers in mathematics was proven false, and no matter how many large and huge volumes were historically written about it, and without the slightest doubt about my too elementary proof
> > > > >
> > > > > Then you say stubbornly again, it is still irrational number as per our mathematical definitions
> > > > >
> > > > > And the fact if one confesses this fact, then all the other complex roots that are so dependent on that non-existing real(algebraic) root would simply be discovered to a layperson the more important fact about the illegal imaginary numbers, were we proved them earlier as bird brain numbers for sure
> > > > >
> > > > > And we tell you again and for ALL and again, Congratulations with your FAIRY bird brain numbers and many happy human mind roots with the fundamental theorem of stupidity FOR SURE
> > > > >
> > > > > Bassam Karzeddin
> > > >
> > > > It has nothing to do with Fermat's last problem. Where do you get that from?
> > >
> > > Really? wonder!
> > >
> > > Are you sure of your opinion in this matter, or you are the last person to understand this issue?
> > >
> > > And if you are so confident in your point of view, then why don't you say it bravely with a true identity name, since one must not at all trust any unknown person even if they tell some times true things, since their intentions and mission isn't clear for the vast majorities of too innocent people who usually read here
> > >
> > > And I don't know how many times should I tell everyone that this polynomial (x^9 = x^3 + 1), is originated from this simple insolvable Diaphontine Equation (n^9 = (nm^2)^3 + m^9) in non-zero integers, when substituting (x = n/m)
> > >
> > > Is that also a very big miracle to understand? Wonders
> > >
> > > Where then no existing integers (n, m) or equivalently no existing (x) can ever satisfy both forms above, nor can be exactly constructed by any means as well
> > >
> > > How can one construct exactly a number if it doesn't basically exist at all? No wonders
> > >
> > > >
> > > > x^9 - x^3 - 1 = 0 has the real solution . No will not do this stupid way of writing it. Go to Wolfram Alpha and do it yourself.
> > > > KON
> > >
> > > The problem with the Wolfram - Alpha is like the same OLD rotten problem with every living academic professional mathematician as well
> > >
> > > Which is basically, they can calculate but they can't think nor can they understand anything even with tons of short elementary proofs that are most suitable to school kids FOR SURE
> > >
> > > SO UNBELIEVABLE
> > >
> > > Bassam Karzeddin
> >
> > OK. Here it is:
> > x = ((1/3)(27/2 - (3(69)^1/2)/2)^1/3 + (((1/2)(9 + 69^1/2))^1/3)/3^(2/3))^1/3
> > KON
> That is what I do explain always, where this is the only number in mind of those who illegally riveted them based upon symbols of cubic radicals which aren't any true radicals, it is simply an imagined radical that never exists except in bird brains as fairy numbers, where it is impossible to construct just because it doesn't exist at all
>
> Then how can existing number impossible to construct by any means unless it is true doesn't exist
>
> The same old unresolved issue of Greek's three impossible construction problems (which is the impossibility of doubling the cube problem)
>
> AND by the way, they still need urgently your answer here
>
> https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3717809/is-my-solution-true-or-false-for-the-following-diophantine-equation/3723017?noredirect=1#comment7658949_3723017
>
> Nobody seems able to answer even by (T or F), but so utterly many were able and allowed by imbeciles moderators to downvote the issue anonymously of course in order to hide completely as soon as possible from innocent students, AND the bounty is still in effect, so kindly go there and save the miserable situation they were all stalked in so mercilessly for sure
>
> They would certainly appreciate your answer immediately for sure
>
> And in case you are still hiding under a fake, hopeless and illegal formula of Cardano, then as I thought you before quite many times
>
> Take this odd degree polynomial for example (x^49 = x^7 + 1), where I have many uncountable numbers of them
>
> And where can you hide from this one, most likely behind fictions like infinity, but even though it doesn't work from the first look only, (recall my earlier published proofs in this regard)
>
> And tell us please, where is that real root you still believe in? no wonders
>
> And I want to ask you more about those imaginary or complex 48 roots which are sons and daughters of your alleged (in mind) real (algebraic rot)
>
> You have to face the bitter fact, it is much more worth and important than all the fake sweets of your fundamental theorem of stupidity (that I don't like to say)
>
> Modern mathematics with many uncountable fairy mind numbers and angles as well, (No wonders!)
>
> Bassam Karzeddin