On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 2:18:04 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules as crazy subject, but it is sadly and absolutely true, for sure
>
> If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
>
> The below list of (fiction – non existing angles), in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
>
> Those angles are generally created from those fiction and non existing numbers (but regarded as real numbers up to our date) in our modern current mathematics
> However, I had explained and proved them in my posts as unreal numbers, or fiction numbers or nonexistent numbers or illegal numbers, or unreal numbers (whatever you wish to name them)
>
> The fiction integer angles in degrees from [1 to 89]
>
> (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57,58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89)
> Number of checked angles (76)
> I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 89), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
>
> So, you can imagine that most of the angles we use are actually impossible existence for sure
>
> If you can simply understand my simple proofs of those unreal numbers, then easily you conclude that the vast majority of known angles are actually fake angles
>
> You would see how the professional mathematicians would tirelessly convince you the opposite, by using all types of cheating tools, such as eye marking or infinite approximations or so many hopeless tries at their fake heaven (infinity)
> But remind them always why this is not the same case with many other real existing angles such as
>
> (9, 15, 18, 27, 30, 36, 45, 54, 60, 63, 72, 75, 81, 90), since that was their ill inadequate education, but be clever enough to get outside this fool box, and once you do realize them, try to save the mathematics from the professionals polluted and so infected or inherited wrong understanding, clever matures and students ought to help them also to get slowly and completely healed from this and many other fictions in their manufactured mad made and meaningless mathematics
>
> Regards
> Bassam King Karzeddin
> 2 end, April, 2017

Le 21/09/2023 à 22:22, bASSam karzeddinSANE a écrit :
> [snip demented nonsense]
>> 2 end, April, 2017

This was a stupid post in 2017, it is still a stupid post.

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:07:26 AM UTC+3, Python wrote:
> Le 21/09/2023 à 22:22, bASSam karzeddinSANE a écrit :
> > [snip demented nonsense]
> >> 2 end, April, 2017
>
> This was a stupid post in 2017, it is still a stupid post.

Assuming you are Wright idiot Python!

Then, why can't you nor any other intelligent being is capable to break my UNIQUE vision only by a single numerical counterexample? NO wonders!

Go a head & prove me false & simply win the whole issue moron

As simple as it is, where you can ask a friend or asking the whole world 🌎 of Academia FOR SURE

But that is absolutely impossible for all humans & for surer

BKK