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
Donkypedia writers are requested to mention the true sources for their continuous change of their published articles , otherwise, nothing new would be tought to them freely as always as usual

BKK

Le 27/09/2023 à 15:59, bassam karzeddin a écrit :
> (Sqrt(-1))*(Sqrt(-1))*(Sqrt(-1)) = Sqrt(-1), this implies
>
> (i^3 = i)

No.

On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 11:44:12 PM UTC+3, Python wrote:
> Le 27/09/2023 à 15:59, bassam karzeddin a écrit :
> > (Sqrt(-1))*(Sqrt(-1))*(Sqrt(-1)) = Sqrt(-1), this implies
> >
> > (i^3 = i)
> No.
Why not?
See here

(

(Sqrt(- 1))*(Sqrt(-1))*(Sqrt(- 1))*(Sqrt(- 1))*(Sqrt(- 1)) = Sqrt(- 1)

I.e (i^5 = i), hence (i^4 = 1), which complies strictly with your beileafs about immaginary numbers, Right ✅️?

So, it is working perfectly here & not working there then?

By the way, is there a manual Catalog on how to use the rules of immaginary numbers such that no communications must be allowed?

Of course, other stronger evidences were also given where humans especially the academic mainstreams proffessional mathematicians usually hide & never like to answer

Here it is again & again until humans do well-understand the silliest fictions in their old & fake mathematics

Consider the following odd degree polynomial:

(x^{49} + x^7 = 1), doesn't have any real existing root, which implies no complex or immaginary roots never exist also

But if you personally incapable to understand anything yet, then please 🙏 show us your believed real root either numerically or Geometrically inorder to make you fully cured from your inhereted mental retardation FOR SURE

🔊 Bassam Karzeddin

bASSam 💩 karzeddIDIOT 💩 wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 11:44:12 PM UTC+3, Python wrote:
>> Le 27/09/2023 à 15:59, 💩 bassam 💩 karzeddin 💩 a écrit :
>>> (Sqrt(-1))*(Sqrt(-1))*(Sqrt(-1)) = Sqrt(-1), this implies

Sqrt is a multi valued fonction, this "rule" is meaningless for
such function.

>>> (i^3 = i)
>> No.
> Why not?

i is the equivalence class of X in R[X]/(X^1+1)

I leave to the reader to check that -1 is in the equivalence
class of X^2 (i.e. i^2 = -1)

i^3 is the equivalence class of X^3 in R[X]/(X^1+1)

X is not a member of this class, i.e.

X =/= X^3 [X^1 + 1]

(because X^3 - X = X*(X - 1) is not divisible par X^2 + 1, got it,
idiotic demented Karzedding the fool?)

QED.

> See here [snip same mistake]

No. Fuck off idiot, go to Hell. Quickly. Please.

> 💩💩💩 Bassam 💩💩💩 Karzeddin 💩💩💩

Yes pieces of shit, this is what are your posts.

On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 12:56:09 AM UTC+3, Python wrote:
> bASSam 💩 karzeddIDIOT 💩 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 11:44:12 PM UTC+3, Python wrote:
> >> Le 27/09/2023 à 15:59, 💩 bassam 💩 karzeddin 💩 a écrit :
> >>> (Sqrt(-1))*(Sqrt(-1))*(Sqrt(-1)) = Sqrt(-1), this implies
> Sqrt is a multi valued fonction, this "rule" is meaningless for
> such function.
> >>> (i^3 = i)
> >> No.
> > Why not?
> i is the equivalence class of X in R[X]/(X^1+1)
>
> I leave to the reader to check that -1 is in the equivalence
> class of X^2 (i.e. i^2 = -1)
>
> i^3 is the equivalence class of X^3 in R[X]/(X^1+1)
>
> X is not a member of this class, i.e.
>
> X =/= X^3 [X^1 + 1]
>
> (because X^3 - X = X*(X - 1) is not divisible par X^2 + 1, got it,
> idiotic demented Karzedding the fool?)
>
> QED.
>
> > See here [snip same mistake]
>
> No. Fuck off idiot, go to Hell. Quickly. Please.
>
> > 💩💩💩 Bassam 💩💩💩 Karzeddin 💩💩💩
>
> Yes pieces of shit, this is what are your posts.

Idiots would never like to understand anything outright of their beliefs, they are simply so selective in replying properly, where they chose parts to answer with a great frustration & neglect whatsoever they can't say a word against it

For illustration: they darenot say anything about their belived roots for this old degree polynomial that must have at least one real root in accordance with the Fundamental theorem of stupidity

For (x^{49} + x^7 = 1), simply because they have learnt secretly from my posts, that any alleged real root must be a counter example to Fermat's last theorem, which of course absolutely impossible (only by direct little investigation

Hence No real root mathematically exists nor do other dependent complex roots exist although

As simple as it is

Mentioning that humans usually become so aggressive in religious debate issues especially when it destroys completely ALL their illegal achievements strictly in mathematics

Anybody else other than incurable Trolls has the minimum ethics & courage to resolve this open global debate under the sunlight 😉?

Or go & get help of the AI chapchatGpt immediately !

BKK