On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 8:30:10 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 3:40:05 PM UTC+3,
> > bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > > It is really sad that how are those majorities whom
> > they do recognize themselves as wise as not being
> > trolls nor anti trolls, acting silently or
> > unnoticeably to ensure safety situation for
> > themselves as if the hot issues are not an announced
> > war against their fiction mathematics
> > >
> > > Ignoring the simplest content of the issue where
> > they must spot it immediately with too little
> > commonsense only and also raise up any new truth or
> > contradiction found in the current teaching system
> > >
> > > But the truths supposedly would soon win and
> > regardless who would be the winner
> > >
> > > And in this case those described as wise people
> > would be the greatest unnoticeable losers ever, since
> > their turn was so negative by ignoring the so obvious
> > new facts and protecting the common global ignorance,
> > for security reasons (may be if they were
> > professionals), or for egoistic reasons that their
> > understanding turns incomplete or flawed, or may be
> > for the same huge main reason which is unfortunately
> > the ignorance
> > >
> > > So, if anything useful spring up from those
> > described as trolls or anti trolls discussions, then
> > those are the people behind it, and the silent
> > majority should stay silent as unnoticeable as always
> > as ever
> > >
> > > To support my so simple mentioned point of view, I
> > shall summaries it in a very little words that I am
> > quite sure even a clever school student can
> > n comprehend it in just few minutes but oddly not by
> > top mathematicians, top Journals, Top universities,
> > (I wonder!) , even though (I am a civil engineer and
> > not a professional mathematician nor like to be so)
> > >
> > > Let may claim so simply that (positive real
> > numbers are only constructible)
> > > , and other well established numbers in mathematics
> > such as positive real (algebraic and transcendental)
> > numbers are actually fabricated and unreal numbers
> > >
> > > And let us see how the clever school student can
> > so easily debunk them as fabricated and unreal
> > numbers immediately
> > > And regardless who claimed this first, or who
> > proved first, (this is another issue)
> > >
> > > where (in future), some chosen professional
> > mathematicians would certainly find and fabricate
> > e many old tangible references and proceed,
> > especially if facts become so obvious to almost every
> > one, and the political authority mathematicians
> > allowed them to establish it
> > >
> > > Of course this claim sounds so crazy or so cranky
> > to the professional mathematicians, and the claimer
> > must be troll, and the anti toll debates would
> > continue as disgusting game, and the real makers of
> > the new facts must be lost then.
> > >
> > > At least those described as trolls or anti trolls
> > seem to waste all their lives in the hot issues,
> > where they are the real players in correcting the
> > mathematics against the well established mathematics
> > that is too difficult to be self corrected by the
> > professionals themselves since they are too captured
> > by those wrong definitions
> > > The school student then might ask, how this can be
> > explained then.
> > >
> > > The teacher may simply ask him then, how do you
> > unusually EXPRESS your numbers as (pi), (e), and the
> > cube root of two,$\sqrt[3]{2}$, in our digital
> > decimal 10base number system (for simplicity)
> > >
> > > The clever student would say symbolically in 10base
> > number system and decimal form (n.m), where, the dot
> > (.) represent the decimal notation, (n) is finite
> > integer, and (m) is integer with infinite sequence of
> > digits - not terminating with zero digits after the
> > decimal notation – from their well established
> > definition as being generally irrational numbers (but
> > not constructible)
> > >
> > > The teacher: Is there any other way to comprehend
> > them (other than symbolically in mind – that does not
> > mean anything except naming the numbers)
> > >
> > > The clever student: impossible (according to the
> > specific given question)
> > >
> > > The teacher, how then those numbers are being
> > unreal numbers?
> > >
> > > The clever student: Consider (pi), (e), or the
> > arithmetical cube root of two $\sqrt[3]{2}$, or
> > $\sqrt[7]{5}$, Then their only unique form in decimal
> > 10base number system can be so simply represents as
> > an approximate fraction as this:
> > > (N / 10^m), where, (m) is positive integer and (N)
> > is positive integer with (m + 1) digits,
> > >
> > > The teacher asks: how can then we obtain their
> > exact value?
> > >
> > > The clever student answers “it is impossible”
> > >
> > > The teacher was so astonished, why?
> > >
> > > The clever student laughed at his teacher and
> > replied with too much condiment, hell, cannot you
> > still see it so clearly, it is shining like a star
> > debunking itself by itself, wonder!
> > >
> > > The teacher got so angry, cannot see anything yet,
> > and shouted, show me stupid what do you mean!
> > >
> > > The clever student: smiled and started explaining
> > the ever simplest logic to his famous teacher:
> > >
> > > If you want exact value then you would require your
> > (m) positive integer to be integer with infinite
> > sequence of digits, same for (N) integer applies,
> > >
> > > But, this is obviously impossible and also
> > forbidden in the Holy Grail principles of
> > mathematics!
> > >
> > > He added, therefore our expressible numbers are
> > actually only rationales, no mattered however long
> > they are, even if each trillion of digits can be
> > stored only in one (mm) cube, and we have billion of
> > galaxies to store them, they would be always and
> > forever (rational numbers only), which is not that
> > irrational numbers defined only (in mind)
> > >
> > > You can also play well now the same trick
> > (Teacher) on that fake representation of a
> > constructible number and show easily that (1 =/=
> > 0.999…. ), (6/7 =/= 0.875142875142…. ), (1/3 =/=
> > 0.333… ),
> > > (sqrt(2) =/= 1.14142135623… ),
> > > Even those numbers are real existing numbers, since
> > they are simply constructible numbers!
> > >
> > > Do you get it teacher now, how so simple is the
> > fiction number?
> > >
> > > The teacher, even you are completely right, I would
> > prefer living with those fiction numbers forever!
> > >
> > > So, stay away teachers, and keep silent and
> > unnoticeable, since this not basically your holy war
> > against the fiction in mathematics
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Bassam King Karzeddin
> > > 03, Jan., 2017
> >
> > 07/30/2017
> Sept. 13, 2017
> BKK
Teachers of mathematics aren't allowed to cheat their innocent students any more once they get educated about their false beliefs in mathematics

BKK

Le 29/09/2023 à 00:22, bassam karzeddin a écrit :
> On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 8:30:10 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 3:40:05 PM UTC+3,
>>> bassam king karzeddin wrote:
>>>> It is really sad that how are those majorities whom
>>> they do recognize themselves as wise as not being
>>> trolls nor anti trolls, acting silently or
>>> unnoticeably to ensure safety situation for
>>> themselves as if the hot issues are not an announced
>>> war against their fiction mathematics
>>>>
>>>> Ignoring the simplest content of the issue where
>>> they must spot it immediately with too little
>>> commonsense only and also raise up any new truth or
>>> contradiction found in the current teaching system
>>>>
>>>> But the truths supposedly would soon win and
>>> regardless who would be the winner
>>>>
>>>> And in this case those described as wise people
>>> would be the greatest unnoticeable losers ever, since
>>> their turn was so negative by ignoring the so obvious
>>> new facts and protecting the common global ignorance,
>>> for security reasons (may be if they were
>>> professionals), or for egoistic reasons that their
>>> understanding turns incomplete or flawed, or may be
>>> for the same huge main reason which is unfortunately
>>> the ignorance
>>>>
>>>> So, if anything useful spring up from those
>>> described as trolls or anti trolls discussions, then
>>> those are the people behind it, and the silent
>>> majority should stay silent as unnoticeable as always
>>> as ever
>>>>
>>>> To support my so simple mentioned point of view, I
>>> shall summaries it in a very little words that I am
>>> quite sure even a clever school student can
>>> n comprehend it in just few minutes but oddly not by
>>> top mathematicians, top Journals, Top universities,
>>> (I wonder!) , even though (I am a civil engineer and
>>> not a professional mathematician nor like to be so)
>>>>
>>>> Let may claim so simply that (positive real
>>> numbers are only constructible)
>>>> , and other well established numbers in mathematics
>>> such as positive real (algebraic and transcendental)
>>> numbers are actually fabricated and unreal numbers
>>>>
>>>> And let us see how the clever school student can
>>> so easily debunk them as fabricated and unreal
>>> numbers immediately
>>>> And regardless who claimed this first, or who
>>> proved first, (this is another issue)
>>>>
>>>> where (in future), some chosen professional
>>> mathematicians would certainly find and fabricate
>>> e many old tangible references and proceed,
>>> especially if facts become so obvious to almost every
>>> one, and the political authority mathematicians
>>> allowed them to establish it
>>>>
>>>> Of course this claim sounds so crazy or so cranky
>>> to the professional mathematicians, and the claimer
>>> must be troll, and the anti toll debates would
>>> continue as disgusting game, and the real makers of
>>> the new facts must be lost then.
>>>>
>>>> At least those described as trolls or anti trolls
>>> seem to waste all their lives in the hot issues,
>>> where they are the real players in correcting the
>>> mathematics against the well established mathematics
>>> that is too difficult to be self corrected by the
>>> professionals themselves since they are too captured
>>> by those wrong definitions
>>>> The school student then might ask, how this can be
>>> explained then.
>>>>
>>>> The teacher may simply ask him then, how do you
>>> unusually EXPRESS your numbers as (pi), (e), and the
>>> cube root of two,$\sqrt[3]{2}$, in our digital
>>> decimal 10base number system (for simplicity)
>>>>
>>>> The clever student would say symbolically in 10base
>>> number system and decimal form (n.m), where, the dot
>>> (.) represent the decimal notation, (n) is finite
>>> integer, and (m) is integer with infinite sequence of
>>> digits - not terminating with zero digits after the
>>> decimal notation – from their well established
>>> definition as being generally irrational numbers (but
>>> not constructible)
>>>>
>>>> The teacher: Is there any other way to comprehend
>>> them (other than symbolically in mind – that does not
>>> mean anything except naming the numbers)
>>>>
>>>> The clever student: impossible (according to the
>>> specific given question)
>>>>
>>>> The teacher, how then those numbers are being
>>> unreal numbers?
>>>>
>>>> The clever student: Consider (pi), (e), or the
>>> arithmetical cube root of two $\sqrt[3]{2}$, or
>>> $\sqrt[7]{5}$, Then their only unique form in decimal
>>> 10base number system can be so simply represents as
>>> an approximate fraction as this:
>>>> (N / 10^m), where, (m) is positive integer and (N)
>>> is positive integer with (m + 1) digits,
>>>>
>>>> The teacher asks: how can then we obtain their
>>> exact value?
>>>>
>>>> The clever student answers “it is impossible”
>>>>
>>>> The teacher was so astonished, why?
>>>>
>>>> The clever student laughed at his teacher and
>>> replied with too much condiment, hell, cannot you
>>> still see it so clearly, it is shining like a star
>>> debunking itself by itself, wonder!
>>>>
>>>> The teacher got so angry, cannot see anything yet,
>>> and shouted, show me stupid what do you mean!
>>>>
>>>> The clever student: smiled and started explaining
>>> the ever simplest logic to his famous teacher:
>>>>
>>>> If you want exact value then you would require your
>>> (m) positive integer to be integer with infinite
>>> sequence of digits, same for (N) integer applies,
>>>>
>>>> But, this is obviously impossible and also
>>> forbidden in the Holy Grail principles of
>>> mathematics!
>>>>
>>>> He added, therefore our expressible numbers are
>>> actually only rationales, no mattered however long
>>> they are, even if each trillion of digits can be
>>> stored only in one (mm) cube, and we have billion of
>>> galaxies to store them, they would be always and
>>> forever (rational numbers only), which is not that
>>> irrational numbers defined only (in mind)
>>>>
>>>> You can also play well now the same trick
>>> (Teacher) on that fake representation of a
>>> constructible number and show easily that (1 =/=
>>> 0.999…. ), (6/7 =/= 0.875142875142…. ), (1/3 =/=
>>> 0.333… ),
>>>> (sqrt(2) =/= 1.14142135623… ),
>>>> Even those numbers are real existing numbers, since
>>> they are simply constructible numbers!
>>>>
>>>> Do you get it teacher now, how so simple is the
>>> fiction number?
>>>>
>>>> The teacher, even you are completely right, I would
>>> prefer living with those fiction numbers forever!
>>>>
>>>> So, stay away teachers, and keep silent and
>>> unnoticeable, since this not basically your holy war
>>> against the fiction in mathematics
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Bassam King Karzeddin
>>>> 03, Jan., 2017
>>>
>>> 07/30/2017
>> Sept. 13, 2017
>> BKK
> Teachers of mathematics aren't allowed to cheat their innocent students any more once they get educated about their false beliefs in mathematics

No Bassam : you will die, eventually. Not posting aymore then
(obviously). You've been forgotten and not much mourned as you are
insufferable idiot and a despicable person. And math and science will
continue to ignore you :-) as you deserve, dumbass !

BTW, members of your family for the centuries to go will KNOW.

They already know, I told them, ALL of them Bassam !