On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 8:52:03 PM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 10:15:48 AM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:26:58 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:40:56 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 7:46:45 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 11:21:14 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7:27:00 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > With the inception of zero, a paradigm shift swept through the corridors of mainstream mathematics, ushering in a necessity to lay down specific guidelines for its application. In its role as a placeholder, zero's significance relies on a precise understanding of its place within mathematical expressions. A casual and indiscriminate employment of zero can engender perplexing outcomes that appear baffling on the surface. To illustrate this, let us delve into the following example:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x), which in itself appears innocuous. However, upon closer examination, a curious and unexpected outcome emerges:
> > > > > > > x (x-x) =(x+x)(x-x)
> > > > > > > x=2x
> > > > > > > If we were to accept this result uncritically, a cascade of implications could follow. For instance, it could be argued that p=r, where p and r denote any magnitudes or numbers. Yet, this seemingly innocuous scenario holds within it a profound revelation—namely, that division by zero is mathematically absurd. Moreover, it underscores that multiplication by zero similarly leads to conundrums, rendering an equation devoid of practical value.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This serves as a testament to the intricate nature of mathematical principles and the criticality of discerning the nuances of zero's involvement in mathematical operations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Zero means 'NO NUMBER':
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/94491990/Zero_means_No_Number_
> > > > > > Yes of course, zero isn't a number, but an old human mind fiction like the modern fiction of infinity, but in opposite manner
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, the main problem of ALL human mathematickers, is indeed, they don't well-understand what is truly a real number, nor do they deliberately want seriously to understand it since it ruins completely their huge endless buissness they have inhereted & widely expand it
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bassam Karzeddin 🔊
> > > > > Where a real number is only an existing distance, no matter however small or large it is!
> > > > >
> > > > > Where nither the smallest or the largest distances exist
> > > > > So like the positive constructible numbers (wither rationals or the only true irrational numbers, but only & strictly in their surd forms & never by their non-existing expantions)
> > > > >
> > > > > A missed truth by ALL humans since the Pythagorean era FOR SURE
> > > > >
> > > > > BKK
> > > > About
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This old human minds fiction numbers like zero, we have introduced the zeroless number systems that mathematicians deny globally I think with only few uneffecive exceptions
> > > >
> > > > And it is indeed more than nonsense fun with zero like the followings:
> > > >
> > > > 0 + 0 = 0, 0 - 0 = 0, 0^n = 0, (0/0 = 0^0 = ??)
> > > >
> > > > 0*n = 0, ..., etc
> > > >
> > > > Almost like the rules applied for infinity ♾️
> > > >
> > > > What an old nonsense is Zero
> > > >
> > > > But the Devils 😈 had made it illegally one of the most important & hollyest worshiped numbers & the clueless sheeples were so happy then, since it gives them milk & bread whenever they like, FOR SURE
> > > >
> > > > BKK
> > > See the rules of infinity ♾️!
> > >
> > > ♾️ + ♾️ = ♾️, (0 + 0 = 0)
> > > n* ♾️ = ♾️, (n*0 = 0)
> > > ♾️^n = ♾️, (0^n = 0)
> > >
> > > ♾️/♾️ = ?, (0/0 = ?)
> > > ....
> > > ....
> > > etc
> > > What a nonsense mythmatics could be more thrilling than zero & ♾️ ? No wonders!
> > >
> > >
> > > I Who made mathematics so silly & very stupid like that mathematickers?
> > > Bkk
> > U C how easy make mathematics can be with trolish human invented fictions like zero & ♾️, FOR SURE
> >
> > BKK
> Zero can't be subtracted from because it is the absence of all quantity.
> It's purpose is to set bases.

No, it was added so unnecessary to mathematics, just because the courting number system of Romans was too primitive, then Zero got its illegal place in mathematics

BKK

I

Look in the mirror - you are an ignorant piece of shit. And to compensate, you resort to name calling. Everybody trashes you like at this site as if you were a retard - and there is nothing you can do to fix that.

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 1:40:51 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 13:02:27 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 4:27:11 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 11:07:44 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > > <Drivel>
> > >
> > > No response? Chuckle.
> > >
> > > <PLONK>
> > He did respond. Made you look like a ret rd. As always.
> SHUT UP, you absolute moron. You are nothing but an insignificant worm and I squash your pathetic objections like I do an annoying worm under my shoe. I piss and shit in your MOUTH, you fucking useless asshole!

My channel has no content, you stupid fucktard. If I did put content, it would be constellations superior to your garbage, as I do know mathematics.

On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 8:03:14 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 13:02:27 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 4:27:11 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 11:07:44 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > > <Drivel>
> > >
> > > No response? Chuckle.
> > >
> > > <PLONK>
> > He did respond. Made you look like a ret rd. As always.
> Your YouTube channel with 12 subscribers?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/@Mathin3D/about
>
> Who in their right mind names their YT channel Mathin3D? Quite amusing.
>
> Do you believe others won't discover your identity, hiding behind anonymity? No one remains truly anonymous.
>
> And if I were less intelligent, what does that reflect on you? Oh, they'll say, it's that individual with the Mathin3d channel! They'll have a good laugh at your expense!
>
> I'd strongly advise against wasting your time with such mindless comments.. What exactly are you hoping to achieve? You're not making any impact. I've engaged with mainstream mathematics professors; who are you, someone with an IQ below 56?
>
> Consider finding meaningful employment instead of resorting to irrelevant provocations.
>
> No one pays attention to inconsequential figures like yourself.
>
> Accept the situation; attempting to provoke me is futile.

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 11:10:24 PM UTC+2, Mathin3D wrote:

> My channel has no content, you stupid fucktard. If I did put content, it would be constellations superior to your garbage, as I do know mathematics.

Calm down, man. He's just a psychotic asshole full of shit.

I am calm. I am just treating him the same way he treats others. I agree that dude needs some serious psychiatric help.

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:12:35 PM UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 11:10:24 PM UTC+2, Mathin3D wrote:
>
> > My channel has no content, you stupid fucktard. If I did put content, it would be constellations superior to your garbage, as I do know mathematics.
> Calm down, man. He's just a psychotic asshole full of shit.

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 1:10:09 AM UTC+2, Mathin3D wrote:

> I am calm. I am just treating him the same way he treats others. I agree that dude needs some serious psychiatric help.

Sure. But he won't listen.

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:34:57 PM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 8:52:03 PM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail..com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 10:15:48 AM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:26:58 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:40:56 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 7:46:45 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 11:21:14 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7:27:00 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > With the inception of zero, a paradigm shift swept through the corridors of mainstream mathematics, ushering in a necessity to lay down specific guidelines for its application. In its role as a placeholder, zero's significance relies on a precise understanding of its place within mathematical expressions. A casual and indiscriminate employment of zero can engender perplexing outcomes that appear baffling on the surface. To illustrate this, let us delve into the following example:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x), which in itself appears innocuous. However, upon closer examination, a curious and unexpected outcome emerges:
> > > > > > > > x (x-x) =(x+x)(x-x)
> > > > > > > > x=2x
> > > > > > > > If we were to accept this result uncritically, a cascade of implications could follow. For instance, it could be argued that p=r, where p and r denote any magnitudes or numbers. Yet, this seemingly innocuous scenario holds within it a profound revelation—namely, that division by zero is mathematically absurd. Moreover, it underscores that multiplication by zero similarly leads to conundrums, rendering an equation devoid of practical value.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This serves as a testament to the intricate nature of mathematical principles and the criticality of discerning the nuances of zero's involvement in mathematical operations.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Zero means 'NO NUMBER':
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/94491990/Zero_means_No_Number_
> > > > > > > Yes of course, zero isn't a number, but an old human mind fiction like the modern fiction of infinity, but in opposite manner
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, the main problem of ALL human mathematickers, is indeed, they don't well-understand what is truly a real number, nor do they deliberately want seriously to understand it since it ruins completely their huge endless buissness they have inhereted & widely expand it
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bassam Karzeddin 🔊
> > > > > > Where a real number is only an existing distance, no matter however small or large it is!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Where nither the smallest or the largest distances exist
> > > > > > So like the positive constructible numbers (wither rationals or the only true irrational numbers, but only & strictly in their surd forms & never by their non-existing expantions)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A missed truth by ALL humans since the Pythagorean era FOR SURE
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BKK
> > > > > About
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This old human minds fiction numbers like zero, we have introduced the zeroless number systems that mathematicians deny globally I think with only few uneffecive exceptions
> > > > >
> > > > > And it is indeed more than nonsense fun with zero like the followings:
> > > > >
> > > > > 0 + 0 = 0, 0 - 0 = 0, 0^n = 0, (0/0 = 0^0 = ??)
> > > > >
> > > > > 0*n = 0, ..., etc
> > > > >
> > > > > Almost like the rules applied for infinity ♾️
> > > > >
> > > > > What an old nonsense is Zero
> > > > >
> > > > > But the Devils 😈 had made it illegally one of the most important & hollyest worshiped numbers & the clueless sheeples were so happy then, since it gives them milk & bread whenever they like, FOR SURE
> > > > >
> > > > > BKK
> > > > See the rules of infinity ♾️!
> > > >
> > > > ♾️ + ♾️ = ♾️, (0 + 0 = 0)
> > > > n* ♾️ = ♾️, (n*0 = 0)
> > > > ♾️^n = ♾️, (0^n = 0)
> > > >
> > > > ♾️/♾️ = ?, (0/0 = ?)
> > > > ....
> > > > ....
> > > > etc
> > > > What a nonsense mythmatics could be more thrilling than zero & ♾️ ? No wonders!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I Who made mathematics so silly & very stupid like that mathematickers?
> > > > Bkk
> > > U C how easy make mathematics can be with trolish human invented fictions like zero & ♾️, FOR SURE
> > >
> > > BKK
> > Zero can't be subtracted from because it is the absence of all quantity..
> > It's purpose is to set bases.
> No, it was added so unnecessary to mathematics, just because the courting number system of Romans was too primitive, then Zero got its illegal place in mathematics
>
> BKK
>
> I

Then how do you set bases without it?

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 4:27:30 AM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail..com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:34:57 PM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 8:52:03 PM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 10:15:48 AM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:26:58 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:40:56 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 7:46:45 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 11:21:14 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7:27:00 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > With the inception of zero, a paradigm shift swept through the corridors of mainstream mathematics, ushering in a necessity to lay down specific guidelines for its application. In its role as a placeholder, zero's significance relies on a precise understanding of its place within mathematical expressions. A casual and indiscriminate employment of zero can engender perplexing outcomes that appear baffling on the surface. To illustrate this, let us delve into the following example:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x), which in itself appears innocuous. However, upon closer examination, a curious and unexpected outcome emerges:
> > > > > > > > > x (x-x) =(x+x)(x-x)
> > > > > > > > > x=2x
> > > > > > > > > If we were to accept this result uncritically, a cascade of implications could follow. For instance, it could be argued that p=r, where p and r denote any magnitudes or numbers. Yet, this seemingly innocuous scenario holds within it a profound revelation—namely, that division by zero is mathematically absurd. Moreover, it underscores that multiplication by zero similarly leads to conundrums, rendering an equation devoid of practical value.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This serves as a testament to the intricate nature of mathematical principles and the criticality of discerning the nuances of zero's involvement in mathematical operations.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Zero means 'NO NUMBER':
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/94491990/Zero_means_No_Number_
> > > > > > > > Yes of course, zero isn't a number, but an old human mind fiction like the modern fiction of infinity, but in opposite manner
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > However, the main problem of ALL human mathematickers, is indeed, they don't well-understand what is truly a real number, nor do they deliberately want seriously to understand it since it ruins completely their huge endless buissness they have inhereted & widely expand it
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bassam Karzeddin 🔊
> > > > > > > Where a real number is only an existing distance, no matter however small or large it is!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Where nither the smallest or the largest distances exist
> > > > > > > So like the positive constructible numbers (wither rationals or the only true irrational numbers, but only & strictly in their surd forms & never by their non-existing expantions)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A missed truth by ALL humans since the Pythagorean era FOR SURE
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > BKK
> > > > > > About
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This old human minds fiction numbers like zero, we have introduced the zeroless number systems that mathematicians deny globally I think with only few uneffecive exceptions
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And it is indeed more than nonsense fun with zero like the followings:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 0 + 0 = 0, 0 - 0 = 0, 0^n = 0, (0/0 = 0^0 = ??)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 0*n = 0, ..., etc
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Almost like the rules applied for infinity ♾️
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What an old nonsense is Zero
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But the Devils 😈 had made it illegally one of the most important & hollyest worshiped numbers & the clueless sheeples were so happy then, since it gives them milk & bread whenever they like, FOR SURE
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BKK
> > > > > See the rules of infinity ♾️!
> > > > >
> > > > > ♾️ + ♾️ = ♾️, (0 + 0 = 0)
> > > > > n* ♾️ = ♾️, (n*0 = 0)
> > > > > ♾️^n = ♾️, (0^n = 0)
> > > > >
> > > > > ♾️/♾️ = ?, (0/0 = ?)
> > > > > ....
> > > > > ....
> > > > > etc
> > > > > What a nonsense mythmatics could be more thrilling than zero & ♾️ ? No wonders!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I Who made mathematics so silly & very stupid like that mathematickers?
> > > > > Bkk
> > > > U C how easy make mathematics can be with trolish human invented fictions like zero & ♾️, FOR SURE
> > > >
> > > > BKK
> > > Zero can't be subtracted from because it is the absence of all quantity.
> > > It's purpose is to set bases.
> > No, it was added so unnecessary to mathematics, just because the courting number system of Romans was too primitive, then Zero got its illegal place in mathematics
> >
> > BKK
> >
> > I
> Then how do you set bases without it?

Learn my new zeroless number system with any base you like, it is so simple & too easy to understand without all these incomprehensible & so unnecessary troubles or puzzles with no number like Zero

The topic is (new number system without zero ) or Zeroless number system

BKk

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:22:30 PM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 4:27:30 AM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:34:57 PM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 8:52:03 PM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 10:15:48 AM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:26:58 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:40:56 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 7:46:45 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 11:21:14 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7:27:00 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > With the inception of zero, a paradigm shift swept through the corridors of mainstream mathematics, ushering in a necessity to lay down specific guidelines for its application. In its role as a placeholder, zero's significance relies on a precise understanding of its place within mathematical expressions. A casual and indiscriminate employment of zero can engender perplexing outcomes that appear baffling on the surface. To illustrate this, let us delve into the following example:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x), which in itself appears innocuous. However, upon closer examination, a curious and unexpected outcome emerges:
> > > > > > > > > > x (x-x) =(x+x)(x-x)
> > > > > > > > > > x=2x
> > > > > > > > > > If we were to accept this result uncritically, a cascade of implications could follow. For instance, it could be argued that p=r, where p and r denote any magnitudes or numbers. Yet, this seemingly innocuous scenario holds within it a profound revelation—namely, that division by zero is mathematically absurd. Moreover, it underscores that multiplication by zero similarly leads to conundrums, rendering an equation devoid of practical value.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This serves as a testament to the intricate nature of mathematical principles and the criticality of discerning the nuances of zero's involvement in mathematical operations.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Zero means 'NO NUMBER':
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/94491990/Zero_means_No_Number_
> > > > > > > > > Yes of course, zero isn't a number, but an old human mind fiction like the modern fiction of infinity, but in opposite manner
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > However, the main problem of ALL human mathematickers, is indeed, they don't well-understand what is truly a real number, nor do they deliberately want seriously to understand it since it ruins completely their huge endless buissness they have inhereted & widely expand it
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Bassam Karzeddin 🔊
> > > > > > > > Where a real number is only an existing distance, no matter however small or large it is!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Where nither the smallest or the largest distances exist
> > > > > > > > So like the positive constructible numbers (wither rationals or the only true irrational numbers, but only & strictly in their surd forms & never by their non-existing expantions)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A missed truth by ALL humans since the Pythagorean era FOR SURE
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > BKK
> > > > > > > About
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This old human minds fiction numbers like zero, we have introduced the zeroless number systems that mathematicians deny globally I think with only few uneffecive exceptions
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And it is indeed more than nonsense fun with zero like the followings:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 0 + 0 = 0, 0 - 0 = 0, 0^n = 0, (0/0 = 0^0 = ??)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 0*n = 0, ..., etc
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Almost like the rules applied for infinity ♾️
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What an old nonsense is Zero
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But the Devils 😈 had made it illegally one of the most important & hollyest worshiped numbers & the clueless sheeples were so happy then, since it gives them milk & bread whenever they like, FOR SURE
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > BKK
> > > > > > See the rules of infinity ♾️!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ♾️ + ♾️ = ♾️, (0 + 0 = 0)
> > > > > > n* ♾️ = ♾️, (n*0 = 0)
> > > > > > ♾️^n = ♾️, (0^n = 0)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ♾️/♾️ = ?, (0/0 = ?)
> > > > > > ....
> > > > > > ....
> > > > > > etc
> > > > > > What a nonsense mythmatics could be more thrilling than zero & ♾️ ? No wonders!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I Who made mathematics so silly & very stupid like that mathematickers?
> > > > > > Bkk
> > > > > U C how easy make mathematics can be with trolish human invented fictions like zero & ♾️, FOR SURE
> > > > >
> > > > > BKK
> > > > Zero can't be subtracted from because it is the absence of all quantity.
> > > > It's purpose is to set bases.
> > > No, it was added so unnecessary to mathematics, just because the courting number system of Romans was too primitive, then Zero got its illegal place in mathematics
> > >
> > > BKK
> > >
> > > I
> > Then how do you set bases without it?
> Learn my new zeroless number system with any base you like, it is so simple & too easy to understand without all these incomprehensible & so unnecessary troubles or puzzles with no number like Zero
>
> The topic is (new number system without zero ) or Zeroless number system
>
> BKk

Math zero is a winning system.
Your system is lame. What we already have is better.

On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 2:40:08 AM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:22:30 PM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 4:27:30 AM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:34:57 PM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 8:52:03 PM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 10:15:48 AM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:26:58 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:40:56 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 7:46:45 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 11:21:14 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7:27:00 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > With the inception of zero, a paradigm shift swept through the corridors of mainstream mathematics, ushering in a necessity to lay down specific guidelines for its application. In its role as a placeholder, zero's significance relies on a precise understanding of its place within mathematical expressions. A casual and indiscriminate employment of zero can engender perplexing outcomes that appear baffling on the surface. To illustrate this, let us delve into the following example:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x), which in itself appears innocuous. However, upon closer examination, a curious and unexpected outcome emerges:
> > > > > > > > > > > x (x-x) =(x+x)(x-x)
> > > > > > > > > > > x=2x
> > > > > > > > > > > If we were to accept this result uncritically, a cascade of implications could follow. For instance, it could be argued that p=r, where p and r denote any magnitudes or numbers. Yet, this seemingly innocuous scenario holds within it a profound revelation—namely, that division by zero is mathematically absurd. Moreover, it underscores that multiplication by zero similarly leads to conundrums, rendering an equation devoid of practical value.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This serves as a testament to the intricate nature of mathematical principles and the criticality of discerning the nuances of zero's involvement in mathematical operations.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Zero means 'NO NUMBER':
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/94491990/Zero_means_No_Number_
> > > > > > > > > > Yes of course, zero isn't a number, but an old human mind fiction like the modern fiction of infinity, but in opposite manner
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > However, the main problem of ALL human mathematickers, is indeed, they don't well-understand what is truly a real number, nor do they deliberately want seriously to understand it since it ruins completely their huge endless buissness they have inhereted & widely expand it
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Bassam Karzeddin 🔊
> > > > > > > > > Where a real number is only an existing distance, no matter however small or large it is!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Where nither the smallest or the largest distances exist
> > > > > > > > > So like the positive constructible numbers (wither rationals or the only true irrational numbers, but only & strictly in their surd forms & never by their non-existing expantions)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A missed truth by ALL humans since the Pythagorean era FOR SURE
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > BKK
> > > > > > > > About
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This old human minds fiction numbers like zero, we have introduced the zeroless number systems that mathematicians deny globally I think with only few uneffecive exceptions
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And it is indeed more than nonsense fun with zero like the followings:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 0 + 0 = 0, 0 - 0 = 0, 0^n = 0, (0/0 = 0^0 = ??)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 0*n = 0, ..., etc
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Almost like the rules applied for infinity ♾️
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What an old nonsense is Zero
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But the Devils 😈 had made it illegally one of the most important & hollyest worshiped numbers & the clueless sheeples were so happy then, since it gives them milk & bread whenever they like, FOR SURE
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > BKK
> > > > > > > See the rules of infinity ♾️!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ♾️ + ♾️ = ♾️, (0 + 0 = 0)
> > > > > > > n* ♾️ = ♾️, (n*0 = 0)
> > > > > > > ♾️^n = ♾️, (0^n = 0)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ♾️/♾️ = ?, (0/0 = ?)
> > > > > > > ....
> > > > > > > ....
> > > > > > > etc
> > > > > > > What a nonsense mythmatics could be more thrilling than zero & ♾️ ? No wonders!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I Who made mathematics so silly & very stupid like that mathematickers?
> > > > > > > Bkk
> > > > > > U C how easy make mathematics can be with trolish human invented fictions like zero & ♾️, FOR SURE
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BKK
> > > > > Zero can't be subtracted from because it is the absence of all quantity.
> > > > > It's purpose is to set bases.
> > > > No, it was added so unnecessary to mathematics, just because the courting number system of Romans was too primitive, then Zero got its illegal place in mathematics
> > > >
> > > > BKK
> > > >
> > > > I
> > > Then how do you set bases without it?
> > Learn my new zeroless number system with any base you like, it is so simple & too easy to understand without all these incomprehensible & so unnecessary troubles or puzzles with no number like Zero
> >
> > The topic is (new number system without zero ) or Zeroless number system
> >
> > BKk
> Math zero is a winning system.
> Your system is lame. What we already have is better.

As you like

BKK

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 4:48:19 PM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 2:40:08 AM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:22:30 PM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 4:27:30 AM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:34:57 PM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 8:52:03 PM UTC+3, mitchr....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 10:15:48 AM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:26:58 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:40:56 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 7:46:45 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 11:21:14 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7:27:00 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > With the inception of zero, a paradigm shift swept through the corridors of mainstream mathematics, ushering in a necessity to lay down specific guidelines for its application. In its role as a placeholder, zero's significance relies on a precise understanding of its place within mathematical expressions. A casual and indiscriminate employment of zero can engender perplexing outcomes that appear baffling on the surface. To illustrate this, let us delve into the following example:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x), which in itself appears innocuous. However, upon closer examination, a curious and unexpected outcome emerges:
> > > > > > > > > > > > x (x-x) =(x+x)(x-x)
> > > > > > > > > > > > x=2x
> > > > > > > > > > > > If we were to accept this result uncritically, a cascade of implications could follow. For instance, it could be argued that p=r, where p and r denote any magnitudes or numbers. Yet, this seemingly innocuous scenario holds within it a profound revelation—namely, that division by zero is mathematically absurd. Moreover, it underscores that multiplication by zero similarly leads to conundrums, rendering an equation devoid of practical value.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This serves as a testament to the intricate nature of mathematical principles and the criticality of discerning the nuances of zero's involvement in mathematical operations.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Zero means 'NO NUMBER':
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/94491990/Zero_means_No_Number_
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes of course, zero isn't a number, but an old human mind fiction like the modern fiction of infinity, but in opposite manner
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > However, the main problem of ALL human mathematickers, is indeed, they don't well-understand what is truly a real number, nor do they deliberately want seriously to understand it since it ruins completely their huge endless buissness they have inhereted & widely expand it
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Bassam Karzeddin 🔊
> > > > > > > > > > Where a real number is only an existing distance, no matter however small or large it is!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Where nither the smallest or the largest distances exist
> > > > > > > > > > So like the positive constructible numbers (wither rationals or the only true irrational numbers, but only & strictly in their surd forms & never by their non-existing expantions)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > A missed truth by ALL humans since the Pythagorean era FOR SURE
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > BKK
> > > > > > > > > About
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This old human minds fiction numbers like zero, we have introduced the zeroless number systems that mathematicians deny globally I think with only few uneffecive exceptions
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And it is indeed more than nonsense fun with zero like the followings:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 0 + 0 = 0, 0 - 0 = 0, 0^n = 0, (0/0 = 0^0 = ??)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 0*n = 0, ..., etc
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Almost like the rules applied for infinity ♾️
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What an old nonsense is Zero
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But the Devils 😈 had made it illegally one of the most important & hollyest worshiped numbers & the clueless sheeples were so happy then, since it gives them milk & bread whenever they like, FOR SURE
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > BKK
> > > > > > > > See the rules of infinity ♾️!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ♾️ + ♾️ = ♾️, (0 + 0 = 0)
> > > > > > > > n* ♾️ = ♾️, (n*0 = 0)
> > > > > > > > ♾️^n = ♾️, (0^n = 0)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ♾️/♾️ = ?, (0/0 = ?)
> > > > > > > > ....
> > > > > > > > ....
> > > > > > > > etc
> > > > > > > > What a nonsense mythmatics could be more thrilling than zero & ♾️ ? No wonders!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I Who made mathematics so silly & very stupid like that mathematickers?
> > > > > > > > Bkk
> > > > > > > U C how easy make mathematics can be with trolish human invented fictions like zero & ♾️, FOR SURE
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > BKK
> > > > > > Zero can't be subtracted from because it is the absence of all quantity.
> > > > > > It's purpose is to set bases.
> > > > > No, it was added so unnecessary to mathematics, just because the courting number system of Romans was too primitive, then Zero got its illegal place in mathematics
> > > > >
> > > > > BKK
> > > > >
> > > > > I
> > > > Then how do you set bases without it?
> > > Learn my new zeroless number system with any base you like, it is so simple & too easy to understand without all these incomprehensible & so unnecessary troubles or puzzles with no number like Zero
> > >
> > > The topic is (new number system without zero ) or Zeroless number system
> > >
> > > BKk
> > Math zero is a winning system.
> > Your system is lame. What we already have is better.
> As you like
>
> BKK

Zero math is real...

On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 2:52:53 AM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 4:48:19 PM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 2:40:08 AM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:22:30 PM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 4:27:30 AM UTC+3, mitchr....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:34:57 PM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 8:52:03 PM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 10:15:48 AM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:26:58 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:40:56 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 7:46:45 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 11:21:14 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7:27:00 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > With the inception of zero, a paradigm shift swept through the corridors of mainstream mathematics, ushering in a necessity to lay down specific guidelines for its application. In its role as a placeholder, zero's significance relies on a precise understanding of its place within mathematical expressions. A casual and indiscriminate employment of zero can engender perplexing outcomes that appear baffling on the surface. To illustrate this, let us delve into the following example:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x), which in itself appears innocuous. However, upon closer examination, a curious and unexpected outcome emerges:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > x (x-x) =(x+x)(x-x)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > x=2x
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If we were to accept this result uncritically, a cascade of implications could follow. For instance, it could be argued that p=r, where p and r denote any magnitudes or numbers. Yet, this seemingly innocuous scenario holds within it a profound revelation—namely, that division by zero is mathematically absurd. Moreover, it underscores that multiplication by zero similarly leads to conundrums, rendering an equation devoid of practical value.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This serves as a testament to the intricate nature of mathematical principles and the criticality of discerning the nuances of zero's involvement in mathematical operations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Zero means 'NO NUMBER':
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/94491990/Zero_means_No_Number_
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes of course, zero isn't a number, but an old human mind fiction like the modern fiction of infinity, but in opposite manner
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > However, the main problem of ALL human mathematickers, is indeed, they don't well-understand what is truly a real number, nor do they deliberately want seriously to understand it since it ruins completely their huge endless buissness they have inhereted & widely expand it
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Bassam Karzeddin 🔊
> > > > > > > > > > > Where a real number is only an existing distance, no matter however small or large it is!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Where nither the smallest or the largest distances exist
> > > > > > > > > > > So like the positive constructible numbers (wither rationals or the only true irrational numbers, but only & strictly in their surd forms & never by their non-existing expantions)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > A missed truth by ALL humans since the Pythagorean era FOR SURE
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > BKK
> > > > > > > > > > About
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This old human minds fiction numbers like zero, we have introduced the zeroless number systems that mathematicians deny globally I think with only few uneffecive exceptions
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And it is indeed more than nonsense fun with zero like the followings:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 0 + 0 = 0, 0 - 0 = 0, 0^n = 0, (0/0 = 0^0 = ??)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 0*n = 0, ..., etc
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Almost like the rules applied for infinity ♾️
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What an old nonsense is Zero
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But the Devils 😈 had made it illegally one of the most important & hollyest worshiped numbers & the clueless sheeples were so happy then, since it gives them milk & bread whenever they like, FOR SURE
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > BKK
> > > > > > > > > See the rules of infinity ♾️!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ♾️ + ♾️ = ♾️, (0 + 0 = 0)
> > > > > > > > > n* ♾️ = ♾️, (n*0 = 0)
> > > > > > > > > ♾️^n = ♾️, (0^n = 0)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ♾️/♾️ = ?, (0/0 = ?)
> > > > > > > > > ....
> > > > > > > > > ....
> > > > > > > > > etc
> > > > > > > > > What a nonsense mythmatics could be more thrilling than zero & ♾️ ? No wonders!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I Who made mathematics so silly & very stupid like that mathematickers?
> > > > > > > > > Bkk
> > > > > > > > U C how easy make mathematics can be with trolish human invented fictions like zero & ♾️, FOR SURE
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > BKK
> > > > > > > Zero can't be subtracted from because it is the absence of all quantity.
> > > > > > > It's purpose is to set bases.
> > > > > > No, it was added so unnecessary to mathematics, just because the courting number system of Romans was too primitive, then Zero got its illegal place in mathematics
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BKK
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I
> > > > > Then how do you set bases without it?
> > > > Learn my new zeroless number system with any base you like, it is so simple & too easy to understand without all these incomprehensible & so unnecessary troubles or puzzles with no number like Zero
> > > >
> > > > The topic is (new number system without zero ) or Zeroless number system
> > > >
> > > > BKk
> > > Math zero is a winning system.
> > > Your system is lame. What we already have is better.
> > As you like
> >
> > BKK
> Zero math is real...

Especially with (1/0), (0/0), (0^0), ...., etc

Enjoy it a lot, who knows, you might discover time travel with all these nonsense fairy numbers!

Bkk

On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 03:13:57 UTC-4, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 2:52:53 AM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 4:48:19 PM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 2:40:08 AM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:22:30 PM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 4:27:30 AM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:34:57 PM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 8:52:03 PM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 10:15:48 AM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:26:58 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:40:56 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 7:46:45 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 11:21:14 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7:27:00 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the inception of zero, a paradigm shift swept through the corridors of mainstream mathematics, ushering in a necessity to lay down specific guidelines for its application. In its role as a placeholder, zero's significance relies on a precise understanding of its place within mathematical expressions. A casual and indiscriminate employment of zero can engender perplexing outcomes that appear baffling on the surface.. To illustrate this, let us delve into the following example:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x), which in itself appears innocuous. However, upon closer examination, a curious and unexpected outcome emerges:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > x (x-x) =(x+x)(x-x)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > x=2x
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we were to accept this result uncritically, a cascade of implications could follow. For instance, it could be argued that p=r, where p and r denote any magnitudes or numbers. Yet, this seemingly innocuous scenario holds within it a profound revelation—namely, that division by zero is mathematically absurd. Moreover, it underscores that multiplication by zero similarly leads to conundrums, rendering an equation devoid of practical value.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This serves as a testament to the intricate nature of mathematical principles and the criticality of discerning the nuances of zero's involvement in mathematical operations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zero means 'NO NUMBER':
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/94491990/Zero_means_No_Number_
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes of course, zero isn't a number, but an old human mind fiction like the modern fiction of infinity, but in opposite manner
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the main problem of ALL human mathematickers, is indeed, they don't well-understand what is truly a real number, nor do they deliberately want seriously to understand it since it ruins completely their huge endless buissness they have inhereted & widely expand it
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bassam Karzeddin 🔊
> > > > > > > > > > > > Where a real number is only an existing distance, no matter however small or large it is!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Where nither the smallest or the largest distances exist
> > > > > > > > > > > > So like the positive constructible numbers (wither rationals or the only true irrational numbers, but only & strictly in their surd forms & never by their non-existing expantions)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > A missed truth by ALL humans since the Pythagorean era FOR SURE
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > BKK
> > > > > > > > > > > About
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This old human minds fiction numbers like zero, we have introduced the zeroless number systems that mathematicians deny globally I think with only few uneffecive exceptions
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And it is indeed more than nonsense fun with zero like the followings:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 0 + 0 = 0, 0 - 0 = 0, 0^n = 0, (0/0 = 0^0 = ??)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 0*n = 0, ..., etc
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Almost like the rules applied for infinity ♾️
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What an old nonsense is Zero
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > But the Devils 😈 had made it illegally one of the most important & hollyest worshiped numbers & the clueless sheeples were so happy then, since it gives them milk & bread whenever they like, FOR SURE
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > BKK
> > > > > > > > > > See the rules of infinity ♾️!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ♾️ + ♾️ = ♾️, (0 + 0 = 0)
> > > > > > > > > > n* ♾️ = ♾️, (n*0 = 0)
> > > > > > > > > > ♾️^n = ♾️, (0^n = 0)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ♾️/♾️ = ?, (0/0 = ?)
> > > > > > > > > > ....
> > > > > > > > > > ....
> > > > > > > > > > etc
> > > > > > > > > > What a nonsense mythmatics could be more thrilling than zero & ♾️ ? No wonders!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I Who made mathematics so silly & very stupid like that mathematickers?
> > > > > > > > > > Bkk
> > > > > > > > > U C how easy make mathematics can be with trolish human invented fictions like zero & ♾️, FOR SURE
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > BKK
> > > > > > > > Zero can't be subtracted from because it is the absence of all quantity.
> > > > > > > > It's purpose is to set bases.
> > > > > > > No, it was added so unnecessary to mathematics, just because the courting number system of Romans was too primitive, then Zero got its illegal place in mathematics
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > BKK
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > Then how do you set bases without it?
> > > > > Learn my new zeroless number system with any base you like, it is so simple & too easy to understand without all these incomprehensible & so unnecessary troubles or puzzles with no number like Zero
> > > > >
> > > > > The topic is (new number system without zero ) or Zeroless number system
> > > > >
> > > > > BKk
> > > > Math zero is a winning system.
> > > > Your system is lame. What we already have is better.
> > > As you like
> > >
> > > BKK
> > Zero math is real...
> Especially with (1/0), (0/0), (0^0), ...., etc
>
> Enjoy it a lot, who knows, you might discover time travel with all these nonsense fairy numbers!

On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 2:37:31 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 03:13:57 UTC-4, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 2:52:53 AM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 4:48:19 PM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 2:40:08 AM UTC+3, mitchr....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:22:30 PM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 4:27:30 AM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:34:57 PM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 8:52:03 PM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 10:15:48 AM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:26:58 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:40:56 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 7:46:45 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 11:21:14 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7:27:00 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the inception of zero, a paradigm shift swept through the corridors of mainstream mathematics, ushering in a necessity to lay down specific guidelines for its application. In its role as a placeholder, zero's significance relies on a precise understanding of its place within mathematical expressions. A casual and indiscriminate employment of zero can engender perplexing outcomes that appear baffling on the surface. To illustrate this, let us delve into the following example:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x), which in itself appears innocuous. However, upon closer examination, a curious and unexpected outcome emerges:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > x (x-x) =(x+x)(x-x)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > x=2x
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we were to accept this result uncritically, a cascade of implications could follow. For instance, it could be argued that p=r, where p and r denote any magnitudes or numbers. Yet, this seemingly innocuous scenario holds within it a profound revelation—namely, that division by zero is mathematically absurd. Moreover, it underscores that multiplication by zero similarly leads to conundrums, rendering an equation devoid of practical value.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This serves as a testament to the intricate nature of mathematical principles and the criticality of discerning the nuances of zero's involvement in mathematical operations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zero means 'NO NUMBER':
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/94491990/Zero_means_No_Number_
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes of course, zero isn't a number, but an old human mind fiction like the modern fiction of infinity, but in opposite manner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the main problem of ALL human mathematickers, is indeed, they don't well-understand what is truly a real number, nor do they deliberately want seriously to understand it since it ruins completely their huge endless buissness they have inhereted & widely expand it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bassam Karzeddin 🔊
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Where a real number is only an existing distance, no matter however small or large it is!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Where nither the smallest or the largest distances exist
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So like the positive constructible numbers (wither rationals or the only true irrational numbers, but only & strictly in their surd forms & never by their non-existing expantions)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > A missed truth by ALL humans since the Pythagorean era FOR SURE
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > BKK
> > > > > > > > > > > > About
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This old human minds fiction numbers like zero, we have introduced the zeroless number systems that mathematicians deny globally I think with only few uneffecive exceptions
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > And it is indeed more than nonsense fun with zero like the followings:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 0 + 0 = 0, 0 - 0 = 0, 0^n = 0, (0/0 = 0^0 = ??)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 0*n = 0, ..., etc
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Almost like the rules applied for infinity ♾️
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > What an old nonsense is Zero
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > But the Devils 😈 had made it illegally one of the most important & hollyest worshiped numbers & the clueless sheeples were so happy then, since it gives them milk & bread whenever they like, FOR SURE
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > BKK
> > > > > > > > > > > See the rules of infinity ♾️!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ♾️ + ♾️ = ♾️, (0 + 0 = 0)
> > > > > > > > > > > n* ♾️ = ♾️, (n*0 = 0)
> > > > > > > > > > > ♾️^n = ♾️, (0^n = 0)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ♾️/♾️ = ?, (0/0 = ?)
> > > > > > > > > > > ....
> > > > > > > > > > > ....
> > > > > > > > > > > etc
> > > > > > > > > > > What a nonsense mythmatics could be more thrilling than zero & ♾️ ? No wonders!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I Who made mathematics so silly & very stupid like that mathematickers?
> > > > > > > > > > > Bkk
> > > > > > > > > > U C how easy make mathematics can be with trolish human invented fictions like zero & ♾️, FOR SURE
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > BKK
> > > > > > > > > Zero can't be subtracted from because it is the absence of all quantity.
> > > > > > > > > It's purpose is to set bases.
> > > > > > > > No, it was added so unnecessary to mathematics, just because the courting number system of Romans was too primitive, then Zero got its illegal place in mathematics
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > BKK
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > Then how do you set bases without it?
> > > > > > Learn my new zeroless number system with any base you like, it is so simple & too easy to understand without all these incomprehensible & so unnecessary troubles or puzzles with no number like Zero
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The topic is (new number system without zero ) or Zeroless number system
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BKk
> > > > > Math zero is a winning system.
> > > > > Your system is lame. What we already have is better.
> > > > As you like
> > > >
> > > > BKK
> > > Zero math is real...
> > Especially with (1/0), (0/0), (0^0), ...., etc
> >
> > Enjoy it a lot, who knows, you might discover time travel with all these nonsense fairy numbers!
> You cannot help cranks because they don't think they are ill.
>
> First step to realising one is a crank, is to realise one has a problem.
>
> Mainstream math cranks don't believe they have a problem which is a major problem!
>
> >
> >
> > Bkk

On Tuesday, 10 October 2023 at 17:10:24 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote:
> My channel has no content, you stupid fucktard. If I did put content, it would be constellations superior to your garbage, as I do know mathematics.
> On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 8:03:14 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 13:02:27 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 4:27:11 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 11:07:44 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > > > <Drivel>
> > > >
> > > > No response? Chuckle.
> > > >
> > > > <PLONK>
> > > He did respond. Made you look like a ret rd. As always.
> > Your YouTube channel with 12 subscribers?
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/@Mathin3D/about
> >
> > Who in their right mind names their YT channel Mathin3D? Quite amusing.
> >
> > Do you believe others won't discover your identity, hiding behind anonymity? No one remains truly anonymous.
> >
> > And if I were less intelligent, what does that reflect on you? Oh, they'll say, it's that individual with the Mathin3d channel! They'll have a good laugh at your expense!
> >
> > I'd strongly advise against wasting your time with such mindless comments. What exactly are you hoping to achieve? You're not making any impact. I've engaged with mainstream mathematics professors; who are you, someone with an IQ below 56?
> >
> > Consider finding meaningful employment instead of resorting to irrelevant provocations.
> >
> > No one pays attention to inconsequential figures like yourself.
> >
> > Accept the situation; attempting to provoke me is futile.

You stupid fuck! Your channel has no content because you don't know shit about mathematics.

Yes, I piss and shit on you. Don't get too used to getting a response from me, moron - there are many dumb cunts like you, but only one of me.

No. It has no content, because I do not put it. I could if I wanted to.

I challenge you to prove that sqrt(2) does not exist. Don't be shy.

On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 10:48:23 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Tuesday, 10 October 2023 at 17:10:24 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote:
> > My channel has no content, you stupid fucktard. If I did put content, it would be constellations superior to your garbage, as I do know mathematics.
> > On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 8:03:14 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 13:02:27 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 4:27:11 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 11:07:44 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > > > > <Drivel>
> > > > >
> > > > > No response? Chuckle.
> > > > >
> > > > > <PLONK>
> > > > He did respond. Made you look like a ret rd. As always.
> > > Your YouTube channel with 12 subscribers?
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/@Mathin3D/about
> > >
> > > Who in their right mind names their YT channel Mathin3D? Quite amusing.
> > >
> > > Do you believe others won't discover your identity, hiding behind anonymity? No one remains truly anonymous.
> > >
> > > And if I were less intelligent, what does that reflect on you? Oh, they'll say, it's that individual with the Mathin3d channel! They'll have a good laugh at your expense!
> > >
> > > I'd strongly advise against wasting your time with such mindless comments. What exactly are you hoping to achieve? You're not making any impact. I've engaged with mainstream mathematics professors; who are you, someone with an IQ below 56?
> > >
> > > Consider finding meaningful employment instead of resorting to irrelevant provocations.
> > >
> > > No one pays attention to inconsequential figures like yourself.
> > >
> > > Accept the situation; attempting to provoke me is futile.
> You stupid fuck! Your channel has no content because you don't know shit about mathematics.
>
> Yes, I piss and shit on you. Don't get too used to getting a response from me, moron - there are many dumb cunts like you, but only one of me.

On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 19:19:46 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote:
> No. It has no content, because I do not put it. I could if I wanted to.

It has no content because you have nothing of interest or any worth to say.

>
> I challenge you to prove that sqrt(2) does not exist. Don't be shy.

Stupid fuck. What on earth gave you the idea that I claimed sqrt(2) does not exist?

I, the GREAT JOHN GABRIEL, claim that there is NO NUMBER that describes the measure of the ratio square diagonal :square side. In other words, sqrt(2) is just a constant rational number of one's calculations, with 'rational' being a redundant adjective.

I could carry on educating you, moron! However, it would be futile because you are a deluded prize idiot!

LMAO.

Eat shit and die, you stupid cunt!!!

> On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 10:48:23 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 10 October 2023 at 17:10:24 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote:
> > > My channel has no content, you stupid fucktard. If I did put content, it would be constellations superior to your garbage, as I do know mathematics.
> > > On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 8:03:14 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 13:02:27 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 4:27:11 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 11:07:44 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > > > > > <Drivel>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No response? Chuckle.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <PLONK>
> > > > > He did respond. Made you look like a ret rd. As always.
> > > > Your YouTube channel with 12 subscribers?
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/@Mathin3D/about
> > > >
> > > > Who in their right mind names their YT channel Mathin3D? Quite amusing.
> > > >
> > > > Do you believe others won't discover your identity, hiding behind anonymity? No one remains truly anonymous.
> > > >
> > > > And if I were less intelligent, what does that reflect on you? Oh, they'll say, it's that individual with the Mathin3d channel! They'll have a good laugh at your expense!
> > > >
> > > > I'd strongly advise against wasting your time with such mindless comments. What exactly are you hoping to achieve? You're not making any impact. I've engaged with mainstream mathematics professors; who are you, someone with an IQ below 56?
> > > >
> > > > Consider finding meaningful employment instead of resorting to irrelevant provocations.
> > > >
> > > > No one pays attention to inconsequential figures like yourself.
> > > >
> > > > Accept the situation; attempting to provoke me is futile.
> > You stupid fuck! Your channel has no content because you don't know shit about mathematics.
> >
> > Yes, I piss and shit on you. Don't get too used to getting a response from me, moron - there are many dumb cunts like you, but only one of me.

On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:13:57 AM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 2:52:53 AM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 4:48:19 PM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 2:40:08 AM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:22:30 PM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 4:27:30 AM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:34:57 PM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 8:52:03 PM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 10:15:48 AM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:26:58 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:40:56 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 7:46:45 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 11:21:14 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7:27:00 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the inception of zero, a paradigm shift swept through the corridors of mainstream mathematics, ushering in a necessity to lay down specific guidelines for its application. In its role as a placeholder, zero's significance relies on a precise understanding of its place within mathematical expressions. A casual and indiscriminate employment of zero can engender perplexing outcomes that appear baffling on the surface.. To illustrate this, let us delve into the following example:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x), which in itself appears innocuous. However, upon closer examination, a curious and unexpected outcome emerges:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > x (x-x) =(x+x)(x-x)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > x=2x
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we were to accept this result uncritically, a cascade of implications could follow. For instance, it could be argued that p=r, where p and r denote any magnitudes or numbers. Yet, this seemingly innocuous scenario holds within it a profound revelation—namely, that division by zero is mathematically absurd. Moreover, it underscores that multiplication by zero similarly leads to conundrums, rendering an equation devoid of practical value.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This serves as a testament to the intricate nature of mathematical principles and the criticality of discerning the nuances of zero's involvement in mathematical operations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zero means 'NO NUMBER':
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/94491990/Zero_means_No_Number_
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes of course, zero isn't a number, but an old human mind fiction like the modern fiction of infinity, but in opposite manner
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the main problem of ALL human mathematickers, is indeed, they don't well-understand what is truly a real number, nor do they deliberately want seriously to understand it since it ruins completely their huge endless buissness they have inhereted & widely expand it
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bassam Karzeddin 🔊
> > > > > > > > > > > > Where a real number is only an existing distance, no matter however small or large it is!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Where nither the smallest or the largest distances exist
> > > > > > > > > > > > So like the positive constructible numbers (wither rationals or the only true irrational numbers, but only & strictly in their surd forms & never by their non-existing expantions)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > A missed truth by ALL humans since the Pythagorean era FOR SURE
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > BKK
> > > > > > > > > > > About
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This old human minds fiction numbers like zero, we have introduced the zeroless number systems that mathematicians deny globally I think with only few uneffecive exceptions
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And it is indeed more than nonsense fun with zero like the followings:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 0 + 0 = 0, 0 - 0 = 0, 0^n = 0, (0/0 = 0^0 = ??)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 0*n = 0, ..., etc
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Almost like the rules applied for infinity ♾️
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What an old nonsense is Zero
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > But the Devils 😈 had made it illegally one of the most important & hollyest worshiped numbers & the clueless sheeples were so happy then, since it gives them milk & bread whenever they like, FOR SURE
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > BKK
> > > > > > > > > > See the rules of infinity ♾️!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ♾️ + ♾️ = ♾️, (0 + 0 = 0)
> > > > > > > > > > n* ♾️ = ♾️, (n*0 = 0)
> > > > > > > > > > ♾️^n = ♾️, (0^n = 0)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ♾️/♾️ = ?, (0/0 = ?)
> > > > > > > > > > ....
> > > > > > > > > > ....
> > > > > > > > > > etc
> > > > > > > > > > What a nonsense mythmatics could be more thrilling than zero & ♾️ ? No wonders!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I Who made mathematics so silly & very stupid like that mathematickers?
> > > > > > > > > > Bkk
> > > > > > > > > U C how easy make mathematics can be with trolish human invented fictions like zero & ♾️, FOR SURE
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > BKK
> > > > > > > > Zero can't be subtracted from because it is the absence of all quantity.
> > > > > > > > It's purpose is to set bases.
> > > > > > > No, it was added so unnecessary to mathematics, just because the courting number system of Romans was too primitive, then Zero got its illegal place in mathematics
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > BKK
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > Then how do you set bases without it?
> > > > > Learn my new zeroless number system with any base you like, it is so simple & too easy to understand without all these incomprehensible & so unnecessary troubles or puzzles with no number like Zero
> > > > >
> > > > > The topic is (new number system without zero ) or Zeroless number system
> > > > >
> > > > > BKk
> > > > Math zero is a winning system.
> > > > Your system is lame. What we already have is better.
> > > As you like
> > >
> > > BKK
> > Zero math is real...
> Especially with (1/0), (0/0), (0^0), ...., etc
>
> Enjoy it a lot, who knows, you might discover time travel with all these nonsense fairy numbers!

On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 7:42:06 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 19:19:46 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote:
> > No. It has no content, because I do not put it. I could if I wanted to.
> It has no content because you have nothing of interest or any worth to say.
> >
> > I challenge you to prove that sqrt(2) does not exist. Don't be shy.
> Stupid fuck. What on earth gave you the idea that I claimed sqrt(2) does not exist?

Aren't you one who claims Limit of the sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, etc isn't 1?

> I, the GREAT JOHN GABRIEL, claim that there is NO NUMBER that describes the measure of the ratio square diagonal :square side. In other words, sqrt(2) is just a constant rational number of one's calculations, with 'rational' being a redundant adjective.

You are great at nothing. You are just mentally ill.
> I could carry on educating you, moron! However, it would be futile because you are a deluded prize idiot!

Everybody needs some education at some point. But definitely not from someone as ignorant as yourself. Not in mathematics, anyways.

> LMAO.

snipped

On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 15:44:31 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote:
> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 7:42:06 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 19:19:46 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote:
> > > No. It has no content, because I do not put it. I could if I wanted to.
> > It has no content because you have nothing of interest or any worth to say.
> > >
> > > I challenge you to prove that sqrt(2) does not exist. Don't be shy.
> > Stupid fuck. What on earth gave you the idea that I claimed sqrt(2) does not exist?
> Aren't you one who claims Limit of the sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, etc isn't 1?

Hey idiot.
I have never made such a claim. I totally agree the limit is 1.

Fuck off man, you are too stupid to bother with.

Get your facts straight, you incorrigible moron!

https://www.academia.edu/45001199/Mainstream_mathematics_professors_are_incorrigibly_stupid_creatures_who_cannot_be_corrected

<💩💩💩💩💩💩>

On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:05:02 PM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 15:44:31 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote:
> > On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 7:42:06 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 19:19:46 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote:
> > > > No. It has no content, because I do not put it. I could if I wanted to.
> > > It has no content because you have nothing of interest or any worth to say.
> > > >
> > > > I challenge you to prove that sqrt(2) does not exist. Don't be shy.
> > > Stupid fuck. What on earth gave you the idea that I claimed sqrt(2) does not exist?
> > Aren't you one who claims Limit of the sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, etc isn't 1?
> Hey idiot.
> I have never made such a claim. I totally agree the limit is 1.
>
> Fuck off man, you are too stupid to bother with.
>
> Get your facts straight, you incorrigible moron!
>
> https://www.academia.edu/45001199/Mainstream_mathematics_professors_are_incorrigibly_stupid_creatures_who_cannot_be_corrected
>
> <💩💩💩💩💩💩>

There is one more infinitesimal in its .999 repeating sequence.
That creates their smallest difference.

On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 2:19:46 AM UTC+3, Mathin3D wrote:
> No. It has no content, because I do not put it. I could if I wanted to.
>
> I challenge you to prove that sqrt(2) does not exist. Don't be shy.
> On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 10:48:23 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 10 October 2023 at 17:10:24 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote:
> > > My channel has no content, you stupid fucktard. If I did put content, it would be constellations superior to your garbage, as I do know mathematics.
> > > On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 8:03:14 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 13:02:27 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 4:27:11 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 11:07:44 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > > > > > <Drivel>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No response? Chuckle.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <PLONK>
> > > > > He did respond. Made you look like a ret rd. As always.
> > > > Your YouTube channel with 12 subscribers?
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/@Mathin3D/about
> > > >
> > > > Who in their right mind names their YT channel Mathin3D? Quite amusing.
> > > >
> > > > Do you believe others won't discover your identity, hiding behind anonymity? No one remains truly anonymous.
> > > >
> > > > And if I were less intelligent, what does that reflect on you? Oh, they'll say, it's that individual with the Mathin3d channel! They'll have a good laugh at your expense!
> > > >
> > > > I'd strongly advise against wasting your time with such mindless comments. What exactly are you hoping to achieve? You're not making any impact. I've engaged with mainstream mathematics professors; who are you, someone with an IQ below 56?
> > > >
> > > > Consider finding meaningful employment instead of resorting to irrelevant provocations.
> > > >
> > > > No one pays attention to inconsequential figures like yourself.
> > > >
> > > > Accept the situation; attempting to provoke me is futile.
> > You stupid fuck! Your channel has no content because you don't know shit about mathematics.
> >
> > Yes, I piss and shit on you. Don't get too used to getting a response from me, moron - there are many dumb cunts like you, but only one of me.

Most likely you are so confused, yes, Sqrt2 definitely does exist as a diagonal distance of a square ⬛️ with arbitrary existing unity distance for the side of the square; which isn't any rational number, but an irrational number that was discovered since thousands of years & proven existing only & strictly by Phythagorus theorem later since Phythagorins didn't believe in other existing numbers like the irrational numbers, & stories say that the one who did discoverer such a truth was thrown into the sea!

Mentioning that, none if those modern methods of endless approximations as Dedekind cuts, Cauchy sequences, ..., etc do prove anything about irrational numbers (which are only & strictly the constructible numbers)

However, the talk is about Cubrt2 which doesn't exist & not a number

Where, Phythagorus theorem proves the existence of Sqrt2 or Sqrt(p), where p is any prime number

But Fermat's last theorem proves the non-existence of alleged real number such as Cubrt2 & the Cube root of any prime number as well, FOR SURE

So to say, you are challenged to prove the existence of Cubrt2 (without making any human mind obvious cheat, either numerically or Geometrically but EXACTLY, since number is an EXACT intity!

But with your true identity where innocent school students may trust you

Bassam King karzeddin

On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 4:05:02 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 15:44:31 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote:
> > On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 7:42:06 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 19:19:46 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote:
> > > > No. It has no content, because I do not put it. I could if I wanted to.
> > > It has no content because you have nothing of interest or any worth to say.
> > > >
> > > > I challenge you to prove that sqrt(2) does not exist. Don't be shy.
> > > Stupid fuck. What on earth gave you the idea that I claimed sqrt(2) does not exist?
> > Aren't you one who claims Limit of the sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, etc isn't 1?
> Hey idiot.
> I have never made such a claim. I totally agree the limit is 1.
>
> Fuck off man, you are too stupid to bother with.
>
> Get your facts straight, you incorrigible moron!
>
> https://www.academia.edu/45001199/Mainstream_mathematics_professors_are_incorrigibly_stupid_creatures_who_cannot_be_corrected
>
> <💩💩💩💩💩💩>

Your nonsense says that the limit of the sequence isn't 1. You do not even understand your own objections. You are too mathematically weak but delude yourself into thinking you know something. You DON'T

fredag 13 oktober 2023 kl. 22:05:02 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 15:44:31 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote:
> > On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 7:42:06 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 19:19:46 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote:
> > > > No. It has no content, because I do not put it. I could if I wanted to.
> > > It has no content because you have nothing of interest or any worth to say.
> > > >
> > > > I challenge you to prove that sqrt(2) does not exist. Don't be shy.
> > > Stupid fuck. What on earth gave you the idea that I claimed sqrt(2) does not exist?
> > Aren't you one who claims Limit of the sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, etc isn't 1?
> Hey idiot.
> I have never made such a claim. I totally agree the limit is 1.
>
> Fuck off man, you are too stupid to bother with.
>
> Get your facts straight, you incorrigible moron!
>
> https://www.academia.edu/45001199/Mainstream_mathematics_professors_are_incorrigibly_stupid_creatures_who_cannot_be_corrected
>
> <💩💩💩💩💩💩>
If you agree that the limit is 1, then you also agree that 0.999... = 1.

On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:59:37 PM UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> fredag 13 oktober 2023 kl. 22:05:02 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 15:44:31 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote:
> > > On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 7:42:06 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 19:19:46 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote:
> > > > > No. It has no content, because I do not put it. I could if I wanted to.
> > > > It has no content because you have nothing of interest or any worth to say.
> > > > >
> > > > > I challenge you to prove that sqrt(2) does not exist. Don't be shy.
> > > > Stupid fuck. What on earth gave you the idea that I claimed sqrt(2) does not exist?
> > > Aren't you one who claims Limit of the sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, etc isn't 1?
> > Hey idiot.
> > I have never made such a claim. I totally agree the limit is 1.
> >
> > Fuck off man, you are too stupid to bother with.
> >
> > Get your facts straight, you incorrigible moron!
> >
> > https://www.academia.edu/45001199/Mainstream_mathematics_professors_are_incorrigibly_stupid_creatures_who_cannot_be_corrected
> >
> > <💩💩💩💩💩💩>
> If you agree that the limit is 1, then you also agree that 0.999... = 1

You are still so delusional

In an increasingly series, the sum would never reach one, nor it can be greater than one

Something old was proven to every trolish academic mathematician almost a dozen of times, & especially Here on sci.math, so go to the published proofs (either published by myself or anyone else) & show us your talent by refuting them under the same post

Eniugh acting dumb & deaf about (0.999...) being one, it was proven as non-existing number! FOR SURE

BKK