On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 5:49:34 PM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> 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

The infinite sequence of .999 repeating does not reach one.

On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 3:53:56 AM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 5:49:34 PM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > 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
> The infinite sequence of .999 repeating does not reach one.
Nor does it reach anything unless you stop some where you are cabable of!

Not any mystery FOR SURE

BKK

On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 4:01:10 AM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 3:53:56 AM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 5:49:34 PM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > 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
> > The infinite sequence of .999 repeating does not reach one.
> Nor does it reach anything unless you stop some where you are cabable of!
>
> Not any mystery FOR SURE
>
> BKK

You can't continue the sequence forever...
You run out of time. Waiting forever is the reality...

On Monday, 16 October 2023 at 16:12:00 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote:
> 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.

It does no such thing, but what it does do, is expose your stupidity in believing an infinite sum to be possible.

> You do not even understand your own objections. You are too mathematically weak but delude yourself into thinking you know something. You DON'T

💩💩💩💩💩💩

On Tuesday, 8 August 2023 at 12:27:00 UTC-4, 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_

Download my new book - it's the best book ever written on number concept:

https://www.academia.edu/105399167/The_Ultimate_Book_of_Numbers

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 2:55:21 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> 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

Nonsense. For each and every real number x: x - x = 0. Hence it's not allowed to devide both sides of "x (x-x) = (x+x)(x-x)" by "(x - x)", dumbo.

On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 4:48:33 AM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 07:46:21 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 8 August 2023 at 23:34:57 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 6:27:00 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >
> > > > Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x) (*)
> > >
> > > <=>
> > >
> > > > x (x-x) = (x+x)(x-x) (**)
> > >
> > > Ok.
> > >
> > > > x=2x (***)
> > >
> > > Nope.
> > >
> > > Since x - x = 0 for all x e IR you committed the error "dividing by 0" when transforming equation (**) into (***).
> > > Such an "operation" is not allowed in math (for good reasons, as anyone except you can see).
> > >
> > > See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero#Fallacies
> > >
> > > > If we were to accept this result uncritically ...
> > >
> > > But WE don't /accept this result/. (See comment above.)
> > > > This serves as a testament
> > > that math is not your thing.
> > Try not to be a troll and a crank, and when you quote others, DO NOT quote them out of context, you vile bastard!
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > From the source: https://www.academia.edu/105399167/The_Ultimate_Book_of_Numbers
> > (Page 50)
> >
> > 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.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Try again, you fucking idiot! This time avoid straw man arguments and read to understand, you dipstick!!
> What the above example shows is that ZERO IS NOT A NUMBER, does not have the same properties which ALL true numbers have and does not conform to arithmetic operations to which all well-formed numbers do conform.

It's usually left out of division.

Called "Not a Number", is not that great a deal "x/0 is not a number",
while "0, or a number arbitrarily close to zero, is a number".

Now, if you reflect on those quantities as about down in their powers,
about when two otherwise same quantities drift apart and from each
other together, is about x^2 +- 1 and 1 +- x^2, about (x+1)(x-1),
or "when x = 1".

There was a commercial on television, in the 1980's. Two kids were talking and
one kid starts talking about his little brother "my little brother hates everything".
So one kid was like "try these Cheerios" and so they plated up a bowl of Cheerios
for this kid who was just sitting there angry at the table. So the kid picks up his
spoon and goes "I hate everything" then he starts and they're good, he starts eating
and eats the entire bowl and drains it. Then the kids are like "he likes it! Mikey likes it!".

So, Mikey, is this kid in the Cheerios commercial, and it became so relevant that Mikey
finally approved of something, it was in constant rotation, and later there was a second
commercial, and even years later a third, overcoming his disgust and hatred of the world
with a heart-healthy breakfast enjoyed thoroughly.

Here there's a troll, it hates everything, mostly it's self-hating. It's pretty easy to understand,
it doesn't know anything so is always wrong, though all what it makes is in a framework,
what it rejects.

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 12:06:16 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 4:48:33 AM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 07:46:21 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 8 August 2023 at 23:34:57 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 6:27:00 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x) (*)
> > > >
> > > > <=>
> > > >
> > > > > x (x-x) = (x+x)(x-x) (**)
> > > >
> > > > Ok.
> > > >
> > > > > x=2x (***)
> > > >
> > > > Nope.
> > > >
> > > > Since x - x = 0 for all x e IR you committed the error "dividing by 0" when transforming equation (**) into (***).
> > > > Such an "operation" is not allowed in math (for good reasons, as anyone except you can see).
> > > >
> > > > See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero#Fallacies
> > > >
> > > > > If we were to accept this result uncritically ...
> > > >
> > > > But WE don't /accept this result/. (See comment above.)
> > > > > This serves as a testament
> > > > that math is not your thing.
> > > Try not to be a troll and a crank, and when you quote others, DO NOT quote them out of context, you vile bastard!
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > From the source: https://www.academia.edu/105399167/The_Ultimate_Book_of_Numbers
> > > (Page 50)
> > >
> > > 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.
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Try again, you fucking idiot! This time avoid straw man arguments and read to understand, you dipstick!!
> > What the above example shows is that ZERO IS NOT A NUMBER, does not have the same properties which ALL true numbers have and does not conform to arithmetic operations to which all well-formed numbers do conform.
>
> It's usually left out of division.
>
> Called "Not a Number", is not that great a deal "x/0 is not a number",
> while "0, or a number arbitrarily close to zero, is a number".
>
> Now, if you reflect on those quantities as about down in their powers,
> about when two otherwise same quantities drift apart and from each
> other together, is about x^2 +- 1 and 1 +- x^2, about (x+1)(x-1),
> or "when x = 1".
>
> There was a commercial on television, in the 1980's. Two kids were talking and
> one kid starts talking about his little brother "my little brother hates everything".
> So one kid was like "try these Cheerios" and so they plated up a bowl of Cheerios
> for this kid who was just sitting there angry at the table. So the kid picks up his
> spoon and goes "I hate everything" then he starts and they're good, he starts eating
> and eats the entire bowl and drains it. Then the kids are like "he likes it! Mikey likes it!".
>
> So, Mikey, is this kid in the Cheerios commercial, and it became so relevant that Mikey
> finally approved of something, it was in constant rotation, and later there was a second
> commercial, and even years later a third, overcoming his disgust and hatred of the world
> with a heart-healthy breakfast enjoyed thoroughly.
>
> Here there's a troll, it hates everything, mostly it's self-hating. It's pretty easy to understand,
> it doesn't know anything so is always wrong, though all what it makes is in a framework,
> what it rejects.

Truth is regular! Geometry is motion! All correct!

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 5:44:58 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 12:06:16 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 4:48:33 AM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 07:46:21 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 8 August 2023 at 23:34:57 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 6:27:00 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x) (*)
> > > > >
> > > > > <=>
> > > > >
> > > > > > x (x-x) = (x+x)(x-x) (**)
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok.
> > > > >
> > > > > > x=2x (***)
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since x - x = 0 for all x e IR you committed the error "dividing by 0" when transforming equation (**) into (***).
> > > > > Such an "operation" is not allowed in math (for good reasons, as anyone except you can see).
> > > > >
> > > > > See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero#Fallacies
> > > > >
> > > > > > If we were to accept this result uncritically ...
> > > > >
> > > > > But WE don't /accept this result/. (See comment above.)
> > > > > > This serves as a testament
> > > > > that math is not your thing.
> > > > Try not to be a troll and a crank, and when you quote others, DO NOT quote them out of context, you vile bastard!
> > > >
> > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > From the source: https://www.academia.edu/105399167/The_Ultimate_Book_of_Numbers
> > > > (Page 50)
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Try again, you fucking idiot! This time avoid straw man arguments and read to understand, you dipstick!!
> > > What the above example shows is that ZERO IS NOT A NUMBER, does not have the same properties which ALL true numbers have and does not conform to arithmetic operations to which all well-formed numbers do conform.
> >
> > It's usually left out of division.
> >
> > Called "Not a Number", is not that great a deal "x/0 is not a number",
> > while "0, or a number arbitrarily close to zero, is a number".
> >
> > Now, if you reflect on those quantities as about down in their powers,
> > about when two otherwise same quantities drift apart and from each
> > other together, is about x^2 +- 1 and 1 +- x^2, about (x+1)(x-1),
> > or "when x = 1".
> >
> > There was a commercial on television, in the 1980's. Two kids were talking and
> > one kid starts talking about his little brother "my little brother hates everything".
> > So one kid was like "try these Cheerios" and so they plated up a bowl of Cheerios
> > for this kid who was just sitting there angry at the table. So the kid picks up his
> > spoon and goes "I hate everything" then he starts and they're good, he starts eating
> > and eats the entire bowl and drains it. Then the kids are like "he likes it! Mikey likes it!".
> >
> > So, Mikey, is this kid in the Cheerios commercial, and it became so relevant that Mikey
> > finally approved of something, it was in constant rotation, and later there was a second
> > commercial, and even years later a third, overcoming his disgust and hatred of the world
> > with a heart-healthy breakfast enjoyed thoroughly.
> >
> > Here there's a troll, it hates everything, mostly it's self-hating. It's pretty easy to understand,
> > it doesn't know anything so is always wrong, though all what it makes is in a framework,
> > what it rejects.
> Truth is regular! Geometry is motion! All correct!

There is a no quantity zero beginning.
Absolute values are beyond its zero magnitude.