Zelos Malum was asked to explain how multiplication works. In particular he was asked to demonstrate the product 2.1 x 2.2 and explain in full the meaning of the operator "x".

This was his response:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
i. a/b=[(a,b)]
ii. [(a,b)][(c,d)]=[(ac,bd)]
iii. 2.1=21/10=[(21,10)]
iv. 2.2=22/10=[(22,10)]
v. 2.1*2.2=[(21,10)][(22,10)]=[(462,100)]=4.62
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I allowed step 1, after all we could name rational numbers as [(a,b)] although I see no added advantage in this whatsoever.

Step (ii) is where Malum fails desperately. A self-claimed "Master Math" graduate who can't understand why step (ii) is circular and assumed in ALL the subsequent steps.

The level of ignorance, stupidity, arrogance, dishonesty and jealousy in mainstream academia is beyond comprehension. It has no ago surpassed pandemic proportions.

Try to think back when your math teacher "taught" you about the arithmetic operations and ask yourself if you honestly understood or if you simply learned the methods in a rote fashion. Indeed, ask yourself if you even ever had a clue what is the meaning of number!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w

I do know better than everyone else. If you said this, then you would be considered a crank, but I am the *exception*. Don't you just hate it, you jealous fools?

On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 07:44:34 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Zelos Malum was asked to explain how multiplication works. In particular he was asked to demonstrate the product 2.1 x 2.2 and explain in full the meaning of the operator "x".
>
> This was his response:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> i. a/b=[(a,b)]
> ii. [(a,b)][(c,d)]=[(ac,bd)]
> iii. 2.1=21/10=[(21,10)]
> iv. 2.2=22/10=[(22,10)]
> v. 2.1*2.2=[(21,10)][(22,10)]=[(462,100)]=4.62
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I allowed step 1, after all we could name rational numbers as [(a,b)] although I see no added advantage in this whatsoever.
>
> Step (ii) is where Malum fails desperately. A self-claimed "Master Math" graduate who can't understand why step (ii) is circular and assumed in ALL the subsequent steps.
>
> The level of ignorance, stupidity, arrogance, dishonesty and jealousy in mainstream academia is beyond comprehension. It has no ago surpassed pandemic proportions.
>
> Try to think back when your math teacher "taught" you about the arithmetic operations and ask yourself if you honestly understood or if you simply learned the methods in a rote fashion. Indeed, ask yourself if you even ever had a clue what is the meaning of number!
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
>
> I do know better than everyone else. If you said this, then you would be considered a crank, but I am the *exception*. Don't you just hate it, you jealous fools?

All operations of arithmetic can be stated strictly in terms of subtraction.. Addition is derived immediately from subtraction.

Division:

A quotient ps/qr is the rational number that is measured in terms of two numbers p/q and r/s.

ps/qr = [ p/q +p/q + ...n times ] / [ r/s + r/s+... n times ] where n=q or n=s.

Example: 2/3 -:- 5/6 = 4/5

p/q = 2/3 and r/s = 5/6

2/3 -:- 5/6 = [ 2/3 + 2/3 + 2/3 ] / [ 5/6 + 5/6 + 5/6] = [2] / [ 5/2] = [2 + 2] / [5/2 + 5/2] = 4 / 5

After the second equals sign, cancellation is again possible by Book 5, Proposition 12.

So the ENTIRE operation is done through geometry using similar triangles. No numbers are even required in the geometric definition, only magnitudes.

Multiplication:

The product (or multiplication) of two numbers p/q and r/s, that is, pr/qs is the quotient of either number
with the reciprocal of the other.

pr/qs = [ p/q +p/q + ...n times ] / [ s/r + s/r+... n times ] where n=q or n=r.

Example: 2/3 x 5/6 = 5/9

p/q = 2/3 and s/r = 6/5

2/3 x 5/6 = [2/3+2/3+2/3] / [6/5+6/5+6/5] = [2] / [18/5] = [ 2+2+2+2+2 ] / [18/5+18/5+18/5+18/5+18/5] = 10 / 18 = 5/9

AND

pr/qs = [ r/s + r/s+... n times ] / [ s/p + s/p+... n times ] where n=p or n=s.

This part is left as an exercise.

NOTE: The above definitions work on ANY magnitude. There is no need to have a separate interpretation for integers and fractions.

All these details are explained in my world famous article:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU

Compare this clarity with the bullshit of Zelos Malum:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. a/b=[(a,b)]
ii. [(a,b)][(c,d)]=[(ac,bd)]
iii. 2.1=21/10=[(21,10)]
iv. 2.2=22/10=[(22,10)]
v. 2.1*2.2=[(21,10)][(22,10)]=[(462,100)]=4.62
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 10:42:10 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka "John Gabriel", "Troll Boy") wrote:

> All operations of arithmetic can be stated strictly in terms of subtraction. Addition is derived immediately from subtraction.
>

You have it backwards, Troll Boy. Once you have defined the add function (+), you can define subtraction (-) as follows:

a - b = c if and only if a = c + b

Get it? Didn't think so. Oh, well...

> Division:
>
> A quotient ps/qr is the rational number that is measured in terms of two numbers p/q and r/s.
>

Once you have the multiplication function, you can define division (-:-) as follows:

If b =/= 0, then we have a -:- b = c if and only a = c * b.

Get your GED, Troll Boy! You aren't getting any younger. At your age, it's pretty much now or never.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Even at his advanced age (60+?), John Gabriel is STILL struggling with basic, elementary-school arithmetic. As he has repeatedly posted here:

"There are no points on a line."
--April 12, 2021

"Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
--July 10, 2020

"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017

“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015

"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
--October 28, 2017

"Zero is not a number."
-- Dec. 2, 2019

"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017

“There is no such thing as an empty set.”
--Oct. 4, 2019

“3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
--Oct. 22, 2019

No math genius our JG, though he actually lists his job title as “mathematician” at Linkedin.com. Apparently, they do not verify your credentials.

Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated March 10, 2020) at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog a http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 10:42:10 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 07:44:34 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > Zelos Malum was asked to explain how multiplication works. In particular he was asked to demonstrate the product 2.1 x 2.2 and explain in full the meaning of the operator "x".
> >
> > This was his response:
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > i. a/b=[(a,b)]
> > ii. [(a,b)][(c,d)]=[(ac,bd)]
> > iii. 2.1=21/10=[(21,10)]
> > iv. 2.2=22/10=[(22,10)]
> > v. 2.1*2.2=[(21,10)][(22,10)]=[(462,100)]=4.62
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I allowed step 1, after all we could name rational numbers as [(a,b)] although I see no added advantage in this whatsoever.
> >
> > Step (ii) is where Malum fails desperately. A self-claimed "Master Math" graduate who can't understand why step (ii) is circular and assumed in ALL the subsequent steps.
> >
> > The level of ignorance, stupidity, arrogance, dishonesty and jealousy in mainstream academia is beyond comprehension. It has no ago surpassed pandemic proportions.
> >
> > Try to think back when your math teacher "taught" you about the arithmetic operations and ask yourself if you honestly understood or if you simply learned the methods in a rote fashion. Indeed, ask yourself if you even ever had a clue what is the meaning of number!
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> >
> > I do know better than everyone else. If you said this, then you would be considered a crank, but I am the *exception*. Don't you just hate it, you jealous fools?
> All operations of arithmetic can be stated strictly in terms of subtraction. Addition is derived immediately from subtraction.
>
> Division:
>
> A quotient ps/qr is the rational number that is measured in terms of two numbers p/q and r/s.
>
> ps/qr = [ p/q +p/q + ...n times ] / [ r/s + r/s+... n times ] where n=q or n=s.
>
>
> Example: 2/3 -:- 5/6 = 4/5
>
> p/q = 2/3 and r/s = 5/6
>
> 2/3 -:- 5/6 = [ 2/3 + 2/3 + 2/3 ] / [ 5/6 + 5/6 + 5/6] = [2] / [ 5/2] = [2 + 2] / [5/2 + 5/2] = 4 / 5
>
> After the second equals sign, cancellation is again possible by Book 5, Proposition 12.
>
> So the ENTIRE operation is done through geometry using similar triangles. No numbers are even required in the geometric definition, only magnitudes.
>
>
> Multiplication:
>
> The product (or multiplication) of two numbers p/q and r/s, that is, pr/qs is the quotient of either number
> with the reciprocal of the other.
>
> pr/qs = [ p/q +p/q + ...n times ] / [ s/r + s/r+... n times ] where n=q or n=r.
>
> Example: 2/3 x 5/6 = 5/9
>
> p/q = 2/3 and s/r = 6/5
>
> 2/3 x 5/6 = [2/3+2/3+2/3] / [6/5+6/5+6/5] = [2] / [18/5] = [ 2+2+2+2+2 ] / [18/5+18/5+18/5+18/5+18/5] = 10 / 18 = 5/9
>
> AND
>
> pr/qs = [ r/s + r/s+... n times ] / [ s/p + s/p+... n times ] where n=p or n=s.
>
> This part is left as an exercise.
>
> NOTE: The above definitions work on ANY magnitude. There is no need to have a separate interpretation for integers and fractions.
>
> All these details are explained in my world famous article:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
>
> Compare this clarity with the bullshit of Zelos Malum:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> i. a/b=[(a,b)]
> ii. [(a,b)][(c,d)]=[(ac,bd)]
> iii. 2.1=21/10=[(21,10)]
> iv. 2.2=22/10=[(22,10)]
> v. 2.1*2.2=[(21,10)][(22,10)]=[(462,100)]=4.62
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some might question the fact that subtraction operator is most primitive, but the answer is simple.

Try to define subtraction using only the operation of addition. You can't.

However, you can define addition using the subtraction operator:

p + q = p - (-q)

Now try to derive p - q using ONLY the addition operator +.

Good luck!

torsdag 13. mai 2021 kl. 20:57:56 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 10:42:10 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 07:44:34 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > Zelos Malum was asked to explain how multiplication works. In particular he was asked to demonstrate the product 2.1 x 2.2 and explain in full the meaning of the operator "x".
> > >
> > > This was his response:
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > i. a/b=[(a,b)]
> > > ii. [(a,b)][(c,d)]=[(ac,bd)]
> > > iii. 2.1=21/10=[(21,10)]
> > > iv. 2.2=22/10=[(22,10)]
> > > v. 2.1*2.2=[(21,10)][(22,10)]=[(462,100)]=4.62
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > I allowed step 1, after all we could name rational numbers as [(a,b)] although I see no added advantage in this whatsoever.
> > >
> > > Step (ii) is where Malum fails desperately. A self-claimed "Master Math" graduate who can't understand why step (ii) is circular and assumed in ALL the subsequent steps.
> > >
> > > The level of ignorance, stupidity, arrogance, dishonesty and jealousy in mainstream academia is beyond comprehension. It has no ago surpassed pandemic proportions.
> > >
> > > Try to think back when your math teacher "taught" you about the arithmetic operations and ask yourself if you honestly understood or if you simply learned the methods in a rote fashion. Indeed, ask yourself if you even ever had a clue what is the meaning of number!
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > >
> > > I do know better than everyone else. If you said this, then you would be considered a crank, but I am the *exception*. Don't you just hate it, you jealous fools?
> > All operations of arithmetic can be stated strictly in terms of subtraction. Addition is derived immediately from subtraction.
> >
> > Division:
> >
> > A quotient ps/qr is the rational number that is measured in terms of two numbers p/q and r/s.
> >
> > ps/qr = [ p/q +p/q + ...n times ] / [ r/s + r/s+... n times ] where n=q or n=s.
> >
> >
> > Example: 2/3 -:- 5/6 = 4/5
> >
> > p/q = 2/3 and r/s = 5/6
> >
> > 2/3 -:- 5/6 = [ 2/3 + 2/3 + 2/3 ] / [ 5/6 + 5/6 + 5/6] = [2] / [ 5/2] = [2 + 2] / [5/2 + 5/2] = 4 / 5
> >
> > After the second equals sign, cancellation is again possible by Book 5, Proposition 12.
> >
> > So the ENTIRE operation is done through geometry using similar triangles. No numbers are even required in the geometric definition, only magnitudes.
> >
> >
> > Multiplication:
> >
> > The product (or multiplication) of two numbers p/q and r/s, that is, pr/qs is the quotient of either number
> > with the reciprocal of the other.
> >
> > pr/qs = [ p/q +p/q + ...n times ] / [ s/r + s/r+... n times ] where n=q or n=r.
> >
> > Example: 2/3 x 5/6 = 5/9
> >
> > p/q = 2/3 and s/r = 6/5
> >
> > 2/3 x 5/6 = [2/3+2/3+2/3] / [6/5+6/5+6/5] = [2] / [18/5] = [ 2+2+2+2+2 ] / [18/5+18/5+18/5+18/5+18/5] = 10 / 18 = 5/9
> >
> > AND
> >
> > pr/qs = [ r/s + r/s+... n times ] / [ s/p + s/p+... n times ] where n=p or n=s.
> >
> > This part is left as an exercise.
> >
> > NOTE: The above definitions work on ANY magnitude. There is no need to have a separate interpretation for integers and fractions.
> >
> > All these details are explained in my world famous article:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> >
> > Compare this clarity with the bullshit of Zelos Malum:
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > i. a/b=[(a,b)]
> > ii. [(a,b)][(c,d)]=[(ac,bd)]
> > iii. 2.1=21/10=[(21,10)]
> > iv. 2.2=22/10=[(22,10)]
> > v. 2.1*2.2=[(21,10)][(22,10)]=[(462,100)]=4.62
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Some might question the fact that subtraction operator is most primitive, but the answer is simple.
>
> Try to define subtraction using only the operation of addition. You can't..
>
> However, you can define addition using the subtraction operator:
>
> p + q = p - (-q)
>
> Now try to derive p - q using ONLY the addition operator +.
>
> Good luck!

p - q = p + (-q)

KON

Crank John Gabriel, Eram semper recta wrote:
....
> Some might question the fact that subtraction operator is most primitive, but the answer is simple.
>
> Try to define subtraction using only the operation of addition. You can't.
>
> However, you can define addition using the subtraction operator:
>
> p + q = p - (-q)

Fail! The first "-" is the subtraction operator but the second one is
not, it is the unary opposite operator. That they use the same sign
is a convention. In accounting "-2" is sometimes not written that way,
for instance, but (2).

> Now try to derive p - q using ONLY the addition operator +.
>
> Good luck!

It can be done, and will also need your second "-", the unary minus i.e.
opposite.

No difference.

On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 15:12:28 UTC-4, konyberg wrote:
> torsdag 13. mai 2021 kl. 20:57:56 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 10:42:10 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 07:44:34 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > Zelos Malum was asked to explain how multiplication works. In particular he was asked to demonstrate the product 2.1 x 2.2 and explain in full the meaning of the operator "x".
> > > >
> > > > This was his response:
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > i. a/b=[(a,b)]
> > > > ii. [(a,b)][(c,d)]=[(ac,bd)]
> > > > iii. 2.1=21/10=[(21,10)]
> > > > iv. 2.2=22/10=[(22,10)]
> > > > v. 2.1*2.2=[(21,10)][(22,10)]=[(462,100)]=4.62
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > I allowed step 1, after all we could name rational numbers as [(a,b)] although I see no added advantage in this whatsoever.
> > > >
> > > > Step (ii) is where Malum fails desperately. A self-claimed "Master Math" graduate who can't understand why step (ii) is circular and assumed in ALL the subsequent steps.
> > > >
> > > > The level of ignorance, stupidity, arrogance, dishonesty and jealousy in mainstream academia is beyond comprehension. It has no ago surpassed pandemic proportions.
> > > >
> > > > Try to think back when your math teacher "taught" you about the arithmetic operations and ask yourself if you honestly understood or if you simply learned the methods in a rote fashion. Indeed, ask yourself if you even ever had a clue what is the meaning of number!
> > > >
> > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > >
> > > > I do know better than everyone else. If you said this, then you would be considered a crank, but I am the *exception*. Don't you just hate it, you jealous fools?
> > > All operations of arithmetic can be stated strictly in terms of subtraction. Addition is derived immediately from subtraction.
> > >
> > > Division:
> > >
> > > A quotient ps/qr is the rational number that is measured in terms of two numbers p/q and r/s.
> > >
> > > ps/qr = [ p/q +p/q + ...n times ] / [ r/s + r/s+... n times ] where n=q or n=s.
> > >
> > >
> > > Example: 2/3 -:- 5/6 = 4/5
> > >
> > > p/q = 2/3 and r/s = 5/6
> > >
> > > 2/3 -:- 5/6 = [ 2/3 + 2/3 + 2/3 ] / [ 5/6 + 5/6 + 5/6] = [2] / [ 5/2] = [2 + 2] / [5/2 + 5/2] = 4 / 5
> > >
> > > After the second equals sign, cancellation is again possible by Book 5, Proposition 12.
> > >
> > > So the ENTIRE operation is done through geometry using similar triangles. No numbers are even required in the geometric definition, only magnitudes.
> > >
> > >
> > > Multiplication:
> > >
> > > The product (or multiplication) of two numbers p/q and r/s, that is, pr/qs is the quotient of either number
> > > with the reciprocal of the other.
> > >
> > > pr/qs = [ p/q +p/q + ...n times ] / [ s/r + s/r+... n times ] where n=q or n=r.
> > >
> > > Example: 2/3 x 5/6 = 5/9
> > >
> > > p/q = 2/3 and s/r = 6/5
> > >
> > > 2/3 x 5/6 = [2/3+2/3+2/3] / [6/5+6/5+6/5] = [2] / [18/5] = [ 2+2+2+2+2 ] / [18/5+18/5+18/5+18/5+18/5] = 10 / 18 = 5/9
> > >
> > > AND
> > >
> > > pr/qs = [ r/s + r/s+... n times ] / [ s/p + s/p+... n times ] where n=p or n=s.
> > >
> > > This part is left as an exercise.
> > >
> > > NOTE: The above definitions work on ANY magnitude. There is no need to have a separate interpretation for integers and fractions.
> > >
> > > All these details are explained in my world famous article:
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> > >
> > > Compare this clarity with the bullshit of Zelos Malum:
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > i. a/b=[(a,b)]
> > > ii. [(a,b)][(c,d)]=[(ac,bd)]
> > > iii. 2.1=21/10=[(21,10)]
> > > iv. 2.2=22/10=[(22,10)]
> > > v. 2.1*2.2=[(21,10)][(22,10)]=[(462,100)]=4.62
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Some might question the fact that subtraction operator is most primitive, but the answer is simple.
> >
> > Try to define subtraction using only the operation of addition. You can't.
> >
> > However, you can define addition using the subtraction operator:
> >
> > p + q = p - (-q)
> >
> > Now try to derive p - q using ONLY the addition operator +.
> >
> > Good luck!
> p - q = p + (-q)

No. Try rereading the sentence:

Now try to derive p - q using *****ONLY***** the addition operator +.

>
> KON

On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 15:47:37 UTC-4, Psychopath Jean Pierre Messager aka YBM aka JPM aka Python wrote:
> Crank John Gabriel, Eram semper recta wrote:
> ...
> > Some might question the fact that subtraction operator is most primitive, but the answer is simple.
> >
> > Try to define subtraction using only the operation of addition. You can't.
> >
> > However, you can define addition using the subtraction operator:
> >
> > p + q = p - (-q)

> Fail! The first "-" is the subtraction operator but the second one is
> not,

Nope. You fail again! p + q = p - (0 - q) is equivalent to p + q = p - (-q).

> it is the unary opposite operator. That they use the same sign
> is a convention. In accounting "-2" is sometimes not written that way,
> for instance, but (2).

In accounting it can be written in various ways, but it does not prove your misguided argument. :-)

> > Now try to derive p - q using ONLY the addition operator +.
> >
> > Good luck!
> It can be done, and will also need your second "-", the unary minus i.e.
> opposite.

It can't be done. Because there is ONLY one difference operator in arithmetic and it's called the MINUS sign. Chuckle.

p + q = p - (0 - q)

So what, now you believe 0 is not a number? You pathetic crank! LMAO.

>
> No difference.

Of course there is no difference between 0 - p and -p because in both cases there is the same difference operator. In the case of -p, the 0 is *implied*. That is all that UNARY means.

+p means 0+p because 0 is NOT a number. It's a NON-OPERATION in arithmetic.
-p means 0-p because 0 is NOT a number. It's a NON-OPERATION in arithmetic.

Chuckle.