On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 04:31:09 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> So Gabriel claims there are no valid real numbers. Gabriel, I am taking you up on it.
>
> To show this statement to be true you have to find an internal inconsistency. The fact it doesn't align with your preferred system does in anyway make them invalid. They are only incompatible with your system them.
>
> So The three champions are
> Eudoxus: https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0405454.pdf
> Dedikind: https://www.math.u-bordeaux.fr/~pjaming/M1/exposes/MA1a.pdf
> Cauchy: https://www.math.wustl.edu/~kumar/courses/310-2009/peano.pdf
>
> Find one internal inconsistency, that is a statement that is both true and false and provably so.
>
> If you cannot, you cannot claim they are invalid, you can at most say incompatible with your ideas.

Malum has tried several attempts at explaining what is multiplication and how it works. Apparently he can't do it!

But you need to know how it can be done because I am the only one who understands how the arithmetic operators are defined in geometry and I am the greatest mathematician ever. How else would I have discovered the New Calculus?

So what you are looking at is the product of 21/10 and 11/5.

In geometry, multiplication is defined as the *reciprocal measure* of division.

Formal definition in my world famous article called How we got numbers:

A quotient (or division) is that positive rational number, that is measured in terms of two numbers. In its most primitive form, a quotient is simply the ratio of two magnitudes which both share a common measure (divisor).

So we actually determine 21/10 x 11/5 either as:

i. 21/10 -:- 5/11
ii. 11/5 -:- 10/21

I'll show you (i) and leave (ii) as an exercise.

Using similar triangles from which ALL the arithmetic operations are defined we proceed as follows:

(21+21+21+21+21+21+21+21+21+21+21) / (10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10)
/ (5 + 5 + 5 +5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 +5 ) / (11+11+11+11+11+11+11+11+11+11)
= (231/110) / (50/110)
= 231/50

So, we find the product using the proportional sides of similar triangles. Now since 231 > 50, we can apply the obelus division algorithm, ie
231 -:- 50 = 4.62

231 - 50 = 181
181 - 50 = 131
131 - 50 = 81
81 - 50 = 31

We have reached the stopping condition, ie 31 (remainder) < 50 (divisor). Since we subtracted four times, the partial quotient is 4 but if we add the remainder, then we get the full quotient 4 + 31/50 = 4.62

Again, my article explains all these details:

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

On Tuesday, 25 May 2021 at 00:27:14 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Malum has tried several attempts at explaining what is multiplication and how it works. Apparently he can't do it!
> I succeeded.

No crank. You didn't even get started. Do you realise that those who have an open mind will read my comments and see immediately that you and all others who have been opposing me are a bunch of morons? They are laughing at you.

> >But you need to know how it can be done because I am the only one who understands how the arithmetic operators are defined in geometry and I am the greatest mathematician ever. How else would I have discovered the New Calculus?
> You define them there, I did not nor does mathematics.

No one who says "Mathematics is not the science of measure and number" knows anything about mathematics.

Your primary brown-noser Dan Christensen and his clone Quantum Babbling talk about several topics such as differential equations, optimisation theory, quantum mechanics, etc, but ALL of those require ***measure*** and ***number***.

Your continued denial only makes you look dumber and more desperate.

>
> Notice how you did not address the fact I pointed out your circular argument

Man, you did no such thing. For you to say this is laughable because ALL your arguments are circular! LMAO.

(𝑎,𝑠)∼(𝑏,𝑡)⟺∃𝑢∈𝑆:𝑎𝑡𝑢=𝑏𝑠𝑢

and

i. a/b=[(a,b)]
ii. [(a,b)][(c,d)]=[(ac,bd)]

D E F I N E what it means to be circular. LMAO.

I gave you ALL the answers here:

Malum has tried several attempts at explaining what is multiplication and how it works. Apparently he can't do it!

But you need to know how it can be done because I am the only one who understands how the arithmetic operators are defined in geometry and I am the greatest mathematician ever. How else would I have discovered the New Calculus?

So what you are looking at is the product of 21/10 and 11/5.

In geometry, multiplication is defined as the *reciprocal measure* of division.

Formal definition in my world famous article called How we got numbers:

A quotient (or division) is that positive rational number, that is measured in terms of two numbers. In its most primitive form, a quotient is simply the ratio of two magnitudes which both share a common measure (divisor).

So we actually determine 21/10 x 11/5 either as:

i. 21/10 -:- 5/11
ii. 11/5 -:- 10/21

I'll show you (i) and leave (ii) as an exercise.

Using similar triangles from which ALL the arithmetic operations are defined we proceed as follows:

(21+21+21+21+21+21+21+21+21+21+21) / (10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10)
/ (5 + 5 + 5 +5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 +5 ) / (11+11+11+11+11+11+11+11+11+11)
= (231/110) / (50/110)
= 231/50

So, we find the product using the proportional sides of similar triangles. Now since 231 > 50, we can apply the obelus division algorithm, ie
231 -:- 50 = 4.62

231 - 50 = 181
181 - 50 = 131
131 - 50 = 81
81 - 50 = 31

We have reached the stopping condition, ie 31 (remainder) < 50 (divisor). Since we subtracted four times, the partial quotient is 4 but if we add the remainder, then we get the full quotient 4 + 31/50 = 4.62

Again, my article explains all these details:

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

You have yet to refute ANYTHING I've told you. All you do is complain and whine because you are a moron and a crank.

Eram semper recta wrote:

>> You define them there, I did not nor does mathematics.
>
> No one who says "Mathematics is not the science of measure and number"
> knows anything about mathematics.
> Your primary brown-noser Dan Christensen and his clone Quantum Babbling
> talk about several topics such as differential equations, optimisation
> theory, quantum mechanics, etc, but ALL of those require ***measure***
> and ***number***.

This is incorrect, of course. The illness, named after its inventor,
*Fauci_19*, and the virus similarly, *Fauci_Cov_2*. Believe it or not,
there are no proofs nor studies, that *Fauci_Cov_2* causes *Fauci_19*.

On Tuesday, 25 May 2021 at 08:43:31 UTC-4, Hanoi Cato wrote:
<shit>

Please FUCK OFF man. Fuck off forever. This is a thread about mathematics, not about your narrow-minded conservative beliefs.

Don't get the vaccine, you idiot!!! No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to have it. Please, for the last time ... fuck off kindly will you?

Eram semper recta wrote:

> On Tuesday, 25 May 2021 at 08:43:31 UTC-4, Hanoi Cato wrote:
> <shit>
>
> Please FUCK OFF man. Fuck off forever. This is a thread about
> mathematics, not about your narrow-minded conservative beliefs.
> Don't get the vaccine, you idiot!!! No one is holding a gun to your head
> forcing you to have it. Please, for the last time ... fuck off kindly
> will you?

You are the only one seemingly talking about vaccines here. You must be
crapping your pants of fear. I see no mathematics, where are your proofs,
where is your *mathematical_beauty*?? Here we go:

If 3 cats eats 3 mice in 3 minutes, how long for 100 cats to eat 100
mice? Let's see how far you can get. I am here to help.

Hanoi Cato formulated the question :
> Eram semper recta wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 25 May 2021 at 08:43:31 UTC-4, Hanoi Cato wrote:
>> <shit>
>>
>> Please FUCK OFF man. Fuck off forever. This is a thread about
>> mathematics, not about your narrow-minded conservative beliefs.
>> Don't get the vaccine, you idiot!!! No one is holding a gun to your head
>> forcing you to have it. Please, for the last time ... fuck off kindly
>> will you?
>
> You are the only one seemingly talking about vaccines here. You must be
> crapping your pants of fear. I see no mathematics, where are your proofs,
> where is your *mathematical_beauty*?? Here we go:
>
> If 3 cats eats 3 mice in 3 minutes, how long for 100 cats to eat 100
> mice? Let's see how far you can get. I am here to help.

Caution, serial mice might have to be eaten in stepwise fashion by
untrafinitist cats. Otherwise, they can be eaten all at once in no time
flat. It takes about three minutes to feed my cat cereal mice if that
helps any.

On 5/25/2021 9:03 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Hanoi Cato formulated the question :
>> Eram semper recta wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, 25 May 2021 at 08:43:31 UTC-4, Hanoi Cato wrote:
>>> <shit>
>>>
>>> Please FUCK OFF man. Fuck off forever. This is a thread about
>>> mathematics, not about your narrow-minded conservative beliefs.
>>> Don't get the vaccine, you idiot!!! No one is holding a gun to your head
>>> forcing you to have it. Please, for the last time ... fuck off kindly
>>> will you?
>>
>> You are the only one seemingly talking about vaccines here. You must
>> be crapping your pants of fear. I see no mathematics, where are your
>> proofs, where is your *mathematical_beauty*?? Here we go:
>>
>> If 3 cats eats 3 mice in 3 minutes, how long for 100 cats to eat 100
>> mice? Let's see how far you can get. I am here to help.
>
> Caution, serial mice might have to be eaten in stepwise fashion by
> untrafinitist cats. Otherwise, they can be eaten all at once in no time
> flat. It takes about three minutes to feed my cat cereal mice if that
> helps any.

true, the rate of mouse eating is an assumption. A cat could eat a 95%
of a mouse in 30 seconds, and gloat for the rest of the 2 min and 30
seconds, before finishing, thus implying a capacity of 6 mice/cat per 3 min.

Or it could be the reverse.

ballpark
rate of mouse eating, x 0.3 < x < 2 mouse/min

another problem is 100 cats going after 100 mice. This is a classic 2
dimensional contention problem where you have collisions of two cats
going after the same mouse, thus greatly extending the effective rate of
mouse eating. like too many packets sent, causeing collisions, or an
Erlang problem, effective mouse eating rate can be extened by a factor
of 4 or more.

This depends on the size of the area, size of the cats and mouses,
initial conditions, mice to the left wall, cats to the right wall, and
weather a cat tries to steal a mouse from another cat, length of cat
fights, % of cats that fight, % mouse escape from cat,

a monte carlo simulation may be quicker

If your initial conditons are each cat in a box with one mouse, it is
much simpler, but there was no mention of 100 boxes in orgional problem

Meritocracy wrote:

>>> You are the only one seemingly talking about vaccines here. You must
>>> be crapping your pants of fear. I see no mathematics, where are your
>>> proofs, where is your *mathematical_beauty*?? Here we go:
>>>
>>> If 3 cats eats 3 mice in 3 minutes, how long for 100 cats to eat 100
>>> mice? Let's see how far you can get. I am here to help.
>>
>> Caution, serial mice might have to be eaten in stepwise fashion by
>> untrafinitist cats. Otherwise, they can be eaten all at once in no time
>> flat. It takes about three minutes to feed my cat cereal mice if that
>> helps any.
>
> true, the rate of mouse eating is an assumption. A cat could eat a 95%
> of a mouse in 30 seconds, and gloat for the rest of the 2 min and 30
> seconds, before finishing, thus implying a capacity of 6 mice/cat per 3
> min.

that's not the point, can't you read descriptions?

First man in world to get approved Covid jab is dead: Brit William
Shakespeare has died at 81. William Shakespeare hit global headlines on
December 8 after being vaccinated.

It's starting. The kraken is been released.

It happens that Hanoi Cato formulated :
> Meritocracy wrote:
>
>>>> You are the only one seemingly talking about vaccines here. You must
>>>> be crapping your pants of fear. I see no mathematics, where are your
>>>> proofs, where is your *mathematical_beauty*?? Here we go:
>>>>
>>>> If 3 cats eats 3 mice in 3 minutes, how long for 100 cats to eat 100
>>>> mice? Let's see how far you can get. I am here to help.
>>>
>>> Caution, serial mice might have to be eaten in stepwise fashion by
>>> untrafinitist cats. Otherwise, they can be eaten all at once in no time
>>> flat. It takes about three minutes to feed my cat cereal mice if that
>>> helps any.
>>
>> true, the rate of mouse eating is an assumption. A cat could eat a 95%
>> of a mouse in 30 seconds, and gloat for the rest of the 2 min and 30
>> seconds, before finishing, thus implying a capacity of 6 mice/cat per 3
>> min.
>
> that's not the point, can't you read descriptions?
>
> First man in world to get approved Covid jab is dead: Brit William
> Shakespeare has died at 81. William Shakespeare hit global headlines on
> December 8 after being vaccinated.
>
> It's starting. The kraken is been released.

You conspiracy nut guys are kraken me up.

FromTheRafters wrote:

>>> true, the rate of mouse eating is an assumption. A cat could eat a
>>> 95% of a mouse in 30 seconds, and gloat for the rest of the 2 min and
>>> 30 seconds, before finishing, thus implying a capacity of 6 mice/cat
>>> per 3 min.
>>
>> that's not the point, can't you read descriptions?
>> First man in world to get approved Covid jab is dead: Brit William
>> Shakespeare has died at 81. William Shakespeare hit global headlines on
>> December 8 after being vaccinated. It's starting. The kraken is been
>> released.
>
> You conspiracy nut guys are kraken me up.

What conspiracy, where?? But yes, conspiracies are illegal. The man died
apparently from that "medical" injection. There is a strong correlation.
And again, I you can't read description, old man. See a doctor or
something.

Hanoi Cato wrote:

> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>>>> true, the rate of mouse eating is an assumption. A cat could eat a
>>>> 95% of a mouse in 30 seconds, and gloat for the rest of the 2 min and
>>>> 30 seconds, before finishing, thus implying a capacity of 6 mice/cat
>>>> per 3 min.
>>>
>>> that's not the point, can't you read descriptions?
>>> First man in world to get approved Covid jab is dead: Brit William
>>> Shakespeare has died at 81. William Shakespeare hit global headlines
>>> on December 8 after being vaccinated. It's starting. The kraken is
>>> been released.
>>
>> You conspiracy nut guys are kraken me up.
>
> What conspiracy, where?? But yes, conspiracies are illegal. The man died
> apparently from that "medical" injection. There is a strong correlation.
> And again, I you can't read description, old man. See a doctor or
> something.

"And again, I suspect you can't read .."

On 5/25/2021 10:52 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> It happens that Hanoi Cato formulated :
>> Meritocracy wrote:
>>
>>>>> You are the only one seemingly talking about vaccines here. You must
>>>>> be crapping your pants of fear. I see no mathematics, where are your
>>>>> proofs, where is your *mathematical_beauty*?? Here we go:
>>>>>
>>>>> If 3 cats eats 3 mice in 3 minutes, how long for 100 cats to eat 100
>>>>> mice? Let's see how far you can get. I am here to help.
>>>>
>>>> Caution, serial mice might have to be eaten in stepwise fashion by
>>>> untrafinitist cats. Otherwise, they can be eaten all at once in no time
>>>> flat. It takes about three minutes to feed my cat cereal mice if that
>>>> helps any.
>>>
>>> true, the rate of mouse eating is an assumption.  A cat could eat a 95%
>>> of a mouse in 30 seconds, and gloat for the rest of the 2 min and 30
>>> seconds, before finishing, thus implying a capacity of 6 mice/cat per 3
>>> min.
>>
>> that's not the point, can't you read descriptions?
>>
>> First man in world to get approved Covid jab is dead: Brit William
>> Shakespeare has died at 81. William Shakespeare hit global headlines
>> on December 8 after being vaccinated.
>>
>> It's starting. The kraken is been released.
>
> You conspiracy nut guys are kraken me up.

there is the chase time distribution, probably poisson like, eating time
distribution, Mouse "alive time" distribution

can a cat eat more than one mouse ? yes

assume no cats eat cats, and no mouses are hungry either. Assume 5% of
the mice are badass kraken type mouses

assume cats are stationary when eating, or when they see no mice, and
assume cats upper bound on velocity is 100 feet per min, and the upper
bound on mice velocity is 130 feet per min,

assume a cat has a 50% chance of playing with the mouse first for an
average of 1 min

Assume the room is 20' by 20' and has no openings for mice to get out

Assume that 20% of the cats are afraid of mice and can be chased by mice.

Bonus Question:

1. plot # of live mice, # of stationary cats vs time

Stray Cats
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEtbfzMLVWU

On 5/25/2021 11:58 AM, Hanoi Cato wrote:
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>>>> true, the rate of mouse eating is an assumption. A cat could eat a
>>>> 95% of a mouse in 30 seconds, and gloat for the rest of the 2 min and
>>>> 30 seconds, before finishing, thus implying a capacity of 6 mice/cat
>>>> per 3 min.
>>>
>>> that's not the point, can't you read descriptions?
>>> First man in world to get approved Covid jab is dead: Brit William
>>> Shakespeare has died at 81. William Shakespeare hit global headlines on
>>> December 8 after being vaccinated. It's starting. The kraken is been
>>> released.
>>
>> You conspiracy nut guys are kraken me up.
>
> What conspiracy, where??

The conspiracy your master, Vladimir Putin, is pushing, nymshifter.

> But yes, conspiracies are illegal.

You need to be illegal, nymshifter.

> The man died
> apparently from that "medical" injection. There is a strong correlation.

Yeah, right. An 81 year old man who was already in a home for the
"frail" when he got the vaccine almost 6 months ago dies, strong
correlation? Strong correlation with being old and frail, that is. Go
shift nyms and peddle your conspiracy garbage elsewhere.

On 5/25/2021 10:59 AM, Hanoi Cato wrote:
> Hanoi Cato wrote:
>
>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>
>>>>> true, the rate of mouse eating is an assumption. A cat could eat a
>>>>> 95% of a mouse in 30 seconds, and gloat for the rest of the 2 min and
>>>>> 30 seconds, before finishing, thus implying a capacity of 6 mice/cat
>>>>> per 3 min.
>>>>
>>>> that's not the point, can't you read descriptions?
>>>> First man in world to get approved Covid jab is dead: Brit William
>>>> Shakespeare has died at 81. William Shakespeare hit global headlines
>>>> on December 8 after being vaccinated. It's starting. The kraken is
>>>> been released.
>>>
>>> You conspiracy nut guys are kraken me up.
>>
>> What conspiracy, where?? But yes, conspiracies are illegal. The man died
>> apparently from that "medical" injection. There is a strong correlation.
>> And again, I you can't read description, old man. See a doctor or
>> something.
>
> "And again, I suspect you can't read .."
>

there is a huge difference between 3 cats and 100 cats in a closed room,
especially when mice are involved, and they are injected with commie
coved 19 crud, as proletariat scum are forced to work at Amazon for low
wages and long hours.