On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 18:40:17 UTC+2, Helmut Wabnig wrote:

> >> Not even wrong. Einstein rather combined relativity and Maxwell's laws, and it is the latter that imply that the speed of light in vacuum is some specific constant. An immediate consequence is SR, which is not only patently consistent from a mathematical and even a logical point of view
> >
> >A lie, as expected from fanatic trash, of course it is not.
> Wozi, prove it, faith does not work.

Wabi, poor idiot, you're a living proof that faith works
much better than any proofs. But tell me, please,
what was the unit of time your idiot guru was referring
to in 1905? How was it defined?

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 2:39:28 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 18:40:17 UTC+2, Helmut Wabnig wrote:

> faith works much better than any proofs.

50% of those who follow Faith, die from their belief in the faith. (religion Wars...): Faith is good 50% of the time.
However, proofs are good 100% of the time.

> But tell me, please,
> what was the unit of time your idiot guru was referring
> to in 1905? How was it defined?

It's all in the documentation We have reference to you. Ending Wiki.
But by your own admittance, you refuse to read them.

On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 17:21:39 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 2:39:28 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 18:40:17 UTC+2, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
>
> > faith works much better than any proofs.
> 50% of those who follow Faith, die from their belief in the faith. (religion Wars...):

How did you calculate it, poor halfbrain?
Besides, I meant - good for the cause; like your
Shit; not necesarily good for brainwashed idiots like
you or Wabi.

> However, proofs are good 100% of the time.

No, poor idiot. Proofs are generally almost worthless.
See - take "for any right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b -
shorter sidesm c - the longest one)."
This statement had more than a hundred independent
proofs; did they prevent your idiot gurus from insisting
there are right triangles without the property?

> > But tell me, please,
> > what was the unit of time your idiot guru was referring
> > to in 1905? How was it defined?
> It's all in the documentation We have reference to you.

It is. So - neither you, nor your fellow idiots should have any
problem with answerring this one. But somehow all of you
have:(

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 11:31:34 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 17:21:39 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:

> > However, proofs are good 100% of the time.
> No, poor idiot. Proofs are generally almost worthless.

And that is why you are where you are in life. You see, your faith, your beliefs, have kept you in a rat hole.

> See - take "for any right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b -
> shorter sidesm c - the longest one)."
> This statement had more than a hundred independent
> proofs;

yes

> did they prevent your idiot gurus from insisting
> there are right triangles without the property?

There are no right triangles without that property. Implicitly in there, even two thousand years ago, that statement applied to Euclidean geometry (Although they did not call it "Euclidean" in at that time. Different times, different language).

On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 20:41:18 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 11:31:34 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 17:21:39 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
>
> > > However, proofs are good 100% of the time.
> > No, poor idiot. Proofs are generally almost worthless.
> And that is why you are where you are in life. You see, your faith, your beliefs, have kept you in a rat hole.
> > See - take "for any right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b -
> > shorter sidesm c - the longest one)."
> > This statement had more than a hundred independent
> > proofs;
> yes
> > did they prevent your idiot gurus from insisting
> > there are right triangles without the property?
> There are no right triangles without that property. Implicitly in there, even two thousand years ago,
that statement applied to Euclidean geometry

See how much a proof is woth: an idiot comes, an
idiot says "IMPLICITY IN THERE!!! I SAY, IT ONLY
APPLIES WHEN I SAY IT APPLIES!!!! LISTEN TO ME,
MORTAL WORMS!!!!" and - good bye, 100+ independent
proofs.
Do you think it can't be done with other proofs?
With your beloved Noether theorem, for instance?
Why?

On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 2:39:46 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 20:41:18 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:

> > > there are right triangles without the property?
> > There are no right triangles without that property. Implicitly in there, even two thousand years ago,
> that statement applied to Euclidean geometry
> See how much a proof is woth: an idiot comes, an
> idiot says "IMPLICITY IN THERE!!!

So you are the idiot since it is YOU who implicitly meant "Euclidean" w/o specifying it.
Back when Pythagora & al proved it, they did mention it was for "Euclidean" geometry.
Their proofs are 100% then as they are today.
And today, there is no need to say "Euclidean" since it is so obvious. But you, you still do not know it.

On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 15:40:15 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 2:39:46 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 20:41:18 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
>
> > > > there are right triangles without the property?
> > > There are no right triangles without that property. Implicitly in there, even two thousand years ago,
> > that statement applied to Euclidean geometry
> > See how much a proof is woth: an idiot comes, an
> > idiot says "IMPLICITY IN THERE!!!
> So you are the idiot since it is YOU who implicitly meant "Euclidean" w/o specifying it.
> Back when Pythagora & al proved it, they did mention it was for "Euclidean" geometry.

:) Pythagora was living 300 years before any Euclidean
geometry happened, poor halfbrain. You're fantasizing,
as expected from a fanatic idiot.
Do they mention any axiomatic context now? When talking
about modern theorems, like Noether's or Godel's? Do
you think such context doesn't exist for these two, maybe?
That they're axiom free?

Mathematical theories are ordinary theories (ALL theories
of ALL domains have their assumptions) , and mathematical
claims are ordinary claims. No mystical holiness there, sorry.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 15:40:15 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
>> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 2:39:46 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 20:41:18 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
>>
>>>>> there are right triangles without the property?
>>>> There are no right triangles without that property. Implicitly in there, even two thousand years ago,
>>> that statement applied to Euclidean geometry
>>> See how much a proof is woth: an idiot comes, an
>>> idiot says "IMPLICITY IN THERE!!!
>> So you are the idiot since it is YOU who implicitly meant "Euclidean" w/o specifying it.
>> Back when Pythagora & al proved it, they did mention it was for "Euclidean" geometry.
>
> :) Pythagora was living 300 years before any Euclidean
> geometry happened, poor halfbrain. You're fantasizing,
> as expected from a fanatic idiot.
> Do they mention any axiomatic context now? When talking
> about modern theorems, like Noether's or Godel's? Do
> you think such context doesn't exist for these two, maybe?
> That they're axiom free?
>
> Mathematical theories are ordinary theories (ALL theories
> of ALL domains have their assumptions) , and mathematical
> claims are ordinary claims. No mystical holiness there, sorry.

How come "one of the best logicians humanity ever had" cannot
figure this out by himself? Until recently you were acting like drunk,
now you're acting as if you were high on drugs.

On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 10:42:49 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 15:40:15 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:

> > So you are the idiot since it is YOU who implicitly meant "Euclidean" w/o specifying it.

Would you do? So you agree that you are sneaky and you are the idiot. It's good that you have noticed but you're still a coward since you do not admit it.

> > Back when Pythagora & al proved it, they did mention it was for "Euclidean" geometry.
> :) Pythagora was living 300 years before any Euclidean
> geometry happened,

That is what I said, Hence the use of my quotes" ", idiot. Once again you show that you do not understand what you read.
Back in Pythagoras era and even before, they did specify that their theories were for plane geometry. They knew of non "plane geometry" but they did not call it "Euclidean"; they had their own words for it. But since you refuse to read, and you don't understand what you read, you are totally oblivious to the history.

> Do they mention any axiomatic context now?

Yes.

On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 19:52:26 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 10:42:49 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 15:40:15 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
>
> > > So you are the idiot since it is YOU who implicitly meant "Euclidean" w/o specifying it.
> Would you do?

No, poor idiot. "Euclidean" is a term of metalanguage.
Not a term of geometry. Can't be used in geometrical
theorems. But, of course, it's too much for your tiny
halfbrain.
Anyway, I meant neither Euclidean, nor non-Euclidean.
You're too dumb to realize, but the thread is about a
simple claim and its proofs, not about Euclidean or non
Euclidean geometries.

> > Back when Pythagora & al proved it, they did mention it was for "Euclidean" geometry.
> > :) Pythagora was living 300 years before any Euclidean
> > geometry happened,
> That is what I said, Hence the use of my quotes" ", idiot.

So, what, precisely, Pthagora mentioned, idiot?

> Back in Pythagoras era and even before, they did specify that their theories were for plane geometry.

Isn't Lobachevsky's a plane geometry, idiot?

> Do they mention any axiomatic context now?
> Yes.

So, what are the axioms Godel used for deriving his theorem?

On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 18:06:21 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 15:40:15 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> >> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 2:39:46 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 20:41:18 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> there are right triangles without the property?
> >>>> There are no right triangles without that property. Implicitly in there, even two thousand years ago,
> >>> that statement applied to Euclidean geometry
> >>> See how much a proof is woth: an idiot comes, an
> >>> idiot says "IMPLICITY IN THERE!!!
> >> So you are the idiot since it is YOU who implicitly meant "Euclidean" w/o specifying it.
> >> Back when Pythagora & al proved it, they did mention it was for "Euclidean" geometry.
> >
> > :) Pythagora was living 300 years before any Euclidean
> > geometry happened, poor halfbrain. You're fantasizing,
> > as expected from a fanatic idiot.
> > Do they mention any axiomatic context now? When talking
> > about modern theorems, like Noether's or Godel's? Do
> > you think such context doesn't exist for these two, maybe?
> > That they're axiom free?
> >
> > Mathematical theories are ordinary theories (ALL theories
> > of ALL domains have their assumptions) , and mathematical
> > claims are ordinary claims. No mystical holiness there, sorry.
> How come "one of the best logicians humanity ever had" cannot
> figure this out by himself? Until recently you were acting like drunk,
> now you're acting as if you were high on drugs.

And have you already learnt how sqrt function is defined?

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 19:52:26 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
>> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 10:42:49 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 15:40:15 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
>>
>>>> So you are the idiot since it is YOU who implicitly meant "Euclidean" w/o specifying it.
>> Would you do?
>
> No, poor idiot. "Euclidean" is a term of metalanguage.
> Not a term of geometry. Can't be used in geometrical
> theorems. But, of course, it's too much for your tiny
> halfbrain.
> Anyway, I meant neither Euclidean, nor non-Euclidean.
> You're too dumb to realize, but the thread is about a
> simple claim and its proofs, not about Euclidean or non
> Euclidean geometries.
>
>
>
> > > Back when Pythagora & al proved it, they did mention it was for "Euclidean" geometry.
>>> :) Pythagora was living 300 years before any Euclidean
>>> geometry happened,
>> That is what I said, Hence the use of my quotes" ", idiot.
>
> So, what, precisely, Pthagora mentioned, idiot?
>
>> Back in Pythagoras era and even before, they did specify that their theories were for plane geometry.
>
> Isn't Lobachevsky's a plane geometry, idiot?
>
> > Do they mention any axiomatic context now?
>> Yes.
>
> So, what are the axioms Godel used for deriving his theorem?

"one of the best logicians humanity ever had" don't know much about
Gödel's theorem(s). How surprising.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 18:06:21 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 15:40:15 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
>>>> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 2:39:46 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 20:41:18 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> there are right triangles without the property?
>>>>>> There are no right triangles without that property. Implicitly in there, even two thousand years ago,
>>>>> that statement applied to Euclidean geometry
>>>>> See how much a proof is woth: an idiot comes, an
>>>>> idiot says "IMPLICITY IN THERE!!!
>>>> So you are the idiot since it is YOU who implicitly meant "Euclidean" w/o specifying it.
>>>> Back when Pythagora & al proved it, they did mention it was for "Euclidean" geometry.
>>>
>>> :) Pythagora was living 300 years before any Euclidean
>>> geometry happened, poor halfbrain. You're fantasizing,
>>> as expected from a fanatic idiot.
>>> Do they mention any axiomatic context now? When talking
>>> about modern theorems, like Noether's or Godel's? Do
>>> you think such context doesn't exist for these two, maybe?
>>> That they're axiom free?
>>>
>>> Mathematical theories are ordinary theories (ALL theories
>>> of ALL domains have their assumptions) , and mathematical
>>> claims are ordinary claims. No mystical holiness there, sorry.
>> How come "one of the best logicians humanity ever had" cannot
>> figure this out by himself? Until recently you were acting like drunk,
>> now you're acting as if you were high on drugs.
>
> And have you already learnt how sqrt function is defined?

I can teach you Maciej, for 5000€/hr. You'll need a lot of hours.

On Saturday, 21 August 2021 at 06:09:07 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 19:52:26 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> >> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 10:42:49 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 15:40:15 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> >>
> >>>> So you are the idiot since it is YOU who implicitly meant "Euclidean" w/o specifying it.
> >> Would you do?
> >
> > No, poor idiot. "Euclidean" is a term of metalanguage.
> > Not a term of geometry. Can't be used in geometrical
> > theorems. But, of course, it's too much for your tiny
> > halfbrain.
> > Anyway, I meant neither Euclidean, nor non-Euclidean.
> > You're too dumb to realize, but the thread is about a
> > simple claim and its proofs, not about Euclidean or non
> > Euclidean geometries.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Back when Pythagora & al proved it, they did mention it was for "Euclidean" geometry.
> >>> :) Pythagora was living 300 years before any Euclidean
> >>> geometry happened,
> >> That is what I said, Hence the use of my quotes" ", idiot.
> >
> > So, what, precisely, Pthagora mentioned, idiot?
> >
> >> Back in Pythagoras era and even before, they did specify that their theories were for plane geometry.
> >
> > Isn't Lobachevsky's a plane geometry, idiot?
> >
> > > Do they mention any axiomatic context now?
> >> Yes.
> >
> > So, what are the axioms Godel used for deriving his theorem?
> "one of the best logicians humanity ever had" don't know much about
> Gödel's theorem(s). How surprising.

Poor fanatic idiot Python is fantasizing and slandering. How surprising.
Godel didn't specify his axioms, Rotchm is fabricating. For The Cause
is just.

On Saturday, 21 August 2021 at 06:11:48 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 18:06:21 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 15:40:15 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 2:39:46 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 20:41:18 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> there are right triangles without the property?
> >>>>>> There are no right triangles without that property. Implicitly in there, even two thousand years ago,
> >>>>> that statement applied to Euclidean geometry
> >>>>> See how much a proof is woth: an idiot comes, an
> >>>>> idiot says "IMPLICITY IN THERE!!!
> >>>> So you are the idiot since it is YOU who implicitly meant "Euclidean" w/o specifying it.
> >>>> Back when Pythagora & al proved it, they did mention it was for "Euclidean" geometry.
> >>>
> >>> :) Pythagora was living 300 years before any Euclidean
> >>> geometry happened, poor halfbrain. You're fantasizing,
> >>> as expected from a fanatic idiot.
> >>> Do they mention any axiomatic context now? When talking
> >>> about modern theorems, like Noether's or Godel's? Do
> >>> you think such context doesn't exist for these two, maybe?
> >>> That they're axiom free?
> >>>
> >>> Mathematical theories are ordinary theories (ALL theories
> >>> of ALL domains have their assumptions) , and mathematical
> >>> claims are ordinary claims. No mystical holiness there, sorry.
> >> How come "one of the best logicians humanity ever had" cannot
> >> figure this out by himself? Until recently you were acting like drunk,
> >> now you're acting as if you were high on drugs.
> >
> > And have you already learnt how sqrt function is defined?
> I can teach you Maciej, for 5000€/hr. You'll need a lot of hours.

Oh, really, you can? That means that I've taught you that, doesn't it?