On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 6:05:19 AM UTC-7, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> John Gabriel wrote "I am a mathematician"
>
> Best joke I heard this week.
>
> Isnt John Gabriel the one that cant even determine the truth value of 3=<4 ?
>
> LoL
> Eram semper recta schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. August 2021 um 23:28:02 UTC+2:
> > On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 14:05:27 UTC-4, Swiss moron Jan Burse aka Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > > Antibodies do not destroy the mRNA.
> > > The mRNA simply decays inside the cell.
> > It does not simply decay, you moron. The cell destroys it.
> >
> > In any case, who gives a fuck how it mRNA is removed from the body? The message is the same: mRNA does not go on to message the cell indefinitely. Once the message is received and the protein made, the cell itself degrades the mRNA and gets rid of it.
> >
> > I am a mathematician, you fucking moron! I am not a biologist and you are NEITHER of these things.
> >
> > It was an idiot like you called Euler who claimed S = Lim S. I destroyed your national hero and now you are mad?

What's the best vaccine against COVID-19?

When macropinocytosis is a bad thing....

The Tobacco Mosaic Virus is among
the most well-studied plant viruses
in the laboratory since modern times.

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/LvxMoQh8Ldg/m/rWiYRpCqAAAJ

How do we link to usenet posts anymore? Message-ID.

In response to the ... simple actor's, "I am a mathematician",
it's not funny that Uncle Louie is crazy, but, I am a mathematician too.
(And all the mathematicians are mathematicians also.)

One must remember to confiscate the correct things while excluding
the baggage what's ir-relevant, to a mathematician.

Of course and always leave out what might be misunderestimation.

Here in theory there's for "why" that there are reasons.

I also claim S = Lim S it's very clear.

This '=' is as under an equivalence - real-valued values.

There's no erasing all the implicit values on both sides:
it's an equivalence under an equivalence.

Are the medical journals still open to research topics on COVID-19?

On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 10:19:19 UTC-4, Insignificant Birdbrain Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> Here in theory there's for "why" that there are reasons.
>
> I also claim S = Lim S it's very clear.

At last! A mainstream crank admits S = Lim S. Where is psychopath Jean Pierre Messager and his fellow idiots to witness their very own finally admitting this Blunder?

>
> This '=' is as under an equivalence - real-valued values.

Nonsense! S is a SERIES and Lim S is its LIMIT. Two very different objects that cannot be "equivalent" under any circumstances.

>
> There's no erasing all the implicit values on both sides:

Nothing is implied in a series except for its general term. If said series converges, then it has a limit, but since there is no such thing as an "infinite sum" or "infinite anything", we do NOT assume that such limit can be obtained through summation. Your very own Rudin agrees with MY views. Perhaps you should first learn the theory you advocate well, before you make a fool of yourself!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH

> it's an equivalence under an equivalence.

Bullshit. Taken your meds today?

On this newsgroup, I am the ONLY real mathematician. You do not get to call yourself a mathematician unless you have produced great works. No one besides me satisfies this criterion. Certainly not a braindead idiot like gay Ross Finlayson! Chuckle.

And what is 3 =< 4?

We are waiting...

LoL

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 6. August 2021 um 15:05:19 UTC+2:
> John Gabriel wrote "I am a mathematician"
>
> Best joke I heard this week.
>
> Isnt John Gabriel the one that cant even determine the truth value of 3=<4 ?
>
> LoL
> Eram semper recta schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. August 2021 um 23:28:02 UTC+2:
> > On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 14:05:27 UTC-4, Swiss moron Jan Burse aka Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > > Antibodies do not destroy the mRNA.
> > > The mRNA simply decays inside the cell.
> > It does not simply decay, you moron. The cell destroys it.
> >
> > In any case, who gives a fuck how it mRNA is removed from the body? The message is the same: mRNA does not go on to message the cell indefinitely. Once the message is received and the protein made, the cell itself degrades the mRNA and gets rid of it.
> >
> > I am a mathematician, you fucking moron! I am not a biologist and you are NEITHER of these things.
> >
> > It was an idiot like you called Euler who claimed S = Lim S. I destroyed your national hero and now you are mad?

On 8/6/2021 10:17 AM, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> And what is 3 =< 4?
>
> We are waiting...
>
> LoL

Is 3 less than or equal to 4? ;^)

>
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 6. August 2021 um 15:05:19 UTC+2:
>> John Gabriel wrote "I am a mathematician"
>>
>> Best joke I heard this week.
>>
>> Isnt John Gabriel the one that cant even determine the truth value of 3=<4 ?
>>
>> LoL
>> Eram semper recta schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. August 2021 um 23:28:02 UTC+2:
>>> On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 14:05:27 UTC-4, Swiss moron Jan Burse aka Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>>>> Antibodies do not destroy the mRNA.
>>>> The mRNA simply decays inside the cell.
>>> It does not simply decay, you moron. The cell destroys it.
>>>
>>> In any case, who gives a fuck how it mRNA is removed from the body? The message is the same: mRNA does not go on to message the cell indefinitely. Once the message is received and the protein made, the cell itself degrades the mRNA and gets rid of it.
>>>
>>> I am a mathematician, you fucking moron! I am not a biologist and you are NEITHER of these things.
>>>
>>> It was an idiot like you called Euler who claimed S = Lim S. I destroyed your national hero and now you are mad?

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> On 8/6/2021 10:17 AM, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>> And what is 3 =< 4?
>>
>> We are waiting...
>>
>> LoL
>
>
> Is 3 less than or equal to 4? ;^)

had been that " <= " would evaluate to true.

On 8/6/2021 12:28 PM, Kolijn Sneijers wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
>> On 8/6/2021 10:17 AM, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>>> And what is 3 =< 4?
>>>
>>> We are waiting...
>>>
>>> LoL
>>
>>
>> Is 3 less than or equal to 4? ;^)
>
> had been that " <= " would evaluate to true.
>

Well, yes, but I got the main point. <= is the proper syntax.

On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 15:37:55 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 8/6/2021 12:28 PM, Kolijn Sneijers wrote:
> > Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/6/2021 10:17 AM, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> >>> And what is 3 =< 4?
> >>>
> >>> We are waiting...
> >>>
> >>> LoL
> >>
> >>
> >> Is 3 less than or equal to 4? ;^)

Look morons: Consider the following statements:

i. "3 is less than 4"
ii. "3 is equal to 4"

Now ask yourself, "Can I put an OR between them?" In other words, can you say:

"3 is less than 4" OR "3 is equal to 4" ?

NO. Why? Because the second one is impossible meaning that the OR disjunction is invalid, ie, there is NO "OR".

Get it now, you stupid cranks? Prof. David Ullrich (mainstream douche bag who used to comment on this newsgroup) agreed with me when I explained this to him and I can assure you that your peanut brains are not on his level. Chuckle.

LMAO.

On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 18:17:28 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 15:37:55 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > On 8/6/2021 12:28 PM, Kolijn Sneijers wrote:
> > > Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 8/6/2021 10:17 AM, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > >>> And what is 3 =< 4?
> > >>>
> > >>> We are waiting...
> > >>>
> > >>> LoL
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Is 3 less than or equal to 4? ;^)
> Look morons: Consider the following statements:
>
> i. "3 is less than 4"
> ii. "3 is equal to 4"
>
> Now ask yourself, "Can I put an OR between them?" In other words, can you say:
>
> "3 is less than 4" OR "3 is equal to 4" ?

The idiot Jan Burse (mostowski collapse) thought this was the same as:

either "it is day" OR "it is night"

There is no analogy whatsoever. The above is a VALID disjunction.

"3 is less than 4" OR "3 is equal to 4" is an INVALID disjunction.

How do you know an OR is valid?

Easy: the conditionals must all be **possible**. This does not mean they will all be occurring at the same time! BUTTT, they must be possible. "3 is equal to 4" is NOT possible.

EOD.

>
> NO. Why? Because the second one is impossible meaning that the OR disjunction is invalid, ie, there is NO "OR".
>
> Get it now, you stupid cranks? Prof. David Ullrich (mainstream douche bag who used to comment on this newsgroup) agreed with me when I explained this to him and I can assure you that your peanut brains are not on his level. Chuckle.
>
> LMAO.

On 8/6/2021 3:21 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 18:17:28 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
>> On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 15:37:55 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 8/6/2021 12:28 PM, Kolijn Sneijers wrote:
>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/6/2021 10:17 AM, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>>>>>> And what is 3 =< 4?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are waiting...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LoL
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is 3 less than or equal to 4? ;^)
>> Look morons: Consider the following statements:
>>
>> i. "3 is less than 4"
>> ii. "3 is equal to 4"
>>
>> Now ask yourself, "Can I put an OR between them?" In other words, can you say:
>>
>> "3 is less than 4" OR "3 is equal to 4" ?
>
> The idiot Jan Burse (mostowski collapse) thought this was the same as:
>
> either "it is day" OR "it is night"
>
> There is no analogy whatsoever. The above is a VALID disjunction.
>
> "3 is less than 4" OR "3 is equal to 4" is an INVALID disjunction.
>
> How do you know an OR is valid?
>
> Easy: the conditionals must all be **possible**. This does not mean they will all be occurring at the same time! BUTTT, they must be possible. "3 is equal to 4" is NOT possible.
>
> EOD.
>
>
>>
>> NO. Why? Because the second one is impossible meaning that the OR disjunction is invalid, ie, there is NO "OR".
>>
>> Get it now, you stupid cranks? Prof. David Ullrich (mainstream douche bag who used to comment on this newsgroup) agreed with me when I explained this to him and I can assure you that your peanut brains are not on his level. Chuckle.
>>
>> LMAO.

Think of a bottle that can hold up to 4 cups of water.
So how much water is in it?

It could be 4 cups or it could be less than 4 cups: So until we measure
it, all we can say is "less than or equal to" 4 cups.

You can define:

3 =< 4 <=> 3 = 4 v 3 < 4

But you can also define it as, because of Trichotomy:

3 =< 4 <=> 3 = 4 xor 3 < 4

Doesn't change anything, gives the same truth value.

What is the truth value?

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 6. August 2021 um 19:17:55 UTC+2:
> And what is 3 =< 4?
>
> We are waiting...
>
> LoL
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 6. August 2021 um 15:05:19 UTC+2:
> > John Gabriel wrote "I am a mathematician"
> >
> > Best joke I heard this week.
> >
> > Isnt John Gabriel the one that cant even determine the truth value of 3=<4 ?
> >
> > LoL
> > Eram semper recta schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. August 2021 um 23:28:02 UTC+2:
> > > On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 14:05:27 UTC-4, Swiss moron Jan Burse aka Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > > > Antibodies do not destroy the mRNA.
> > > > The mRNA simply decays inside the cell.
> > > It does not simply decay, you moron. The cell destroys it.
> > >
> > > In any case, who gives a fuck how it mRNA is removed from the body? The message is the same: mRNA does not go on to message the cell indefinitely. Once the message is received and the protein made, the cell itself degrades the mRNA and gets rid of it.
> > >
> > > I am a mathematician, you fucking moron! I am not a biologist and you are NEITHER of these things.
> > >
> > > It was an idiot like you called Euler who claimed S = Lim S. I destroyed your national hero and now you are mad?

My favorite way to define it:

3 =< 4 <=> ~(3 > 4)

So, what is the truth value?

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 7. August 2021 um 10:42:04 UTC+2:
> You can define:
>
> 3 =< 4 <=> 3 = 4 v 3 < 4
>
> But you can also define it as, because of Trichotomy:
>
> 3 =< 4 <=> 3 = 4 xor 3 < 4
>
> Doesn't change anything, gives the same truth value.
>
> What is the truth value?
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 6. August 2021 um 19:17:55 UTC+2:
> > And what is 3 =< 4?
> >
> > We are waiting...
> >
> > LoL
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 6. August 2021 um 15:05:19 UTC+2:
> > > John Gabriel wrote "I am a mathematician"
> > >
> > > Best joke I heard this week.
> > >
> > > Isnt John Gabriel the one that cant even determine the truth value of 3=<4 ?
> > >
> > > LoL
> > > Eram semper recta schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. August 2021 um 23:28:02 UTC+2:
> > > > On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 14:05:27 UTC-4, Swiss moron Jan Burse aka Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > > > > Antibodies do not destroy the mRNA.
> > > > > The mRNA simply decays inside the cell.
> > > > It does not simply decay, you moron. The cell destroys it.
> > > >
> > > > In any case, who gives a fuck how it mRNA is removed from the body? The message is the same: mRNA does not go on to message the cell indefinitely. Once the message is received and the protein made, the cell itself degrades the mRNA and gets rid of it.
> > > >
> > > > I am a mathematician, you fucking moron! I am not a biologist and you are NEITHER of these things.
> > > >
> > > > It was an idiot like you called Euler who claimed S = Lim S. I destroyed your national hero and now you are mad?

On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 18:47:40 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 8/6/2021 3:21 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 18:17:28 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >> On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 15:37:55 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>> On 8/6/2021 12:28 PM, Kolijn Sneijers wrote:
> >>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 8/6/2021 10:17 AM, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> >>>>>> And what is 3 =< 4?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We are waiting...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> LoL
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is 3 less than or equal to 4? ;^)
> >> Look morons: Consider the following statements:
> >>
> >> i. "3 is less than 4"
> >> ii. "3 is equal to 4"
> >>
> >> Now ask yourself, "Can I put an OR between them?" In other words, can you say:
> >>
> >> "3 is less than 4" OR "3 is equal to 4" ?
> >
> > The idiot Jan Burse (mostowski collapse) thought this was the same as:
> >
> > either "it is day" OR "it is night"
> >
> > There is no analogy whatsoever. The above is a VALID disjunction.
> >
> > "3 is less than 4" OR "3 is equal to 4" is an INVALID disjunction.
> >
> > How do you know an OR is valid?
> >
> > Easy: the conditionals must all be **possible**. This does not mean they will all be occurring at the same time! BUTTT, they must be possible. "3 is equal to 4" is NOT possible.
> >
> > EOD.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> NO. Why? Because the second one is impossible meaning that the OR disjunction is invalid, ie, there is NO "OR".
> >>
> >> Get it now, you stupid cranks? Prof. David Ullrich (mainstream douche bag who used to comment on this newsgroup) agreed with me when I explained this to him and I can assure you that your peanut brains are not on his level. Chuckle.
> >>
> >> LMAO.
> Think of a bottle that can hold up to 4 cups of water.
> So how much water is in it?
>
> It could be 4 cups or it could be less than 4 cups: So until we measure
> it, all we can say is "less than or equal to" 4 cups.

Hey Moron:
Think of a MAGNITUDE that can be 4.
So what is the MAGNITUDE?

The MAGNITUDE could be 4 or it could be less than MAGNITUDE. So until we measure
the MAGNITUDE, all we can say is the magnitude can be "less than or equal to" 4, ie x <= 4.

Get it now moron? LMAO

On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 08:14:41 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> I am a genius and can assure you that unless you are an expert in a subject, there is no way you can just get on the internet and Google your "research" thinking it is reliable. You don't know shit about the science of virology, epidemiology or most else. But how can you decide in such circumstances?
>
> Well, you use your brain (yeah I know, most of you don't have one)! You look at the FACTS and the EVIDENCE.
>
> The *facts* tells us the virus is real (Transmission Electron Microscope)..
> The *evidence* tells us millions of people are dying from this damn virus..
>
> From past experience, vaccines saved humanity and were useful in eradicating the most dangerous pathogens (viruses and bacteria).
>
> Even if the vaccines appear to fail, doing something is better than doing nothing.
>
> Your stupidity is killing others (as did your vote for that prize scumbag Donald Trump and his con minions!) and eventually it will kill you!
>
> The facts have been around for many decades. The evidence is not opinion journalist articles but the actual statistics: number of deaths.
>
> This virus is a bitch from hell and it's only going to get worse the longer you do nothing. Old and unhealthy people are going to die, but the virus will mutate to beat the current vaccines and the next vaccine will have a lot more unpleasant side and long term effects.
>
> Get vaccinated now, morons!

Another antivaxxer bites he dust - apparently this one was "educated" too. He has no underlying health issues and was 58 years old.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/covid-anti-vaxxer-bournemouth-lawrenson-b1898012.html

On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 18:47:40 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 8/6/2021 3:21 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 18:17:28 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >> On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 15:37:55 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>> On 8/6/2021 12:28 PM, Kolijn Sneijers wrote:
> >>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 8/6/2021 10:17 AM, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> >>>>>> And what is 3 =< 4?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We are waiting...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> LoL
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is 3 less than or equal to 4? ;^)
> >> Look morons: Consider the following statements:
> >>
> >> i. "3 is less than 4"
> >> ii. "3 is equal to 4"
> >>
> >> Now ask yourself, "Can I put an OR between them?" In other words, can you say:
> >>
> >> "3 is less than 4" OR "3 is equal to 4" ?
> >
> > The idiot Jan Burse (mostowski collapse) thought this was the same as:
> >
> > either "it is day" OR "it is night"
> >
> > There is no analogy whatsoever. The above is a VALID disjunction.
> >
> > "3 is less than 4" OR "3 is equal to 4" is an INVALID disjunction.
> >
> > How do you know an OR is valid?
> >
> > Easy: the conditionals must all be **possible**. This does not mean they will all be occurring at the same time! BUTTT, they must be possible. "3 is equal to 4" is NOT possible.
> >
> > EOD.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> NO. Why? Because the second one is impossible meaning that the OR disjunction is invalid, ie, there is NO "OR".
> >>
> >> Get it now, you stupid cranks? Prof. David Ullrich (mainstream douche bag who used to comment on this newsgroup) agreed with me when I explained this to him and I can assure you that your peanut brains are not on his level. Chuckle.
> >>
> >> LMAO.
> Think of a bottle that can hold up to 4 cups of water.
> So how much water is in it?
>
> It could be 4 cups or it could be less than 4 cups: So until we measure
> it, all we can say is "less than or equal to" 4 cups.

Hey Moron:
Think of a MAGNITUDE that can be 4.
So what is the MAGNITUDE?

The measure of the MAGNITUDE could be 4 or it could be less than 4. So until we measure
the MAGNITUDE, all we can say is the magnitude can be "less than or equal to" 4, ie x <= 4.

Get it now moron? LMAO

On Saturday, 7 August 2021 at 08:04:11 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 18:47:40 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > On 8/6/2021 3:21 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 18:17:28 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >> On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 15:37:55 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > >>> On 8/6/2021 12:28 PM, Kolijn Sneijers wrote:
> > >>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On 8/6/2021 10:17 AM, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > >>>>>> And what is 3 =< 4?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> We are waiting...
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> LoL
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Is 3 less than or equal to 4? ;^)
> > >> Look morons: Consider the following statements:
> > >>
> > >> i. "3 is less than 4"
> > >> ii. "3 is equal to 4"
> > >>
> > >> Now ask yourself, "Can I put an OR between them?" In other words, can you say:
> > >>
> > >> "3 is less than 4" OR "3 is equal to 4" ?
> > >
> > > The idiot Jan Burse (mostowski collapse) thought this was the same as:
> > >
> > > either "it is day" OR "it is night"
> > >
> > > There is no analogy whatsoever. The above is a VALID disjunction.
> > >
> > > "3 is less than 4" OR "3 is equal to 4" is an INVALID disjunction.
> > >
> > > How do you know an OR is valid?
> > >
> > > Easy: the conditionals must all be **possible**. This does not mean they will all be occurring at the same time! BUTTT, they must be possible. "3 is equal to 4" is NOT possible.
> > >
> > > EOD.
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> NO. Why? Because the second one is impossible meaning that the OR disjunction is invalid, ie, there is NO "OR".
> > >>
> > >> Get it now, you stupid cranks? Prof. David Ullrich (mainstream douche bag who used to comment on this newsgroup) agreed with me when I explained this to him and I can assure you that your peanut brains are not on his level. Chuckle.
> > >>
> > >> LMAO.
> > Think of a bottle that can hold up to 4 cups of water.
> > So how much water is in it?
> >
> > It could be 4 cups or it could be less than 4 cups: So until we measure
> > it, all we can say is "less than or equal to" 4 cups.
> Hey Moron:
> Think of a MAGNITUDE that can be 4.
> So what is the MAGNITUDE?
>
> The measure of the MAGNITUDE could be 4 or it could be less than 4. So until we measure
> the MAGNITUDE, all we can say is the magnitude can be "less than or equal to" 4, ie x <= 4.
>
> Get it now moron? LMAO

It is logical to say: x <= 4 because this is a VALID disjunction, ie, (x < 4) OR (x = 4). Either of these is *possible* and either is TRUE, BUT not BOTH!

If you write (3 < 4) OR (3 = 4), you are effectively reducing the statement to (3 < 4), in other words it's no longer a disjunction because (3 = 4) is impossible, meaning there is no OR (3 = 4).

I am not a genius for nothing....

Eram semper recta wrote:

> Hey Moron: Think of a MAGNITUDE that can be 4.
> So what is the MAGNITUDE?
>
> The MAGNITUDE could be 4 or it could be less than MAGNITUDE. So until we
> measure the MAGNITUDE, all we can say is the magnitude can be "less than
> or equal to" 4, ie x <= 4. Get it now moron? LMAO

You are completely fucked up in your head. You don't even know what a
measurement is and how is performed. You unemployable stupid half-greek.
You never did science for real, you never had your stupid half-greek ass
in a laboratory.

On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 08:14:41 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> I am a genius and can assure you that unless you are an expert in a subject, there is no way you can just get on the internet and Google your "research" thinking it is reliable. You don't know shit about the science of virology, epidemiology or most else. But how can you decide in such circumstances?
>
> Well, you use your brain (yeah I know, most of you don't have one)! You look at the FACTS and the EVIDENCE.
>
> The *facts* tells us the virus is real (Transmission Electron Microscope)..
> The *evidence* tells us millions of people are dying from this damn virus..
>
> From past experience, vaccines saved humanity and were useful in eradicating the most dangerous pathogens (viruses and bacteria).
>
> Even if the vaccines appear to fail, doing something is better than doing nothing.
>
> Your stupidity is killing others (as did your vote for that prize scumbag Donald Trump and his con minions!) and eventually it will kill you!
>
> The facts have been around for many decades. The evidence is not opinion journalist articles but the actual statistics: number of deaths.
>
> This virus is a bitch from hell and it's only going to get worse the longer you do nothing. Old and unhealthy people are going to die, but the virus will mutate to beat the current vaccines and the next vaccine will have a lot more unpleasant side and long term effects.
>
> Get vaccinated now, morons!

I know we don't agree on many things. However, you all need to come together to defeat the nym-shifting vicious troll from Czechoslovakia. Just keep reporting his garbage as misinformation, which is what it is. DO NOT respond to him.

On 8/7/2021 5:07 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Saturday, 7 August 2021 at 08:04:11 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
>> On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 18:47:40 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 8/6/2021 3:21 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 18:17:28 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 15:37:55 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/6/2021 12:28 PM, Kolijn Sneijers wrote:
>>>>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2021 10:17 AM, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> And what is 3 =< 4?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We are waiting...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LoL
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is 3 less than or equal to 4? ;^)
>>>>> Look morons: Consider the following statements:
>>>>>
>>>>> i. "3 is less than 4"
>>>>> ii. "3 is equal to 4"
>>>>>
>>>>> Now ask yourself, "Can I put an OR between them?" In other words, can you say:
>>>>>
>>>>> "3 is less than 4" OR "3 is equal to 4" ?
>>>>
>>>> The idiot Jan Burse (mostowski collapse) thought this was the same as:
>>>>
>>>> either "it is day" OR "it is night"
>>>>
>>>> There is no analogy whatsoever. The above is a VALID disjunction.
>>>>
>>>> "3 is less than 4" OR "3 is equal to 4" is an INVALID disjunction.
>>>>
>>>> How do you know an OR is valid?
>>>>
>>>> Easy: the conditionals must all be **possible**. This does not mean they will all be occurring at the same time! BUTTT, they must be possible. "3 is equal to 4" is NOT possible.
>>>>
>>>> EOD.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> NO. Why? Because the second one is impossible meaning that the OR disjunction is invalid, ie, there is NO "OR".
>>>>>
>>>>> Get it now, you stupid cranks? Prof. David Ullrich (mainstream douche bag who used to comment on this newsgroup) agreed with me when I explained this to him and I can assure you that your peanut brains are not on his level. Chuckle.
>>>>>
>>>>> LMAO.
>>> Think of a bottle that can hold up to 4 cups of water.
>>> So how much water is in it?
>>>
>>> It could be 4 cups or it could be less than 4 cups: So until we measure
>>> it, all we can say is "less than or equal to" 4 cups.
>> Hey Moron:
>> Think of a MAGNITUDE that can be 4.
>> So what is the MAGNITUDE?
>>
>> The measure of the MAGNITUDE could be 4 or it could be less than 4. So until we measure
>> the MAGNITUDE, all we can say is the magnitude can be "less than or equal to" 4, ie x <= 4.
>>
>> Get it now moron? LMAO
>
> It is logical to say: x <= 4 because this is a VALID disjunction, ie, (x < 4) OR (x = 4). Either of these is *possible* and either is TRUE, BUT not BOTH!
>
> If you write (3 < 4) OR (3 = 4), you are effectively reducing the statement to (3 < 4), in other words it's no longer a disjunction because (3 = 4) is impossible, meaning there is no OR (3 = 4).
>
> I am not a genius for nothing....
>

Fwiw, I remember breaking them apart using floating point, so it was
something like:

a <= b:

if (a < b) return true;

if (a == b)
{ // increment counter for equality without using
// an epsilon for the comparison, interesting!
return true;
}

return false;

So, I would take a look at the counter that records the number of times
(a == b) was true. Sometimes it would be greater than zero... ;^)

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 5:14:41 AM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> I am a genius and can assure you that unless you are an expert in a subject, there is no way you can just get on the internet and Google your "research" thinking it is reliable. You don't know shit about the science of virology, epidemiology or most else. But how can you decide in such circumstances?
>
> Well, you use your brain (yeah I know, most of you don't have one)! You look at the FACTS and the EVIDENCE.
>
> The *facts* tells us the virus is real (Transmission Electron Microscope)..
> The *evidence* tells us millions of people are dying from this damn virus..
>
> From past experience, vaccines saved humanity and were useful in eradicating the most dangerous pathogens (viruses and bacteria).
>
> Even if the vaccines appear to fail, doing something is better than doing nothing.
>
> Your stupidity is killing others (as did your vote for that prize scumbag Donald Trump and his con minions!) and eventually it will kill you!
>
> The facts have been around for many decades. The evidence is not opinion journalist articles but the actual statistics: number of deaths.
>
> This virus is a bitch from hell and it's only going to get worse the longer you do nothing. Old and unhealthy people are going to die, but the virus will mutate to beat the current vaccines and the next vaccine will have a lot more unpleasant side and long term effects.
>
> Get vaccinated now, morons!

I already had it. Why should I get a vaccine?
You self proclaimed genius is in question.
Why do you have to say it?
Who has told you you are?
Einstein and Leonardo Da Vinci were believable.
Believe the believable...
I don't have to believe you because you
are not believable.

Mitchell Raemsch

3 = 4 is false, its quite possible, its not impossible.

false has nothing to do with possible and impossible.
possible and impossible are notions from modal logic.

Aristoteles already wrote about modal logic.
But 3 = 4 has no modality involved.

What is wrong with you bird brain?

Eram semper recta schrieb am Samstag, 7. August 2021 um 14:07:51 UTC+2:
> On Saturday, 7 August 2021 at 08:04:11 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 18:47:40 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > On 8/6/2021 3:21 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 18:17:28 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > >> On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 15:37:55 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > >>> On 8/6/2021 12:28 PM, Kolijn Sneijers wrote:
> > > >>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> On 8/6/2021 10:17 AM, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > > >>>>>> And what is 3 =< 4?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> We are waiting...
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> LoL
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Is 3 less than or equal to 4? ;^)
> > > >> Look morons: Consider the following statements:
> > > >>
> > > >> i. "3 is less than 4"
> > > >> ii. "3 is equal to 4"
> > > >>
> > > >> Now ask yourself, "Can I put an OR between them?" In other words, can you say:
> > > >>
> > > >> "3 is less than 4" OR "3 is equal to 4" ?
> > > >
> > > > The idiot Jan Burse (mostowski collapse) thought this was the same as:
> > > >
> > > > either "it is day" OR "it is night"
> > > >
> > > > There is no analogy whatsoever. The above is a VALID disjunction.
> > > >
> > > > "3 is less than 4" OR "3 is equal to 4" is an INVALID disjunction.
> > > >
> > > > How do you know an OR is valid?
> > > >
> > > > Easy: the conditionals must all be **possible**. This does not mean they will all be occurring at the same time! BUTTT, they must be possible. "3 is equal to 4" is NOT possible.
> > > >
> > > > EOD.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> NO. Why? Because the second one is impossible meaning that the OR disjunction is invalid, ie, there is NO "OR".
> > > >>
> > > >> Get it now, you stupid cranks? Prof. David Ullrich (mainstream douche bag who used to comment on this newsgroup) agreed with me when I explained this to him and I can assure you that your peanut brains are not on his level. Chuckle.
> > > >>
> > > >> LMAO.
> > > Think of a bottle that can hold up to 4 cups of water.
> > > So how much water is in it?
> > >
> > > It could be 4 cups or it could be less than 4 cups: So until we measure
> > > it, all we can say is "less than or equal to" 4 cups.
> > Hey Moron:
> > Think of a MAGNITUDE that can be 4.
> > So what is the MAGNITUDE?
> >
> > The measure of the MAGNITUDE could be 4 or it could be less than 4. So until we measure
> > the MAGNITUDE, all we can say is the magnitude can be "less than or equal to" 4, ie x <= 4.
> >
> > Get it now moron? LMAO
> It is logical to say: x <= 4 because this is a VALID disjunction, ie, (x < 4) OR (x = 4). Either of these is *possible* and either is TRUE, BUT not BOTH!
>
> If you write (3 < 4) OR (3 = 4), you are effectively reducing the statement to (3 < 4), in other words it's no longer a disjunction because (3 = 4) is impossible, meaning there is no OR (3 = 4).
>
> I am not a genius for nothing....

These have all the same truth value:

0 = 1
2 ≠ 2
3 = 4
4 < 3
Etc...

They are all SIMPLY false.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Sonntag, 8. August 2021 um 00:19:42 UTC+2:
> 3 = 4 is false, its quite possible, its not impossible.
>
> false has nothing to do with possible and impossible.
> possible and impossible are notions from modal logic.
>
> Aristoteles already wrote about modal logic.
> But 3 = 4 has no modality involved.
>
> What is wrong with you bird brain?

Mostowski Collapse wrote:

> These have all the same truth value:
> 0 = 1 2 ≠ 2 3 = 4 4 < 3 Etc...
> They are all SIMPLY false.

You fucked up mixing operators with assignment like tutyfruti. You need
comparative operators "==", "<=", "!=" etc. Then assign it to a variable.
And you can't chain the shit the way you do.

Hey its sci.math not comp.lang.java.

You can take "!=" and consorts, and shove it up your ass.

Matt Bidwell schrieb am Sonntag, 8. August 2021 um 00:48:36 UTC+2:
> Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>
> > These have all the same truth value:
> > 0 = 1 2 ≠ 2 3 = 4 4 < 3 Etc...
> > They are all SIMPLY false.
> You fucked up mixing operators with assignment like tutyfruti. You need
> comparative operators "==", "<=", "!=" etc. Then assign it to a variable.
> And you can't chain the shit the way you do.

Micro penis, maybe go back to your anti vaxxer planet.

Even a monke should find Unicode like:
https://www.compart.com/de/unicode/U+2260

Or try this here monke:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_mathematical_symbols

Are all flat earthers that stupid like micro penis?

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Sonntag, 8. August 2021 um 00:56:43 UTC+2:
> Hey its sci.math not comp.lang.java.
>
> You can take "!=" and consorts, and shove it up your ass.
> Matt Bidwell schrieb am Sonntag, 8. August 2021 um 00:48:36 UTC+2:
> > Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> >
> > > These have all the same truth value:
> > > 0 = 1 2 ≠ 2 3 = 4 4 < 3 Etc...
> > > They are all SIMPLY false.
> > You fucked up mixing operators with assignment like tutyfruti. You need
> > comparative operators "==", "<=", "!=" etc. Then assign it to a variable.
> > And you can't chain the shit the way you do.

Mostowski Collapse wrote:

> Hey its sci.math not comp.lang.java.
> You can take "!=" and consorts, and shove it up your ass.

Does not matter, fucked up in your head stupid. You still mix shit
together illegally, disregard domain of applicability. It's not "java",
fucking stupid, but that's valid everywhere.

You big mathematicians are completely unemployable, never doing math for
real or for living. Can't sense operators from compactors and
assignments, you are using the same thing, stupid.

> Matt Bidwell schrieb am Sonntag, 8. August 2021 um 00:48:36 UTC+2:
>> Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>>
>> > These have all the same truth value:
>> > 0 = 1 2 ≠ 2 3 = 4 4 < 3 Etc... They are all SIMPLY false.
>> You fucked up mixing operators with assignment like tutyfruti. You need
>> comparative operators "==", "<=", "!=" etc. Then assign it to a
>> variable. And you can't chain the shit the way you do.