On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 8:31:55 AM UTC-7, Socratis T.n.p. wrote:
> > So, Be Honest, and give a True and New Order, to the Queen of Sciences.
>
> We would not know where to start ... We are Scientists imitating Scientists ...
> So We prefer to say with the Other Scientists:
>
> 10i * 10i * 10i = 1
> 10c * 10c * 10c = 0.001
> 10 • * 10 • * 10 • = 0.000001
> 1 • * 1 • * 1 • ==== 0.000000001.
>
> And we don't care to know what, imagine that we never use the dm, the cm, the mm.
> which we call, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001
> We start from: 1m, to descend towards Zero, and Climb towards infinity, we are Scientists ...
> What do you want us to care to specify 0.1kg. = 100g .... If ... We are ... Scientists ... we ..
> we have to compare with other Scientists, in a single Scientific Language ....
>
> Editing means wasting time, as they wouldn't understand 10c * 10c * 10c = 1000g. = 1kg.
> Personally I would say that 1i *10i *10i =100i^3 =100kg. But I'm afraid to say it as a Scientist- :))

Street-o, no destruitto.

Te abacci! (I read it.)

These are roots the space terms make for roots -
usually called areal and volumetric.

That, units, linear in their quantities, are in orders
under their sections, is for the operator theory,
linear operator theory for that under roots: there is
a general "calculus", carrying down what is this root calculus.

Il giorno sabato 31 luglio 2021 alle 22:41:55 UTC+2 Ross A. Finlayson ha scritto:
> On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 8:31:55 AM UTC-7, Socratis T.n.p. wrote:
> > > So, Be Honest, and give a True and New Order, to the Queen of Sciences.
> >
> > We would not know where to start ... We are Scientists imitating Scientists ...
> > So We prefer to say with the Other Scientists:
> >
> > 10i * 10i * 10i = 1
> > 10c * 10c * 10c = 0.001
> > 10 • * 10 • * 10 • = 0.000001
> > 1 • * 1 • * 1 • ==== 0.000000001.
> >
> > And we don't care to know what, imagine that we never use the dm, the cm, the mm.
> > which we call, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001
> > We start from: 1m, to descend towards Zero, and Climb towards infinity, we are Scientists ...
> > What do you want us to care to specify 0.1kg. = 100g .... If ... We are ... Scientists ... we ..
> > we have to compare with other Scientists, in a single Scientific Language ....
> >
> > Editing means wasting time, as they wouldn't understand 10c * 10c * 10c = 1000g. = 1kg.
> > Personally I would say that 1i *10i *10i =100i^3 =100kg. But I'm afraid to say it as a Scientist- :))
> Street-o, no destruitto.
>
> Te abacci! (I read it.)
>
> These are roots the space terms make for roots -
> usually called areal and volumetric.
>
> That, units, linear in their quantities, are in orders
> under their sections, is for the operator theory,
> linear operator theory for that under roots: there is
> a general "calculus", carrying down what is this root calculus.

0.1m^2 = 10i^2 => √10i^2 = 3.662.dm..
1m^2 = 100i^2 => √100i^2 = 10dm
10m^2 =1000i^2 => √000i^2 = 31.662 dm

1m^3 = 1000i^3 ==> 10m^2 > 1m^3 ? No!!
1i *10i *100i = 1000i^3 = 1m^3..Alias
1dm* 10dm *100dm.= 1000dm^3=> for 10m = 100dm.

Greting for Socrats T.n.p.

Unfortunately, These Mathematicians, are not available, in comparison with the T.n.p.
So they confuse: m ^ 1.m ^ 2, m ^ 3 ... which for them are always m ^ 1-
1i * 2i * 1000i = 2000i ^ 3, which, for them Scientists would be 2m. Linear.

=> 2i * 10i = 20i ^ 2 = 2000c ^ 2 = 0.2m ^ 2
1i * 20c * 100c == 20.000c ^ 3 = 0.02m ^ 3. Alias:
1i * 2i * 10i = 20i ^ 3 = 20kg. = 0.02m ^ 3 => for i = 1dm = 10cm.

This shows that they don't understand the system they claim to teach.
Where the accuracy would be, they should confess it to God and to themselves
In the vague hope that they notice the damage they do to the students, who
they do not have a Logic to lean on, and they fall, all of it, into Memory.

As far as I'm concerned, the T.n.p. he can also deprive himself of the computer without making a mistake ..
Given the Lucidity that comes from the calculation of the dm .. as a function of cm, and meters ..
In fact, this is enough to be able to say:
=> 4i * 5m = 200i ^ 2 = 2m ^ 2 ... distinguishing it from:
1i * 4i * 50i = 200i ^ 3 = 200kg. ==> where you just need to know: 5m = 50dm. and the accounts add up!

Self; 20i * 20i = 400i ^ 2, just the factor: z = i, to say, without problems, chr:
1i * 20i * 20i = 400i ^ 3 ... which does not need to be derived from m ^ 3-
2i * 20i * 20i = 800i ^ 3 ... etc ... Because if it depends on m ^ 3 you can. say => 0.8m ^ 3.
Therefore the cube seems smaller than the square in 10m ^ 2-
The effect depends on the fact that 1m ^ 3 only, encompasses the area, of 10m ^ 2. 1, for each: z = 1i.

I hope to have further clarified the fundamental concept, which clashes with the
derivations ... from the Grande which has, height: i, with the same area - Therefore, know that:
==> 8i * 10i = 80i ^ 2 => while:
1i * 8i * 10i = 80i ^ 3. = 0.08m ^ 3.

Kind regards from Socratis T.n.p. - :)))

I hope to have further clarified the fundamental concept, which clashes with the, due,
derivations, from the Great: if it is included, a dimension: i, c, etc. - therefore note that:
==> 6i * 10i = 60i ^ 2 => while:
1i * 6i * 10i = 60i ^ 3. = 0.08m ^ 3.
Which indicates what it means to be Neutral of i, as of 1m, but which in the meantime remain. 1i and 10i.

Therefore, you would be dealing with La T.n.p ... starting with 1i = 1dm. The reason is easy to understand:
if 1i = Unit, each operation: product, division, sum, power, etc. They would give 1i account.
Therefore, no derivation would be needed, neither from 100i ^ 2, nor from 1000i ^ 3.

Some might argue that there would be the derivation of the cm, with respect to 1i = 10cm,
But actually. 1c is so implicit in; 10c. so at the very least you could say 1c * 1i = 10c ^ 2.
Ditto it would be lawful and right to do something similar .. between 1i and 10i .. Using the T.n.p.
Also because it is very useful, use an integer like 1i, c h and 0.1

Which, from now on you should and could apply, without undergoing, the derivation from: m ^ 2., M ^ 3
Ex: => 1c * 1i = 10c^2.
=> 10c *10c = 100c^2
10c *100c = 1000c^2
1i * 1i * 1i = 1000c^3
=> 1i * 1i * 1 = 10i^3
> 1i * 1 * 1 = 100i^3

I'm sure, this is True Logic so you don't need a lot of memorization aside
of the Students who Possessed Such, Logic, with great advantage for all Those who have. refused the study of the Queen of Sciences, due to her considerable logical difficulties.

I conclude by saying that La T.d.i. It would be correct as long as all numbers <1m. they were
considered for what they are; Values ​​independent of Values> 1m. Because in reality, the
T.d.i. works just like T.n.p. With the difference that, no one, before me. he knew
decode the T.d.i algorithms ... So nobody, except me, is able to Conceive
with Logic alone ... Individual and mental. neither ... the clever, nor the Idiot.
After all, any Mind ... is made according to Limits that vary between, Idiocy and Genius-
Although, the power of memory often favors Copiers, regardless of what they understand.
So my ideal is to make simple what Many Complicate ...
Just think of Boccalone who thinks 10c * 10c = 1c^2 and Not 100c^2 = 0.01m^2 - :)))

Greetings from Socratis T.n.p. 2i * 5i = i * 10i ==> 2i * 50i = i * 100i

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 11:07:33 AM UTC-4, Socratis T.n.p. wrote:
> I hope to have further clarified the fundamental concept, which clashes with the, due,
> derivations, from the Great: if it is included, a dimension: i, c, etc. - therefore note that:
> ==> 6i * 10i = 60i ^ 2 => while:
> 1i * 6i * 10i = 60i ^ 3. = 0.08m ^ 3.
> Which indicates what it means to be Neutral of i, as of 1m, but which in the meantime remain. 1i and 10i.
>
> Therefore, you would be dealing with La T.n.p ... starting with 1i = 1dm. The reason is easy to understand:
> if 1i = Unit, each operation: product, division, sum, power, etc. They would give 1i account.
> Therefore, no derivation would be needed, neither from 100i ^ 2, nor from 1000i ^ 3.
>
> Some might argue that there would be the derivation of the cm, with respect to 1i = 10cm,
> But actually. 1c is so implicit in; 10c. so at the very least you could say 1c * 1i = 10c ^ 2.
> Ditto it would be lawful and right to do something similar .. between 1i and 10i .. Using the T.n.p.
> Also because it is very useful, use an integer like 1i, c h and 0.1
>
> Which, from now on you should and could apply, without undergoing, the derivation from: m ^ 2., M ^ 3
> Ex: => 1c * 1i = 10c^2.
> => 10c *10c = 100c^2
> 10c *100c = 1000c^2
> 1i * 1i * 1i = 1000c^3
> => 1i * 1i * 1 = 10i^3
> > 1i * 1 * 1 = 100i^3
>
> I'm sure, this is True Logic so you don't need a lot of memorization aside
> of the Students who Possessed Such, Logic, with great advantage for all Those who have. refused the study of the Queen of Sciences, due to her considerable logical difficulties.
>
> I conclude by saying that La T.d.i. It would be correct as long as all numbers <1m. they were
> considered for what they are; Values ​​independent of Values> 1m. Because in reality, the
> T.d.i. works just like T.n.p. With the difference that, no one, before me.. he knew
> decode the T.d.i algorithms ... So nobody, except me, is able to Conceive
> with Logic alone ... Individual and mental. neither ... the clever, nor the Idiot.
>
> After all, any Mind ... is made according to Limits that vary between, Idiocy and Genius-
> Although, the power of memory often favors Copiers, regardless of what they understand.
> So my ideal is to make simple what Many Complicate ...
> Just think of Boccalone who thinks 10c * 10c = 1c^2 and Not 100c^2 = 0.01m^2 - :)))
>
> Greetings from Socratis T.n.p. 2i * 5i = i * 10i ==> 2i * 50i = i * 100i

I am mildly interested but I'm not really seeing what you are on about.
It does seem to have some general dimensional analysis, yet given the level of repetition that you are going through I have to recommend that you attempt some variation of interpretation to the degree possible, in that you could possibly convince somebody else here of the value of this work that way.. Also it is possible that you will further your own work this way.

The choice of unit, particularly within the metric system is consistent with scientific notation and the radix ten system that the arabic numerals have sustained. Still, to recognize that a number such as
12.345
is in fact an integer, and that the decimal point is merely an indicator of which position is being interpreted as unity: this as a means of providing numbers smaller than unity without ever having left the radix system obviates the need for rational values. In fact the interpretation of such a number as
1 x 10 ^ 1 + 2 x 10 ^ 0 + 3 x 10 ^ - 1 ...
exposes that this expression is not actually fundamental, for its reliance upon a key two digit number cannot form the fundamental basis. That this could lead into an aleph patch is entirely feasible, but upon engaging a large value such as
1234567890123
where the leading digit is interpreted as
1 x 10 ^ 12
then another large number has crept in and the generality of this breakdown of a number as fundamental rings false. This is not to say that the expression is false, but that it is not fundamental. In fact what was fundamental was the same thing that children learned long before they even needed exponentiation. The modulo form and its radix extension as fundamental even within the natural numbers is sufficient mechanism.

I see your concern as nearby to this and I am finding that there is some room for interpretation. Likewise the decimal point in our numbers does just the same thing. It is but a notational convenience and can take another form as
x e
where n is a whole number (as large as you like) and the e signifies the position of the decimal point as yet another (typically smaller) whole number.. For polysign usage this then takes general sign s:
s x e
and forms a rudimentary value that is continuous in nature by the epsilon/delta criterion which the real numbers likewise rest upon. However, this numerical interpretation can be seen as devoid of the rational concerns and the irrational concerns that take up the majority of real analysis in terms of the construction of number. Your own usage of i as some unital figure engages general dimensional interpretation whereas in polysign the signature does this. The results are purely geometrical in polysign as a family of number systems Pn.

In effect interpretation of our existing numbers has room for variation. To stoop to the real value as some penultimate form is a mistake. Information theory suggests that a compact form is superior. When we learned to count to 100 we achieved something out of rings with detents and a little rod possibly that engages an adjacent ring; something known as 'radix' and whose description requires care to detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix
and whose ambiguities could be better exposed. None will deny that we rely upon a modulo representation... right?

Sono leggermente interessato, ma non capisco davvero di cosa parli.

The Small Neutral Theory corrects the errors of prof.
Because I don't follow the correct laws of set theory
Ex1Q. 0.1 =1dm=1i .therefore, 1i *10i =10i^2=0.1m^2

0.1 *0.1 = 10c *10c = 100c^2 = 0.01m^2 .. Not 0.01m^1-
Therefore 100c^2 = 1dm^2, so
Ex2V : 0.1 *1 *1 = i *10i *10i = 100kg = 0.1m^3.
Ex3V. : 0.1 *0.1 *100m, results in dm ;
1dm *1dm *1000dm = 1000dm^3 =1m^3- Not: 1m^1-
If you make me understand what, It's not clear, I'll try to explain, very clearly ...

Greetings from Socratis T.n.p. 2i *5m =2i*50dm =100dm^2 ==> 1i *10'm = 100i^2.
1m=10dm, 2m=20dm, 10=100dm ==> 1m*2m = 10i *20i = 200i^2. 1m, Not Neutre.

a^2 +b^2 = 2ab +d^2=> Pitagora..Socratis
(a + b)^2 = 4ab +d^2 =>Newton..Socratis
a^3 + b^3=(a+b)*(ab+d^2)===> Socratis.
(a-1)*a*(a+1) = a^3 - a ====> Socratis.
a * b * c = b^3 -d^2 =====> Socratis..ecc..
..//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////.| ==> 1i *1i *15i =15i^3 =15-l-kg-
|__|__|__!__|__||__|__|__!__|__||__|__|__!__|__|/ ==> 15i = 1.5m. ===> 1c^3 =1g-

10c *10c *150c =15'000c^3 =15-l-kg-
For you : 0.1*0.1 *1.5 = 0.015m^3.-:)))

a^2 +b^2 =2ab +d^2=> Pitagora..Socratis-
(a + b)^2 =4ab +d^2 =>Newton..Socratis-
a^3 +b^3=(a+b)*(ab+d^2)===> Socratis.-
(a-1)*a*(a+1)= a^3 - a ====> Socratis.-
a * b * c = b^3 -b*d^2 ===> Socratis..ecc.. <=== Errata Corrige.
.//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////.| => 1i *1i *15i =15i^3 =15-l-kg-
|__|__|__!__|__||__|__|__!__|__||__|__|__!__|__|/ => 15i = 1.5m. ===> 1c^3 =1g-

10c * 10c * 150c =15'000c^3 =15-l-kg-
For you ; 0.1 *0.1 *1.5 =0.015m^3.-:)))

Socratis T.n.p. wrote:

> a^2 +b^2 =2ab +d^2=> Pitagora..Socratis-
> (a + b)^2 =4ab +d^2 =>Newton..Socratis-
> a^3 +b^3=(a+b)*(ab+d^2)===> Socratis.-
> (a-1)*a*(a+1)= a^3 - a ====> Socratis.-
> a * b * c = b^3 -b*d^2 ===> Socratis..ecc.. <=== Errata Corrige.

socratis is gay.