I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S. Now I focus on the contradictory contents of his Elements of Algibberish.

Euler said it! Not me! From his Elements of Al-gibberish , the following:

82. To express this idea, according to the sense of it above-mentioned, we make use of the sign ∞, which consequently indicates a number infinitely great; and we may therefore say that this fraction 1/∞ is in reality nothing; because a fraction cannot be reduced to nothing, until the denominator has been increased to infinity.

83. It is the more necessary to pay attention to this idea of infinity, as it is derived from the first elements of our knowledge, and as it will be of the greatest importance in the following part of this treatise.

We may here deduce from it a few consequences that are extremely curious, and worthy of attention. The fraction 1/∞ represents the quotient resulting from the division of the dividend 1 by the divisor ∞. Now, we know that if we divide the dividend 1 by the quotient 1/∞, which is equal to nothing, we obtain again the divisor ∞: hence we acquire a new idea of infinity; and learn that it arises from the division of 1 by 0; so that we are thence authorised in saying that 1 divided by 0 expresses a number infinitely great, or ∞.

84. It may be necessary also, in this place, to correct the mistake of those who assert that a number infinitely great is not susceptible of increase. This opinion is inconsistent with the just principles which we have laid down; for 10 signifying a number infinitely great, and 20 being incontestably the double of 10, it is evident that a number, though infinitely great, may still become twice, thrice, or any number of times greater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above claims are wild compared to the first few claims in his book which if there wasn't so much garbage in it, might still have been one of the best algebra text books ever published:

Chapter I – Of Mathematics in general

1. Whatever is capable of increase or diminution is called magnitude, or quantity. A sum of money therefore is a quantity, since we may increase it or diminish it. It is the same with a weight, and other things of this nature..

JG: In other words, a magnitude is simply the concept of size, dimension or extent.

2. From this definition, it is evident that the different kinds of magnitude must be so various, as to render it difficult to enumerate them: and this is the origin of the different branches of the Mathematics, each being employed on a particular kind of magnitude.

* Mathematics, in general, is the science of quantity; or, the science which investigates the means of measuring quantity. *

JG: Euler almost got this one right even though the local idiot Malum does not agree:

JG: Mathematics is the science of measure and quantity.
JG: What Euler appears to have missed is that in order to enumerate anything, the concept of number and all its machinery must already be in place.

3. Now, we cannot measure or determine any quantity, except by considering some other quantity of the same kind as known, and pointing out their mutual relation. If it were proposed, for example, to determine the quantity of a sum of money, we should take some known piece of money, as a louis, a crown, a ducat, or some other coin, and show how many of these pieces are contained in the given sum. In the same manner, if it were proposed to determine the quantity of a weight, we should take a certain known weight; for example, a pound, an ounce, etc. and then show how many times one of these weights is contained in that which we are endeavouring to ascertain. If we wished to measure any length or extension, we should make use of some known length, such as a foot.

JG: In other words, we need a ratio which is the first kind of (qualitative) measure. In my free article, I explain how all this is done:

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

4. So that the determination, or the measure of magnitude of all kinds, is reduced to this: fix at pleasure upon any one known magnitude of the same species with that which is to be determined, and consider it as the measure or unit; then, determine the proportion of the proposed magnitude to this known measure. This proportion is always expressed by numbers; so that a number is nothing but the proportion of one magnitude to another arbitrarily assumed as the unit.

JG: Euler did not quite fully understand that a number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size. He focused more on a physical unit. Also, Euler did not make the connection between ratio and number.

5. From this it appears that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers; and that the foundation of all the Mathematical Sciences must be laid in a complete treatise on the science of Numbers, and in an accurate examination of the different possible methods of calculation. This fundamental part of mathematics is called Analysis, or Algebra.

JG: It is untrue that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers. Moreover, Euler did not fully realise that algebra is a weaker form of geometry in which measures are performed in terms of an abstract unit (whose size is irrelevant) rather than a chosen physical unit. The properties using physical units are transferred to algebra with the introduction of incommensurable magnitudes such as pi, e, sqrt(2), etc.

On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 13:26:10 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S. Now I focus on the contradictory contents of his Elements of Algibberish.
>
> Euler said it! Not me! From his Elements of Al-gibberish , the following:
>
> 82. To express this idea, according to the sense of it above-mentioned, we make use of the sign ∞, which consequently indicates a number infinitely great; and we may therefore say that this fraction 1/∞ is in reality nothing; because a fraction cannot be reduced to nothing, until the denominator has been increased to infinity.
>
> 83. It is the more necessary to pay attention to this idea of infinity, as it is derived from the first elements of our knowledge, and as it will be of the greatest importance in the following part of this treatise.
>
> We may here deduce from it a few consequences that are extremely curious, and worthy of attention. The fraction 1/∞ represents the quotient resulting from the division of the dividend 1 by the divisor ∞. Now, we know that if we divide the dividend 1 by the quotient 1/∞, which is equal to nothing, we obtain again the divisor ∞: hence we acquire a new idea of infinity; and learn that it arises from the division of 1 by 0; so that we are thence authorised in saying that 1 divided by 0 expresses a number infinitely great, or ∞.
>
> 84. It may be necessary also, in this place, to correct the mistake of those who assert that a number infinitely great is not susceptible of increase. This opinion is inconsistent with the just principles which we have laid down; for 10 signifying a number infinitely great, and 20 being incontestably the double of 10, it is evident that a number, though infinitely great, may still become twice, thrice, or any number of times greater.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The above claims are wild compared to the first few claims in his book which if there wasn't so much garbage in it, might still have been one of the best algebra text books ever published:
>
> Chapter I – Of Mathematics in general
>
> 1. Whatever is capable of increase or diminution is called magnitude, or quantity. A sum of money therefore is a quantity, since we may increase it or diminish it. It is the same with a weight, and other things of this nature.
>
> JG: In other words, a magnitude is simply the concept of size, dimension or extent.
>
> 2. From this definition, it is evident that the different kinds of magnitude must be so various, as to render it difficult to enumerate them: and this is the origin of the different branches of the Mathematics, each being employed on a particular kind of magnitude.
>
> * Mathematics, in general, is the science of quantity; or, the science which investigates the means of measuring quantity. *
>
> JG: Euler almost got this one right even though the local idiot Malum does not agree:
>
> JG: Mathematics is the science of measure and quantity.
> JG: What Euler appears to have missed is that in order to enumerate anything, the concept of number and all its machinery must already be in place.
>
> 3. Now, we cannot measure or determine any quantity, except by considering some other quantity of the same kind as known, and pointing out their mutual relation. If it were proposed, for example, to determine the quantity of a sum of money, we should take some known piece of money, as a louis, a crown, a ducat, or some other coin, and show how many of these pieces are contained in the given sum. In the same manner, if it were proposed to determine the quantity of a weight, we should take a certain known weight; for example, a pound, an ounce, etc. and then show how many times one of these weights is contained in that which we are endeavouring to ascertain. If we wished to measure any length or extension, we should make use of some known length, such as a foot.
>
> JG: In other words, we need a ratio which is the first kind of (qualitative) measure. In my free article, I explain how all this is done:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
>
> 4. So that the determination, or the measure of magnitude of all kinds, is reduced to this: fix at pleasure upon any one known magnitude of the same species with that which is to be determined, and consider it as the measure or unit; then, determine the proportion of the proposed magnitude to this known measure. This proportion is always expressed by numbers; so that a number is nothing but the proportion of one magnitude to another arbitrarily assumed as the unit.
>
> JG: Euler did not quite fully understand that a number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size. He focused more on a physical unit. Also, Euler did not make the connection between ratio and number.
>
> 5. From this it appears that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers; and that the foundation of all the Mathematical Sciences must be laid in a complete treatise on the science of Numbers, and in an accurate examination of the different possible methods of calculation. This fundamental part of mathematics is called Analysis, or Algebra.
>
> JG: It is untrue that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers. Moreover, Euler did not fully realise that algebra is a weaker form of geometry in which measures are performed in terms of an abstract unit (whose size is irrelevant) rather than a chosen physical unit. The properties using physical units are transferred to algebra with the introduction of incommensurable magnitudes such as pi, e, sqrt(2), etc.

Euler's understanding was very much the same as most cranky mainstream academics or physicists such as Wolfgang Mueckenheim. He interpreted measure strictly as would a tailor who uses a measuring tape calibrated with measures based on a chosen unit.

Why do you keep blaming Euler for your blunder? Euler didn't scribble
S=Lim S on an image of his works, You did!

On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 1:26:10 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:
> I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S.

That was YOUR blunder, Mr. Rectum! It was YOU that defaced a copy of Euler's original article on the topic with you nonsensical "S = Lim S", desperately hoping that at least one reader here was as dumb as you are. The whole thing just blew up in your face, but pathological liar that you are, you can't back down. You have to keep repeating the same lie over and over again.. The Donald Trump of math. Really quite pathetic.

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of JG's fake math

JG here claims to have a discovered as shortcut to mastering calculus without using limits. Unfortunately for him, this means he has no workable a definition of the derivative of a function. It blows up for functions as simple f(x)=|x|. Or even f(x)=0. As a result, he has had to ban 0, negative numbers and instantaneous rates of change rendering his goofy little system quite useless. What a moron!

Forget calculus. JG has also banned all axioms because he cannot even derive the most elementary results of basic arithmetic, e.g. 2+2=4. Such results require the use of axioms, so he must figure he's now off the hook. Again, what a moron!

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

Eram semper recta wrote:

> 83. It is the more necessary to pay attention to this idea of infinity,
> as it is derived from the first elements of our knowledge, and as it
> will be of the greatest importance in the following part of this
> treatise.

MSM Propaganda: Man Who DIED OF COVID Could Have Had A “Worse Condition”
If He Wasn’t Fully Vaccinated

They are now claiming that a fully vaccinated man who died of COVID-19
was spared a “worse condition” because he had been jabbed twice with the
experimental gene therapy??

On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 2:12:43 PM UTC-4, Nikki Hungerford wrote:
> Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> > 83. It is the more necessary to pay attention to this idea of infinity,
> > as it is derived from the first elements of our knowledge, and as it
> > will be of the greatest importance in the following part of this
> > treatise.
> MSM Propaganda: Man Who DIED OF COVID Could Have Had A “Worse Condition”
> If He Wasn’t Fully Vaccinated
>
> They are now claiming that a fully vaccinated man who died of COVID-19
> was spared a “worse condition” because he had been jabbed twice with the
> experimental gene therapy??

Hey, Nikki, why don't you and your Putin/Trump supporters hold a huge, indoor anti-vaxx rally, tens of thousands, as many will fit in and then some -- the vaccinated, masked and Democrats not welcome. Do this in every city across the South. Should be fun, fun, fun, y'all!!!

Anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen spammed:

> "There are no points on a line."

Lie. I never said that. What I did say is that a line does not consists of points. When we talk about points on a line, we really mean distances that are indicated much like road signs do for distances travelled along a road.

A line is one of innumerable distances between any two points.
A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.

> "Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"

True. Pi is merely a symbol for an incommensurable magnitude - apparently a concept too advanced for an imbecile like Dan Christensen.

> "1/2 not equal to 2/4"

Lie. I have NEVER said this. What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.

There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4. For example:

_ / _ _
_ _ / _ _ _ _

The length _ is not equal to the length _ _ .

> “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”

True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail:

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

Also, my article on pi not being a number of any kind:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FFg_9XCkIwTZ9N1jbU4oMYfHHHuFHYf3

The true story of how we got numbers:

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

No such thing as a "real number" or a "real number line":

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMHVYcE8xcmRZRnc

There is no valid construction of "real number" - it's a myth:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU

> "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”

True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.

3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4

Actually, there is no "OR" part, so the logical disjunction is invalid.

> "Zero is not a number."

True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w2tt7IgoIu-ychDCoYi-4jOAzToy0ViM

> "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."

Half-truth. While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.

> “There is no such thing as an empty set.”

True. Even the father of all mainstream mathematical cranks rejected the idea of empty set. But let's not go too far ... there isn't even a definition of "set" in set theory!

https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w

https://youtu.be/1CcSsOG0okg

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

True. These are propositions that are implied by the given equations. For example, my historic geometric identity states:

[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = dy/dx + Q(x,h)

And so, f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)

The theorem:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

How it provides a rigorous definition of integral for the flawed mainstream calculus:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y

The day will come when this vicious anonymous troll Dan Christensen is convicted in a court of law.

Download for free the most important mathematics book ever written:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of JG's fake math

On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 7:21:01 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:

> > "1/2 not equal to 2/4"
> Lie. I have NEVER said this.

A direct quote from October 22, 2017 here at sci.math

> What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
> What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
> 2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.
>
> There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4. For example:
>

When will you learn, Troll Boy? 1/2 is ALWAYS EQUAL to 2/4.

[snip]

> > “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
> True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail...

If you can't dazzle them brilliance, baffle them with bullshit, right, Troll Boy?

> > "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
> True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.
>

Nothing "invalid" about it, Troll Boy.

> 3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4
>

It means 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4, which is always truly.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table#Logical_disjunction_(OR)

[snip]

> > "Zero is not a number."
> True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.
>

It really is a number, Troll Boy. Deal with it.

> > "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."

> Half-truth.

Nope. Completely false.

> While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.

<yawn!>

> > “There is no such thing as an empty set.”

> True.

Umm... What about the set of all your brilliant mathematical discoveries? Empty.

[snip]

> > “3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions”

> True.

Nope. The biconditional is logical connective. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_biconditional

3 is not a logical proposition or a statement that is true or false. 3 is a number. So 3 <=> 2+1 would be an error in syntax. Deal with it, Troll Boy.

[snip]

> > 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

Also, all direct quotes from you, Troll Boy. To the extent that you will be remembered at all, history will not be kind to you. Time to cut your losses and move on Troll Boy.

Dan

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

On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 00:54:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S
> And as we have pointed out, it is r=Lim S

Who is "we"? LMAO. You mean yourself idiot!

You can point out many things which are products of your illogical thoughts. That does not mean you are correct.
>
> The fact you cannot even get this right shows how badly you understand things

You mean the fact that I don't agree with your drivel means I don't understand? Chuckle.

måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:35:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 00:54:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S
> > And as we have pointed out, it is r=Lim S
> Who is "we"? LMAO. You mean yourself idiot!
>
> You can point out many things which are products of your illogical thoughts. That does not mean you are correct.
> >
> > The fact you cannot even get this right shows how badly you understand things
> You mean the fact that I don't agree with your drivel means I don't understand? Chuckle.

The we are many people have pointed out the mistake and you keep repeating it.

>You can point out many things which are products of your illogical thoughts. That does not mean you are correct.

It is product of mathematics, something you cannot do.

>You mean the fact that I don't agree with your drivel means I don't understand? Chuckle.

if you wanted to do finitism or rational numbers only that'd be dandy.

The issue is that you cannot even cite definitions correctly, you do not understand the notation used today or anything.

That is the issue.

exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
misunderstand or not use standard notation and terminology,
ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.

Which are typical traits of cranks and all fit you.

On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 00:55:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:35:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 00:54:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S
> > > And as we have pointed out, it is r=Lim S
> > Who is "we"? LMAO. You mean yourself idiot!
> >
> > You can point out many things which are products of your illogical thoughts. That does not mean you are correct.
> > >
> > > The fact you cannot even get this right shows how badly you understand things
> > You mean the fact that I don't agree with your drivel means I don't understand? Chuckle.
> The we are many people...

And ALL of them CRANKS like you.

onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 16:49:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 00:55:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:35:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 00:54:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S
> > > > And as we have pointed out, it is r=Lim S
> > > Who is "we"? LMAO. You mean yourself idiot!
> > >
> > > You can point out many things which are products of your illogical thoughts. That does not mean you are correct.
> > > >
> > > > The fact you cannot even get this right shows how badly you understand things
> > > You mean the fact that I don't agree with your drivel means I don't understand? Chuckle.
> > The we are many people...
>
> And ALL of them CRANKS like you.

The crank is you because we agree with mainstream, you're the one that don't and check all the boxes of crank behavior.

On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 01:16:18 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 16:49:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 00:55:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:35:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 00:54:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S
> > > > > And as we have pointed out, it is r=Lim S
> > > > Who is "we"? LMAO. You mean yourself idiot!
> > > >
> > > > You can point out many things which are products of your illogical thoughts. That does not mean you are correct.
> > > > >
> > > > > The fact you cannot even get this right shows how badly you understand things
> > > > You mean the fact that I don't agree with your drivel means I don't understand? Chuckle.
> > > The we are many people...
> >
> > And ALL of them CRANKS like you.
> The crank is you because we agree with mainstream, you're the one that don't and check all the boxes of crank behavior.

There is only ONE checkbox to check:

****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****

All else is drivel.

torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:52:18 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 01:16:18 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 16:49:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 00:55:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:35:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 00:54:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S
> > > > > > And as we have pointed out, it is r=Lim S
> > > > > Who is "we"? LMAO. You mean yourself idiot!
> > > > >
> > > > > You can point out many things which are products of your illogical thoughts. That does not mean you are correct.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The fact you cannot even get this right shows how badly you understand things
> > > > > You mean the fact that I don't agree with your drivel means I don't understand? Chuckle.
> > > > The we are many people...
> > >
> > > And ALL of them CRANKS like you.
> > The crank is you because we agree with mainstream, you're the one that don't and check all the boxes of crank behavior.
> There is only ONE checkbox to check:
>
> ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
>
> All else is drivel.

Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.

That applies to you Gerbil

And you are as always, wrong

On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:00:07 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:52:18 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 01:16:18 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 16:49:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 00:55:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:35:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 00:54:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > >I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S
> > > > > > > And as we have pointed out, it is r=Lim S
> > > > > > Who is "we"? LMAO. You mean yourself idiot!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can point out many things which are products of your illogical thoughts. That does not mean you are correct.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The fact you cannot even get this right shows how badly you understand things
> > > > > > You mean the fact that I don't agree with your drivel means I don't understand? Chuckle.
> > > > > The we are many people...
> > > >
> > > > And ALL of them CRANKS like you.
> > > The crank is you because we agree with mainstream, you're the one that don't and check all the boxes of crank behavior.
> > There is only ONE checkbox to check:
> >
> > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> >
> > All else is drivel.
> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
>
> That applies to you Gerbil
>
> And you are as always, wrong

"Nah Uh" is your typical response because you have no arguments and you're a retard with the maturity level of a 1 yr old.

fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:06:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:00:07 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:52:18 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 01:16:18 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 16:49:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 00:55:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:35:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 00:54:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > >I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S
> > > > > > > > And as we have pointed out, it is r=Lim S
> > > > > > > Who is "we"? LMAO. You mean yourself idiot!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You can point out many things which are products of your illogical thoughts. That does not mean you are correct.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The fact you cannot even get this right shows how badly you understand things
> > > > > > > You mean the fact that I don't agree with your drivel means I don't understand? Chuckle.
> > > > > > The we are many people...
> > > > >
> > > > > And ALL of them CRANKS like you.
> > > > The crank is you because we agree with mainstream, you're the one that don't and check all the boxes of crank behavior.
> > > There is only ONE checkbox to check:
> > >
> > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > >
> > > All else is drivel.
> > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> >
> > That applies to you Gerbil
> >
> > And you are as always, wrong
> "Nah Uh" is your typical response because you have no arguments and you're a retard with the maturity level of a 1 yr old.

Yet you do the same :) So your maturity is no better.

On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 08:24:09 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:06:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:00:07 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:52:18 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 01:16:18 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 16:49:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 00:55:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:35:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 00:54:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S
> > > > > > > > > And as we have pointed out, it is r=Lim S
> > > > > > > > Who is "we"? LMAO. You mean yourself idiot!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You can point out many things which are products of your illogical thoughts. That does not mean you are correct.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The fact you cannot even get this right shows how badly you understand things
> > > > > > > > You mean the fact that I don't agree with your drivel means I don't understand? Chuckle.
> > > > > > > The we are many people...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And ALL of them CRANKS like you.
> > > > > The crank is you because we agree with mainstream, you're the one that don't and check all the boxes of crank behavior.
> > > > There is only ONE checkbox to check:
> > > >
> > > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > >
> > > > All else is drivel.
> > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > >
> > > That applies to you Gerbil
> > >
> > > And you are as always, wrong
> > "Nah Uh" is your typical response because you have no arguments and you're a retard with the maturity level of a 1 yr old.
> Yet you do the same :) So your maturity is no better.

I've explained to you very clearly that your definition may not hold in all cases, but mine does! :)

Your "Nah Uh" response simply confirms you're an idiot.

****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****

Holds unconditionally.

****Crank is a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.****

Is conditional. Do you understand the difference? Ask, if you don't.

måndag 23 augusti 2021 kl. 15:42:33 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 08:24:09 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:06:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:00:07 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:52:18 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 01:16:18 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 16:49:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 00:55:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:35:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 00:54:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > And as we have pointed out, it is r=Lim S
> > > > > > > > > Who is "we"? LMAO. You mean yourself idiot!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You can point out many things which are products of your illogical thoughts. That does not mean you are correct.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The fact you cannot even get this right shows how badly you understand things
> > > > > > > > > You mean the fact that I don't agree with your drivel means I don't understand? Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > The we are many people...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And ALL of them CRANKS like you.
> > > > > > The crank is you because we agree with mainstream, you're the one that don't and check all the boxes of crank behavior.
> > > > > There is only ONE checkbox to check:
> > > > >
> > > > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > > >
> > > > > All else is drivel.
> > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > >
> > > > That applies to you Gerbil
> > > >
> > > > And you are as always, wrong
> > > "Nah Uh" is your typical response because you have no arguments and you're a retard with the maturity level of a 1 yr old.
> > Yet you do the same :) So your maturity is no better.
> I've explained to you very clearly that your definition may not hold in all cases, but mine does! :)
>
> Your "Nah Uh" response simply confirms you're an idiot.
> ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> Holds unconditionally.
>
> ****Crank is a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.****
>
> Is conditional. Do you understand the difference? Ask, if you don't.

You keep bitching like a toddler but the crank is you and only you

Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.

We can check all the criterias on how a crank behaves.

You want to? I got the list :)

On Tuesday, 24 August 2021 at 01:16:03 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 23 augusti 2021 kl. 15:42:33 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 08:24:09 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:06:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:00:07 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:52:18 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 01:16:18 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 16:49:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 00:55:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:35:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 00:54:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > > And as we have pointed out, it is r=Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > Who is "we"? LMAO. You mean yourself idiot!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You can point out many things which are products of your illogical thoughts. That does not mean you are correct.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The fact you cannot even get this right shows how badly you understand things
> > > > > > > > > > You mean the fact that I don't agree with your drivel means I don't understand? Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > The we are many people...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And ALL of them CRANKS like you.
> > > > > > > The crank is you because we agree with mainstream, you're the one that don't and check all the boxes of crank behavior.
> > > > > > There is only ONE checkbox to check:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All else is drivel.
> > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > >
> > > > > That applies to you Gerbil
> > > > >
> > > > > And you are as always, wrong
> > > > "Nah Uh" is your typical response because you have no arguments and you're a retard with the maturity level of a 1 yr old.
> > > Yet you do the same :) So your maturity is no better.
> > I've explained to you very clearly that your definition may not hold in all cases, but mine does! :)
> >
> > Your "Nah Uh" response simply confirms you're an idiot.
> > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > Holds unconditionally.
> >
> > ****Crank is a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.****
> >
> > Is conditional. Do you understand the difference? Ask, if you don't.
> You keep bitching like a toddler but the crank is you and only you

Try to answer the question instead of throwing a toddler tantrum. Chuckle.

> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.

That is the decree of the Church of Academia which is a cult.

> We can check all the criterias on how a crank behaves.

Criteria does not have an "s" at the end. Oops-Allah? (Uppsala university?)

Come on man, English is not my native language and I am a terrible writer. If I can do it, why can't you?
Oh wait, you are a crank!

Tsk, tsk.

>
> You want to? I got the list :)

We know the only criterion:

****A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.****

THIS AND NOTHING ELSE is the ONLY criterion.

tisdag 24 augusti 2021 kl. 14:50:17 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 24 August 2021 at 01:16:03 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > måndag 23 augusti 2021 kl. 15:42:33 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 08:24:09 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:06:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:00:07 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:52:18 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 01:16:18 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 16:49:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 00:55:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:35:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 00:54:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > > > And as we have pointed out, it is r=Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > > Who is "we"? LMAO. You mean yourself idiot!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You can point out many things which are products of your illogical thoughts. That does not mean you are correct.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The fact you cannot even get this right shows how badly you understand things
> > > > > > > > > > > You mean the fact that I don't agree with your drivel means I don't understand? Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > The we are many people...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And ALL of them CRANKS like you.
> > > > > > > > The crank is you because we agree with mainstream, you're the one that don't and check all the boxes of crank behavior.
> > > > > > > There is only ONE checkbox to check:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All else is drivel.
> > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That applies to you Gerbil
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And you are as always, wrong
> > > > > "Nah Uh" is your typical response because you have no arguments and you're a retard with the maturity level of a 1 yr old.
> > > > Yet you do the same :) So your maturity is no better.
> > > I've explained to you very clearly that your definition may not hold in all cases, but mine does! :)
> > >
> > > Your "Nah Uh" response simply confirms you're an idiot.
> > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > Holds unconditionally.
> > >
> > > ****Crank is a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.****
> > >
> > > Is conditional. Do you understand the difference? Ask, if you don't.
> > You keep bitching like a toddler but the crank is you and only you
> Try to answer the question instead of throwing a toddler tantrum. Chuckle..
> > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> That is the decree of the Church of Academia which is a cult.
> > We can check all the criterias on how a crank behaves.
> Criteria does not have an "s" at the end. Oops-Allah? (Uppsala university?)
>
> Come on man, English is not my native language and I am a terrible writer.. If I can do it, why can't you?
> Oh wait, you are a crank!
>
> Tsk, tsk.
> >
> > You want to? I got the list :)
> We know the only criterion:
>
> ****A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.****
>
> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE is the ONLY criterion.

We know

Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.

The rest is you attempting to perform ad hominems here :)

But there is a list of common things cranks do with it, we can go through it. You and I, shall we?

Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
Most definitely you, you do this all the time.

Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
Yes, you. Your book is "soooo important"

Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
This is you, with the whole Lim S=S thing.

Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.
Can't say this, lets leave it blank to be nice to you.

seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
Definitely you, you do not understand set theory, standard calculus, dedekinds, cauchy or really anything!

stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone shows that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
You

compare themselves with luminaries in their chosen field (often Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or Georg Cantor),[citation needed] implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is not good reason for it to be dismissed,
Yepp, you and archimedes.

claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically backed up by conspiracy theories invoking intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
Definitely you, this is where you anti-semitism always pop up cause you constantly say they are jewish.

appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.
Most definitely you.

exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
You, you cannot make a proper proof.
misunderstand or not use standard notation and terminology,
Again from before, you. Lim S=S is classical amongst many other things.
ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
Again, you.

On Wednesday, 25 August 2021 at 07:54:14 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 24 augusti 2021 kl. 14:50:17 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Tuesday, 24 August 2021 at 01:16:03 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > måndag 23 augusti 2021 kl. 15:42:33 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 08:24:09 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:06:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:00:07 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:52:18 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 01:16:18 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 16:49:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 00:55:22 UTC-4, zelos....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:35:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 00:54:52 UTC-4, zelos....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And as we have pointed out, it is r=Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > > > Who is "we"? LMAO. You mean yourself idiot!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You can point out many things which are products of your illogical thoughts. That does not mean you are correct.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact you cannot even get this right shows how badly you understand things
> > > > > > > > > > > > You mean the fact that I don't agree with your drivel means I don't understand? Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > > The we are many people...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And ALL of them CRANKS like you.
> > > > > > > > > The crank is you because we agree with mainstream, you're the one that don't and check all the boxes of crank behavior.
> > > > > > > > There is only ONE checkbox to check:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All else is drivel.
> > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That applies to you Gerbil
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > "Nah Uh" is your typical response because you have no arguments and you're a retard with the maturity level of a 1 yr old.
> > > > > Yet you do the same :) So your maturity is no better.
> > > > I've explained to you very clearly that your definition may not hold in all cases, but mine does! :)
> > > >
> > > > Your "Nah Uh" response simply confirms you're an idiot.
> > > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > > Holds unconditionally.
> > > >
> > > > ****Crank is a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.****
> > > >
> > > > Is conditional. Do you understand the difference? Ask, if you don't..
> > > You keep bitching like a toddler but the crank is you and only you
> > Try to answer the question instead of throwing a toddler tantrum. Chuckle.
> > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > That is the decree of the Church of Academia which is a cult.
> > > We can check all the criterias on how a crank behaves.
> > Criteria does not have an "s" at the end. Oops-Allah? (Uppsala university?)
> >
> > Come on man, English is not my native language and I am a terrible writer. If I can do it, why can't you?
> > Oh wait, you are a crank!
> >
> > Tsk, tsk.
> > >
> > > You want to? I got the list :)
> > We know the only criterion:
> >
> > ****A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.****
> >
> > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE is the ONLY criterion.
> We know
> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> The rest is you attempting to perform ad hominems here :)
>
> But there is a list of common things cranks do with it, we can go through it. You and I, shall we?
>
> Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
> Most definitely you, you do this all the time.
>
> Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
> Yes, you. Your book is "soooo important"
>
> Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
> This is you, with the whole Lim S=S thing.
>
> Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.
> Can't say this, lets leave it blank to be nice to you.
>
> seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
> Definitely you, you do not understand set theory, standard calculus, dedekinds, cauchy or really anything!
>
> stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone shows that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
> You
>
> compare themselves with luminaries in their chosen field (often Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or Georg Cantor),[citation needed] implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is not good reason for it to be dismissed,
> Yepp, you and archimedes.
>
> claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically backed up by conspiracy theories invoking intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
> Definitely you, this is where you anti-semitism always pop up cause you constantly say they are jewish.
>
> appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.
> Most definitely you.
> exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
> You, you cannot make a proper proof.
> misunderstand or not use standard notation and terminology,
> Again from before, you. Lim S=S is classical amongst many other things.
> ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
> Again, you.

I know:

A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

It describes you very well indeed! :)

onsdag 25 augusti 2021 kl. 17:33:51 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 25 August 2021 at 07:54:14 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > tisdag 24 augusti 2021 kl. 14:50:17 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Tuesday, 24 August 2021 at 01:16:03 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > måndag 23 augusti 2021 kl. 15:42:33 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 08:24:09 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:06:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:00:07 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:52:18 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 01:16:18 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 16:49:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 00:55:22 UTC-4, zelos....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:35:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 00:54:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > And as we have pointed out, it is r=Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Who is "we"? LMAO. You mean yourself idiot!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You can point out many things which are products of your illogical thoughts. That does not mean you are correct.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact you cannot even get this right shows how badly you understand things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean the fact that I don't agree with your drivel means I don't understand? Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > > > The we are many people...
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And ALL of them CRANKS like you.
> > > > > > > > > > The crank is you because we agree with mainstream, you're the one that don't and check all the boxes of crank behavior.
> > > > > > > > > There is only ONE checkbox to check:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > All else is drivel.
> > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That applies to you Gerbil
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > "Nah Uh" is your typical response because you have no arguments and you're a retard with the maturity level of a 1 yr old.
> > > > > > Yet you do the same :) So your maturity is no better.
> > > > > I've explained to you very clearly that your definition may not hold in all cases, but mine does! :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Your "Nah Uh" response simply confirms you're an idiot.
> > > > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > > > Holds unconditionally.
> > > > >
> > > > > ****Crank is a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.****
> > > > >
> > > > > Is conditional. Do you understand the difference? Ask, if you don't.
> > > > You keep bitching like a toddler but the crank is you and only you
> > > Try to answer the question instead of throwing a toddler tantrum. Chuckle.
> > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > That is the decree of the Church of Academia which is a cult.
> > > > We can check all the criterias on how a crank behaves.
> > > Criteria does not have an "s" at the end. Oops-Allah? (Uppsala university?)
> > >
> > > Come on man, English is not my native language and I am a terrible writer. If I can do it, why can't you?
> > > Oh wait, you are a crank!
> > >
> > > Tsk, tsk.
> > > >
> > > > You want to? I got the list :)
> > > We know the only criterion:
> > >
> > > ****A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.****
> > >
> > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE is the ONLY criterion.
> > We know
> > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > The rest is you attempting to perform ad hominems here :)
> >
> > But there is a list of common things cranks do with it, we can go through it. You and I, shall we?
> >
> > Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
> > Most definitely you, you do this all the time.
> >
> > Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
> > Yes, you. Your book is "soooo important"
> >
> > Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
> > This is you, with the whole Lim S=S thing.
> >
> > Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.
> > Can't say this, lets leave it blank to be nice to you.
> >
> > seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
> > Definitely you, you do not understand set theory, standard calculus, dedekinds, cauchy or really anything!
> >
> > stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone shows that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
> > You
> >
> > compare themselves with luminaries in their chosen field (often Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or Georg Cantor),[citation needed] implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is not good reason for it to be dismissed,
> > Yepp, you and archimedes.
> >
> > claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically backed up by conspiracy theories invoking intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
> > Definitely you, this is where you anti-semitism always pop up cause you constantly say they are jewish.
> >
> > appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.
> > Most definitely you.
> > exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
> > You, you cannot make a proper proof.
> > misunderstand or not use standard notation and terminology,
> > Again from before, you. Lim S=S is classical amongst many other things.
> > ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
> > Again, you.
> I know:
> A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> It describes you very well indeed! :)

Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false

Both describes you very well :)

On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 01:20:53 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> onsdag 25 augusti 2021 kl. 17:33:51 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Wednesday, 25 August 2021 at 07:54:14 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > tisdag 24 augusti 2021 kl. 14:50:17 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Tuesday, 24 August 2021 at 01:16:03 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > måndag 23 augusti 2021 kl. 15:42:33 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 08:24:09 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:06:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:00:07 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:52:18 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 01:16:18 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 16:49:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 00:55:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:35:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 00:54:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And as we have pointed out, it is r=Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who is "we"? LMAO. You mean yourself idiot!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can point out many things which are products of your illogical thoughts. That does not mean you are correct.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact you cannot even get this right shows how badly you understand things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean the fact that I don't agree with your drivel means I don't understand? Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The we are many people...
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > And ALL of them CRANKS like you.
> > > > > > > > > > > The crank is you because we agree with mainstream, you're the one that don't and check all the boxes of crank behavior.
> > > > > > > > > > There is only ONE checkbox to check:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > All else is drivel.
> > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That applies to you Gerbil
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > "Nah Uh" is your typical response because you have no arguments and you're a retard with the maturity level of a 1 yr old.
> > > > > > > Yet you do the same :) So your maturity is no better.
> > > > > > I've explained to you very clearly that your definition may not hold in all cases, but mine does! :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your "Nah Uh" response simply confirms you're an idiot.
> > > > > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > > > > Holds unconditionally.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ****Crank is a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.****
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is conditional. Do you understand the difference? Ask, if you don't.
> > > > > You keep bitching like a toddler but the crank is you and only you
> > > > Try to answer the question instead of throwing a toddler tantrum. Chuckle.
> > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > That is the decree of the Church of Academia which is a cult.
> > > > > We can check all the criterias on how a crank behaves.
> > > > Criteria does not have an "s" at the end. Oops-Allah? (Uppsala university?)
> > > >
> > > > Come on man, English is not my native language and I am a terrible writer. If I can do it, why can't you?
> > > > Oh wait, you are a crank!
> > > >
> > > > Tsk, tsk.
> > > > >
> > > > > You want to? I got the list :)
> > > > We know the only criterion:
> > > >
> > > > ****A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.****
> > > >
> > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE is the ONLY criterion.
> > > We know
> > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > The rest is you attempting to perform ad hominems here :)
> > >
> > > But there is a list of common things cranks do with it, we can go through it. You and I, shall we?
> > >
> > > Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
> > > Most definitely you, you do this all the time.
> > >
> > > Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
> > > Yes, you. Your book is "soooo important"
> > >
> > > Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
> > > This is you, with the whole Lim S=S thing.
> > >
> > > Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.
> > > Can't say this, lets leave it blank to be nice to you.
> > >
> > > seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
> > > Definitely you, you do not understand set theory, standard calculus, dedekinds, cauchy or really anything!
> > >
> > > stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone shows that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
> > > You
> > >
> > > compare themselves with luminaries in their chosen field (often Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or Georg Cantor),[citation needed] implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is not good reason for it to be dismissed,
> > > Yepp, you and archimedes.
> > >
> > > claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically backed up by conspiracy theories invoking intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
> > > Definitely you, this is where you anti-semitism always pop up cause you constantly say they are jewish.
> > >
> > > appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.
> > > Most definitely you.
> > > exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
> > > You, you cannot make a proper proof.
> > > misunderstand or not use standard notation and terminology,
> > > Again from before, you. Lim S=S is classical amongst many other things.
> > > ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
> > > Again, you.
> > I know:
> > A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > It describes you very well indeed! :)
>
> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false
> Both describes you very well :)

torsdag 26 augusti 2021 kl. 12:09:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 01:20:53 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > onsdag 25 augusti 2021 kl. 17:33:51 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Wednesday, 25 August 2021 at 07:54:14 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > tisdag 24 augusti 2021 kl. 14:50:17 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Tuesday, 24 August 2021 at 01:16:03 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > måndag 23 augusti 2021 kl. 15:42:33 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 08:24:09 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:06:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:00:07 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:52:18 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 01:16:18 UTC-4, zelos....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 16:49:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 00:55:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:35:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 00:54:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And as we have pointed out, it is r=Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who is "we"? LMAO. You mean yourself idiot!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can point out many things which are products of your illogical thoughts. That does not mean you are correct.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact you cannot even get this right shows how badly you understand things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean the fact that I don't agree with your drivel means I don't understand? Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The we are many people...
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And ALL of them CRANKS like you.
> > > > > > > > > > > > The crank is you because we agree with mainstream, you're the one that don't and check all the boxes of crank behavior.
> > > > > > > > > > > There is only ONE checkbox to check:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > All else is drivel.
> > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false..
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That applies to you Gerbil
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > "Nah Uh" is your typical response because you have no arguments and you're a retard with the maturity level of a 1 yr old.
> > > > > > > > Yet you do the same :) So your maturity is no better.
> > > > > > > I've explained to you very clearly that your definition may not hold in all cases, but mine does! :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your "Nah Uh" response simply confirms you're an idiot.
> > > > > > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > > > > > Holds unconditionally.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ****Crank is a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.****
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is conditional. Do you understand the difference? Ask, if you don't.
> > > > > > You keep bitching like a toddler but the crank is you and only you
> > > > > Try to answer the question instead of throwing a toddler tantrum. Chuckle.
> > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > That is the decree of the Church of Academia which is a cult.
> > > > > > We can check all the criterias on how a crank behaves.
> > > > > Criteria does not have an "s" at the end. Oops-Allah? (Uppsala university?)
> > > > >
> > > > > Come on man, English is not my native language and I am a terrible writer. If I can do it, why can't you?
> > > > > Oh wait, you are a crank!
> > > > >
> > > > > Tsk, tsk.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You want to? I got the list :)
> > > > > We know the only criterion:
> > > > >
> > > > > ****A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.****
> > > > >
> > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE is the ONLY criterion.
> > > > We know
> > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > The rest is you attempting to perform ad hominems here :)
> > > >
> > > > But there is a list of common things cranks do with it, we can go through it. You and I, shall we?
> > > >
> > > > Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
> > > > Most definitely you, you do this all the time.
> > > >
> > > > Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important..
> > > > Yes, you. Your book is "soooo important"
> > > >
> > > > Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
> > > > This is you, with the whole Lim S=S thing.
> > > >
> > > > Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.
> > > > Can't say this, lets leave it blank to be nice to you.
> > > >
> > > > seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
> > > > Definitely you, you do not understand set theory, standard calculus, dedekinds, cauchy or really anything!
> > > >
> > > > stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone shows that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
> > > > You
> > > >
> > > > compare themselves with luminaries in their chosen field (often Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or Georg Cantor),[citation needed] implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is not good reason for it to be dismissed,
> > > > Yepp, you and archimedes.
> > > >
> > > > claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically backed up by conspiracy theories invoking intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
> > > > Definitely you, this is where you anti-semitism always pop up cause you constantly say they are jewish.
> > > >
> > > > appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.
> > > > Most definitely you.
> > > > exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
> > > > You, you cannot make a proper proof.
> > > > misunderstand or not use standard notation and terminology,
> > > > Again from before, you. Lim S=S is classical amongst many other things.
> > > > ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
> > > > Again, you.
> > > I know:
> > > A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > It describes you very well indeed! :)
> >
> > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false
> > Both describes you very well :)
>
> "A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence."
> It's YOU.
Nope, again, I agree with mainstream. You are the crank.

On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 01:07:21 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> torsdag 26 augusti 2021 kl. 12:09:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 01:20:53 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > onsdag 25 augusti 2021 kl. 17:33:51 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Wednesday, 25 August 2021 at 07:54:14 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > tisdag 24 augusti 2021 kl. 14:50:17 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, 24 August 2021 at 01:16:03 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > måndag 23 augusti 2021 kl. 15:42:33 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 08:24:09 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:06:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:00:07 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:52:18 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 01:16:18 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 16:49:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 00:55:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:35:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 00:54:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And as we have pointed out, it is r=Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who is "we"? LMAO. You mean yourself idiot!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can point out many things which are products of your illogical thoughts. That does not mean you are correct.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact you cannot even get this right shows how badly you understand things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean the fact that I don't agree with your drivel means I don't understand? Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The we are many people...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > And ALL of them CRANKS like you.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The crank is you because we agree with mainstream, you're the one that don't and check all the boxes of crank behavior.
> > > > > > > > > > > > There is only ONE checkbox to check:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > All else is drivel.
> > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That applies to you Gerbil
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > "Nah Uh" is your typical response because you have no arguments and you're a retard with the maturity level of a 1 yr old.
> > > > > > > > > Yet you do the same :) So your maturity is no better.
> > > > > > > > I've explained to you very clearly that your definition may not hold in all cases, but mine does! :)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Your "Nah Uh" response simply confirms you're an idiot.
> > > > > > > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > > > > > > Holds unconditionally.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ****Crank is a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.****
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is conditional. Do you understand the difference? Ask, if you don't.
> > > > > > > You keep bitching like a toddler but the crank is you and only you
> > > > > > Try to answer the question instead of throwing a toddler tantrum. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > That is the decree of the Church of Academia which is a cult.
> > > > > > > We can check all the criterias on how a crank behaves.
> > > > > > Criteria does not have an "s" at the end. Oops-Allah? (Uppsala university?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Come on man, English is not my native language and I am a terrible writer. If I can do it, why can't you?
> > > > > > Oh wait, you are a crank!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tsk, tsk.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You want to? I got the list :)
> > > > > > We know the only criterion:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ****A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.****
> > > > > >
> > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE is the ONLY criterion.
> > > > > We know
> > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > The rest is you attempting to perform ad hominems here :)
> > > > >
> > > > > But there is a list of common things cranks do with it, we can go through it. You and I, shall we?
> > > > >
> > > > > Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
> > > > > Most definitely you, you do this all the time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
> > > > > Yes, you. Your book is "soooo important"
> > > > >
> > > > > Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
> > > > > This is you, with the whole Lim S=S thing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.
> > > > > Can't say this, lets leave it blank to be nice to you.
> > > > >
> > > > > seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
> > > > > Definitely you, you do not understand set theory, standard calculus, dedekinds, cauchy or really anything!
> > > > >
> > > > > stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone shows that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
> > > > > You
> > > > >
> > > > > compare themselves with luminaries in their chosen field (often Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or Georg Cantor),[citation needed] implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is not good reason for it to be dismissed,
> > > > > Yepp, you and archimedes.
> > > > >
> > > > > claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically backed up by conspiracy theories invoking intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
> > > > > Definitely you, this is where you anti-semitism always pop up cause you constantly say they are jewish.
> > > > >
> > > > > appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.
> > > > > Most definitely you.
> > > > > exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
> > > > > You, you cannot make a proper proof.
> > > > > misunderstand or not use standard notation and terminology,
> > > > > Again from before, you. Lim S=S is classical amongst many other things.
> > > > > ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
> > > > > Again, you.
> > > > I know:
> > > > A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > It describes you very well indeed! :)
> > >
> > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false
> > > Both describes you very well :)
> >
> > "A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence."
> > It's YOU.
> Nope, again, I agree with mainstream. You are the crank.