On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:09:47 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:12:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:46:55 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:33:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 15:47:49 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 18:06:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 10:53:23 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> > > > > > > But x-k/(x-k) is not defined at x=k.
> > > > > > So fucking what?!!! When a sound mind writes (x-k)/(x-k), one means UNITY. Obviously it will be meaningless if you put x=k, but in this case, it is a result of the algebra which allows you to multiply by 1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You don't care at all about x=k when you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k), but all of a sudden, you become a prima donna when you try to cancel (x-k)/(x-k) ? ROFLMAO.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Look idiot, you are dealing with a function that is not in irreducible form after you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's like you telling me 3/4 x 3/3 = 9/12 and then I write 3/4 x (k-3)/(k-3) =/= 9/12 when k-3 = 3. Get it idiot??
> > > > > 3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) as a function in k is only equal to 3/4 when k is not 3.
> > > > 3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) is not a function. It's an expression. 3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) is ALWAYS equal to 3/4. It CANNOT be equal to anything else. In mathematics, we deal ONLY with numbers. So if (k-3)/(k-3) is no longer a meaningful number, then you are no longer working with *numbers* but with some other garbage.
> > > >
> > > > Really, you would write f(k) = 3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) ?? LMAO. Is this a fancy way of dropping 3 from the domain of f? A fancy way of punching a hole in f? Are you actually more stupid than I thought?
> > > >
> > > > The reason you have such rot is due to the fact that your limit theory is such conflated bullshit. You NEED holes for expressions like to 0 < |x-c|<delta => |f(x)-L|<epsilon make any sense at all! It's a load of crap that you have been indoctrinated to believe is true.
> > > >
> > > > Really?!!
> > > It is a function in k.
> > Nonsense. f(k) = 3/4 doesn't even depend on k. It's malformed if by creating a new function you make it undefined at x=3.
> > > If k is a fixed number which is not three, of course that's just equal to 1. If k is 3, then it's undefined.
> > >
> > > How is this 'rot'? It's simply because you cannot divide by zero in a field.
> > No, moron. It has nothing to do with "field" which is a bullshit concept.
> >
> > You cannot divide by zero because zero is not a number.
> (x-k)/(x-k) can surely be seen as a function of k which is defined whenever k is not x.

Rubbish. It is a malformed expression created solely in order to cover up your mainstream limit and calculus incompetence. You need it because without it, your bullshit epsilonics falls even harder: 0 < |x-c|<delta => |f(x)-L|<epsilon

If (x-k)/(x-k) is to be considered a *number*, then it can only have one value, viz 1. Nothing else.

> Regardless, (x-k)/(x-k) is not the same as the function 1

LMAO. "1" is not a function, you imbecile. It is a well-formed number. And yes, (x-k)/(x-k) can ONLY mean 1.

> since the constant function 1 is defined everywhere. Division by zero isn't allowed in a field, which the reals are.

Oh look! Moron is quoting the brainwashing which he clearly does not understand.

söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:54:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:09:47 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:12:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:46:55 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:33:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 15:47:49 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 18:06:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 10:53:23 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> > > > > > > > But x-k/(x-k) is not defined at x=k.
> > > > > > > So fucking what?!!! When a sound mind writes (x-k)/(x-k), one means UNITY. Obviously it will be meaningless if you put x=k, but in this case, it is a result of the algebra which allows you to multiply by 1.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You don't care at all about x=k when you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k), but all of a sudden, you become a prima donna when you try to cancel (x-k)/(x-k) ? ROFLMAO.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Look idiot, you are dealing with a function that is not in irreducible form after you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's like you telling me 3/4 x 3/3 = 9/12 and then I write 3/4 x (k-3)/(k-3) =/= 9/12 when k-3 = 3. Get it idiot??
> > > > > > 3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) as a function in k is only equal to 3/4 when k is not 3.
> > > > > 3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) is not a function. It's an expression. 3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) is ALWAYS equal to 3/4. It CANNOT be equal to anything else. In mathematics, we deal ONLY with numbers. So if (k-3)/(k-3) is no longer a meaningful number, then you are no longer working with *numbers* but with some other garbage.
> > > > >
> > > > > Really, you would write f(k) = 3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) ?? LMAO. Is this a fancy way of dropping 3 from the domain of f? A fancy way of punching a hole in f? Are you actually more stupid than I thought?
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason you have such rot is due to the fact that your limit theory is such conflated bullshit. You NEED holes for expressions like to 0 < |x-c|<delta => |f(x)-L|<epsilon make any sense at all! It's a load of crap that you have been indoctrinated to believe is true.
> > > > >
> > > > > Really?!!
> > > > It is a function in k.
> > > Nonsense. f(k) = 3/4 doesn't even depend on k. It's malformed if by creating a new function you make it undefined at x=3.
> > > > If k is a fixed number which is not three, of course that's just equal to 1. If k is 3, then it's undefined.
> > > >
> > > > How is this 'rot'? It's simply because you cannot divide by zero in a field.
> > > No, moron. It has nothing to do with "field" which is a bullshit concept.
> > >
> > > You cannot divide by zero because zero is not a number.
> > (x-k)/(x-k) can surely be seen as a function of k which is defined whenever k is not x.
> Rubbish. It is a malformed expression created solely in order to cover up your mainstream limit and calculus incompetence. You need it because without it, your bullshit epsilonics falls even harder: 0 < |x-c|<delta => |f(x)-L|<epsilon
>
> If (x-k)/(x-k) is to be considered a *number*, then it can only have one value, viz 1. Nothing else.
> > Regardless, (x-k)/(x-k) is not the same as the function 1
> LMAO. "1" is not a function, you imbecile. It is a well-formed number. And yes, (x-k)/(x-k) can ONLY mean 1.
> > since the constant function 1 is defined everywhere. Division by zero isn't allowed in a field, which the reals are.
> Oh look! Moron is quoting the brainwashing which he clearly does not understand.

f(x)=1 is surely a function, no?

fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 18:06:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 10:53:23 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > >
> > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > >
> > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > >
> > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > >
> > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > >
> > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > >
> > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > >
> > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > >
> > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > >
> > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > >
> > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > >
> > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > >
> > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> > But x-k/(x-k) is not defined at x=k.
> So fucking what?!!! When a sound mind writes (x-k)/(x-k), one means UNITY.. Obviously it will be meaningless if you put x=k, but in this case, it is a result of the algebra which allows you to multiply by 1.
>
> You don't care at all about x=k when you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k), but all of a sudden, you become a prima donna when you try to cancel (x-k)/(x-k) ? ROFLMAO.
>
> Look idiot, you are dealing with a function that is not in irreducible form after you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k).
>
> It's like you telling me 3/4 x 3/3 = 9/12 and then I write 3/4 x (k-3)/(k-3) =/= 9/12 when k-3 = 3. Get it idiot??

it is only unity when k is not equal to x.

On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 01:10:39 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 18:06:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 10:53:23 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > > >
> > > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > > >
> > > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > > >
> > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > >
> > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > >
> > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > >
> > > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > > >
> > > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > > >
> > > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > > >
> > > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > > >
> > > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > > >
> > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> > > But x-k/(x-k) is not defined at x=k.
> > So fucking what?!!! When a sound mind writes (x-k)/(x-k), one means UNITY. Obviously it will be meaningless if you put x=k, but in this case, it is a result of the algebra which allows you to multiply by 1.
> >
> > You don't care at all about x=k when you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k), but all of a sudden, you become a prima donna when you try to cancel (x-k)/(x-k) ? ROFLMAO.
> >
> > Look idiot, you are dealing with a function that is not in irreducible form after you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k).
> >
> > It's like you telling me 3/4 x 3/3 = 9/12 and then I write 3/4 x (k-3)/(k-3) =/= 9/12 when k-3 = 3. Get it idiot??
> it is only unity when k is not equal to x.

It's ALWAYS unity because k cannot be equal to x. In sound mathematics, we don't multiply expressions by 0/0 because 0/0 is meaningless drivel. The value of k is not even in question and is entirely unremarkable. Only an idiot will ask "What if k=x?". This practice (of multiplying or dividing by x/x) is helpful in algebra to place certain expressions in an easier form to manipulate, but as to the question of what they mean, the understanding is obvious - both mean 1.

måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:44:57 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 01:10:39 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 18:06:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 10:53:23 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > > > >
> > > > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > > > >
> > > > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > > > >
> > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > >
> > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > >
> > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > >
> > > > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > > > >
> > > > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > > > >
> > > > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > > > >
> > > > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > > > >
> > > > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> > > > But x-k/(x-k) is not defined at x=k.
> > > So fucking what?!!! When a sound mind writes (x-k)/(x-k), one means UNITY. Obviously it will be meaningless if you put x=k, but in this case, it is a result of the algebra which allows you to multiply by 1.
> > >
> > > You don't care at all about x=k when you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k), but all of a sudden, you become a prima donna when you try to cancel (x-k)/(x-k) ? ROFLMAO.
> > >
> > > Look idiot, you are dealing with a function that is not in irreducible form after you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k).
> > >
> > > It's like you telling me 3/4 x 3/3 = 9/12 and then I write 3/4 x (k-3)/(k-3) =/= 9/12 when k-3 = 3. Get it idiot??
> > it is only unity when k is not equal to x.
> It's ALWAYS unity because k cannot be equal to x. In sound mathematics, we don't multiply expressions by 0/0 because 0/0 is meaningless drivel. The value of k is not even in question and is entirely unremarkable. Only an idiot will ask "What if k=x?". This practice (of multiplying or dividing by x/x) is helpful in algebra to place certain expressions in an easier form to manipulate, but as to the question of what they mean, the understanding is obvious - both mean 1.
Only if k is not x though. Because otherwise you divide by 0.

On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:47:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:44:57 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 01:10:39 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 18:06:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 10:53:23 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > > > > >
> > > > > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > > > > >
> > > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > > >
> > > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> > > > > But x-k/(x-k) is not defined at x=k.
> > > > So fucking what?!!! When a sound mind writes (x-k)/(x-k), one means UNITY. Obviously it will be meaningless if you put x=k, but in this case, it is a result of the algebra which allows you to multiply by 1.
> > > >
> > > > You don't care at all about x=k when you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k), but all of a sudden, you become a prima donna when you try to cancel (x-k)/(x-k) ? ROFLMAO.
> > > >
> > > > Look idiot, you are dealing with a function that is not in irreducible form after you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k).
> > > >
> > > > It's like you telling me 3/4 x 3/3 = 9/12 and then I write 3/4 x (k-3)/(k-3) =/= 9/12 when k-3 = 3. Get it idiot??
> > > it is only unity when k is not equal to x.
> > It's ALWAYS unity because k cannot be equal to x. In sound mathematics, we don't multiply expressions by 0/0 because 0/0 is meaningless drivel. The value of k is not even in question and is entirely unremarkable. Only an idiot will ask "What if k=x?". This practice (of multiplying or dividing by x/x) is helpful in algebra to place certain expressions in an easier form to manipulate, but as to the question of what they mean, the understanding is obvious - both mean 1.
> Only if k is not x though. Because otherwise you divide by 0.

If k=x, then (x-k)/(x-k) IS NOT A NUMBER, YOU GODDAMN IMBECILE!!!!!!!!!

It is a foregone conclusion that in the expression (x-k)/(x-k), x cannot equal to k. Wake up, MORON!!!!

måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:49:08 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:47:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:44:57 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 01:10:39 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 18:06:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 10:53:23 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> > > > > > But x-k/(x-k) is not defined at x=k.
> > > > > So fucking what?!!! When a sound mind writes (x-k)/(x-k), one means UNITY. Obviously it will be meaningless if you put x=k, but in this case, it is a result of the algebra which allows you to multiply by 1.
> > > > >
> > > > > You don't care at all about x=k when you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k), but all of a sudden, you become a prima donna when you try to cancel (x-k)/(x-k) ? ROFLMAO.
> > > > >
> > > > > Look idiot, you are dealing with a function that is not in irreducible form after you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k).
> > > > >
> > > > > It's like you telling me 3/4 x 3/3 = 9/12 and then I write 3/4 x (k-3)/(k-3) =/= 9/12 when k-3 = 3. Get it idiot??
> > > > it is only unity when k is not equal to x.
> > > It's ALWAYS unity because k cannot be equal to x. In sound mathematics, we don't multiply expressions by 0/0 because 0/0 is meaningless drivel. The value of k is not even in question and is entirely unremarkable. Only an idiot will ask "What if k=x?". This practice (of multiplying or dividing by x/x) is helpful in algebra to place certain expressions in an easier form to manipulate, but as to the question of what they mean, the understanding is obvious - both mean 1.
> > Only if k is not x though. Because otherwise you divide by 0.
> If k=x, then (x-k)/(x-k) IS NOT A NUMBER, YOU GODDAMN IMBECILE!!!!!!!!!
>
> It is a foregone conclusion that in the expression (x-k)/(x-k), x cannot equal to k. Wake up, MORON!!!!
So you agree it's not defined whenever k=x.

>
> Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
>

What about dividing by 1?

måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:44:57 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 01:10:39 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 18:06:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 10:53:23 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > > > >
> > > > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > > > >
> > > > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > > > >
> > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > >
> > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > >
> > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > >
> > > > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > > > >
> > > > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > > > >
> > > > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > > > >
> > > > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > > > >
> > > > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> > > > But x-k/(x-k) is not defined at x=k.
> > > So fucking what?!!! When a sound mind writes (x-k)/(x-k), one means UNITY. Obviously it will be meaningless if you put x=k, but in this case, it is a result of the algebra which allows you to multiply by 1.
> > >
> > > You don't care at all about x=k when you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k), but all of a sudden, you become a prima donna when you try to cancel (x-k)/(x-k) ? ROFLMAO.
> > >
> > > Look idiot, you are dealing with a function that is not in irreducible form after you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k).
> > >
> > > It's like you telling me 3/4 x 3/3 = 9/12 and then I write 3/4 x (k-3)/(k-3) =/= 9/12 when k-3 = 3. Get it idiot??
> > it is only unity when k is not equal to x.
> It's ALWAYS unity because k cannot be equal to x. In sound mathematics, we don't multiply expressions by 0/0 because 0/0 is meaningless drivel. The value of k is not even in question and is entirely unremarkable. Only an idiot will ask "What if k=x?". This practice (of multiplying or dividing by x/x) is helpful in algebra to place certain expressions in an easier form to manipulate, but as to the question of what they mean, the understanding is obvious - both mean 1.

k can equal x but that makes the function undefined which is why you add the statement "for k not equal to x" because without adding that condition, we have all viable.

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 2:49:08 PM UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:47:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:44:57 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 01:10:39 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 18:06:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 10:53:23 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> > > > > > But x-k/(x-k) is not defined at x=k.
> > > > > So fucking what?!!! When a sound mind writes (x-k)/(x-k), one means UNITY. Obviously it will be meaningless if you put x=k, but in this case, it is a result of the algebra which allows you to multiply by 1.
> > > > >
> > > > > You don't care at all about x=k when you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k), but all of a sudden, you become a prima donna when you try to cancel (x-k)/(x-k) ? ROFLMAO.
> > > > >
> > > > > Look idiot, you are dealing with a function that is not in irreducible form after you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k).
> > > > >
> > > > > It's like you telling me 3/4 x 3/3 = 9/12 and then I write 3/4 x (k-3)/(k-3) =/= 9/12 when k-3 = 3. Get it idiot??
> > > > it is only unity when k is not equal to x.
> > > It's ALWAYS unity because k cannot be equal to x. In sound mathematics, we don't multiply expressions by 0/0 because 0/0 is meaningless drivel. The value of k is not even in question and is entirely unremarkable. Only an idiot will ask "What if k=x?". This practice (of multiplying or dividing by x/x) is helpful in algebra to place certain expressions in an easier form to manipulate, but as to the question of what they mean, the understanding is obvious - both mean 1.
> > Only if k is not x though. Because otherwise you divide by 0.
> If k=x, then (x-k)/(x-k) IS NOT A NUMBER, YOU GODDAMN IMBECILE!!!!!!!!!
>
> It is a foregone conclusion that in the expression (x-k)/(x-k), x cannot equal to k. Wake up, MORON!!!!

The problem with John Gabriel, and all the follow-up posters in this thread is the never acceptance, nor the intelligence to accept the idea that a function is only a function, when it is a polynomial. There is no function of x-k / x-k nor is there of 1/ x-k or any other variants. There is a function of x = k for that is a polynomial of 1st degree where k is a positive nonzero decimal grid number all alone on the rightside of the equation.

When Gabriel offers us a function of (x-k)/(x-k) or any other division variants, it is not a function and what he has to do is transform his offering to a polynomial function in the interval of concern. Only then, do we care about or pay any attention to his offering.

THE ONLY FUNCTIONS IN EXISTENCE ARE POLYNOMIALS, anything else-- convert, you lazy ---- (three guesses as to my missing word) , convert to a polynomial.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 19:46:51 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 2:49:08 PM UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:47:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:44:57 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 01:10:39 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 18:06:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 10:53:23 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> > > > > > > But x-k/(x-k) is not defined at x=k.
> > > > > > So fucking what?!!! When a sound mind writes (x-k)/(x-k), one means UNITY. Obviously it will be meaningless if you put x=k, but in this case, it is a result of the algebra which allows you to multiply by 1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You don't care at all about x=k when you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k), but all of a sudden, you become a prima donna when you try to cancel (x-k)/(x-k) ? ROFLMAO.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Look idiot, you are dealing with a function that is not in irreducible form after you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's like you telling me 3/4 x 3/3 = 9/12 and then I write 3/4 x (k-3)/(k-3) =/= 9/12 when k-3 = 3. Get it idiot??
> > > > > it is only unity when k is not equal to x.
> > > > It's ALWAYS unity because k cannot be equal to x. In sound mathematics, we don't multiply expressions by 0/0 because 0/0 is meaningless drivel.. The value of k is not even in question and is entirely unremarkable. Only an idiot will ask "What if k=x?". This practice (of multiplying or dividing by x/x) is helpful in algebra to place certain expressions in an easier form to manipulate, but as to the question of what they mean, the understanding is obvious - both mean 1.
> > > Only if k is not x though. Because otherwise you divide by 0.
> > If k=x, then (x-k)/(x-k) IS NOT A NUMBER, YOU GODDAMN IMBECILE!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > It is a foregone conclusion that in the expression (x-k)/(x-k), x cannot equal to k. Wake up, MORON!!!!
> The problem with John Gabriel, and all the follow-up posters in this thread is the never acceptance, nor the intelligence to accept the idea that a function is only a function, when it is a polynomial. There is no function of x-k / x-k nor is there of 1/ x-k or any other variants. There is a function of x = k for that is a polynomial of 1st degree where k is a positive nonzero decimal grid number all alone on the rightside of the equation.
>
> When Gabriel offers us a function of (x-k)/(x-k) or any other division variants, it is not a function and what he has to do is transform his offering to a polynomial function in the interval of concern. Only then, do we care about or pay any attention to his offering.
>
> THE ONLY FUNCTIONS IN EXISTENCE ARE POLYNOMIALS, anything else-- convert, you lazy ---- (three guesses as to my missing word) , convert to a polynomial.
>
> AP
> King of Science, especially Physics
Two intellectuals battle.

On 8/17/2021 2:09 PM, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 19:46:51 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
>> On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 2:49:08 PM UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:47:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:44:57 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 01:10:39 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 18:06:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 10:53:23 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
>>>>>>>>> Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
>>>>>>>> But x-k/(x-k) is not defined at x=k.
>>>>>>> So fucking what?!!! When a sound mind writes (x-k)/(x-k), one means UNITY. Obviously it will be meaningless if you put x=k, but in this case, it is a result of the algebra which allows you to multiply by 1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't care at all about x=k when you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k), but all of a sudden, you become a prima donna when you try to cancel (x-k)/(x-k) ? ROFLMAO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Look idiot, you are dealing with a function that is not in irreducible form after you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's like you telling me 3/4 x 3/3 = 9/12 and then I write 3/4 x (k-3)/(k-3) =/= 9/12 when k-3 = 3. Get it idiot??
>>>>>> it is only unity when k is not equal to x.
>>>>> It's ALWAYS unity because k cannot be equal to x. In sound mathematics, we don't multiply expressions by 0/0 because 0/0 is meaningless drivel. The value of k is not even in question and is entirely unremarkable. Only an idiot will ask "What if k=x?". This practice (of multiplying or dividing by x/x) is helpful in algebra to place certain expressions in an easier form to manipulate, but as to the question of what they mean, the understanding is obvious - both mean 1.
>>>> Only if k is not x though. Because otherwise you divide by 0.
>>> If k=x, then (x-k)/(x-k) IS NOT A NUMBER, YOU GODDAMN IMBECILE!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> It is a foregone conclusion that in the expression (x-k)/(x-k), x cannot equal to k. Wake up, MORON!!!!
>> The problem with John Gabriel, and all the follow-up posters in this thread is the never acceptance, nor the intelligence to accept the idea that a function is only a function, when it is a polynomial. There is no function of x-k / x-k nor is there of 1/ x-k or any other variants. There is a function of x = k for that is a polynomial of 1st degree where k is a positive nonzero decimal grid number all alone on the rightside of the equation.
>>
>> When Gabriel offers us a function of (x-k)/(x-k) or any other division variants, it is not a function and what he has to do is transform his offering to a polynomial function in the interval of concern. Only then, do we care about or pay any attention to his offering.
>>
>> THE ONLY FUNCTIONS IN EXISTENCE ARE POLYNOMIALS, anything else-- convert, you lazy ---- (three guesses as to my missing word) , convert to a polynomial.
>>
>> AP
>> King of Science, especially Physics

> Two intellectuals battle.
>
Better known as...

Kꙩꙩkfight!!!!

On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 21:56:56 UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> >
> What about dividing by 1?

Same thing.

> So you agree it's not defined whenever k=x.

No. It's defined in irreducible form which is all that matters.

🐷 of Math and 🐗 of Physics Archimedes "Kim Jong Un's minion" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> tarded
> On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 2:49:08 PM UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:47:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:44:57 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 01:10:39 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 18:06:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:

>>>>>>> But x-k/(x-k) is not defined at x=k.
>>>>>> So fucking what?!!! When a sound mind writes (x-k)/(x-k), one means UNITY. Obviously it will be meaningless if you put x=k, but in this case, it is a result of the algebra which allows you to multiply by 1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't care at all about x=k when you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k), but all of a sudden, you become a prima donna when you try to cancel (x-k)/(x-k) ? ROFLMAO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look idiot, you are dealing with a function that is not in irreducible form after you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's like you telling me 3/4 x 3/3 = 9/12 and then I write 3/4 x (k-3)/(k-3) =/= 9/12 when k-3 = 3. Get it idiot??
>>>>> it is only unity when k is not equal to x.
>>>> It's ALWAYS unity because k cannot be equal to x. In sound mathematics, we don't multiply expressions by 0/0 because 0/0 is meaningless drivel. The value of k is not even in question and is entirely unremarkable. Only an idiot will ask "What if k=x?". This practice (of multiplying or dividing by x/x) is helpful in algebra to place certain expressions in an easier form to manipulate, but as to the question of what they mean, the understanding is obvious - both mean 1.
>>> Only if k is not x though. Because otherwise you divide by 0.
>> If k=x, then (x-k)/(x-k) IS NOT A NUMBER, YOU GODDAMN IMBECILE!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> It is a foregone conclusion that in the expression (x-k)/(x-k), x cannot equal to k. Wake up, MORON!!!!
>
> The problem with John Gabriel, and all the follow-up posters in this thread is the never acceptance, nor the intelligence to accept the idea that a function is only a function, when it is a polynomial. There is no function of x-k / x-k nor is there of 1/ x-k or any other variants.

Why would you say this? I cannot find any mathematician who states this.
Conversely, mathematicians say there are lots of functions which are not
polynomials, such as ln(x), tan(x), erf(x) etc.

> When Gabriel offers us a function of (x-k)/(x-k) or any other division variants, it is not a function and what he has to do is transform his offering to a polynomial function in the interval of concern. Only then, do we care about or pay any attention to his offering.

"We"? You and who else, SillyPlutonium?
>
> THE ONLY FUNCTIONS IN EXISTENCE ARE POLYNOMIALS, anything else-- convert, you lazy ---- (three guesses as to my missing word) , convert to a polynomial.

Says who? Says you? Why would anyone care what you say?
>
> AP
> Drag Queen of Science, especially Physics

On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 19:24:59 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:57:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 21:56:56 UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > >
> > > What about dividing by 1?
> > Same thing.
> > > So you agree it's not defined whenever k=x.
> > No. It's defined in irreducible form which is all that matters.
> How do you define division by zero then?

You can't. Zero is NOT a number.

onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:33:30 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 19:24:59 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:57:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 21:56:56 UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > >
> > > > What about dividing by 1?
> > > Same thing.
> > > > So you agree it's not defined whenever k=x.
> > > No. It's defined in irreducible form which is all that matters.
> > How do you define division by zero then?
> You can't. Zero is NOT a number.

it is in Z, Q and R, 0 is very much a number :)

On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 4:49:00 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:

> Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
>
> Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!

I do take interest in the title of this thread and there is a polysign variation that is relevant to this interpretation.
When sign is implemented in its general form
s x
where s is sign and x is magnitude (obviously unsigned) then the value MU for Minus Unity or
- 1
comes up as a fundamental constant in that it develops the other signs as MU^n, where the caret means exponent. Arguably the minus sign is the first sign, whereas the '+' sign is the second sign, which comes after the first sign, and of course there is as well an identity sign beneath these that is the zeroth sign '@' which remedies some of the problems with the traditional real number notation and resolving that identity sign. Still MU^n will get there in Pn. That thus MU form is unity with unity sign and that it is in fact active, whereas the null form is @1 and is inactive; as we speak of unity sign with unity magnitude we do get a rotational system. This of course does hold on P2 as well, which are the real numbers. That P3 are the complex numbers in this polysign format are proof that the generalization of sign and the action of MU is entirely appropriate. Further on general dimensional algebra is available all well defined in general dimension Pn. That one-signed numbers P1 exist is as well a fact that goes overlooked within standard mathematics. As the first form they provide some very peculiar properties. In particular that the geometry of the unidirectional ray is zero dimensional proves consistent with the behavior of both time and the photon as you will find written about here many times over. Still, the expression of Maxwell's work in polysign has not been done yet. There is much work that remains. Possibly sauntering into polysign calculus could lead the way. The interdimensional nature of the integral and derivative are alreadily known.. So rightily you along and get down to it then. Huge prize money for the work.

On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 12:11:42 PM UTC-4, Smith Morano wrote:
> Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> >> But x-k/(x-k) is not defined at x=k.
> >
> > So fucking what?!!! When a sound mind writes (x-k)/(x-k), one means
> > UNITY. Obviously it will be meaningless if you put x=k, but in this
> > case, it is a result of the algebra which allows you to multiply by 1.
> So what?? You can wages war in any nation, where there are people poor
> enough to cooperate in treason, and are willed to tolerate them for the
> sake of getting a stable income.
>
> There was no Soviet failure. There were armed terrorists fighting
> themselves to destroy any good the Russians could have done. The Soviet
> Union DID NOT invade Afghanistan to support an unpopular government as
> you claim. The USSR came to the help of the progressive government of
> Afghanistan by invitation.

Yes, and especially throwing around suitcases full of hundred dollar bills.
Capitalism runs on greed alone.

On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 09:25:18 UTC-4, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 4:49:00 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> >
> > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> I do take interest in the title of this thread and there is a polysign variation that is relevant to this interpretation.
> When sign is implemented in its general form
> s x
> where s is sign and x is magnitude (obviously unsigned) then the value MU for Minus Unity or
> - 1
> comes up as a fundamental constant in that it develops the other signs as MU^n, where the caret means exponent. Arguably the minus sign is the first sign, whereas the '+' sign is the second sign, which comes after the first sign, and of course there is as well an identity sign beneath these that is the zeroth sign '@' which remedies some of the problems with the traditional real number notation and resolving that identity sign. Still MU^n will get there in Pn. That thus MU form is unity with unity sign and that it is in fact active, whereas the null form is @1 and is inactive; as we speak of unity sign with unity magnitude we do get a rotational system. This of course does hold on P2 as well, which are the real numbers. That P3 are the complex numbers in this polysign format are proof that the generalization of sign and the action of MU is entirely appropriate. Further on general dimensional algebra is available all well defined in general dimension Pn. That one-signed numbers P1 exist is as well a fact that goes overlooked within standard mathematics. As the first form they provide some very peculiar properties. In particular that the geometry of the unidirectional ray is zero dimensional proves consistent with the behavior of both time and the photon as you will find written about here many times over. Still, the expression of Maxwell's work in polysign has not been done yet. There is much work that remains. Possibly sauntering into polysign calculus could lead the way. The interdimensional nature of the integral and derivative are alreadily known. So rightily you along and get down to it then. Huge prize money for the work.

None of what you wrote is relevant to the OP.

onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:33:30 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 19:24:59 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:57:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 21:56:56 UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > >
> > > > What about dividing by 1?
> > > Same thing.
> > > > So you agree it's not defined whenever k=x.
> > > No. It's defined in irreducible form which is all that matters.
> > How do you define division by zero then?
> You can't. Zero is NOT a number.
So you can't write a/(k-x) when k-x=0, because then you would have a/0.

On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:07:10 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:33:30 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 19:24:59 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:57:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 21:56:56 UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > >
> > > > > What about dividing by 1?
> > > > Same thing.
> > > > > So you agree it's not defined whenever k=x.
> > > > No. It's defined in irreducible form which is all that matters.
> > > How do you define division by zero then?
> > You can't. Zero is NOT a number.
> So you can't write a/(k-x) when k-x=0, because then you would have a/0.

You can write a/(k-x) because (k-x) cannot be 0. We're talking about (k-x)/(k-x) whose value cannot ever be 0/0.

torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:10:52 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:07:10 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:33:30 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 19:24:59 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:57:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 21:56:56 UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > What about dividing by 1?
> > > > > Same thing.
> > > > > > So you agree it's not defined whenever k=x.
> > > > > No. It's defined in irreducible form which is all that matters.
> > > > How do you define division by zero then?
> > > You can't. Zero is NOT a number.
> > So you can't write a/(k-x) when k-x=0, because then you would have a/0.
> You can write a/(k-x) because (k-x) cannot be 0. We're talking about (k-x)/(k-x) whose value cannot ever be 0/0.
k-x can surely be 0. It happens exactly when x=k.

On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:04:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:10:52 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:07:10 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:33:30 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 19:24:59 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:57:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 21:56:56 UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What about dividing by 1?
> > > > > > Same thing.
> > > > > > > So you agree it's not defined whenever k=x.
> > > > > > No. It's defined in irreducible form which is all that matters.
> > > > > How do you define division by zero then?
> > > > You can't. Zero is NOT a number.
> > > So you can't write a/(k-x) when k-x=0, because then you would have a/0.
> > You can write a/(k-x) because (k-x) cannot be 0. We're talking about (k-x)/(k-x) whose value cannot ever be 0/0.
> k-x can surely be 0. It happens exactly when x=k.

No, it can't be 0 if a/(k-x) is to be considered meaningful in any way.

fredag 27. august 2021 kl. 23:15:38 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:04:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:10:52 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:07:10 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:33:30 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 19:24:59 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:57:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 21:56:56 UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What about dividing by 1?
> > > > > > > Same thing.
> > > > > > > > So you agree it's not defined whenever k=x.
> > > > > > > No. It's defined in irreducible form which is all that matters.
> > > > > > How do you define division by zero then?
> > > > > You can't. Zero is NOT a number.
> > > > So you can't write a/(k-x) when k-x=0, because then you would have a/0.
> > > You can write a/(k-x) because (k-x) cannot be 0. We're talking about (k-x)/(k-x) whose value cannot ever be 0/0.
> > k-x can surely be 0. It happens exactly when x=k.
> No, it can't be 0 if a/(k-x) is to be considered meaningful in any way.

But then what you are doing all the time in f'(x) = (f(x+h) - f(x))/h - Q(x,h) isn't meaningful. Good you admit that!
KON

> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What about dividing by 1?
> > > > > > > > Same thing.
> > > > > > > > > So you agree it's not defined whenever k=x.
> > > > > > > > No. It's defined in irreducible form which is all that matters.
> > > > > > > How do you define division by zero then?
> > > > > > You can't. Zero is NOT a number.

It is a number; as a name; but it is not a quantity.
It is the absence of any quantity...

In a fraction or ratio you can divide by 1 and numerator stays the same
for the overall... division operation require two quantities...a ratio and fraction are an example.

Mitchell Raemsch