On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:01:56 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:31:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 05:27:20 UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > > zelos...@gmail.com submitted this idea :
> > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:51:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > >> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:00:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:18:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > >>>> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 21:50:46 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > >>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > >>>>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail..com
> > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets check
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> holds an unshakable belief that most of their
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false. You got the wrong definition, so
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are as always, wrong
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter is usually your practice.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your definition might be necessary, but it is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INSUFFICIENT. "Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence." The above definition is both necessary and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wind. LMAO.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false." Incorrect, that is not at all
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you say ain't in it.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too dumb to understand
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO..
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the face of overwhelming evidence. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You fit that definition.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to show this.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second only to Euler's S = Lim S. even when you get it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the real case to the complex case. You cannot transfer
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand? You have to modify the definition of the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens. Chuckle.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you can have different definitions in different cases. The
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something very different.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So of course you can have different definitions in the real and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> complex case.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't because by definition:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> or size.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> something very different." It is really not that different. It is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> very different. And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that
> > > >>>>>>>>>> you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is
> > > >>>>>>>>>> no such thing as a "real number".
> > > >>>>>>>>> Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational
> > > >>>>>>>>> matrices as well. No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are
> > > >>>>>>>>> two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to
> > > >>>>>>>>> contain number entries.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > > >>>>>>>> No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There
> > > >>>>>>>> aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this
> > > >>>>>>>> is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > > >>>>>>> Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> > > >>>>>> The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*.
> > > >>>>>> There are no other numbers.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > >>>>> But that wasn't my argument. You've never had any arguments. Everything
> > > >>>>> you write is drivel. Scatterbrain is your name. The argument was that
> > > >>>>> you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example
> > > >>>>> matrices.
> > > >>>> You cannot. Whatever you think of "multiplication" is something else with
> > > >>>> matrices or "other stuff" as you call it.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> So when I'm multiplying matrices, it's not multiplication? Part of it is,
> > > >>> but it's not just multiplication. When I compute the cross product, it's
> > > >>> not multiplication? When I multiply two sets (forming the Cartesian
> > > >>> product), is it not multiplication of two sets? Of course it is, it's just
> > > >>> not multiplication of rational numbers.
> > > >> Multiplication is very well defined:
> > > >>
> > > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> > > >>
> > > >> Definition: The product (or multiplication) of two positive numbers is the
> > > >> quotient of either positive number with the reciprocal of the other.
> > > >>
> > > >> The above can be extended easily to negative numbers.
> > > >
> > > > That is ONE multiplication, there are many more.
> > > Here comes one now:
> > >
> > > https://textbooks.math.gatech.edu/ila/matrix-multiplication.html
> > The above link **proves** that matrix multiplication is not the same thing as multiplying two numbers.
> >
> > Multiply 4 by 5:
> >
> > (1+2+1) x (2+2+1) = 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 + 2*2 + 2*2 + 2*1 + 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 = 2 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 20
> >
> > Multiply 1x3 matrix by 3x1 where 1x3 matrix = (1,2,1) and 3x1 matrix = (2,2,1):
> >
> > (1, 2, 1) x (2, 2, 1) = (7)
> >
> > How is (7) the same as 20?
> >
> > I am RIGHT and you are WRONG. You are simply too stupid to debate me.
> I didn't say a the product of two matrices would be a scalar. I said both are multiplication operators.

> i. Assumption of fact
> ii. Hypothesis
> iii. Probability
> iv. Suspicion
> v. Verification
>

haha this is MATHS not PSEUDO-SCIENCE

Try RESOLUTION in conjunctive normal form

(a v b v c) ^ (a v !c)
-------------------------------
a v b

just a convoluted MODUS PONENS

disPROOF by CONTRADICTION

ASSUME: A
DERIVE: F ^ !F
-------------------
!A

On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:15:17 UTC-4, Some moron called Graham Cooper wrote:
> > i. Assumption of fact
> > ii. Hypothesis
> > iii. Probability
> > iv. Suspicion
> > v. Verification
> >
>
> haha this is MATHS not PSEUDO-SCIENCE

It is garbage. LMAO.

<drivel>

Graham Cooper wrote:

>> i. Assumption of fact ii. Hypothesis iii. Probability iv. Suspicion v.
>> Verification
>>
> haha this is MATHS not PSEUDO-SCIENCE
> Try RESOLUTION in conjunctive normal form

honestly, I never saw the hitler's nazis beating and arresting people the
way the capitalist pigs are doing all the places today. Nor that hitler
pushed his propaganda apparatus to forcefully convince people getting
toxic pseudo-experimental lethal injections into their bodies "for the
sake of the others"!!

I am forced to conclude, based on hard evidences, that the nazis were
angels when compared to these capitalist corporate *pigs*.

Some Pigs Beating Up An Old Man
https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=7D987W6567K5

fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 23:07:13 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:01:56 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:31:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 05:27:20 UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > > > zelos...@gmail.com submitted this idea :
> > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:51:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > >> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:00:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >>> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:18:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > >>>> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 21:50:46 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >>>>> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > >>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus....@gmail.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets check
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> holds an unshakable belief that most of their
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false. You got the wrong definition, so
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are as always, wrong
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter is usually your practice.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your definition might be necessary, but it is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INSUFFICIENT. "Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence." The above definition is both necessary and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wind. LMAO.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false." Incorrect, that is not at all
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you say ain't in it.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too dumb to understand
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the face of overwhelming evidence. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You fit that definition.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to show this.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second only to Euler's S = Lim S. even when you get it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the real case to the complex case. You cannot transfer
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand? You have to modify the definition of the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens. Chuckle.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you can have different definitions in different cases. The
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something very different.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So of course you can have different definitions in the real and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> complex case.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't because by definition:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> or size.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them.. It is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> something very different." It is really not that different. It is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> very different. And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> no such thing as a "real number".
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational
> > > > >>>>>>>>> matrices as well. No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are
> > > > >>>>>>>>> two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to
> > > > >>>>>>>>> contain number entries.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > > > >>>>>>>> No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There
> > > > >>>>>>>> aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this
> > > > >>>>>>>> is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > > > >>>>>>> Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> > > > >>>>>> The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*.
> > > > >>>>>> There are no other numbers.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > >>>>> But that wasn't my argument. You've never had any arguments. Everything
> > > > >>>>> you write is drivel. Scatterbrain is your name. The argument was that
> > > > >>>>> you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example
> > > > >>>>> matrices.
> > > > >>>> You cannot. Whatever you think of "multiplication" is something else with
> > > > >>>> matrices or "other stuff" as you call it.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> So when I'm multiplying matrices, it's not multiplication? Part of it is,
> > > > >>> but it's not just multiplication. When I compute the cross product, it's
> > > > >>> not multiplication? When I multiply two sets (forming the Cartesian
> > > > >>> product), is it not multiplication of two sets? Of course it is, it's just
> > > > >>> not multiplication of rational numbers.
> > > > >> Multiplication is very well defined:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Definition: The product (or multiplication) of two positive numbers is the
> > > > >> quotient of either positive number with the reciprocal of the other.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The above can be extended easily to negative numbers.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is ONE multiplication, there are many more.
> > > > Here comes one now:
> > > >
> > > > https://textbooks.math.gatech.edu/ila/matrix-multiplication.html
> > > The above link **proves** that matrix multiplication is not the same thing as multiplying two numbers.
> > >
> > > Multiply 4 by 5:
> > >
> > > (1+2+1) x (2+2+1) = 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 + 2*2 + 2*2 + 2*1 + 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 = 2 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 20
> > >
> > > Multiply 1x3 matrix by 3x1 where 1x3 matrix = (1,2,1) and 3x1 matrix = (2,2,1):
> > >
> > > (1, 2, 1) x (2, 2, 1) = (7)
> > >
> > > How is (7) the same as 20?
> > >
> > > I am RIGHT and you are WRONG. You are simply too stupid to debate me.
> > I didn't say a the product of two matrices would be a scalar. I said both are multiplication operators.
> You are still wrong because multiplication of numbers results in a scalar..
Yes, but multiplication of matrices do not.

On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 21:10:47 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 23:07:13 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:01:56 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:31:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 05:27:20 UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > > > > zelos...@gmail.com submitted this idea :
> > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:51:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > >> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:00:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >>> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:18:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > >>>> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 21:50:46 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > >>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets check
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> holds an unshakable belief that most of their
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false. You got the wrong definition, so
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are as always, wrong
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your definition might be necessary, but it is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INSUFFICIENT. "Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence." The above definition is both necessary and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wind. LMAO.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false." Incorrect, that is not at all
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too dumb to understand
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the face of overwhelming evidence. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You fit that definition.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to show this.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second only to Euler's S = Lim S. even when you get it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the real case to the complex case. You cannot transfer
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand? You have to modify the definition of the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens. Chuckle.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you can have different definitions in different cases. The
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something very different.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So of course you can have different definitions in the real and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> complex case.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't because by definition:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> or size.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> something very different." It is really not that different. It is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> very different. And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> no such thing as a "real number".
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> matrices as well. No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> contain number entries.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There
> > > > > >>>>>>>> aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this
> > > > > >>>>>>>> is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > > > > >>>>>>> Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> > > > > >>>>>> The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*.
> > > > > >>>>>> There are no other numbers.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > > >>>>> But that wasn't my argument. You've never had any arguments.. Everything
> > > > > >>>>> you write is drivel. Scatterbrain is your name. The argument was that
> > > > > >>>>> you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example
> > > > > >>>>> matrices.
> > > > > >>>> You cannot. Whatever you think of "multiplication" is something else with
> > > > > >>>> matrices or "other stuff" as you call it.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> So when I'm multiplying matrices, it's not multiplication? Part of it is,
> > > > > >>> but it's not just multiplication. When I compute the cross product, it's
> > > > > >>> not multiplication? When I multiply two sets (forming the Cartesian
> > > > > >>> product), is it not multiplication of two sets? Of course it is, it's just
> > > > > >>> not multiplication of rational numbers.
> > > > > >> Multiplication is very well defined:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Definition: The product (or multiplication) of two positive numbers is the
> > > > > >> quotient of either positive number with the reciprocal of the other.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The above can be extended easily to negative numbers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is ONE multiplication, there are many more.
> > > > > Here comes one now:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://textbooks.math.gatech.edu/ila/matrix-multiplication.html
> > > > The above link **proves** that matrix multiplication is not the same thing as multiplying two numbers.
> > > >
> > > > Multiply 4 by 5:
> > > >
> > > > (1+2+1) x (2+2+1) = 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 + 2*2 + 2*2 + 2*1 + 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 = 2 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 20
> > > >
> > > > Multiply 1x3 matrix by 3x1 where 1x3 matrix = (1,2,1) and 3x1 matrix = (2,2,1):
> > > >
> > > > (1, 2, 1) x (2, 2, 1) = (7)
> > > >
> > > > How is (7) the same as 20?
> > > >
> > > > I am RIGHT and you are WRONG. You are simply too stupid to debate me.
> > > I didn't say a the product of two matrices would be a scalar. I said both are multiplication operators.
> > You are still wrong because multiplication of numbers results in a scalar.
> Yes, but multiplication of matrices do not.

lördag 28 augusti 2021 kl. 14:54:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 21:10:47 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 23:07:13 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:01:56 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:31:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 05:27:20 UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > > > > > zelos...@gmail.com submitted this idea :
> > > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:51:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > >> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:00:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >>> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:18:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > >>>> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 21:50:46 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > >>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus....@gmail.com
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets check
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> holds an unshakable belief that most of their
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false. You got the wrong definition, so
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your definition might be necessary, but it is
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INSUFFICIENT. "Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence." The above definition is both necessary and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wind. LMAO.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false." Incorrect, that is not at all
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too dumb to understand
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey.. LMAO.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the face of overwhelming evidence. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You fit that definition.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to show this.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second only to Euler's S = Lim S. even when you get it
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the real case to the complex case. You cannot transfer
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand? You have to modify the definition of the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitions are either well formed or ill formed.. Once stated, a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens. Chuckle.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you can have different definitions in different cases. The
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something very different.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So of course you can have different definitions in the real and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> complex case.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't because by definition:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> or size.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> something very different." It is really not that different. It is
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> very different. And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> no such thing as a "real number".
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> matrices as well. No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> contain number entries.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> > > > > > >>>>>> The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*.
> > > > > > >>>>>> There are no other numbers.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > > > >>>>> But that wasn't my argument. You've never had any arguments. Everything
> > > > > > >>>>> you write is drivel. Scatterbrain is your name. The argument was that
> > > > > > >>>>> you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example
> > > > > > >>>>> matrices.
> > > > > > >>>> You cannot. Whatever you think of "multiplication" is something else with
> > > > > > >>>> matrices or "other stuff" as you call it.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> So when I'm multiplying matrices, it's not multiplication? Part of it is,
> > > > > > >>> but it's not just multiplication. When I compute the cross product, it's
> > > > > > >>> not multiplication? When I multiply two sets (forming the Cartesian
> > > > > > >>> product), is it not multiplication of two sets? Of course it is, it's just
> > > > > > >>> not multiplication of rational numbers.
> > > > > > >> Multiplication is very well defined:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Definition: The product (or multiplication) of two positive numbers is the
> > > > > > >> quotient of either positive number with the reciprocal of the other.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> The above can be extended easily to negative numbers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is ONE multiplication, there are many more.
> > > > > > Here comes one now:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://textbooks.math.gatech.edu/ila/matrix-multiplication.html
> > > > > The above link **proves** that matrix multiplication is not the same thing as multiplying two numbers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Multiply 4 by 5:
> > > > >
> > > > > (1+2+1) x (2+2+1) = 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 + 2*2 + 2*2 + 2*1 + 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 = 2 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 20
> > > > >
> > > > > Multiply 1x3 matrix by 3x1 where 1x3 matrix = (1,2,1) and 3x1 matrix = (2,2,1):
> > > > >
> > > > > (1, 2, 1) x (2, 2, 1) = (7)
> > > > >
> > > > > How is (7) the same as 20?
> > > > >
> > > > > I am RIGHT and you are WRONG. You are simply too stupid to debate me.
> > > > I didn't say a the product of two matrices would be a scalar. I said both are multiplication operators.
> > > You are still wrong because multiplication of numbers results in a scalar.
> > Yes, but multiplication of matrices do not.
> Because it's not multiplication, but something else that is a misnomer.
It is multiplication, just not of scalars.

On Saturday, 28 August 2021 at 12:02:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> lördag 28 augusti 2021 kl. 14:54:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 21:10:47 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 23:07:13 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:01:56 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:31:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 05:27:20 UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > > > > > > zelos...@gmail.com submitted this idea :
> > > > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:51:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > >> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:00:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:18:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > >>>> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 21:50:46 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > >>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus....@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets check
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> holds an unshakable belief that most of their
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contemporaries consider to be false..
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false. You got the wrong definition, so
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your definition might be necessary, but it is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INSUFFICIENT. "Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence." The above definition is both necessary and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wind. LMAO.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false." Incorrect, that is not at all
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too dumb to understand
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the face of overwhelming evidence. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You fit that definition.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to show this.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second only to Euler's S = Lim S. even when you get it
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the real case to the complex case. You cannot transfer
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand? You have to modify the definition of the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you can have different definitions in different cases. The
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something very different.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So of course you can have different definitions in the real and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> complex case.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't because by definition:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> or size.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> something very different." It is really not that different. It is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> very different. And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> no such thing as a "real number".
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> matrices as well. No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> contain number entries.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers..
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> There are no other numbers.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > > > > >>>>> But that wasn't my argument. You've never had any arguments. Everything
> > > > > > > >>>>> you write is drivel. Scatterbrain is your name. The argument was that
> > > > > > > >>>>> you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example
> > > > > > > >>>>> matrices.
> > > > > > > >>>> You cannot. Whatever you think of "multiplication" is something else with
> > > > > > > >>>> matrices or "other stuff" as you call it.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> So when I'm multiplying matrices, it's not multiplication? Part of it is,
> > > > > > > >>> but it's not just multiplication. When I compute the cross product, it's
> > > > > > > >>> not multiplication? When I multiply two sets (forming the Cartesian
> > > > > > > >>> product), is it not multiplication of two sets? Of course it is, it's just
> > > > > > > >>> not multiplication of rational numbers.
> > > > > > > >> Multiplication is very well defined:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Definition: The product (or multiplication) of two positive numbers is the
> > > > > > > >> quotient of either positive number with the reciprocal of the other.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> The above can be extended easily to negative numbers.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That is ONE multiplication, there are many more.
> > > > > > > Here comes one now:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://textbooks.math.gatech.edu/ila/matrix-multiplication.html
> > > > > > The above link **proves** that matrix multiplication is not the same thing as multiplying two numbers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Multiply 4 by 5:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (1+2+1) x (2+2+1) = 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 + 2*2 + 2*2 + 2*1 + 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 = 2 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 20
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Multiply 1x3 matrix by 3x1 where 1x3 matrix = (1,2,1) and 3x1 matrix = (2,2,1):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (1, 2, 1) x (2, 2, 1) = (7)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How is (7) the same as 20?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am RIGHT and you are WRONG. You are simply too stupid to debate me.
> > > > > I didn't say a the product of two matrices would be a scalar. I said both are multiplication operators.
> > > > You are still wrong because multiplication of numbers results in a scalar.
> > > Yes, but multiplication of matrices do not.
> > Because it's not multiplication, but something else that is a misnomer.
> It is multiplication, just not of scalars.

söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 02:18:48 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Saturday, 28 August 2021 at 12:02:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > lördag 28 augusti 2021 kl. 14:54:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 21:10:47 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 23:07:13 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:01:56 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:31:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 05:27:20 UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > > > > > > > zelos...@gmail.com submitted this idea :
> > > > > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:51:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > >> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:00:58 UTC-4, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:18:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > >>>> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 21:50:46 UTC-4, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a confirmed crank, Malum.. You fit the main
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets check
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> holds an unshakable belief that most of their
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false. You got the wrong definition, so
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your definition might be necessary, but it is
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INSUFFICIENT. "Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence." The above definition is both necessary and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wind. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false." Incorrect, that is not at all
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too dumb to understand
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the face of overwhelming evidence. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You fit that definition.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to show this.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second only to Euler's S = Lim S. even when you get it
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the real case to the complex case. You cannot transfer
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand? You have to modify the definition of the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you can have different definitions in different cases. The
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something very different.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So of course you can have different definitions in the real and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> complex case.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't because by definition:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> or size.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> something very different." It is really not that different. It is
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> very different. And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> no such thing as a "real number".
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> matrices as well. No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> contain number entries.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> There are no other numbers.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > > > > > >>>>> But that wasn't my argument. You've never had any arguments. Everything
> > > > > > > > >>>>> you write is drivel. Scatterbrain is your name. The argument was that
> > > > > > > > >>>>> you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example
> > > > > > > > >>>>> matrices.
> > > > > > > > >>>> You cannot. Whatever you think of "multiplication" is something else with
> > > > > > > > >>>> matrices or "other stuff" as you call it.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>> So when I'm multiplying matrices, it's not multiplication? Part of it is,
> > > > > > > > >>> but it's not just multiplication. When I compute the cross product, it's
> > > > > > > > >>> not multiplication? When I multiply two sets (forming the Cartesian
> > > > > > > > >>> product), is it not multiplication of two sets? Of course it is, it's just
> > > > > > > > >>> not multiplication of rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > >> Multiplication is very well defined:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Definition: The product (or multiplication) of two positive numbers is the
> > > > > > > > >> quotient of either positive number with the reciprocal of the other.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> The above can be extended easily to negative numbers.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That is ONE multiplication, there are many more.
> > > > > > > > Here comes one now:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://textbooks.math.gatech.edu/ila/matrix-multiplication..html
> > > > > > > The above link **proves** that matrix multiplication is not the same thing as multiplying two numbers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Multiply 4 by 5:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (1+2+1) x (2+2+1) = 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 + 2*2 + 2*2 + 2*1 + 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 = 2 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 20
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Multiply 1x3 matrix by 3x1 where 1x3 matrix = (1,2,1) and 3x1 matrix = (2,2,1):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (1, 2, 1) x (2, 2, 1) = (7)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How is (7) the same as 20?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am RIGHT and you are WRONG. You are simply too stupid to debate me.
> > > > > > I didn't say a the product of two matrices would be a scalar. I said both are multiplication operators.
> > > > > You are still wrong because multiplication of numbers results in a scalar.
> > > > Yes, but multiplication of matrices do not.
> > > Because it's not multiplication, but something else that is a misnomer.
> > It is multiplication, just not of scalars.
> No moron. It's not multiplication, because multiplication is defined geometrically for scalars and transferred to algebra ( a weaker form of geometry) through the abstract unit. I am convinced these things will be too advanced for your peanut brain.

On Sunday, 29 August 2021 at 09:57:04 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 02:18:48 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Saturday, 28 August 2021 at 12:02:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > lördag 28 augusti 2021 kl. 14:54:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 21:10:47 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 23:07:13 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:01:56 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:31:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 05:27:20 UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > > > > > > > > zelos...@gmail.com submitted this idea :
> > > > > > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:51:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > >> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:00:58 UTC-4, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:18:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 21:50:46 UTC-4, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets check
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> holds an unshakable belief that most of their
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false. You got the wrong definition, so
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your definition might be necessary, but it is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INSUFFICIENT. "Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence." The above definition is both necessary and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wind. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false." Incorrect, that is not at all
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too dumb to understand
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the face of overwhelming evidence. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You fit that definition.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to show this.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second only to Euler's S = Lim S. even when you get it
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the real case to the complex case. You cannot transfer
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand? You have to modify the definition of the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you can have different definitions in different cases. The
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something very different.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So of course you can have different definitions in the real and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> complex case.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't because by definition:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> or size.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> something very different." It is really not that different. It is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> very different. And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> no such thing as a "real number".
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> matrices as well. No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> contain number entries.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> There are no other numbers.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> But that wasn't my argument. You've never had any arguments. Everything
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> you write is drivel. Scatterbrain is your name. The argument was that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> matrices.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> You cannot. Whatever you think of "multiplication" is something else with
> > > > > > > > > >>>> matrices or "other stuff" as you call it.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> So when I'm multiplying matrices, it's not multiplication? Part of it is,
> > > > > > > > > >>> but it's not just multiplication. When I compute the cross product, it's
> > > > > > > > > >>> not multiplication? When I multiply two sets (forming the Cartesian
> > > > > > > > > >>> product), is it not multiplication of two sets? Of course it is, it's just
> > > > > > > > > >>> not multiplication of rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > >> Multiplication is very well defined:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Definition: The product (or multiplication) of two positive numbers is the
> > > > > > > > > >> quotient of either positive number with the reciprocal of the other.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> The above can be extended easily to negative numbers.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That is ONE multiplication, there are many more.
> > > > > > > > > Here comes one now:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://textbooks.math.gatech.edu/ila/matrix-multiplication.html
> > > > > > > > The above link **proves** that matrix multiplication is not the same thing as multiplying two numbers.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Multiply 4 by 5:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (1+2+1) x (2+2+1) = 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 + 2*2 + 2*2 + 2*1 + 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 = 2 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 20
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Multiply 1x3 matrix by 3x1 where 1x3 matrix = (1,2,1) and 3x1 matrix = (2,2,1):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (1, 2, 1) x (2, 2, 1) = (7)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How is (7) the same as 20?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am RIGHT and you are WRONG. You are simply too stupid to debate me.
> > > > > > > I didn't say a the product of two matrices would be a scalar. I said both are multiplication operators.
> > > > > > You are still wrong because multiplication of numbers results in a scalar.
> > > > > Yes, but multiplication of matrices do not.
> > > > Because it's not multiplication, but something else that is a misnomer.
> > > It is multiplication, just not of scalars.
> > No moron. It's not multiplication, because multiplication is defined geometrically for scalars and transferred to algebra ( a weaker form of geometry) through the abstract unit. I am convinced these things will be too advanced for your peanut brain.
> Are you aware of the concept that words can mean different things? The word multiplication doesn't have a single definition, it depends on the objects you're multiplying. Exp and Log doesn't have single definitions either, it depends on what the arguments will be. WE have the real Exp And the complex Exp. It's perfectly value to define exp(A) for a matrix A.

söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 20:19:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Sunday, 29 August 2021 at 09:57:04 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 02:18:48 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Saturday, 28 August 2021 at 12:02:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > lördag 28 augusti 2021 kl. 14:54:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 21:10:47 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 23:07:13 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:01:56 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:31:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 05:27:20 UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > zelos...@gmail.com submitted this idea :
> > > > > > > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:51:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > >> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:00:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:18:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 21:50:46 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets check
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> holds an unshakable belief that most of their
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false. You got the wrong definition, so
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your definition might be necessary, but it is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INSUFFICIENT. "Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence." The above definition is both necessary and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the ONLY things that matters.. All else is just bad
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wind. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false." Incorrect, that is not at all
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too dumb to understand
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the face of overwhelming evidence. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You fit that definition.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to show this.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second only to Euler's S = Lim S. even when you get it
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the real case to the complex case. You cannot transfer
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand? You have to modify the definition of the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you can have different definitions in different cases. The
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something very different.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So of course you can have different definitions in the real and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> complex case.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't because by definition:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> or size.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> something very different." It is really not that different. It is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> very different. And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> no such thing as a "real number".
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> matrices as well. No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> contain number entries.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> There are no other numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> But that wasn't my argument. You've never had any arguments. Everything
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> you write is drivel. Scatterbrain is your name. The argument was that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> matrices.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> You cannot. Whatever you think of "multiplication" is something else with
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> matrices or "other stuff" as you call it.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> So when I'm multiplying matrices, it's not multiplication? Part of it is,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> but it's not just multiplication. When I compute the cross product, it's
> > > > > > > > > > >>> not multiplication? When I multiply two sets (forming the Cartesian
> > > > > > > > > > >>> product), is it not multiplication of two sets? Of course it is, it's just
> > > > > > > > > > >>> not multiplication of rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > >> Multiplication is very well defined:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Definition: The product (or multiplication) of two positive numbers is the
> > > > > > > > > > >> quotient of either positive number with the reciprocal of the other.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> The above can be extended easily to negative numbers..
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That is ONE multiplication, there are many more.
> > > > > > > > > > Here comes one now:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://textbooks.math.gatech.edu/ila/matrix-multiplication.html
> > > > > > > > > The above link **proves** that matrix multiplication is not the same thing as multiplying two numbers.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Multiply 4 by 5:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (1+2+1) x (2+2+1) = 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 + 2*2 + 2*2 + 2*1 + 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 = 2 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 20
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Multiply 1x3 matrix by 3x1 where 1x3 matrix = (1,2,1) and 3x1 matrix = (2,2,1):
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (1, 2, 1) x (2, 2, 1) = (7)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > How is (7) the same as 20?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am RIGHT and you are WRONG. You are simply too stupid to debate me.
> > > > > > > > I didn't say a the product of two matrices would be a scalar. I said both are multiplication operators.
> > > > > > > You are still wrong because multiplication of numbers results in a scalar.
> > > > > > Yes, but multiplication of matrices do not.
> > > > > Because it's not multiplication, but something else that is a misnomer.
> > > > It is multiplication, just not of scalars.
> > > No moron. It's not multiplication, because multiplication is defined geometrically for scalars and transferred to algebra ( a weaker form of geometry) through the abstract unit. I am convinced these things will be too advanced for your peanut brain.
> > Are you aware of the concept that words can mean different things? The word multiplication doesn't have a single definition, it depends on the objects you're multiplying. Exp and Log doesn't have single definitions either, it depends on what the arguments will be. WE have the real Exp And the complex Exp. It's perfectly value to define exp(A) for a matrix A.
> You're an idiot and this discussion is also over.
Sometimes I feel like you resort to this outrageous sort of behaviour when you simply don't want to respond to objections. Discussing anything with you is more or less impossible after a point, because you will just refuse to acknowledge facts and call people vile Jews and retarded.

>Both chronologically and in the original definition of multiplication which was inspired by the word that came long before it

Again, this is history. It doesn't mean that is how we define things today.

>Insanely stupid comment that is wrong in every possible aspect.

it isn't because geometry today is constructed from vector spaces which are constructed through algebra.

>Multiplication is not chocolate. Chuckle.

It isn't, but there is more than one type of multiplication.

söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 20:19:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Sunday, 29 August 2021 at 09:57:04 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 02:18:48 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Saturday, 28 August 2021 at 12:02:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > lördag 28 augusti 2021 kl. 14:54:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 21:10:47 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 23:07:13 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:01:56 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:31:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 05:27:20 UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > zelos...@gmail.com submitted this idea :
> > > > > > > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:51:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > >> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:00:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:18:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 21:50:46 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets check
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> holds an unshakable belief that most of their
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false. You got the wrong definition, so
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your definition might be necessary, but it is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INSUFFICIENT. "Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence." The above definition is both necessary and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the ONLY things that matters.. All else is just bad
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wind. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false." Incorrect, that is not at all
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too dumb to understand
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the face of overwhelming evidence. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You fit that definition.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to show this.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second only to Euler's S = Lim S. even when you get it
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the real case to the complex case. You cannot transfer
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand? You have to modify the definition of the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you can have different definitions in different cases. The
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something very different.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So of course you can have different definitions in the real and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> complex case.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't because by definition:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> or size.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> something very different." It is really not that different. It is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> very different. And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> no such thing as a "real number".
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> matrices as well. No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> contain number entries.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> There are no other numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> But that wasn't my argument. You've never had any arguments. Everything
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> you write is drivel. Scatterbrain is your name. The argument was that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> matrices.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> You cannot. Whatever you think of "multiplication" is something else with
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> matrices or "other stuff" as you call it.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> So when I'm multiplying matrices, it's not multiplication? Part of it is,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> but it's not just multiplication. When I compute the cross product, it's
> > > > > > > > > > >>> not multiplication? When I multiply two sets (forming the Cartesian
> > > > > > > > > > >>> product), is it not multiplication of two sets? Of course it is, it's just
> > > > > > > > > > >>> not multiplication of rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > >> Multiplication is very well defined:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Definition: The product (or multiplication) of two positive numbers is the
> > > > > > > > > > >> quotient of either positive number with the reciprocal of the other.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> The above can be extended easily to negative numbers..
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That is ONE multiplication, there are many more.
> > > > > > > > > > Here comes one now:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://textbooks.math.gatech.edu/ila/matrix-multiplication.html
> > > > > > > > > The above link **proves** that matrix multiplication is not the same thing as multiplying two numbers.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Multiply 4 by 5:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (1+2+1) x (2+2+1) = 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 + 2*2 + 2*2 + 2*1 + 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 = 2 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 20
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Multiply 1x3 matrix by 3x1 where 1x3 matrix = (1,2,1) and 3x1 matrix = (2,2,1):
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (1, 2, 1) x (2, 2, 1) = (7)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > How is (7) the same as 20?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am RIGHT and you are WRONG. You are simply too stupid to debate me.
> > > > > > > > I didn't say a the product of two matrices would be a scalar. I said both are multiplication operators.
> > > > > > > You are still wrong because multiplication of numbers results in a scalar.
> > > > > > Yes, but multiplication of matrices do not.
> > > > > Because it's not multiplication, but something else that is a misnomer.
> > > > It is multiplication, just not of scalars.
> > > No moron. It's not multiplication, because multiplication is defined geometrically for scalars and transferred to algebra ( a weaker form of geometry) through the abstract unit. I am convinced these things will be too advanced for your peanut brain.
> > Are you aware of the concept that words can mean different things? The word multiplication doesn't have a single definition, it depends on the objects you're multiplying. Exp and Log doesn't have single definitions either, it depends on what the arguments will be. WE have the real Exp And the complex Exp. It's perfectly value to define exp(A) for a matrix A.
> You're an idiot and this discussion is also over.

söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 22:46:33 UTC+2 skrev markus...@gmail.com:
> söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 20:19:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Sunday, 29 August 2021 at 09:57:04 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 02:18:48 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Saturday, 28 August 2021 at 12:02:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > lördag 28 augusti 2021 kl. 14:54:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 21:10:47 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 23:07:13 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:01:56 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:31:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 05:27:20 UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > zelos...@gmail.com submitted this idea :
> > > > > > > > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:51:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:00:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:18:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 21:50:46 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets check
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> holds an unshakable belief that most of their
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false. You got the wrong definition, so
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your definition might be necessary, but it is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INSUFFICIENT. "Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence." The above definition is both necessary and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wind. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false." Incorrect, that is not at all
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too dumb to understand
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the face of overwhelming evidence. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You fit that definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to show this.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second only to Euler's S = Lim S. even when you get it
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the real case to the complex case. You cannot transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand? You have to modify the definition of the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you can have different definitions in different cases. The
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something very different.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So of course you can have different definitions in the real and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> complex case.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't because by definition:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> or size.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> something very different." It is really not that different. It is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> very different. And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> no such thing as a "real number".
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> matrices as well. No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> contain number entries.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> There are no other numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> But that wasn't my argument. You've never had any arguments. Everything
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> you write is drivel. Scatterbrain is your name. The argument was that
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> matrices.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> You cannot. Whatever you think of "multiplication" is something else with
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> matrices or "other stuff" as you call it.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> So when I'm multiplying matrices, it's not multiplication? Part of it is,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> but it's not just multiplication. When I compute the cross product, it's
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> not multiplication? When I multiply two sets (forming the Cartesian
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> product), is it not multiplication of two sets? Of course it is, it's just
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> not multiplication of rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Multiplication is very well defined:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Definition: The product (or multiplication) of two positive numbers is the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> quotient of either positive number with the reciprocal of the other.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> The above can be extended easily to negative numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > That is ONE multiplication, there are many more.
> > > > > > > > > > > Here comes one now:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > https://textbooks.math.gatech.edu/ila/matrix-multiplication.html
> > > > > > > > > > The above link **proves** that matrix multiplication is not the same thing as multiplying two numbers.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Multiply 4 by 5:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (1+2+1) x (2+2+1) = 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 + 2*2 + 2*2 + 2*1 + 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 = 2 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 20
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Multiply 1x3 matrix by 3x1 where 1x3 matrix = (1,2,1) and 3x1 matrix = (2,2,1):
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (1, 2, 1) x (2, 2, 1) = (7)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > How is (7) the same as 20?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I am RIGHT and you are WRONG. You are simply too stupid to debate me.
> > > > > > > > > I didn't say a the product of two matrices would be a scalar. I said both are multiplication operators.
> > > > > > > > You are still wrong because multiplication of numbers results in a scalar.
> > > > > > > Yes, but multiplication of matrices do not.
> > > > > > Because it's not multiplication, but something else that is a misnomer.
> > > > > It is multiplication, just not of scalars.
> > > > No moron. It's not multiplication, because multiplication is defined geometrically for scalars and transferred to algebra ( a weaker form of geometry) through the abstract unit. I am convinced these things will be too advanced for your peanut brain.
> > > Are you aware of the concept that words can mean different things? The word multiplication doesn't have a single definition, it depends on the objects you're multiplying. Exp and Log doesn't have single definitions either, it depends on what the arguments will be. WE have the real Exp And the complex Exp. It's perfectly value to define exp(A) for a matrix A.
> > You're an idiot and this discussion is also over.
> Sometimes I feel like you resort to this outrageous sort of behaviour when you simply don't want to respond to objections. Discussing anything with you is more or less impossible after a point, because you will just refuse to acknowledge facts and call people vile Jews and retarded.
and he'll call them gay too!

On Wednesday, 4 August 2021 at 14:36:17 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> In my latest video, I expose the ignorance of Zelos Malum. Tsk, tsk. Mainstream morons are beyond correction. There is no hope for you once you are indoctrinated with the art of handwaving in mathematics.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dL33J3zZlo
>
> If you search for "John Gabriel New Calculus", then invariably the 32 page debate between Anders Kaesorg and me is returned. This video is about that debate and the idiocy that persists in mainstream mathematics academia.
>
> There never was a valid systematic method of finding the derivative in mainstream calculus before I revealed the same. Kaesorg initially couldn't understand this and when he finally did, he tried to brush it aside with his silly arguments. In the short 2 minute video, I show you how feeble is Kaesorg's argument in 5 steps:
>
> i. Assumption of fact
> ii. Hypothesis
> iii. Probability
> iv. Suspicion
> v. Verification
>
> https://youtu.be/gX5Bt8BEdNM
>
> The fact of the matter is that your mainstream calculus was never rigorous. My historic geometric theorem of January 2020 gave you a chance to apologise for your stupidity and incompetence. It was I who solved the tangent line problem and produced the FIRST rigorous formulation (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO) in human history using nothing but the sound concepts of geometry, not the morons called Isaac Newton and Gottfired Leibniz.
>
> The geometric theorem is described here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> A link to the applet (because seeing is believing!):
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ON1GQ7b6UNpZSEEsbG14eAFCPv8p03pv
>
> How it fixes your broken definition of the definite integral but nowhere as near as elegant as the New Calculus definite integral:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
>
> There are no axioms or postulates in sound mathematics (Ancient Greek mathematics):
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vlU-PJeIk672bFwZyULD1ASTRFF3jXg8
>
> How a genius realises the concept of number (I am one!):
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
>
> Anders Kaesorg received a thorough thrashing from me, but did he learn anything? I doubt it!
>
> Link to the debate:
>
> http://web.mit.edu/andersk/Public/John-Gabriel.pdf
>
> Link to the sci.math discussion:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/4XuGLMwWCXI/m/lTPBOX1DBQAJ
>
> I made a claim about epsilon and delta being functions of one another. Here is the proof:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMDAtai1rcE9jV1E
>
> All the worthless "real analysis" theory is summarised by my geometric theorem for the mainstream limit in general:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t6Jeyx5sTrOEro4UjF0vQQ_hwY8G4YY_
>
> I gift you an applet to test the above theorem with ANY function you like! Download here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLcUdHdmFOdUxVd3M
>
> If you still think that I never understood the flawed mainstream calculus, then you have another think coming! I understand the bullshit of the hand waving art in the mainstream even better than they do! Epsilon-delta proofs are not required after my geometric theorem was discovered in January 2020. Calculus DOES NOT work because of the rot of limit theory. In fact, limits are not required at all to do ANY calculus, at least the applicable parts such as calculating surface areas, flow integrals, volumes, etc.
>
> Do not believe me, but prove that what I tell you is indeed the case.
>
> The spamming crank Dan Christensen will no doubt post his usual SPAM, so I counter his bullshit:
>
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Dan Christensen is a vicious spamming troll and has been at it the last 5 years!
>
> 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

As you can see people, all we have are argumentative fools and trolls. Nothing of substance from them.

måndag 30 augusti 2021 kl. 06:56:51 UTC+2 skrev zelos...@gmail.com:
> söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 22:46:33 UTC+2 skrev markus...@gmail.com:
> > söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 20:19:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Sunday, 29 August 2021 at 09:57:04 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 02:18:48 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Saturday, 28 August 2021 at 12:02:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > lördag 28 augusti 2021 kl. 14:54:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 21:10:47 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 23:07:13 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:01:56 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:31:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 05:27:20 UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > zelos...@gmail.com submitted this idea :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:51:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:00:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:18:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 21:50:46 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets check
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> holds an unshakable belief that most of their
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false. You got the wrong definition, so
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your definition might be necessary, but it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INSUFFICIENT. "Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence." The above definition is both necessary and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wind. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false." Incorrect, that is not at all
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too dumb to understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the face of overwhelming evidence. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You fit that definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to show this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second only to Euler's S = Lim S. even when you get it
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the real case to the complex case. You cannot transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand? You have to modify the definition of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you can have different definitions in different cases. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something very different.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So of course you can have different definitions in the real and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> complex case.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't because by definition:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> or size.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> something very different." It is really not that different. It is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> very different. And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> no such thing as a "real number".
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> matrices as well. No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> contain number entries.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is due to the reason that you are a baboon..
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> There are no other numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> But that wasn't my argument. You've never had any arguments. Everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> you write is drivel. Scatterbrain is your name. The argument was that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> matrices.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> You cannot. Whatever you think of "multiplication" is something else with
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> matrices or "other stuff" as you call it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> So when I'm multiplying matrices, it's not multiplication? Part of it is,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> but it's not just multiplication. When I compute the cross product, it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> not multiplication? When I multiply two sets (forming the Cartesian
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> product), is it not multiplication of two sets? Of course it is, it's just
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> not multiplication of rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Multiplication is very well defined:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Definition: The product (or multiplication) of two positive numbers is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> quotient of either positive number with the reciprocal of the other.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> The above can be extended easily to negative numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That is ONE multiplication, there are many more.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Here comes one now:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://textbooks.math.gatech.edu/ila/matrix-multiplication.html
> > > > > > > > > > > The above link **proves** that matrix multiplication is not the same thing as multiplying two numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Multiply 4 by 5:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > (1+2+1) x (2+2+1) = 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 + 2*2 + 2*2 + 2*1 + 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 = 2 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 20
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Multiply 1x3 matrix by 3x1 where 1x3 matrix = (1,2,1) and 3x1 matrix = (2,2,1):
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > (1, 2, 1) x (2, 2, 1) = (7)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > How is (7) the same as 20?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I am RIGHT and you are WRONG. You are simply too stupid to debate me.
> > > > > > > > > > I didn't say a the product of two matrices would be a scalar. I said both are multiplication operators.
> > > > > > > > > You are still wrong because multiplication of numbers results in a scalar.
> > > > > > > > Yes, but multiplication of matrices do not.
> > > > > > > Because it's not multiplication, but something else that is a misnomer.
> > > > > > It is multiplication, just not of scalars.
> > > > > No moron. It's not multiplication, because multiplication is defined geometrically for scalars and transferred to algebra ( a weaker form of geometry) through the abstract unit. I am convinced these things will be too advanced for your peanut brain.
> > > > Are you aware of the concept that words can mean different things? The word multiplication doesn't have a single definition, it depends on the objects you're multiplying. Exp and Log doesn't have single definitions either, it depends on what the arguments will be. WE have the real Exp And the complex Exp. It's perfectly value to define exp(A) for a matrix A.
> > > You're an idiot and this discussion is also over.
> > Sometimes I feel like you resort to this outrageous sort of behaviour when you simply don't want to respond to objections. Discussing anything with you is more or less impossible after a point, because you will just refuse to acknowledge facts and call people vile Jews and retarded.
> and he'll call them gay too!
"Gay" is probably the mildest insult of these.

On Monday, 30 August 2021 at 11:02:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 30 augusti 2021 kl. 06:56:51 UTC+2 skrev zelos...@gmail.com:
> > söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 22:46:33 UTC+2 skrev markus...@gmail.com:
> > > söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 20:19:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Sunday, 29 August 2021 at 09:57:04 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 02:18:48 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Saturday, 28 August 2021 at 12:02:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > lördag 28 augusti 2021 kl. 14:54:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 21:10:47 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 23:07:13 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:01:56 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:31:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 05:27:20 UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > zelos...@gmail.com submitted this idea :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:51:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:00:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:18:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 21:50:46 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl.. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> holds an unshakable belief that most of their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false. You got the wrong definition, so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your definition might be necessary, but it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INSUFFICIENT. "Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence." The above definition is both necessary and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wind. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false." Incorrect, that is not at all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too dumb to understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the face of overwhelming evidence. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You fit that definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to show this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second only to Euler's S = Lim S. even when you get it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the real case to the complex case. You cannot transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand? You have to modify the definition of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you can have different definitions in different cases. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something very different.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So of course you can have different definitions in the real and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> complex case.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't because by definition:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> or size.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> something very different." It is really not that different. It is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> very different. And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> no such thing as a "real number".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> matrices as well. No analogy whatsoever.. A number and a matrix are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> contain number entries.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> There are no other numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> But that wasn't my argument. You've never had any arguments. Everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> you write is drivel. Scatterbrain is your name. The argument was that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> matrices.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> You cannot. Whatever you think of "multiplication" is something else with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> matrices or "other stuff" as you call it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> So when I'm multiplying matrices, it's not multiplication? Part of it is,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> but it's not just multiplication. When I compute the cross product, it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> not multiplication? When I multiply two sets (forming the Cartesian
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> product), is it not multiplication of two sets? Of course it is, it's just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> not multiplication of rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Multiplication is very well defined:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Definition: The product (or multiplication) of two positive numbers is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> quotient of either positive number with the reciprocal of the other.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> The above can be extended easily to negative numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is ONE multiplication, there are many more..
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Here comes one now:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://textbooks.math.gatech.edu/ila/matrix-multiplication.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > The above link **proves** that matrix multiplication is not the same thing as multiplying two numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Multiply 4 by 5:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (1+2+1) x (2+2+1) = 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 + 2*2 + 2*2 + 2*1 + 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 = 2 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 20
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Multiply 1x3 matrix by 3x1 where 1x3 matrix = (1,2,1) and 3x1 matrix = (2,2,1):
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (1, 2, 1) x (2, 2, 1) = (7)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > How is (7) the same as 20?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I am RIGHT and you are WRONG. You are simply too stupid to debate me.
> > > > > > > > > > > I didn't say a the product of two matrices would be a scalar. I said both are multiplication operators.
> > > > > > > > > > You are still wrong because multiplication of numbers results in a scalar.
> > > > > > > > > Yes, but multiplication of matrices do not.
> > > > > > > > Because it's not multiplication, but something else that is a misnomer.
> > > > > > > It is multiplication, just not of scalars.
> > > > > > No moron. It's not multiplication, because multiplication is defined geometrically for scalars and transferred to algebra ( a weaker form of geometry) through the abstract unit. I am convinced these things will be too advanced for your peanut brain.
> > > > > Are you aware of the concept that words can mean different things? The word multiplication doesn't have a single definition, it depends on the objects you're multiplying. Exp and Log doesn't have single definitions either, it depends on what the arguments will be. WE have the real Exp And the complex Exp. It's perfectly value to define exp(A) for a matrix A.
> > > > You're an idiot and this discussion is also over.
> > > Sometimes I feel like you resort to this outrageous sort of behaviour when you simply don't want to respond to objections. Discussing anything with you is more or less impossible after a point, because you will just refuse to acknowledge facts and call people vile Jews and retarded.
> > and he'll call them gay too!
> "Gay" is probably the mildest insult of these.

tisdag 31 augusti 2021 kl. 00:00:28 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 30 August 2021 at 11:02:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > måndag 30 augusti 2021 kl. 06:56:51 UTC+2 skrev zelos...@gmail.com:
> > > söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 22:46:33 UTC+2 skrev markus...@gmail.com:
> > > > söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 20:19:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Sunday, 29 August 2021 at 09:57:04 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 02:18:48 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, 28 August 2021 at 12:02:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > lördag 28 augusti 2021 kl. 14:54:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 21:10:47 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 23:07:13 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:01:56 UTC-4, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:31:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 05:27:20 UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > zelos...@gmail.com submitted this idea :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:51:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:00:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:18:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 21:50:46 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl.. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> holds an unshakable belief that most of their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false. You got the wrong definition, so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your definition might be necessary, but it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INSUFFICIENT. "Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence." The above definition is both necessary and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wind. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false." Incorrect, that is not at all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too dumb to understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the face of overwhelming evidence. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You fit that definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to show this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second only to Euler's S = Lim S. even when you get it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the real case to the complex case. You cannot transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand? You have to modify the definition of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you can have different definitions in different cases. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something very different.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So of course you can have different definitions in the real and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> complex case.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't because by definition:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> or size.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> something very different." It is really not that different. It is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> very different. And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> no such thing as a "real number".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> matrices as well. No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> contain number entries.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> There are no other numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> But that wasn't my argument. You've never had any arguments. Everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> you write is drivel. Scatterbrain is your name. The argument was that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> matrices.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> You cannot. Whatever you think of "multiplication" is something else with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> matrices or "other stuff" as you call it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> So when I'm multiplying matrices, it's not multiplication? Part of it is,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> but it's not just multiplication. When I compute the cross product, it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> not multiplication? When I multiply two sets (forming the Cartesian
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> product), is it not multiplication of two sets? Of course it is, it's just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> not multiplication of rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Multiplication is very well defined:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Definition: The product (or multiplication) of two positive numbers is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> quotient of either positive number with the reciprocal of the other.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> The above can be extended easily to negative numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is ONE multiplication, there are many more.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here comes one now:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://textbooks.math.gatech.edu/ila/matrix-multiplication.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The above link **proves** that matrix multiplication is not the same thing as multiplying two numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Multiply 4 by 5:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (1+2+1) x (2+2+1) = 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 + 2*2 + 2*2 + 2*1 + 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 = 2 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 20
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Multiply 1x3 matrix by 3x1 where 1x3 matrix = (1,2,1) and 3x1 matrix = (2,2,1):
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (1, 2, 1) x (2, 2, 1) = (7)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > How is (7) the same as 20?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am RIGHT and you are WRONG. You are simply too stupid to debate me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't say a the product of two matrices would be a scalar. I said both are multiplication operators.
> > > > > > > > > > > You are still wrong because multiplication of numbers results in a scalar.
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, but multiplication of matrices do not.
> > > > > > > > > Because it's not multiplication, but something else that is a misnomer.
> > > > > > > > It is multiplication, just not of scalars.
> > > > > > > No moron. It's not multiplication, because multiplication is defined geometrically for scalars and transferred to algebra ( a weaker form of geometry) through the abstract unit. I am convinced these things will be too advanced for your peanut brain.
> > > > > > Are you aware of the concept that words can mean different things? The word multiplication doesn't have a single definition, it depends on the objects you're multiplying. Exp and Log doesn't have single definitions either, it depends on what the arguments will be. WE have the real Exp And the complex Exp. It's perfectly value to define exp(A) for a matrix A.
> > > > > You're an idiot and this discussion is also over.
> > > > Sometimes I feel like you resort to this outrageous sort of behaviour when you simply don't want to respond to objections. Discussing anything with you is more or less impossible after a point, because you will just refuse to acknowledge facts and call people vile Jews and retarded.
> > > and he'll call them gay too!
> > "Gay" is probably the mildest insult of these.
> Gay is not an insult at all. One can't help being born this way and I have nothing against gays.
>
> I call Zelos Malum gay because I know it offends him since he is not gay. LMAO.
>
> Your displeasure is my smile. Anything to piss and shit on ALL of you cunts. You are nothing but vile dogs.

On Tuesday, 31 August 2021 at 00:57:19 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 31 augusti 2021 kl. 00:00:28 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Monday, 30 August 2021 at 11:02:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > måndag 30 augusti 2021 kl. 06:56:51 UTC+2 skrev zelos...@gmail.com:
> > > > söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 22:46:33 UTC+2 skrev markus...@gmail.com:
> > > > > söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 20:19:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Sunday, 29 August 2021 at 09:57:04 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 02:18:48 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, 28 August 2021 at 12:02:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > lördag 28 augusti 2021 kl. 14:54:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 21:10:47 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 23:07:13 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:01:56 UTC-4, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:31:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 05:27:20 UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > zelos...@gmail.com submitted this idea :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:51:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:00:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:18:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 21:50:46 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> holds an unshakable belief that most of their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false. You got the wrong definition, so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your definition might be necessary, but it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INSUFFICIENT. "Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence." The above definition is both necessary and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wind. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false." Incorrect, that is not at all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too dumb to understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the face of overwhelming evidence. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You fit that definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to show this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second only to Euler's S = Lim S. even when you get it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the real case to the complex case. You cannot transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand? You have to modify the definition of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you can have different definitions in different cases. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something very different.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So of course you can have different definitions in the real and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> complex case.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't because by definition:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> or size.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> something very different." It is really not that different. It is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> very different. And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> no such thing as a "real number".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> matrices as well. No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> contain number entries.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> There are no other numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> But that wasn't my argument. You've never had any arguments. Everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> you write is drivel. Scatterbrain is your name. The argument was that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> matrices.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> You cannot. Whatever you think of "multiplication" is something else with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> matrices or "other stuff" as you call it..
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> So when I'm multiplying matrices, it's not multiplication? Part of it is,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> but it's not just multiplication. When I compute the cross product, it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> not multiplication? When I multiply two sets (forming the Cartesian
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> product), is it not multiplication of two sets? Of course it is, it's just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> not multiplication of rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Multiplication is very well defined:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Definition: The product (or multiplication) of two positive numbers is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> quotient of either positive number with the reciprocal of the other.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> The above can be extended easily to negative numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is ONE multiplication, there are many more.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here comes one now:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://textbooks.math.gatech.edu/ila/matrix-multiplication.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above link **proves** that matrix multiplication is not the same thing as multiplying two numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Multiply 4 by 5:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (1+2+1) x (2+2+1) = 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 + 2*2 + 2*2 + 2*1 + 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 = 2 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Multiply 1x3 matrix by 3x1 where 1x3 matrix = (1,2,1) and 3x1 matrix = (2,2,1):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (1, 2, 1) x (2, 2, 1) = (7)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is (7) the same as 20?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am RIGHT and you are WRONG. You are simply too stupid to debate me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't say a the product of two matrices would be a scalar. I said both are multiplication operators.
> > > > > > > > > > > > You are still wrong because multiplication of numbers results in a scalar.
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but multiplication of matrices do not.
> > > > > > > > > > Because it's not multiplication, but something else that is a misnomer.
> > > > > > > > > It is multiplication, just not of scalars.
> > > > > > > > No moron. It's not multiplication, because multiplication is defined geometrically for scalars and transferred to algebra ( a weaker form of geometry) through the abstract unit. I am convinced these things will be too advanced for your peanut brain.
> > > > > > > Are you aware of the concept that words can mean different things? The word multiplication doesn't have a single definition, it depends on the objects you're multiplying. Exp and Log doesn't have single definitions either, it depends on what the arguments will be. WE have the real Exp And the complex Exp. It's perfectly value to define exp(A) for a matrix A.
> > > > > > You're an idiot and this discussion is also over.
> > > > > Sometimes I feel like you resort to this outrageous sort of behaviour when you simply don't want to respond to objections. Discussing anything with you is more or less impossible after a point, because you will just refuse to acknowledge facts and call people vile Jews and retarded.
> > > > and he'll call them gay too!
> > > "Gay" is probably the mildest insult of these.
> > Gay is not an insult at all. One can't help being born this way and I have nothing against gays.
> >
> > I call Zelos Malum gay because I know it offends him since he is not gay. LMAO.
> >
> > Your displeasure is my smile. Anything to piss and shit on ALL of you cunts. You are nothing but vile dogs.

tisdag 31 augusti 2021 kl. 13:57:11 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 31 August 2021 at 00:57:19 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > tisdag 31 augusti 2021 kl. 00:00:28 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Monday, 30 August 2021 at 11:02:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > måndag 30 augusti 2021 kl. 06:56:51 UTC+2 skrev zelos...@gmail..com:
> > > > > söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 22:46:33 UTC+2 skrev markus...@gmail.com:
> > > > > > söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 20:19:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, 29 August 2021 at 09:57:04 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 02:18:48 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 28 August 2021 at 12:02:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > lördag 28 augusti 2021 kl. 14:54:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 21:10:47 UTC-4, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 23:07:13 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:01:56 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:31:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 05:27:20 UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > zelos...@gmail.com submitted this idea :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:51:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:00:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:18:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 21:50:46 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:49:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 17:14:30 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:20:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:56:53 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 12:03:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> söndag 15 augusti 2021 kl. 17:50:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 17:12:03 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:24:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:52:01 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:52:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 11:49:16 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl.. 17:45:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 00:56:32 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:22:29 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 04:56:52 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onsdag 11 augusti 2021 kl. 14:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 01:14:48 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tisdag 10 augusti 2021 kl. 12:49:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> holds an unshakable belief that most of their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bingo! That is YOU!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false. You got the wrong definition, so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter is usually your practice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your definition might be necessary, but it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INSUFFICIENT. "Crank is a term used for a person who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence." The above definition is both necessary and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wind. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to be false." Incorrect, that is not at all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you say ain't in it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too dumb to understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the face of overwhelming evidence. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You fit that definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to show this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second only to Euler's S = Lim S. even when you get it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the real case to the complex case. You cannot transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand? You have to modify the definition of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-formed definition they never requires modification.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you can have different definitions in different cases. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about rational numbers or matrices.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something very different.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> algebra via the abstract unit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So of course you can have different definitions in the real and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> complex case.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't because by definition:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> or size.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> something very different." It is really not that different. It is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> very different. And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> no such thing as a "real number"..
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> matrices as well. No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> contain number entries.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is due to the reason that you are a baboon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> "No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> There are no other numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> But that wasn't my argument. You've never had any arguments. Everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> you write is drivel. Scatterbrain is your name. The argument was that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> matrices.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> You cannot. Whatever you think of "multiplication" is something else with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> matrices or "other stuff" as you call it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> So when I'm multiplying matrices, it's not multiplication? Part of it is,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> but it's not just multiplication. When I compute the cross product, it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> not multiplication? When I multiply two sets (forming the Cartesian
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> product), is it not multiplication of two sets? Of course it is, it's just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> not multiplication of rational numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Multiplication is very well defined:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Definition: The product (or multiplication) of two positive numbers is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> quotient of either positive number with the reciprocal of the other.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> The above can be extended easily to negative numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is ONE multiplication, there are many more.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here comes one now:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://textbooks.math.gatech.edu/ila/matrix-multiplication.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above link **proves** that matrix multiplication is not the same thing as multiplying two numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Multiply 4 by 5:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (1+2+1) x (2+2+1) = 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 + 2*2 + 2*2 + 2*1 + 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 = 2 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Multiply 1x3 matrix by 3x1 where 1x3 matrix = (1,2,1) and 3x1 matrix = (2,2,1):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (1, 2, 1) x (2, 2, 1) = (7)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is (7) the same as 20?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am RIGHT and you are WRONG. You are simply too stupid to debate me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't say a the product of two matrices would be a scalar. I said both are multiplication operators.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You are still wrong because multiplication of numbers results in a scalar.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but multiplication of matrices do not.
> > > > > > > > > > > Because it's not multiplication, but something else that is a misnomer.
> > > > > > > > > > It is multiplication, just not of scalars.
> > > > > > > > > No moron. It's not multiplication, because multiplication is defined geometrically for scalars and transferred to algebra ( a weaker form of geometry) through the abstract unit. I am convinced these things will be too advanced for your peanut brain.
> > > > > > > > Are you aware of the concept that words can mean different things? The word multiplication doesn't have a single definition, it depends on the objects you're multiplying. Exp and Log doesn't have single definitions either, it depends on what the arguments will be. WE have the real Exp And the complex Exp. It's perfectly value to define exp(A) for a matrix A..
> > > > > > > You're an idiot and this discussion is also over.
> > > > > > Sometimes I feel like you resort to this outrageous sort of behaviour when you simply don't want to respond to objections. Discussing anything with you is more or less impossible after a point, because you will just refuse to acknowledge facts and call people vile Jews and retarded.
> > > > > and he'll call them gay too!
> > > > "Gay" is probably the mildest insult of these.
> > > Gay is not an insult at all. One can't help being born this way and I have nothing against gays.
> > >
> > > I call Zelos Malum gay because I know it offends him since he is not gay. LMAO.
> > >
> > > Your displeasure is my smile. Anything to piss and shit on ALL of you cunts. You are nothing but vile dogs.
>
> > Yet you claim it as if it was something bad and is of any relevance.
> Mental midgets like you cannot comprehend the mind of a genius. I was doing it on purpose for one reason only: to annoy YOU! LMAO.
>
> You're one very dumb, annoying, lying bastard!

On Wednesday, 4 August 2021 at 14:36:17 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> In my latest video, I expose the ignorance of Zelos Malum. Tsk, tsk. Mainstream morons are beyond correction. There is no hope for you once you are indoctrinated with the art of handwaving in mathematics.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dL33J3zZlo
>
> If you search for "John Gabriel New Calculus", then invariably the 32 page debate between Anders Kaesorg and me is returned. This video is about that debate and the idiocy that persists in mainstream mathematics academia.
>
> There never was a valid systematic method of finding the derivative in mainstream calculus before I revealed the same. Kaesorg initially couldn't understand this and when he finally did, he tried to brush it aside with his silly arguments. In the short 2 minute video, I show you how feeble is Kaesorg's argument in 5 steps:
>
> i. Assumption of fact
> ii. Hypothesis
> iii. Probability
> iv. Suspicion
> v. Verification
>
> https://youtu.be/gX5Bt8BEdNM
>
> The fact of the matter is that your mainstream calculus was never rigorous. My historic geometric theorem of January 2020 gave you a chance to apologise for your stupidity and incompetence. It was I who solved the tangent line problem and produced the FIRST rigorous formulation (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO) in human history using nothing but the sound concepts of geometry, not the morons called Isaac Newton and Gottfired Leibniz.
>
> The geometric theorem is described here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> A link to the applet (because seeing is believing!):
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ON1GQ7b6UNpZSEEsbG14eAFCPv8p03pv
>
> How it fixes your broken definition of the definite integral but nowhere as near as elegant as the New Calculus definite integral:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
>
> There are no axioms or postulates in sound mathematics (Ancient Greek mathematics):
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vlU-PJeIk672bFwZyULD1ASTRFF3jXg8
>
> How a genius realises the concept of number (I am one!):
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
>
> Anders Kaesorg received a thorough thrashing from me, but did he learn anything? I doubt it!
>
> Link to the debate:
>
> http://web.mit.edu/andersk/Public/John-Gabriel.pdf
>
> Link to the sci.math discussion:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/4XuGLMwWCXI/m/lTPBOX1DBQAJ
>
> I made a claim about epsilon and delta being functions of one another. Here is the proof:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMDAtai1rcE9jV1E
>
> All the worthless "real analysis" theory is summarised by my geometric theorem for the mainstream limit in general:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t6Jeyx5sTrOEro4UjF0vQQ_hwY8G4YY_
>
> I gift you an applet to test the above theorem with ANY function you like! Download here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLcUdHdmFOdUxVd3M
>
> If you still think that I never understood the flawed mainstream calculus, then you have another think coming! I understand the bullshit of the hand waving art in the mainstream even better than they do! Epsilon-delta proofs are not required after my geometric theorem was discovered in January 2020. Calculus DOES NOT work because of the rot of limit theory. In fact, limits are not required at all to do ANY calculus, at least the applicable parts such as calculating surface areas, flow integrals, volumes, etc.
>
> Do not believe me, but prove that what I tell you is indeed the case.
>
> The spamming crank Dan Christensen will no doubt post his usual SPAM, so I counter his bullshit:
>
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Dan Christensen is a vicious spamming troll and has been at it the last 5 years!
>
> 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

Essentially what the Baboons of mainstream academia will have you believe is that:

t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = Lim (h->0)[f(c+h)-f(c)]/h = f'(c) + Q(c,h) and is possible ONLY if Q(c,h)=0, but this happens only in the case of the straight line t(x). It NEVER happens with the finite difference quotients. The mainstream want you to believe that there is some finite difference ratio hovering at infinity which produces f'(c):

t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_1)-f(c)]/h_1 ; [f(c+h_2)-f(c)]/h_2 ; [f(c+h_3)-f(c)]/h_3 ; ... ; [f(c+h_3n-f(c)]/h_n ...; [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo

t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo ?! What?!!! There is no such finite difference. It does not exist! But Baboon mathematics of the mainstream insists there is a limit!

Can you imagine how embarrassed Newton and Leibniz would be at these idiots today?! They knew that they could not solve the tangent line problem - this had to wait for the great John Gabriel. It is I who revealed to the entire world that:

On Wednesday, 4 August 2021 at 14:36:17 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> In my latest video, I expose the ignorance of Zelos Malum. Tsk, tsk. Mainstream morons are beyond correction. There is no hope for you once you are indoctrinated with the art of handwaving in mathematics.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dL33J3zZlo
>
> If you search for "John Gabriel New Calculus", then invariably the 32 page debate between Anders Kaesorg and me is returned. This video is about that debate and the idiocy that persists in mainstream mathematics academia.
>
> There never was a valid systematic method of finding the derivative in mainstream calculus before I revealed the same. Kaesorg initially couldn't understand this and when he finally did, he tried to brush it aside with his silly arguments. In the short 2 minute video, I show you how feeble is Kaesorg's argument in 5 steps:
>
> i. Assumption of fact
> ii. Hypothesis
> iii. Probability
> iv. Suspicion
> v. Verification
>
> https://youtu.be/gX5Bt8BEdNM
>
> The fact of the matter is that your mainstream calculus was never rigorous. My historic geometric theorem of January 2020 gave you a chance to apologise for your stupidity and incompetence. It was I who solved the tangent line problem and produced the FIRST rigorous formulation (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO) in human history using nothing but the sound concepts of geometry, not the morons called Isaac Newton and Gottfired Leibniz.
>
> The geometric theorem is described here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> A link to the applet (because seeing is believing!):
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ON1GQ7b6UNpZSEEsbG14eAFCPv8p03pv
>
> How it fixes your broken definition of the definite integral but nowhere as near as elegant as the New Calculus definite integral:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
>
> There are no axioms or postulates in sound mathematics (Ancient Greek mathematics):
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vlU-PJeIk672bFwZyULD1ASTRFF3jXg8
>
> How a genius realises the concept of number (I am one!):
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
>
> Anders Kaesorg received a thorough thrashing from me, but did he learn anything? I doubt it!
>
> Link to the debate:
>
> http://web.mit.edu/andersk/Public/John-Gabriel.pdf
>
> Link to the sci.math discussion:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/4XuGLMwWCXI/m/lTPBOX1DBQAJ
>
> I made a claim about epsilon and delta being functions of one another. Here is the proof:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMDAtai1rcE9jV1E
>
> All the worthless "real analysis" theory is summarised by my geometric theorem for the mainstream limit in general:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t6Jeyx5sTrOEro4UjF0vQQ_hwY8G4YY_
>
> I gift you an applet to test the above theorem with ANY function you like! Download here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLcUdHdmFOdUxVd3M
>
> If you still think that I never understood the flawed mainstream calculus, then you have another think coming! I understand the bullshit of the hand waving art in the mainstream even better than they do! Epsilon-delta proofs are not required after my geometric theorem was discovered in January 2020. Calculus DOES NOT work because of the rot of limit theory. In fact, limits are not required at all to do ANY calculus, at least the applicable parts such as calculating surface areas, flow integrals, volumes, etc.
>
> Do not believe me, but prove that what I tell you is indeed the case.
>
> The spamming crank Dan Christensen will no doubt post his usual SPAM, so I counter his bullshit:
>
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Dan Christensen is a vicious spamming troll and has been at it the last 5 years!
>
> 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

Essentially what the Baboons of mainstream academia will have you believe is that:

t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = Lim (h->0)[f(c+h)-f(c)]/h = f'(c) + Q(c,h) and is possible ONLY if Q(c,h)=0, but this happens only in the case of the straight line t(x). It NEVER happens with the finite difference quotients. The mainstream want you to believe that there is some finite difference ratio hovering at infinity which produces f'(c):

t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_1)-f(c)]/h_1 ; [f(c+h_2)-f(c)]/h_2 ; [f(c+h_3)-f(c)]/h_3 ; ... ; [f(c+h_3n-f(c)]/h_n ...; [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo

t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo ?! What?!!! There is no such finite difference. It does not exist! But Baboon mathematics of the mainstream insists there is a limit!

Can you imagine how embarrassed Newton and Leibniz would be at these idiots today?! They knew that they could not solve the tangent line problem - this had to wait for the great John Gabriel. It is I who revealed to the entire world that: