On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 22:06:28 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 8/20/2021 3:55 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 17:29:58 UTC-4, Darius Blackcloud wrote:
> >> Hello all. I have been following some of the threads on this group for some time now, and have decided that I want to issue an open challenge to the "Greatest Mathematician of All Time." Surely in his years of education and debate with mainstream academia, he should be able to answer two questions I have. Two very simple ones, mind you. But first, some background.
> >>
> >> John Gabriel adheres to some form of mathematical platonism. That is, he believes there exist concepts outside of thinking minds, and some of these concepts are mathematical objects that we formalize into a system of mathematics. He can correct me if I am wrong. The details are not relevant. My first challenge to John Gabriel is a formal proof of the existence of mind independent concepts. I have yet to encounter such a proof, seeing as I am still a physicalist. If John fails to prove the existence of mind independent concepts, his platonist view collapses, as well as the notion of "well formed concepts" and "perfect platonic form."
> >>
> >> My second challenge regards the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra. Per the FTA, any polynomial equation has the number of roots that is equal to the highest power of the equation. So the equation x^2 - 1 = 0 has two roots, +1 and -1. My challenge to John is to tell me how many roots the equation x^2 + 9 = 0 have. If he adheres to the FTA, he must answer to. Which begins my next challenge: what are they? He rejects the existence of complex numbers. If he didn't, the solutions would be 3i and -3i. But since he doesn't, what does he believe the roots are?
> >>
> >> That will be all for today. It is open to all those who wish to respond.
> >>
> >> tl;dr - a challenge to John Gabriel to prove the existence of mind independent concepts and to find the roots of x^2 + 9 = 0
> >
> > 1. Proof that noumena are perfect concepts independent of the human mind is very easy. It's done by rational thinking.
> >
> > The constant pi would be the same no matter who tries to measure a circle's periphery using its diameter as unit of measure.
> >
> > 2. x^2 + 9 = 0
> >
> > Has no roots or zeroes or solution. In order to have roots, by definition, the curve must meet the x-axis. x^2 + 9 lies entirely above the x-axis, therefore it has no roots.
> >
> > A root is a point of intersection with the x-axis.
> >
> What about the two roots I found wrt:
> x^2 + 9 = 0
> x^2 = -9

You did not find any roots. 3i and -3i are not numbers.

>
> The first solution is the sqrt of -9. The second one can be obtained by
> negating the first solution so, -sqrt(-9).
>
> Therefore, the two roots are:
>
> (0+3i)^2 + 9 = 0
> (0-3i)^2 + 9 = 0
>
> Did I miss something?

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

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 9:12:34 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:
> On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 22:06:28 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> > What about the two roots I found wrt:
> > x^2 + 9 = 0
> > x^2 = -9

> You did not find any roots. 3i and -3i are not numbers.

Well, you failed that test, Troll Boy. Not surprising since you cannot even prove 2+2=4 in your goofy little system. When will you learn?

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

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

Even at his advanced age (60+?), John Gabriel is STILL struggling with basic, elementary-school arithmetic. As he has repeatedly posted here:

"There are no points on a line."
--April 12, 2021

"Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
--July 10, 2020

"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017

“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015

"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
--October 28, 2017

"Zero is not a number."
-- Dec. 2, 2019

"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017

“There is no such thing as an empty set.”
--Oct. 4, 2019

“3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
--Oct. 22, 2019

No math genius our JG, though he actually lists his job title as “mathematician” at Linkedin.com. Apparently, they do not verify your credentials.

Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated March 10, 2020) at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ

Dan

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

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

On 8/21/2021 6:11 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 21:56:35 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 8/20/2021 3:56 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>> On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 15:40:08 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 8/18/2021 4:00 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>> On 8/18/2021 2:29 PM, Darius Blackcloud wrote:
>>>>>> Hello all. I have been following some of the threads on this group for
>>>>>> some time now, and have decided that I want to issue an open challenge
>>>>>> to the "Greatest Mathematician of All Time." Surely in his years of
>>>>>> education and debate with mainstream academia, he should be able to
>>>>>> answer two questions I have. Two very simple ones, mind you. But
>>>>>> first, some background.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John Gabriel adheres to some form of mathematical platonism. That is,
>>>>>> he believes there exist concepts outside of thinking minds, and some
>>>>>> of these concepts are mathematical objects that we formalize into a
>>>>>> system of mathematics. He can correct me if I am wrong. The details
>>>>>> are not relevant. My first challenge to John Gabriel is a formal proof
>>>>>> of the existence of mind independent concepts. I have yet to encounter
>>>>>> such a proof, seeing as I am still a physicalist. If John fails to
>>>>>> prove the existence of mind independent concepts, his platonist view
>>>>>> collapses, as well as the notion of "well formed concepts" and
>>>>>> "perfect platonic form."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My second challenge regards the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra. Per
>>>>>> the FTA, any polynomial equation has the number of roots that is equal
>>>>>> to the highest power of the equation. So the equation x^2 - 1 = 0 has
>>>>>> two roots, +1 and -1. My challenge to John is to tell me how many
>>>>>> roots the equation x^2 + 9 = 0 have. If he adheres to the FTA, he must
>>>>>> answer to. Which begins my next challenge: what are they? He rejects
>>>>>> the existence of complex numbers. If he didn't, the solutions would be
>>>>>> 3i and -3i. But since he doesn't, what does he believe the roots are?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That will be all for today. It is open to all those who wish to respond.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tl;dr - a challenge to John Gabriel to prove the existence of mind
>>>>>> independent concepts and to find the roots of x^2 + 9 = 0
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He does not seem to know right from left.
>>>> He had mirroring turned on, and I failed to see that. Sorry.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. There is no setting on my software that turns mirroring on or off.
>>>
>>> You failed in every respect because you do not understand how cameras or mirrors work. All these things were explained to you.
>>>
>> On your video here:
>>
>> You had mirroring turned on because the patch is over your right eye,
>> you point at it... And say its on your right eye. The pointing and patch
>> are over the right hand side of the rendered scene:
>>
>> https://youtu.be/zxfUn_iAM7U
>>
>> So, setting or not, it is mirroring you.
>
> That's what I told you. Now would you shut up about this already!!! FFS.
>

Okay.

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

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 4:20:15 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote...

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

Nothing "invalid" about it, Troll Boy.

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

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

> Half-truth.

Nope. Completely false.

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

<yawn!>

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

> True.

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

[snip]

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

> True.

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

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

[snip]

> > Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated March 10, 2020) at

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ

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

Dan

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

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

> "There are no points on a line."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_ / _ _
_ _ / _ _ _ _

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

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

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

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

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

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

The true story of how we got numbers:

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

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

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

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

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

> "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”

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

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

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

> "Zero is not a number."

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w

https://youtu.be/1CcSsOG0okg

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

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

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

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

The theorem:

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

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

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

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

Download for free the most important mathematics book ever written:

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

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

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 7:50:14 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote...

> Anonymous coward...

Troll Boy here seems to be at a loss for words. He can only mindlessly repeat word-for-word his already failed arguments. What a moron!

Dan

On 8/21/2021 6:12 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 22:06:28 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 8/20/2021 3:55 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 17:29:58 UTC-4, Darius Blackcloud wrote:
>>>> Hello all. I have been following some of the threads on this group for some time now, and have decided that I want to issue an open challenge to the "Greatest Mathematician of All Time." Surely in his years of education and debate with mainstream academia, he should be able to answer two questions I have. Two very simple ones, mind you. But first, some background.
>>>>
>>>> John Gabriel adheres to some form of mathematical platonism. That is, he believes there exist concepts outside of thinking minds, and some of these concepts are mathematical objects that we formalize into a system of mathematics. He can correct me if I am wrong. The details are not relevant. My first challenge to John Gabriel is a formal proof of the existence of mind independent concepts. I have yet to encounter such a proof, seeing as I am still a physicalist. If John fails to prove the existence of mind independent concepts, his platonist view collapses, as well as the notion of "well formed concepts" and "perfect platonic form."
>>>>
>>>> My second challenge regards the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra. Per the FTA, any polynomial equation has the number of roots that is equal to the highest power of the equation. So the equation x^2 - 1 = 0 has two roots, +1 and -1. My challenge to John is to tell me how many roots the equation x^2 + 9 = 0 have. If he adheres to the FTA, he must answer to. Which begins my next challenge: what are they? He rejects the existence of complex numbers. If he didn't, the solutions would be 3i and -3i. But since he doesn't, what does he believe the roots are?
>>>>
>>>> That will be all for today. It is open to all those who wish to respond.
>>>>
>>>> tl;dr - a challenge to John Gabriel to prove the existence of mind independent concepts and to find the roots of x^2 + 9 = 0
>>>
>>> 1. Proof that noumena are perfect concepts independent of the human mind is very easy. It's done by rational thinking.
>>>
>>> The constant pi would be the same no matter who tries to measure a circle's periphery using its diameter as unit of measure.
>>>
>>> 2. x^2 + 9 = 0
>>>
>>> Has no roots or zeroes or solution. In order to have roots, by definition, the curve must meet the x-axis. x^2 + 9 lies entirely above the x-axis, therefore it has no roots.
>>>
>>> A root is a point of intersection with the x-axis.
>>>
>> What about the two roots I found wrt:
>> x^2 + 9 = 0
>> x^2 = -9
>
> You did not find any roots. 3i and -3i are not numbers.

They are complex numbers. Did you ever learn about them?

>
>>
>> The first solution is the sqrt of -9. The second one can be obtained by
>> negating the first solution so, -sqrt(-9).
>>
>> Therefore, the two roots are:
>>
>> (0+3i)^2 + 9 = 0
>> (0-3i)^2 + 9 = 0
>>
>> Did I miss something?