On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 5:25:17 PM UTC-4, konyberg wrote:
> fredag 27. august 2021 kl. 23:15:38 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:04:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:10:52 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:07:10 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:33:30 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 19:24:59 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:57:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 21:56:56 UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What about dividing by 1?
> > > > > > > > Same thing.
> > > > > > > > > So you agree it's not defined whenever k=x.
> > > > > > > > No. It's defined in irreducible form which is all that matters.
> > > > > > > How do you define division by zero then?
> > > > > > You can't. Zero is NOT a number.
> > > > > So you can't write a/(k-x) when k-x=0, because then you would have a/0.
> > > > You can write a/(k-x) because (k-x) cannot be 0. We're talking about (k-x)/(k-x) whose value cannot ever be 0/0.
> > > k-x can surely be 0. It happens exactly when x=k.
> > No, it can't be 0 if a/(k-x) is to be considered meaningful in any way.

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

Rubbish. h can never be 0 and does not have to for the identity to be true, so you're talking nonsense.

> Good you admit that!

Made no such admission. Have you gone mad?

> KON

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

On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 21:12:48 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 23:15:38 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:04:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:10:52 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:07:10 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:33:30 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 19:24:59 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:57:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 21:56:56 UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What about dividing by 1?
> > > > > > > > Same thing.
> > > > > > > > > So you agree it's not defined whenever k=x.
> > > > > > > > No. It's defined in irreducible form which is all that matters.
> > > > > > > How do you define division by zero then?
> > > > > > You can't. Zero is NOT a number.
> > > > > So you can't write a/(k-x) when k-x=0, because then you would have a/0.
> > > > You can write a/(k-x) because (k-x) cannot be 0. We're talking about (k-x)/(k-x) whose value cannot ever be 0/0.
> > > k-x can surely be 0. It happens exactly when x=k.
> > No, it can't be 0 if a/(k-x) is to be considered meaningful in any way.
> k=x surely implies k-x=0, no?

It sure does! Your point? Hm. I see you don't have a point. Sigh.

lördag 28 augusti 2021 kl. 14:53:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 21:12:48 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 23:15:38 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:04:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:10:52 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:07:10 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:33:30 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 19:24:59 UTC-4, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > > > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:57:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 21:56:56 UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What about dividing by 1?
> > > > > > > > > Same thing.
> > > > > > > > > > So you agree it's not defined whenever k=x.
> > > > > > > > > No. It's defined in irreducible form which is all that matters.
> > > > > > > > How do you define division by zero then?
> > > > > > > You can't. Zero is NOT a number.
> > > > > > So you can't write a/(k-x) when k-x=0, because then you would have a/0.
> > > > > You can write a/(k-x) because (k-x) cannot be 0. We're talking about (k-x)/(k-x) whose value cannot ever be 0/0.
> > > > k-x can surely be 0. It happens exactly when x=k.
> > > No, it can't be 0 if a/(k-x) is to be considered meaningful in any way.
> > k=x surely implies k-x=0, no?
> It sure does! Your point? Hm. I see you don't have a point. Sigh.
Dividing by k-x is fine as long as x is not k.

On Saturday, 28 August 2021 at 12:03:31 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> lördag 28 augusti 2021 kl. 14:53:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 21:12:48 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 23:15:38 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:04:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:10:52 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:07:10 UTC-4, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:33:30 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 19:24:59 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:57:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 21:56:56 UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What about dividing by 1?
> > > > > > > > > > Same thing.
> > > > > > > > > > > So you agree it's not defined whenever k=x.
> > > > > > > > > > No. It's defined in irreducible form which is all that matters.
> > > > > > > > > How do you define division by zero then?
> > > > > > > > You can't. Zero is NOT a number.
> > > > > > > So you can't write a/(k-x) when k-x=0, because then you would have a/0.
> > > > > > You can write a/(k-x) because (k-x) cannot be 0. We're talking about (k-x)/(k-x) whose value cannot ever be 0/0.
> > > > > k-x can surely be 0. It happens exactly when x=k.
> > > > No, it can't be 0 if a/(k-x) is to be considered meaningful in any way.
> > > k=x surely implies k-x=0, no?
> > It sure does! Your point? Hm. I see you don't have a point. Sigh.
> Dividing by k-x is fine as long as x is not k.

Of course, because 0 is not a number and division is only defined geometrically for numbers. Again, these details are too advanced for idiots like you..

söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 02:20:13 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Saturday, 28 August 2021 at 12:03:31 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > lördag 28 augusti 2021 kl. 14:53:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 21:12:48 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 23:15:38 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:04:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:10:52 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:07:10 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:33:30 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 19:24:59 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:57:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 21:56:56 UTC-4, mitchr....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > What about dividing by 1?
> > > > > > > > > > > Same thing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > So you agree it's not defined whenever k=x.
> > > > > > > > > > > No. It's defined in irreducible form which is all that matters.
> > > > > > > > > > How do you define division by zero then?
> > > > > > > > > You can't. Zero is NOT a number.
> > > > > > > > So you can't write a/(k-x) when k-x=0, because then you would have a/0.
> > > > > > > You can write a/(k-x) because (k-x) cannot be 0. We're talking about (k-x)/(k-x) whose value cannot ever be 0/0.
> > > > > > k-x can surely be 0. It happens exactly when x=k.
> > > > > No, it can't be 0 if a/(k-x) is to be considered meaningful in any way.
> > > > k=x surely implies k-x=0, no?
> > > It sure does! Your point? Hm. I see you don't have a point. Sigh.
> > Dividing by k-x is fine as long as x is not k.
> Of course, because 0 is not a number and division is only defined geometrically for numbers. Again, these details are too advanced for idiots like you.
Hence (x-k)/(x-k) is not defined for x=k and 1 everywhere else.

On Sunday, 29 August 2021 at 09:57:44 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 02:20:13 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Saturday, 28 August 2021 at 12:03:31 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > lördag 28 augusti 2021 kl. 14:53:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 21:12:48 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 23:15:38 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:04:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:10:52 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:07:10 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:33:30 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 19:24:59 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:57:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 21:56:56 UTC-4, mitchr....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What about dividing by 1?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Same thing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So you agree it's not defined whenever k=x.
> > > > > > > > > > > > No. It's defined in irreducible form which is all that matters.
> > > > > > > > > > > How do you define division by zero then?
> > > > > > > > > > You can't. Zero is NOT a number.
> > > > > > > > > So you can't write a/(k-x) when k-x=0, because then you would have a/0.
> > > > > > > > You can write a/(k-x) because (k-x) cannot be 0. We're talking about (k-x)/(k-x) whose value cannot ever be 0/0.
> > > > > > > k-x can surely be 0. It happens exactly when x=k.
> > > > > > No, it can't be 0 if a/(k-x) is to be considered meaningful in any way.
> > > > > k=x surely implies k-x=0, no?
> > > > It sure does! Your point? Hm. I see you don't have a point. Sigh.
> > > Dividing by k-x is fine as long as x is not k.
> > Of course, because 0 is not a number and division is only defined geometrically for numbers. Again, these details are too advanced for idiots like you.
> Hence (x-k)/(x-k) is not defined for x=k and 1 everywhere else.

Hence (x-k)/(x-k) = 1 by definition and it cannot be perceived in any other way in terms of cancellation of factors.

Discussion is over.

söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 20:19:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Sunday, 29 August 2021 at 09:57:44 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > söndag 29 augusti 2021 kl. 02:20:13 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Saturday, 28 August 2021 at 12:03:31 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > lördag 28 augusti 2021 kl. 14:53:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 21:12:48 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 23:15:38 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:04:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:10:52 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:07:10 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 06:33:30 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 19:24:59 UTC-4, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:57:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 21:56:56 UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What about dividing by 1?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Same thing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you agree it's not defined whenever k=x.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > No. It's defined in irreducible form which is all that matters.
> > > > > > > > > > > > How do you define division by zero then?
> > > > > > > > > > > You can't. Zero is NOT a number.
> > > > > > > > > > So you can't write a/(k-x) when k-x=0, because then you would have a/0.
> > > > > > > > > You can write a/(k-x) because (k-x) cannot be 0. We're talking about (k-x)/(k-x) whose value cannot ever be 0/0.
> > > > > > > > k-x can surely be 0. It happens exactly when x=k.
> > > > > > > No, it can't be 0 if a/(k-x) is to be considered meaningful in any way.
> > > > > > k=x surely implies k-x=0, no?
> > > > > It sure does! Your point? Hm. I see you don't have a point. Sigh.
> > > > Dividing by k-x is fine as long as x is not k.
> > > Of course, because 0 is not a number and division is only defined geometrically for numbers. Again, these details are too advanced for idiots like you.
> > Hence (x-k)/(x-k) is not defined for x=k and 1 everywhere else.
> Hence (x-k)/(x-k) = 1 by definition and it cannot be perceived in any other way in terms of cancellation of factors.
>
> Discussion is over.
Only if x is not k, yes.

söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
>
> Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
>
> sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
>
> f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
>
> f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
>
> f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
>
> No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
>
> Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
>
> Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
>
> (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
>
> No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
>
> Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
>
> Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
sin(0)/0=1 lol

On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:14:54 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> >
> > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> >
> > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> >
> > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> >
> > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> >
> > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> >
> > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> >
> > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> >
> > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> >
> > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> >
> > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> >
> > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> >
> > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!

> sin(0)/0=1 lol

What are you laughing at idiot? sin(0)/0 = 1 is CORRECT!

You cannot evaluate sin(0)/0 until you cancel out the factors and bring it to its irreducible form.

f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...

f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x

f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0

What morons like you think is that you can multiply by 1 but not divide by 1? Chuckle. This kind of syphilitic thinking is what leads to your even more comical errors:

"h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)

"π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)

:-)))))

Try to answer the following question (very easy!):

Let f(x)=x. Now if I multiply f(x) by x/x, can x be 0?

Yes/No

If No, then we have f(x) = x^2/x. Now if I divide f(x) by x/x, can x be 0?

Yes/No

Do I need to be concerned when I multiply or divide any expression or number by x/x that x can be 0? Can x ever be0?

Yes/No

If either of your answers are Yes, then you should see a psychiatrist!

sin(x)/x is not in irreducible form. However, sin(x)/x = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... which is defined when x=0 and thus determinable. Has NOTHING to do with the bullshit of limits or any of the other drivel you are taught to memorise by your ape math professors. They are morons! Do you want to be a moron like them?

Again, tell me you silly ape, in the expression (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3), when we multiply by (x-3)/(x-3), we do it ASSUMING that (x-3)/(x-3) is a NUMBER with well-defined factors (oh, I forgot, you still need to learn what factor means...). We don't stop and throw our hands in the air and ask "Woah! What if x=3?!" because x CANNOT equal to 3 in the NUMBER (x-3)/(x-3).

Do you get it finally, you stupid?

torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:54:41 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:14:54 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > >
> > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > >
> > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > >
> > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > >
> > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > >
> > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > >
> > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > >
> > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > >
> > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > >
> > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > >
> > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > >
> > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > >
> > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
>
> > sin(0)/0=1 lol
> What are you laughing at idiot? sin(0)/0 = 1 is CORRECT!
>
> You cannot evaluate sin(0)/0 until you cancel out the factors and bring it to its irreducible form.
> f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
>
> f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
>
> f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> What morons like you think is that you can multiply by 1 but not divide by 1? Chuckle. This kind of syphilitic thinking is what leads to your even more comical errors:
>
> "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
>
> "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
>
> :-)))))
>
> Try to answer the following question (very easy!):
>
> Let f(x)=x. Now if I multiply f(x) by x/x, can x be 0?
>
> Yes/No
>
> If No, then we have f(x) = x^2/x. Now if I divide f(x) by x/x, can x be 0?
>
> Yes/No
>
> Do I need to be concerned when I multiply or divide any expression or number by x/x that x can be 0? Can x ever be0?
>
> Yes/No
>
> If either of your answers are Yes, then you should see a psychiatrist!
>
> sin(x)/x is not in irreducible form. However, sin(x)/x = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... which is defined when x=0 and thus determinable. Has NOTHING to do with the bullshit of limits or any of the other drivel you are taught to memorise by your ape math professors. They are morons! Do you want to be a moron like them?
>
> Again, tell me you silly ape, in the expression (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3), when we multiply by (x-3)/(x-3), we do it ASSUMING that (x-3)/(x-3) is a NUMBER with well-defined factors (oh, I forgot, you still need to learn what factor means...). We don't stop and throw our hands in the air and ask "Woah! What if x=3?!" because x CANNOT equal to 3 in the NUMBER (x-3)/(x-3).
>
> Do you get it finally, you stupid?
sin(0) is 0, so sin(0)/0 is just 0/0.

You could have just as easily taken f(x)=2sin(x)/x in your ''proof'' above. Please do, and see what f(0) would be if you extended f to x=0.

torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:54:41 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:14:54 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > >
> > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > >
> > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > >
> > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > >
> > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > >
> > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > >
> > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > >
> > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > >
> > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > >
> > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > >
> > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > >
> > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > >
> > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
>
> > sin(0)/0=1 lol
> What are you laughing at idiot? sin(0)/0 = 1 is CORRECT!
>
> You cannot evaluate sin(0)/0 until you cancel out the factors and bring it to its irreducible form.
> f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
>
> f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
>
> f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> What morons like you think is that you can multiply by 1 but not divide by 1? Chuckle. This kind of syphilitic thinking is what leads to your even more comical errors:
>
> "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
>
> "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
>
> :-)))))
>
> Try to answer the following question (very easy!):
>
> Let f(x)=x. Now if I multiply f(x) by x/x, can x be 0?
>
> Yes/No
>
> If No, then we have f(x) = x^2/x. Now if I divide f(x) by x/x, can x be 0?
>
> Yes/No
>
> Do I need to be concerned when I multiply or divide any expression or number by x/x that x can be 0? Can x ever be0?
>
> Yes/No
>
> If either of your answers are Yes, then you should see a psychiatrist!
>
> sin(x)/x is not in irreducible form. However, sin(x)/x = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... which is defined when x=0 and thus determinable. Has NOTHING to do with the bullshit of limits or any of the other drivel you are taught to memorise by your ape math professors. They are morons! Do you want to be a moron like them?
>
> Again, tell me you silly ape, in the expression (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3), when we multiply by (x-3)/(x-3), we do it ASSUMING that (x-3)/(x-3) is a NUMBER with well-defined factors (oh, I forgot, you still need to learn what factor means...). We don't stop and throw our hands in the air and ask "Woah! What if x=3?!" because x CANNOT equal to 3 in the NUMBER (x-3)/(x-3).
>
> Do you get it finally, you stupid?

x cannot be 0 in sin x/x so you cannot say sin 0/0=1, you can however say sinc 0 = 1

On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:14:48 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:54:41 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:14:54 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > > >
> > > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > > >
> > > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > > >
> > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > >
> > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > >
> > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > >
> > > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > > >
> > > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > > >
> > > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > > >
> > > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > > >
> > > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > > >
> > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> >
> > > sin(0)/0=1 lol
> > What are you laughing at idiot? sin(0)/0 = 1 is CORRECT!
> >
> > You cannot evaluate sin(0)/0 until you cancel out the factors and bring it to its irreducible form.
> > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> >
> > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> >
> > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > What morons like you think is that you can multiply by 1 but not divide by 1? Chuckle. This kind of syphilitic thinking is what leads to your even more comical errors:
> >
> > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> >
> > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> >
> > :-)))))
> >
> > Try to answer the following question (very easy!):
> >
> > Let f(x)=x. Now if I multiply f(x) by x/x, can x be 0?
> >
> > Yes/No
> >
> > If No, then we have f(x) = x^2/x. Now if I divide f(x) by x/x, can x be 0?
> >
> > Yes/No
> >
> > Do I need to be concerned when I multiply or divide any expression or number by x/x that x can be 0? Can x ever be0?
> >
> > Yes/No
> >
> > If either of your answers are Yes, then you should see a psychiatrist!
> >
> > sin(x)/x is not in irreducible form. However, sin(x)/x = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... which is defined when x=0 and thus determinable. Has NOTHING to do with the bullshit of limits or any of the other drivel you are taught to memorise by your ape math professors. They are morons! Do you want to be a moron like them?
> >
> > Again, tell me you silly ape, in the expression (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3), when we multiply by (x-3)/(x-3), we do it ASSUMING that (x-3)/(x-3) is a NUMBER with well-defined factors (oh, I forgot, you still need to learn what factor means...). We don't stop and throw our hands in the air and ask "Woah! What if x=3?!" because x CANNOT equal to 3 in the NUMBER (x-3)/(x-3).
> >
> > Do you get it finally, you stupid?
> sin(0) is 0, so sin(0)/0 is just 0/0.

No, sin(0)/0 is NOT just 0/0. There is no meaning to 0/0 - it's nonsense. You first have to reduce sin(x)/x before you can evaluate the expression sin(0)/0.

Look, I could write 9/12 = (9-3)/(12-4)=6/8 = (6-3)/(8-4) = 3/4 =/= (3-3)/(4-4) because 0 is NOT a number!!!!!

If 0 were a number then 3/4 would be in proportion to 0/0 which is clearly nonsense.

This is the essence of Book 5, Prop. 12 in the Elements.

Also,

**A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.**

>
> You could have just as easily taken f(x)=2sin(x)/x in your ''proof'' above. Please do, and see what f(0) would be if you extended f to x=0.

f(0) in that case would be 2. I see no problem whatsoever.

fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:11:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:14:48 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:54:41 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:14:54 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > > > >
> > > > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > > > >
> > > > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > > > >
> > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > >
> > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > >
> > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > >
> > > > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > > > >
> > > > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > > > >
> > > > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > > > >
> > > > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > > > >
> > > > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> > >
> > > > sin(0)/0=1 lol
> > > What are you laughing at idiot? sin(0)/0 = 1 is CORRECT!
> > >
> > > You cannot evaluate sin(0)/0 until you cancel out the factors and bring it to its irreducible form.
> > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > >
> > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > >
> > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > What morons like you think is that you can multiply by 1 but not divide by 1? Chuckle. This kind of syphilitic thinking is what leads to your even more comical errors:
> > >
> > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > >
> > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > >
> > > :-)))))
> > >
> > > Try to answer the following question (very easy!):
> > >
> > > Let f(x)=x. Now if I multiply f(x) by x/x, can x be 0?
> > >
> > > Yes/No
> > >
> > > If No, then we have f(x) = x^2/x. Now if I divide f(x) by x/x, can x be 0?
> > >
> > > Yes/No
> > >
> > > Do I need to be concerned when I multiply or divide any expression or number by x/x that x can be 0? Can x ever be0?
> > >
> > > Yes/No
> > >
> > > If either of your answers are Yes, then you should see a psychiatrist!
> > >
> > > sin(x)/x is not in irreducible form. However, sin(x)/x = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... which is defined when x=0 and thus determinable. Has NOTHING to do with the bullshit of limits or any of the other drivel you are taught to memorise by your ape math professors. They are morons! Do you want to be a moron like them?
> > >
> > > Again, tell me you silly ape, in the expression (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3), when we multiply by (x-3)/(x-3), we do it ASSUMING that (x-3)/(x-3) is a NUMBER with well-defined factors (oh, I forgot, you still need to learn what factor means...). We don't stop and throw our hands in the air and ask "Woah! What if x=3?!" because x CANNOT equal to 3 in the NUMBER (x-3)/(x-3).
> > >
> > > Do you get it finally, you stupid?
> > sin(0) is 0, so sin(0)/0 is just 0/0.
> No, sin(0)/0 is NOT just 0/0. There is no meaning to 0/0 - it's nonsense. You first have to reduce sin(x)/x before you can evaluate the expression sin(0)/0.
>
> Look, I could write 9/12 = (9-3)/(12-4)=6/8 = (6-3)/(8-4) = 3/4 =/= (3-3)/(4-4) because 0 is NOT a number!!!!!
>
> If 0 were a number then 3/4 would be in proportion to 0/0 which is clearly nonsense.
>
> This is the essence of Book 5, Prop. 12 in the Elements.
>
> Also,
>
> **A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.**
> >
> > You could have just as easily taken f(x)=2sin(x)/x in your ''proof'' above. Please do, and see what f(0) would be if you extended f to x=0.
> f(0) in that case would be 2. I see no problem whatsoever.

if sin 0 = 0 then sin 0/0=0/0, simple as that with how equality works but is that too difficult for you now?

That idea of number is your pet idea and nothing else. It is of no importance.

On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 12:50:11 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:11:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:14:48 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:54:41 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:14:54 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > > > > >
> > > > > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > > > > >
> > > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > > >
> > > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> > > >
> > > > > sin(0)/0=1 lol
> > > > What are you laughing at idiot? sin(0)/0 = 1 is CORRECT!
> > > >
> > > > You cannot evaluate sin(0)/0 until you cancel out the factors and bring it to its irreducible form.
> > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > >
> > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > >
> > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > What morons like you think is that you can multiply by 1 but not divide by 1? Chuckle. This kind of syphilitic thinking is what leads to your even more comical errors:
> > > >
> > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > >
> > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > >
> > > > :-)))))
> > > >
> > > > Try to answer the following question (very easy!):
> > > >
> > > > Let f(x)=x. Now if I multiply f(x) by x/x, can x be 0?
> > > >
> > > > Yes/No
> > > >
> > > > If No, then we have f(x) = x^2/x. Now if I divide f(x) by x/x, can x be 0?
> > > >
> > > > Yes/No
> > > >
> > > > Do I need to be concerned when I multiply or divide any expression or number by x/x that x can be 0? Can x ever be0?
> > > >
> > > > Yes/No
> > > >
> > > > If either of your answers are Yes, then you should see a psychiatrist!
> > > >
> > > > sin(x)/x is not in irreducible form. However, sin(x)/x = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... which is defined when x=0 and thus determinable. Has NOTHING to do with the bullshit of limits or any of the other drivel you are taught to memorise by your ape math professors. They are morons! Do you want to be a moron like them?
> > > >
> > > > Again, tell me you silly ape, in the expression (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3), when we multiply by (x-3)/(x-3), we do it ASSUMING that (x-3)/(x-3) is a NUMBER with well-defined factors (oh, I forgot, you still need to learn what factor means...). We don't stop and throw our hands in the air and ask "Woah! What if x=3?!" because x CANNOT equal to 3 in the NUMBER (x-3)/(x-3).
> > > >
> > > > Do you get it finally, you stupid?
> > > sin(0) is 0, so sin(0)/0 is just 0/0.
> > No, sin(0)/0 is NOT just 0/0. There is no meaning to 0/0 - it's nonsense. You first have to reduce sin(x)/x before you can evaluate the expression sin(0)/0.
> >
> > Look, I could write 9/12 = (9-3)/(12-4)=6/8 = (6-3)/(8-4) = 3/4 =/= (3-3)/(4-4) because 0 is NOT a number!!!!!
> >
> > If 0 were a number then 3/4 would be in proportion to 0/0 which is clearly nonsense.
> >
> > This is the essence of Book 5, Prop. 12 in the Elements.
> >
> > Also,
> >
> > **A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.**
> > >
> > > You could have just as easily taken f(x)=2sin(x)/x in your ''proof'' above. Please do, and see what f(0) would be if you extended f to x=0.
> > f(0) in that case would be 2. I see no problem whatsoever.
> if sin 0 = 0 then sin 0/0=0/0,

Nope. 0/0 is not a number of any kind.

> simple as that with how equality works but is that too difficult for you now?
>
> That idea of number is your pet idea and nothing else. It is of no importance.

What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>, much less a number. How embarrassing!

A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.

LMAO.

lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:09:47 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 12:50:11 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:11:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:14:48 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:54:41 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:14:54 UTC+3, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> > > > >
> > > > > > sin(0)/0=1 lol
> > > > > What are you laughing at idiot? sin(0)/0 = 1 is CORRECT!
> > > > >
> > > > > You cannot evaluate sin(0)/0 until you cancel out the factors and bring it to its irreducible form.
> > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > >
> > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > >
> > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > > What morons like you think is that you can multiply by 1 but not divide by 1? Chuckle. This kind of syphilitic thinking is what leads to your even more comical errors:
> > > > >
> > > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > >
> > > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > >
> > > > > :-)))))
> > > > >
> > > > > Try to answer the following question (very easy!):
> > > > >
> > > > > Let f(x)=x. Now if I multiply f(x) by x/x, can x be 0?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes/No
> > > > >
> > > > > If No, then we have f(x) = x^2/x. Now if I divide f(x) by x/x, can x be 0?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes/No
> > > > >
> > > > > Do I need to be concerned when I multiply or divide any expression or number by x/x that x can be 0? Can x ever be0?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes/No
> > > > >
> > > > > If either of your answers are Yes, then you should see a psychiatrist!
> > > > >
> > > > > sin(x)/x is not in irreducible form. However, sin(x)/x = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... which is defined when x=0 and thus determinable. Has NOTHING to do with the bullshit of limits or any of the other drivel you are taught to memorise by your ape math professors. They are morons! Do you want to be a moron like them?
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, tell me you silly ape, in the expression (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3), when we multiply by (x-3)/(x-3), we do it ASSUMING that (x-3)/(x-3) is a NUMBER with well-defined factors (oh, I forgot, you still need to learn what factor means...). We don't stop and throw our hands in the air and ask "Woah! What if x=3?!" because x CANNOT equal to 3 in the NUMBER (x-3)/(x-3).
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you get it finally, you stupid?
> > > > sin(0) is 0, so sin(0)/0 is just 0/0.
> > > No, sin(0)/0 is NOT just 0/0. There is no meaning to 0/0 - it's nonsense. You first have to reduce sin(x)/x before you can evaluate the expression sin(0)/0.
> > >
> > > Look, I could write 9/12 = (9-3)/(12-4)=6/8 = (6-3)/(8-4) = 3/4 =/= (3-3)/(4-4) because 0 is NOT a number!!!!!
> > >
> > > If 0 were a number then 3/4 would be in proportion to 0/0 which is clearly nonsense.
> > >
> > > This is the essence of Book 5, Prop. 12 in the Elements.
> > >
> > > Also,
> > >
> > > **A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.**
> > > >
> > > > You could have just as easily taken f(x)=2sin(x)/x in your ''proof'' above. Please do, and see what f(0) would be if you extended f to x=0..
> > > f(0) in that case would be 2. I see no problem whatsoever.
> > if sin 0 = 0 then sin 0/0=0/0,
> Nope. 0/0 is not a number of any kind.
> > simple as that with how equality works but is that too difficult for you now?
> >
> > That idea of number is your pet idea and nothing else. It is of no importance.
> What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>, much less a number. How embarrassing!
>
> A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
>
> LMAO.
integral domains and fields work differently. One has factor being meaningful, the other doesn't.

On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 08:04:52 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:09:47 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 12:50:11 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:11:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:14:48 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:54:41 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:14:54 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > sin(0)/0=1 lol
> > > > > > What are you laughing at idiot? sin(0)/0 = 1 is CORRECT!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You cannot evaluate sin(0)/0 until you cancel out the factors and bring it to its irreducible form.
> > > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > > >
> > > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > > > What morons like you think is that you can multiply by 1 but not divide by 1? Chuckle. This kind of syphilitic thinking is what leads to your even more comical errors:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > :-)))))
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Try to answer the following question (very easy!):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let f(x)=x. Now if I multiply f(x) by x/x, can x be 0?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes/No
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If No, then we have f(x) = x^2/x. Now if I divide f(x) by x/x, can x be 0?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes/No
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do I need to be concerned when I multiply or divide any expression or number by x/x that x can be 0? Can x ever be0?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes/No
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If either of your answers are Yes, then you should see a psychiatrist!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > sin(x)/x is not in irreducible form. However, sin(x)/x = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... which is defined when x=0 and thus determinable. Has NOTHING to do with the bullshit of limits or any of the other drivel you are taught to memorise by your ape math professors. They are morons! Do you want to be a moron like them?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, tell me you silly ape, in the expression (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3), when we multiply by (x-3)/(x-3), we do it ASSUMING that (x-3)/(x-3) is a NUMBER with well-defined factors (oh, I forgot, you still need to learn what factor means...). We don't stop and throw our hands in the air and ask "Woah! What if x=3?!" because x CANNOT equal to 3 in the NUMBER (x-3)/(x-3).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you get it finally, you stupid?
> > > > > sin(0) is 0, so sin(0)/0 is just 0/0.
> > > > No, sin(0)/0 is NOT just 0/0. There is no meaning to 0/0 - it's nonsense. You first have to reduce sin(x)/x before you can evaluate the expression sin(0)/0.
> > > >
> > > > Look, I could write 9/12 = (9-3)/(12-4)=6/8 = (6-3)/(8-4) = 3/4 =/= (3-3)/(4-4) because 0 is NOT a number!!!!!
> > > >
> > > > If 0 were a number then 3/4 would be in proportion to 0/0 which is clearly nonsense.
> > > >
> > > > This is the essence of Book 5, Prop. 12 in the Elements.
> > > >
> > > > Also,
> > > >
> > > > **A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.**
> > > > >
> > > > > You could have just as easily taken f(x)=2sin(x)/x in your ''proof'' above. Please do, and see what f(0) would be if you extended f to x=0.
> > > > f(0) in that case would be 2. I see no problem whatsoever.
> > > if sin 0 = 0 then sin 0/0=0/0,
> > Nope. 0/0 is not a number of any kind.
> > > simple as that with how equality works but is that too difficult for you now?
> > >
> > > That idea of number is your pet idea and nothing else. It is of no importance.
> > What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>, much less a number. How embarrassing!
> >
> > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> >
> > LMAO.
> integral domains and fields work differently. One has factor being meaningful, the other doesn't.

Also irrelevant. You're just trying to make your narrative seem like the right one, but the facts are clear that you are a bullshitter who knows nothing about mathematics.

To makes a statement like "integral domains and fields work differently" only shows that once again you are trying to pull the authority card. Chuckle.. Poor Malum, it must be so embarrassing for you:

"h*f(x)/h means that h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)

Therefore by the "brilliant" logic of these two math master graduates, we arrive at the stunning result:

"pi*f(x)/pi means that pi is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)

Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk.

A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.

This has nothing to do with your bullshit of fields, rings, etc. LMAO.

måndag 20 september 2021 kl. 10:45:44 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 08:04:52 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:09:47 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 12:50:11 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:11:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:14:48 UTC+3, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:54:41 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:14:54 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > sin(0)/0=1 lol
> > > > > > > What are you laughing at idiot? sin(0)/0 = 1 is CORRECT!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You cannot evaluate sin(0)/0 until you cancel out the factors and bring it to its irreducible form.
> > > > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > > > > What morons like you think is that you can multiply by 1 but not divide by 1? Chuckle. This kind of syphilitic thinking is what leads to your even more comical errors:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > :-)))))
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Try to answer the following question (very easy!):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let f(x)=x. Now if I multiply f(x) by x/x, can x be 0?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes/No
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If No, then we have f(x) = x^2/x. Now if I divide f(x) by x/x, can x be 0?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes/No
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do I need to be concerned when I multiply or divide any expression or number by x/x that x can be 0? Can x ever be0?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes/No
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If either of your answers are Yes, then you should see a psychiatrist!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > sin(x)/x is not in irreducible form. However, sin(x)/x = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... which is defined when x=0 and thus determinable. Has NOTHING to do with the bullshit of limits or any of the other drivel you are taught to memorise by your ape math professors. They are morons! Do you want to be a moron like them?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Again, tell me you silly ape, in the expression (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3), when we multiply by (x-3)/(x-3), we do it ASSUMING that (x-3)/(x-3) is a NUMBER with well-defined factors (oh, I forgot, you still need to learn what factor means...). We don't stop and throw our hands in the air and ask "Woah! What if x=3?!" because x CANNOT equal to 3 in the NUMBER (x-3)/(x-3).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you get it finally, you stupid?
> > > > > > sin(0) is 0, so sin(0)/0 is just 0/0.
> > > > > No, sin(0)/0 is NOT just 0/0. There is no meaning to 0/0 - it's nonsense. You first have to reduce sin(x)/x before you can evaluate the expression sin(0)/0.
> > > > >
> > > > > Look, I could write 9/12 = (9-3)/(12-4)=6/8 = (6-3)/(8-4) = 3/4 =/= (3-3)/(4-4) because 0 is NOT a number!!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > If 0 were a number then 3/4 would be in proportion to 0/0 which is clearly nonsense.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the essence of Book 5, Prop. 12 in the Elements.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also,
> > > > >
> > > > > **A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.**
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You could have just as easily taken f(x)=2sin(x)/x in your ''proof'' above. Please do, and see what f(0) would be if you extended f to x=0.
> > > > > f(0) in that case would be 2. I see no problem whatsoever.
> > > > if sin 0 = 0 then sin 0/0=0/0,
> > > Nope. 0/0 is not a number of any kind.
> > > > simple as that with how equality works but is that too difficult for you now?
> > > >
> > > > That idea of number is your pet idea and nothing else. It is of no importance.
> > > What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>, much less a number. How embarrassing!
> > >
> > > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> > >
> > > LMAO.
> > integral domains and fields work differently. One has factor being meaningful, the other doesn't.
> Also irrelevant. You're just trying to make your narrative seem like the right one, but the facts are clear that you are a bullshitter who knows nothing about mathematics.
>
> To makes a statement like "integral domains and fields work differently" only shows that once again you are trying to pull the authority card. Chuckle. Poor Malum, it must be so embarrassing for you:
>
> "h*f(x)/h means that h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
>
> Therefore by the "brilliant" logic of these two math master graduates, we arrive at the stunning result:
>
> "pi*f(x)/pi means that pi is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
>
> Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk.
> A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> This has nothing to do with your bullshit of fields, rings, etc. LMAO.
>Clearly you have no clue what it means for a "set " to be countable.

I do, again, a set is countable if it is in bijection with a subset of N

>It has EVERYTHING to do with indexing.

No it doesn't, given an index set can be any set so it is entirely worthless.

>A set is countable IF AND ONLY IF it can be indexed. When one talks about bijection between imaginary "real sets", there is nothing about countbility there, only that one set is scaled to another. Flags do not imply equinumerosity.

On Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 08:29:30 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 20 september 2021 kl. 10:45:44 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 08:04:52 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:09:47 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 12:50:11 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:11:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:14:48 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:54:41 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:14:54 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > sin(0)/0=1 lol
> > > > > > > > What are you laughing at idiot? sin(0)/0 = 1 is CORRECT!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You cannot evaluate sin(0)/0 until you cancel out the factors and bring it to its irreducible form.
> > > > > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > > > > > What morons like you think is that you can multiply by 1 but not divide by 1? Chuckle. This kind of syphilitic thinking is what leads to your even more comical errors:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > :-)))))
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Try to answer the following question (very easy!):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Let f(x)=x. Now if I multiply f(x) by x/x, can x be 0?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes/No
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If No, then we have f(x) = x^2/x. Now if I divide f(x) by x/x, can x be 0?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes/No
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do I need to be concerned when I multiply or divide any expression or number by x/x that x can be 0? Can x ever be0?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes/No
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If either of your answers are Yes, then you should see a psychiatrist!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > sin(x)/x is not in irreducible form. However, sin(x)/x = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... which is defined when x=0 and thus determinable.. Has NOTHING to do with the bullshit of limits or any of the other drivel you are taught to memorise by your ape math professors. They are morons! Do you want to be a moron like them?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Again, tell me you silly ape, in the expression (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3), when we multiply by (x-3)/(x-3), we do it ASSUMING that (x-3)/(x-3) is a NUMBER with well-defined factors (oh, I forgot, you still need to learn what factor means...). We don't stop and throw our hands in the air and ask "Woah! What if x=3?!" because x CANNOT equal to 3 in the NUMBER (x-3)/(x-3).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do you get it finally, you stupid?
> > > > > > > sin(0) is 0, so sin(0)/0 is just 0/0.
> > > > > > No, sin(0)/0 is NOT just 0/0. There is no meaning to 0/0 - it's nonsense. You first have to reduce sin(x)/x before you can evaluate the expression sin(0)/0.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Look, I could write 9/12 = (9-3)/(12-4)=6/8 = (6-3)/(8-4) = 3/4 =/= (3-3)/(4-4) because 0 is NOT a number!!!!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If 0 were a number then 3/4 would be in proportion to 0/0 which is clearly nonsense.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is the essence of Book 5, Prop. 12 in the Elements.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > **A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.**
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You could have just as easily taken f(x)=2sin(x)/x in your ''proof'' above. Please do, and see what f(0) would be if you extended f to x=0.
> > > > > > f(0) in that case would be 2. I see no problem whatsoever.
> > > > > if sin 0 = 0 then sin 0/0=0/0,
> > > > Nope. 0/0 is not a number of any kind.
> > > > > simple as that with how equality works but is that too difficult for you now?
> > > > >
> > > > > That idea of number is your pet idea and nothing else. It is of no importance.
> > > > What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>, much less a number. How embarrassing!
> > > >
> > > > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> > > >
> > > > LMAO.
> > > integral domains and fields work differently. One has factor being meaningful, the other doesn't.
> > Also irrelevant. You're just trying to make your narrative seem like the right one, but the facts are clear that you are a bullshitter who knows nothing about mathematics.
> >
> > To makes a statement like "integral domains and fields work differently" only shows that once again you are trying to pull the authority card. Chuckle. Poor Malum, it must be so embarrassing for you:
> >
> > "h*f(x)/h means that h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
> >
> > Therefore by the "brilliant" logic of these two math master graduates, we arrive at the stunning result:
> >
> > "pi*f(x)/pi means that pi is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
> >
> > Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk.
> > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> > This has nothing to do with your bullshit of fields, rings, etc. LMAO.
> >Clearly you have no clue what it means for a "set " to be countable.

Click here to read the complete article

tisdag 21 september 2021 kl. 09:17:30 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 08:29:30 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > måndag 20 september 2021 kl. 10:45:44 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 08:04:52 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:09:47 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 12:50:11 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:11:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:14:48 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:54:41 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:14:54 UTC+3, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > sin(0)/0=1 lol
> > > > > > > > > What are you laughing at idiot? sin(0)/0 = 1 is CORRECT!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You cannot evaluate sin(0)/0 until you cancel out the factors and bring it to its irreducible form.
> > > > > > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > > > > > > What morons like you think is that you can multiply by 1 but not divide by 1? Chuckle. This kind of syphilitic thinking is what leads to your even more comical errors:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > :-)))))
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Try to answer the following question (very easy!):
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Let f(x)=x. Now if I multiply f(x) by x/x, can x be 0?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes/No
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If No, then we have f(x) = x^2/x. Now if I divide f(x) by x/x, can x be 0?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes/No
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Do I need to be concerned when I multiply or divide any expression or number by x/x that x can be 0? Can x ever be0?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes/No
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If either of your answers are Yes, then you should see a psychiatrist!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > sin(x)/x is not in irreducible form. However, sin(x)/x = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... which is defined when x=0 and thus determinable. Has NOTHING to do with the bullshit of limits or any of the other drivel you are taught to memorise by your ape math professors. They are morons! Do you want to be a moron like them?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Again, tell me you silly ape, in the expression (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3), when we multiply by (x-3)/(x-3), we do it ASSUMING that (x-3)/(x-3) is a NUMBER with well-defined factors (oh, I forgot, you still need to learn what factor means...). We don't stop and throw our hands in the air and ask "Woah! What if x=3?!" because x CANNOT equal to 3 in the NUMBER (x-3)/(x-3).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Do you get it finally, you stupid?
> > > > > > > > sin(0) is 0, so sin(0)/0 is just 0/0.
> > > > > > > No, sin(0)/0 is NOT just 0/0. There is no meaning to 0/0 - it's nonsense. You first have to reduce sin(x)/x before you can evaluate the expression sin(0)/0.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Look, I could write 9/12 = (9-3)/(12-4)=6/8 = (6-3)/(8-4) = 3/4 =/= (3-3)/(4-4) because 0 is NOT a number!!!!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If 0 were a number then 3/4 would be in proportion to 0/0 which is clearly nonsense.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is the essence of Book 5, Prop. 12 in the Elements.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > **A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.**
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You could have just as easily taken f(x)=2sin(x)/x in your ''proof'' above. Please do, and see what f(0) would be if you extended f to x=0.
> > > > > > > f(0) in that case would be 2. I see no problem whatsoever.
> > > > > > if sin 0 = 0 then sin 0/0=0/0,
> > > > > Nope. 0/0 is not a number of any kind.
> > > > > > simple as that with how equality works but is that too difficult for you now?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That idea of number is your pet idea and nothing else. It is of no importance.
> > > > > What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>, much less a number. How embarrassing!
> > > > >
> > > > > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> > > > >
> > > > > LMAO.
> > > > integral domains and fields work differently. One has factor being meaningful, the other doesn't.
> > > Also irrelevant. You're just trying to make your narrative seem like the right one, but the facts are clear that you are a bullshitter who knows nothing about mathematics.
> > >
> > > To makes a statement like "integral domains and fields work differently" only shows that once again you are trying to pull the authority card. Chuckle. Poor Malum, it must be so embarrassing for you:
> > >
> > > "h*f(x)/h means that h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
> > >
> > > Therefore by the "brilliant" logic of these two math master graduates, we arrive at the stunning result:
> > >
> > > "pi*f(x)/pi means that pi is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
> > >
> > > Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk.
> > > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> > > This has nothing to do with your bullshit of fields, rings, etc. LMAO..
> > >Clearly you have no clue what it means for a "set " to be countable.
> > a set is countable if it is in bijection with a subset of N
> That is an indirect reason of the fact that elements of N can be listed systematically. In fact, you haven't even memorised the definition you were brainwashed to use correctly:
>
> A set is countable if it can be placed into a bijection with N or a subset of N.
>
> You're a super CRANK.
>
> <drivel>
> "h*f(x)/h means that h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
>
> Therefore by the "brilliant" logic of these two math master graduates, we arrive at the stunning result:
>
> "pi*f(x)/pi means that pi is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
N is a subset of N you imbecile

On Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 13:49:30 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 21 september 2021 kl. 09:17:30 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 08:29:30 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > måndag 20 september 2021 kl. 10:45:44 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 08:04:52 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:09:47 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 12:50:11 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:11:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:14:48 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:54:41 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:14:54 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > sin(0)/0=1 lol
> > > > > > > > > > What are you laughing at idiot? sin(0)/0 = 1 is CORRECT!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You cannot evaluate sin(0)/0 until you cancel out the factors and bring it to its irreducible form.
> > > > > > > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > > > > > > > What morons like you think is that you can multiply by 1 but not divide by 1? Chuckle. This kind of syphilitic thinking is what leads to your even more comical errors:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > :-)))))
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Try to answer the following question (very easy!):
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Let f(x)=x. Now if I multiply f(x) by x/x, can x be 0?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes/No
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If No, then we have f(x) = x^2/x. Now if I divide f(x) by x/x, can x be 0?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes/No
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Do I need to be concerned when I multiply or divide any expression or number by x/x that x can be 0? Can x ever be0?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes/No
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If either of your answers are Yes, then you should see a psychiatrist!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > sin(x)/x is not in irreducible form. However, sin(x)/x = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... which is defined when x=0 and thus determinable. Has NOTHING to do with the bullshit of limits or any of the other drivel you are taught to memorise by your ape math professors. They are morons! Do you want to be a moron like them?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Again, tell me you silly ape, in the expression (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3), when we multiply by (x-3)/(x-3), we do it ASSUMING that (x-3)/(x-3) is a NUMBER with well-defined factors (oh, I forgot, you still need to learn what factor means...). We don't stop and throw our hands in the air and ask "Woah! What if x=3?!" because x CANNOT equal to 3 in the NUMBER (x-3)/(x-3).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Do you get it finally, you stupid?
> > > > > > > > > sin(0) is 0, so sin(0)/0 is just 0/0.
> > > > > > > > No, sin(0)/0 is NOT just 0/0. There is no meaning to 0/0 - it's nonsense. You first have to reduce sin(x)/x before you can evaluate the expression sin(0)/0.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Look, I could write 9/12 = (9-3)/(12-4)=6/8 = (6-3)/(8-4) = 3/4 =/= (3-3)/(4-4) because 0 is NOT a number!!!!!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If 0 were a number then 3/4 would be in proportion to 0/0 which is clearly nonsense.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is the essence of Book 5, Prop. 12 in the Elements.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > **A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.**
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You could have just as easily taken f(x)=2sin(x)/x in your ''proof'' above. Please do, and see what f(0) would be if you extended f to x=0.
> > > > > > > > f(0) in that case would be 2. I see no problem whatsoever.
> > > > > > > if sin 0 = 0 then sin 0/0=0/0,
> > > > > > Nope. 0/0 is not a number of any kind.
> > > > > > > simple as that with how equality works but is that too difficult for you now?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That idea of number is your pet idea and nothing else. It is of no importance.
> > > > > > What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>, much less a number. How embarrassing!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LMAO.
> > > > > integral domains and fields work differently. One has factor being meaningful, the other doesn't.
> > > > Also irrelevant. You're just trying to make your narrative seem like the right one, but the facts are clear that you are a bullshitter who knows nothing about mathematics.
> > > >
> > > > To makes a statement like "integral domains and fields work differently" only shows that once again you are trying to pull the authority card. Chuckle. Poor Malum, it must be so embarrassing for you:
> > > >
> > > > "h*f(x)/h means that h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
> > > >
> > > > Therefore by the "brilliant" logic of these two math master graduates, we arrive at the stunning result:
> > > >
> > > > "pi*f(x)/pi means that pi is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
> > > >
> > > > Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk.
> > > > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> > > > This has nothing to do with your bullshit of fields, rings, etc. LMAO.
> > > >Clearly you have no clue what it means for a "set " to be countable.
> > > a set is countable if it is in bijection with a subset of N
> > That is an indirect reason of the fact that elements of N can be listed systematically. In fact, you haven't even memorised the definition you were brainwashed to use correctly:
> >
> > A set is countable if it can be placed into a bijection with N or a subset of N.
> >
> > You're a super CRANK.
> >
> > <drivel>
> > "h*f(x)/h means that h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
> >
> > Therefore by the "brilliant" logic of these two math master graduates, we arrive at the stunning result:
> >
> > "pi*f(x)/pi means that pi is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
> N is a subset of N you imbecile
>
From the MIT website:

tisdag 21 september 2021 kl. 13:45:33 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 13:49:30 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > tisdag 21 september 2021 kl. 09:17:30 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 08:29:30 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > måndag 20 september 2021 kl. 10:45:44 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 08:04:52 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:09:47 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 12:50:11 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:11:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:14:48 UTC+3, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:54:41 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:14:54 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - .... )
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > sin(0)/0=1 lol
> > > > > > > > > > > What are you laughing at idiot? sin(0)/0 = 1 is CORRECT!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You cannot evaluate sin(0)/0 until you cancel out the factors and bring it to its irreducible form.
> > > > > > > > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > > > > > > > > What morons like you think is that you can multiply by 1 but not divide by 1? Chuckle. This kind of syphilitic thinking is what leads to your even more comical errors:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > :-)))))
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Try to answer the following question (very easy!):
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Let f(x)=x. Now if I multiply f(x) by x/x, can x be 0?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes/No
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If No, then we have f(x) = x^2/x. Now if I divide f(x) by x/x, can x be 0?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes/No
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Do I need to be concerned when I multiply or divide any expression or number by x/x that x can be 0? Can x ever be0?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes/No
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If either of your answers are Yes, then you should see a psychiatrist!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > sin(x)/x is not in irreducible form. However, sin(x)/x = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... which is defined when x=0 and thus determinable. Has NOTHING to do with the bullshit of limits or any of the other drivel you are taught to memorise by your ape math professors. They are morons! Do you want to be a moron like them?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Again, tell me you silly ape, in the expression (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3), when we multiply by (x-3)/(x-3), we do it ASSUMING that (x-3)/(x-3) is a NUMBER with well-defined factors (oh, I forgot, you still need to learn what factor means...). We don't stop and throw our hands in the air and ask "Woah! What if x=3?!" because x CANNOT equal to 3 in the NUMBER (x-3)/(x-3).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Do you get it finally, you stupid?
> > > > > > > > > > sin(0) is 0, so sin(0)/0 is just 0/0.
> > > > > > > > > No, sin(0)/0 is NOT just 0/0. There is no meaning to 0/0 - it's nonsense. You first have to reduce sin(x)/x before you can evaluate the expression sin(0)/0.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Look, I could write 9/12 = (9-3)/(12-4)=6/8 = (6-3)/(8-4) = 3/4 =/= (3-3)/(4-4) because 0 is NOT a number!!!!!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If 0 were a number then 3/4 would be in proportion to 0/0 which is clearly nonsense.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is the essence of Book 5, Prop. 12 in the Elements.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > **A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.**
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You could have just as easily taken f(x)=2sin(x)/x in your ''proof'' above. Please do, and see what f(0) would be if you extended f to x=0.
> > > > > > > > > f(0) in that case would be 2. I see no problem whatsoever..
> > > > > > > > if sin 0 = 0 then sin 0/0=0/0,
> > > > > > > Nope. 0/0 is not a number of any kind.
> > > > > > > > simple as that with how equality works but is that too difficult for you now?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That idea of number is your pet idea and nothing else. It is of no importance.
> > > > > > > What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>, much less a number. How embarrassing!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > LMAO.
> > > > > > integral domains and fields work differently. One has factor being meaningful, the other doesn't.
> > > > > Also irrelevant. You're just trying to make your narrative seem like the right one, but the facts are clear that you are a bullshitter who knows nothing about mathematics.
> > > > >
> > > > > To makes a statement like "integral domains and fields work differently" only shows that once again you are trying to pull the authority card. Chuckle. Poor Malum, it must be so embarrassing for you:
> > > > >
> > > > > "h*f(x)/h means that h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore by the "brilliant" logic of these two math master graduates, we arrive at the stunning result:
> > > > >
> > > > > "pi*f(x)/pi means that pi is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
> > > > >
> > > > > Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk.
> > > > > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> > > > > This has nothing to do with your bullshit of fields, rings, etc. LMAO.
> > > > >Clearly you have no clue what it means for a "set " to be countable.
> > > > a set is countable if it is in bijection with a subset of N
> > > That is an indirect reason of the fact that elements of N can be listed systematically. In fact, you haven't even memorised the definition you were brainwashed to use correctly:
> > >
> > > A set is countable if it can be placed into a bijection with N or a subset of N.
> > >
> > > You're a super CRANK.
> > >
> > > <drivel>
> > > "h*f(x)/h means that h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
> > >
> > > Therefore by the "brilliant" logic of these two math master graduates, we arrive at the stunning result:
> > >
> > > "pi*f(x)/pi means that pi is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
> > N is a subset of N you imbecile
> >
> From the MIT website:
>
> "A set is said to be countable, if you can make a list of its members. By a list we mean that you can find a first member, a second one, and so on, and eventually assign to each member an integer of its own, perhaps going on forever."
>
> http://www-math.mit.edu/~djk/calculus_beginners/chapter01/section04.html
> "h*f(x)/h means that h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
>
> Therefore by the "brilliant" logic of these two math master graduates, we arrive at the stunning result:
>
> "pi*f(x)/pi means that pi is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
> You should really listen to your Abel Prize winner Karen Uhlenbeck who calls your Wikipedia Moronica by the name of Wackopedia!
>
> LMAO.
>I don't read Wikipedia. It's a shit site.

On Sunday, 8 August 2021 at 23:49:00 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
>
> Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
>
> sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
>
> f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
>
> f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
>
> f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
>
> No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
>
> Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
>
> Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
>
> (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
>
> No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
>
> Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
>
> Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!

In spite of overwhelming evidence, mainstream math cranks persist in their delusional ways.

tisdag 21 september 2021 kl. 20:01:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Sunday, 8 August 2021 at 23:49:00 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> >
> > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> >
> > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> >
> > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> >
> > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> >
> > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> >
> > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> >
> > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> >
> > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> >
> > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> >
> > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> >
> > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> >
> > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> In spite of overwhelming evidence, mainstream math cranks persist in their delusional ways.

That is you, you continue your way despite us showing you wrong at every turn.

On Wednesday, 22 September 2021 at 08:08:56 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 21 september 2021 kl. 20:01:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Sunday, 8 August 2021 at 23:49:00 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > >
> > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > >
> > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > >
> > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > >
> > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > >
> > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > >
> > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > >
> > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > >
> > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > >
> > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > >
> > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > >
> > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > >
> > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> > In spite of overwhelming evidence, mainstream math cranks persist in their delusional ways.
> That is you, you continue your way despite us showing you wrong at every turn.

Except that you never point out anything except the fact that you're an idiot and a troll.