A 3 minute lesson on how we got numbers - for those who call themselves math professors:

https://youtu.be/TaSobTf7Br8

Troll comments will be ignored.

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 01:00:37 -0700, NewAge Prophet wrote:

> A 3 minute lesson on how we got numbers - for those who call themselves
> math professors:
>
> https://youtu.be/TaSobTf7Br8

I have a better idea: you can stick the video up your ass.
> Troll comments will be ignored.

That's quite all right. You can still feel free to stick your
video up your ass. And keep it there.

On 9/25/2021 12:31 PM, Jens Stuckelberger wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 01:00:37 -0700, NewAge Prophet wrote:
>
>> A 3 minute lesson on how we got numbers - for those who call themselves
>> math professors:
>>
>> https://youtu.be/TaSobTf7Br8
>
> I have a better idea: you can stick the video up your ass.

agree, Mr Rectum AND NewAgeProphet => stick it up your ass.

>
>> Troll comments will be ignored.
>
> That's quite all right. You can still feel free to stick your
> video up your ass. And keep it there.
>

agree, Mr Rectum AND NewAgeProphet => stick it up your ass, and keep it there.

"NewAge Prophet" <newcalculusrocks@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9cab1ee5-a673-43bb-b4e2-4c1f48ec2765n@googlegroups.com...
>A 3 minute lesson on how we got numbers - for those who call themselves
>math professors:
>
> https://youtu.be/TaSobTf7Br8
>
> Troll comments will be ignored.

So pi is the name given to a measure that describes the magnitude or size of
the length of the circumference of a circle when 2r = 1.

It can't be a rational number because no matter how many digits you have you
can always find more digits as the following video shows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMlf1ELvRzc

It follows that there are kinds of numbers which can't be rational numbers.

Why don't you offer your video to https://brilliant.org/ John?
They are always looking for brilliant people.

Freda Parkins expressed precisely :
> "NewAge Prophet" <newcalculusrocks@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9cab1ee5-a673-43bb-b4e2-4c1f48ec2765n@googlegroups.com...
>>A 3 minute lesson on how we got numbers - for those who call themselves math
>> professors:
>>
>> https://youtu.be/TaSobTf7Br8
>>
>> Troll comments will be ignored.
>
> So pi is the name given to a measure that describes the magnitude or size of
> the length of the circumference of a circle when 2r = 1.
>
> It can't be a rational number because no matter how many digits you have you
> can always find more digits as the following video shows.

That is not a cause, but an effect.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMlf1ELvRzc
>
> It follows that there are kinds of numbers which can't be rational numbers.

Might they be called irrational?

> Why don't you offer your video to https://brilliant.org/ John?
> They are always looking for brilliant people.

I think the answer to that is obvious. :)

"FromTheRafters" <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:sio8f4$onf$1@dont-email.me...
> Freda Parkins expressed precisely :
>> "NewAge Prophet" <newcalculusrocks@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9cab1ee5-a673-43bb-b4e2-4c1f48ec2765n@googlegroups.com...
>>>A 3 minute lesson on how we got numbers - for those who call themselves
>>>math professors:
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/TaSobTf7Br8
>>>
>>> Troll comments will be ignored.
>>
>> So pi is the name given to a measure that describes the magnitude or size
>> of the length of the circumference of a circle when 2r = 1.
>>
>> It can't be a rational number because no matter how many digits you have
>> you can always find more digits as the following video shows.
>
> That is not a cause, but an effect.

Can you explain why that matters?

John appears to think that there are no numbers other than rational numbers.
Video at 0.47: "There are no other kinds of numbers".

>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMlf1ELvRzc
>>
>> It follows that there are kinds of numbers which can't be rational
>> numbers.
>
> Might they be called irrational?

I don't mind what they are called if it can be demonstrated that they exist.
Calling them inconsolable magnitators would be ok with me.
They are still a specific type or kind of number.
In the case of pi the number is between 3 and 4.

John appears to be saying that there are no kinds of numbers other than
rational numbers.

I find it convincing that e^(2*pi*(0,1)) = 1 where (0,1) is commonly denoted
as i.

I have no wish to argue over what kinds of numbers e and pi are.
They both exist and they are both numbers to me whether or not anyone else
agrees.

I can remember a school friend telling me he knew that the digits of pi went
on forever because he had worked it out in math class (or maths class as it
was at the time).
So I asked him what he got.
3.1428571...

>
>> Why don't you offer your video to https://brilliant.org/ John?
>> They are always looking for brilliant people.
>
> I think the answer to that is obvious. :)

That's what I thought. :)

On Saturday, 25 September 2021 at 20:32:10 UTC+3, Jens Stuckelberger wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 01:00:37 -0700, NewAge Prophet wrote:
>
> > A 3 minute lesson on how we got numbers - for those who call themselves
> > math professors:
> >
> > https://youtu.be/TaSobTf7Br8
> I have a better idea: you can stick the video up your ass.

I love it when I annoy the fuck out of a dumb cunt like you. :)

> > Troll comments will be ignored.

> That's quite all right. You can still feel free to stick your
> video up your ass. And keep it there.

I could easily the beat the shit out of you and Earle Jones. But doing it with mathematics is so far more civilised and my hands don't get covered in filth. LMAO.

On Saturday, 25 September 2021 at 23:54:03 UTC+3, Freda Parkins wrote:
> "NewAge Prophet" <newcalcu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9cab1ee5-a673-43bb...@googlegroups.com...
> >A 3 minute lesson on how we got numbers - for those who call themselves
> >math professors:
> >
> > https://youtu.be/TaSobTf7Br8
> >
> > Troll comments will be ignored.
> So pi is the name given to a measure that describes the magnitude or size of
> the length of the circumference of a circle when 2r = 1.

Not at all. There is NO measure of pi using the abstract algebraic unit.

>
> It can't be a rational number

It can't be described by any number. The only well-formed numbers are rational numbers. There is no such thing as a "real number". That is an illusion in your dysfunctional brain.

> because no matter how many digits you have you
> can always find more digits as the following video shows.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMlf1ELvRzc
>
> It follows that there are kinds of numbers which can't be rational numbers.

What? No such thing "follows". There are MAGNITUDES for which there is no rational number that describes their measure. Pi is one such example. Pi is an incommensurable magnitude.

>
> Why don't you offer your video to https://brilliant.org/ John?

Why would I bother with idiots? LMAO. Why don't you offer it?

> They are always looking for brilliant people.

Chuckle. There are no brilliant people there!

On Sunday, 26 September 2021 at 03:08:43 UTC+3, Freda Parkins wrote:
> "FromTheRafters" <err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
> news:sio8f4$onf$1...@dont-email.me...
> > Freda Parkins expressed precisely :
> >> "NewAge Prophet" <newcalcu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:9cab1ee5-a673-43bb...@googlegroups.com...
> >>>A 3 minute lesson on how we got numbers - for those who call themselves
> >>>math professors:
> >>>
> >>> https://youtu.be/TaSobTf7Br8
> >>>
> >>> Troll comments will be ignored.
> >>
> >> So pi is the name given to a measure that describes the magnitude or size
> >> of the length of the circumference of a circle when 2r = 1.
> >>
> >> It can't be a rational number because no matter how many digits you have
> >> you can always find more digits as the following video shows.
> >
> > That is not a cause, but an effect.
> Can you explain why that matters?
>
> John appears to think that there are no numbers other than rational numbers.
> Video at 0.47: "There are no other kinds of numbers".

Correct!

> >
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMlf1ELvRzc
> >>
> >> It follows that there are kinds of numbers which can't be rational
> >> numbers.
> >
> > Might they be called irrational?
> I don't mind what they are called if it can be demonstrated that they exist.

That incommensurable magnitudes exist, was demonstrated thousands of years ago. My brilliant ancestors purposely avoided calling them numbers because the whole idea of the Elements was to derive the concept of number from nothing in a sound philosophical way.

The Ancient Greeks called these magnitudes (NOT numbers!) "irrational" because they cannot be measured using the ABSTRACT UNIT introduced in a very conflated way in Book 7, Def. 1. Euclid could have done better, but all the same, he knew what he was talking about. More importantly, I know what I am talking about.

> Calling them inconsolable magnitators would be ok with me.

The kind of claim that only a stupid and uneducated person makes... calling objects by appropriate names is not a luxury, it is a necessity.

> They are still a specific type or kind of number.

No. pi is no number of any kind because a MAGNITUDE or SIZE is decidedly NOT a NUMBER and vice-versa.

A number is a NAME given to a MEASURE that describes a MAGNITUDE or SIZE.

Book 5 introduces the concept of magnitude in a rather circular way, but I have fixed this:

A magnitude is simply concept of size, dimension or extent. But I suppose when one is a pioneer (as were the Greeks) and knows whereof one speaks, then some error can be excused. YOU have no excuse now because I have pointed these things out to you.

> In the case of pi the number is between 3 and 4.

NO. The (incommensurable) magnitude pi is greater than 3 and less than 4. Pi is a ratio that is realised when an (a failed attempt!) attempt is made at measuring ANY circle's circumference using its DIAMETER as UNIT.

pi = circumference : diameter

pi =/= circumference / diameter

because circumference / diameter implies that circumference and diameter have a common measure meaning the ratio circumference : diameter whose antecedent (circumference) has a number that describes its measure .

circumference and diameter have no common measure, so one can NEVER write pi = circumference / diameter.

>
> John appears to be saying that there are no kinds of numbers other than
> rational numbers.
>
> I find it convincing that e^(2*pi*(0,1)) = 1 where (0,1) is commonly denoted
> as i.

Just as fools find it convincing that there is a set of real numbers.

>
> I have no wish to argue over what kinds of numbers e and pi are.

Because you have no clue what is a number.

> They both exist and they are both numbers to me whether or not anyone else
> agrees.

The typical mindset of a religious fanatic. Born a Catholic, die a Catholic.. Chuckle.

>
> I can remember a school friend telling me he knew that the digits of pi went
> on forever because he had worked it out in math class (or maths class as it
> was at the time).

The "digits of pi" as you call them, are not the measure of pi. There are innumerable rational numbers with the same n digits in the same n places as pi for any given sequence of your attempted measure of that incommensurable magnitude known as pi.

The MAGNITUDE (not number!) Pi has no measure.

> So I asked him what he got.
> 3.1428571...
> >
> >> Why don't you offer your video to https://brilliant.org/ John?
> >> They are always looking for brilliant people.
> >
> > I think the answer to that is obvious. :)
> That's what I thought. :)

On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 8:33:42 AM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Sunday, 26 September 2021 at 03:08:43 UTC+3, Freda Parkins wrote:
> > "FromTheRafters" <err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
> > news:sio8f4$onf$1...@dont-email.me...
> > > Freda Parkins expressed precisely :
> > >> "NewAge Prophet" <newcalcu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:9cab1ee5-a673-43bb...@googlegroups.com...
> > >>>A 3 minute lesson on how we got numbers - for those who call themselves
> > >>>math professors:
> > >>>
> > >>> https://youtu.be/TaSobTf7Br8
> > >>>
> > >>> Troll comments will be ignored.
> > >>
> > >> So pi is the name given to a measure that describes the magnitude or size
> > >> of the length of the circumference of a circle when 2r = 1.
> > >>
> > >> It can't be a rational number because no matter how many digits you have
> > >> you can always find more digits as the following video shows.
> > >
> > > That is not a cause, but an effect.
> > Can you explain why that matters?
> >
> > John appears to think that there are no numbers other than rational numbers.
> > Video at 0.47: "There are no other kinds of numbers".
> Correct!
> > >
> > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMlf1ELvRzc
> > >>
> > >> It follows that there are kinds of numbers which can't be rational
> > >> numbers.
> > >
> > > Might they be called irrational?
> > I don't mind what they are called if it can be demonstrated that they exist.
> That incommensurable magnitudes exist, was demonstrated thousands of years ago. My brilliant ancestors purposely avoided calling them numbers because the whole idea of the Elements was to derive the concept of number from nothing in a sound philosophical way.
>
> The Ancient Greeks called these magnitudes (NOT numbers!) "irrational" because they cannot be measured using the ABSTRACT UNIT introduced in a very conflated way in Book 7, Def. 1. Euclid could have done better, but all the same, he knew what he was talking about. More importantly, I know what I am talking about.
> > Calling them inconsolable magnitators would be ok with me.
> The kind of claim that only a stupid and uneducated person makes... calling objects by appropriate names is not a luxury, it is a necessity.
> > They are still a specific type or kind of number.
> No. pi is no number of any kind because a MAGNITUDE or SIZE is decidedly NOT a NUMBER and vice-versa.
>
> A number is a NAME given to a MEASURE that describes a MAGNITUDE or SIZE.
>
> Book 5 introduces the concept of magnitude in a rather circular way, but I have fixed this:
>
> A magnitude is simply concept of size, dimension or extent. But I suppose when one is a pioneer (as were the Greeks) and knows whereof one speaks, then some error can be excused. YOU have no excuse now because I have pointed these things out to you.
> > In the case of pi the number is between 3 and 4.
> NO. The (incommensurable) magnitude pi is greater than 3 and less than 4.

Archimedes knew the previous fact through the discovery of his misunderstood Archimedean property:

Given any magnitude x (whether it be commensurate or incommensurate with any other magnitude including the abstract unit), there exist rational numbers (NOT "real numbers" because Archimedes knew NOTHING about "real numbers"!) m and n such that m < x < n.

THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.

> Pi is a ratio that is realised when an (a failed attempt!) attempt is made at measuring ANY circle's circumference using its DIAMETER as UNIT.
>
> pi = circumference : diameter
>
> pi =/= circumference / diameter
>
> because circumference / diameter implies that circumference and diameter have a common measure meaning the ratio circumference : diameter whose antecedent (circumference) has a number that describes its measure .
>
> circumference and diameter have no common measure, so one can NEVER write pi = circumference / diameter.
> >
> > John appears to be saying that there are no kinds of numbers other than
> > rational numbers.
> >
> > I find it convincing that e^(2*pi*(0,1)) = 1 where (0,1) is commonly denoted
> > as i.
> Just as fools find it convincing that there is a set of real numbers.
> >
> > I have no wish to argue over what kinds of numbers e and pi are.
> Because you have no clue what is a number.
> > They both exist and they are both numbers to me whether or not anyone else
> > agrees.
> The typical mindset of a religious fanatic. Born a Catholic, die a Catholic. Chuckle.
> >
> > I can remember a school friend telling me he knew that the digits of pi went
> > on forever because he had worked it out in math class (or maths class as it
> > was at the time).
> The "digits of pi" as you call them, are not the measure of pi. There are innumerable rational numbers with the same n digits in the same n places as pi for any given sequence of your attempted measure of that incommensurable magnitude known as pi.
>
> The MAGNITUDE (not number!) Pi has no measure.
> > So I asked him what he got.
> > 3.1428571...
> > >
> > >> Why don't you offer your video to https://brilliant.org/ John?
> > >> They are always looking for brilliant people.
> > >
> > > I think the answer to that is obvious. :)
> > That's what I thought. :)

After serious thinking Freda Parkins wrote :
> "FromTheRafters" <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
> news:sio8f4$onf$1@dont-email.me...
>> Freda Parkins expressed precisely :
>>> "NewAge Prophet" <newcalculusrocks@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:9cab1ee5-a673-43bb-b4e2-4c1f48ec2765n@googlegroups.com...
>>>>A 3 minute lesson on how we got numbers - for those who call themselves
>>>> math professors:
>>>>
>>>> https://youtu.be/TaSobTf7Br8
>>>>
>>>> Troll comments will be ignored.
>>>
>>> So pi is the name given to a measure that describes the magnitude or size
>>> of the length of the circumference of a circle when 2r = 1.
>>>
>>> It can't be a rational number because no matter how many digits you have
>>> you can always find more digits as the following video shows.
>>
>> That is not a cause, but an effect.
>
> Can you explain why that matters?

Some cranks like to use the continued decimal expansion representation
of natural numbers to prove or disprove things about the natural
numbers even though natural numbers do not depend upon their decimal
expansion in the reals to have their own properties.

The CDE is only a representation, and a long period rational will also
give you a "seemingly" unending non-repeating continued decimal
expansion with no indication that the process will or will not halt.

> John appears to think that there are no numbers other than rational numbers.
> Video at 0.47: "There are no other kinds of numbers".

John appears to not think very clearly.

>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMlf1ELvRzc
>>>
>>> It follows that there are kinds of numbers which can't be rational
>>> numbers.
>>
>> Might they be called irrational?
>
> I don't mind what they are called if it can be demonstrated that they exist.
> Calling them inconsolable magnitators would be ok with me.
> They are still a specific type or kind of number.
> In the case of pi the number is between 3 and 4.
>
> John appears to be saying that there are no kinds of numbers other than
> rational numbers.

John is a crank, so what he thinks is immaterial. :)

He could read this, but he probably won't.

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/62878/proving-irrationality

> I find it convincing that e^(2*pi*(0,1)) = 1 where (0,1) is commonly denoted
> as i.
>
> I have no wish to argue over what kinds of numbers e and pi are.
> They both exist and they are both numbers to me whether or not anyone else
> agrees.

Proving a number to be transcendental is even more difficult than
proving it to be irrational. Still, not 'because' of its CDE supertask.

> I can remember a school friend telling me he knew that the digits of pi went
> on forever because he had worked it out in math class (or maths class as it
> was at the time).
> So I asked him what he got.
> 3.1428571...

The simplest earliest fractional approximation taught. It should be
truncated to 3.142857... since the whole repeating sequence gets
repeated 3.(142857)... not 3.(1428571)... He apparently misunderstood
math class. :)

>>> Why don't you offer your video to https://brilliant.org/ John?
>>> They are always looking for brilliant people.
>>
>> I think the answer to that is obvious. :)
>
> That's what I thought. :)

Yep, total crank, and rude too. But like a broken analog clock, he is
not always wrong.

"FromTheRafters" <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:siphdc$l2u$1@dont-email.me...
> After serious thinking Freda Parkins wrote :
>> "FromTheRafters" <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
>> news:sio8f4$onf$1@dont-email.me...
>>> Freda Parkins expressed precisely :
>>>> "NewAge Prophet" <newcalculusrocks@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:9cab1ee5-a673-43bb-b4e2-4c1f48ec2765n@googlegroups.com...
>>>>>A 3 minute lesson on how we got numbers - for those who call themselves
>>>>>math professors:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://youtu.be/TaSobTf7Br8
>>>>>
>>>>> Troll comments will be ignored.
>>>>
>>>> So pi is the name given to a measure that describes the magnitude or
>>>> size of the length of the circumference of a circle when 2r = 1.
>>>>
>>>> It can't be a rational number because no matter how many digits you
>>>> have you can always find more digits as the following video shows.
>>>
>>> That is not a cause, but an effect.
>>
>> Can you explain why that matters?
>
> Some cranks like to use the continued decimal expansion representation of
> natural numbers to prove or disprove things about the natural numbers even
> though natural numbers do not depend upon their decimal expansion in the
> reals to have their own properties.
>
> The CDE is only a representation, and a long period rational will also
> give you a "seemingly" unending non-repeating continued decimal expansion
> with no indication that the process will or will not halt.

Thank you for your clarification.

For example:
57059293/18162537

There doesn't appear to be a trivial way to determine the period but there
is a discussion:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/377683/length-of-period-of-decimal-expansion-of-a-fraction

>
>> John appears to think that there are no numbers other than rational
>> numbers.
>> Video at 0.47: "There are no other kinds of numbers".
>
> John appears to not think very clearly.
>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMlf1ELvRzc
>>>>
>>>> It follows that there are kinds of numbers which can't be rational
>>>> numbers.
>>>
>>> Might they be called irrational?
>>
>> I don't mind what they are called if it can be demonstrated that they
>> exist.
>> Calling them inconsolable magnitators would be ok with me.
>> They are still a specific type or kind of number.
>> In the case of pi the number is between 3 and 4.
>>
>> John appears to be saying that there are no kinds of numbers other than
>> rational numbers.
>
> John is a crank, so what he thinks is immaterial. :)
>
> He could read this, but he probably won't.
>
> https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/62878/proving-irrationality

There are clearly plenty of numbers which are not rational.
Interesting that no-one can show what the status of pi + e is.
Maybe John has a proof or maybe he'll just say it's an incon um never mind.

>
>> I find it convincing that e^(2*pi*(0,1)) = 1 where (0,1) is commonly
>> denoted as i.
>>
>> I have no wish to argue over what kinds of numbers e and pi are.
>> They both exist and they are both numbers to me whether or not anyone
>> else agrees.
>
> Proving a number to be transcendental is even more difficult than proving
> it to be irrational. Still, not 'because' of its CDE supertask.
>
>> I can remember a school friend telling me he knew that the digits of pi
>> went on forever because he had worked it out in math class (or maths
>> class as it was at the time).
>> So I asked him what he got.
>> 3.1428571...
>
> The simplest earliest fractional approximation taught. It should be
> truncated to 3.142857... since the whole repeating sequence gets repeated
> 3.(142857)... not 3.(1428571)... He apparently misunderstood math class.
> :)

It was after I hit the send button when it hit me that I had an extra 1 in
there.

Perhaps these days it shoud be.
157079632679489661923132169163975144209858469968755291048747/50000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Since it's easy to paste that into Wolfram or something similar.

>
>>>> Why don't you offer your video to https://brilliant.org/ John?
>>>> They are always looking for brilliant people.
>>>
>>> I think the answer to that is obvious. :)
>>
>> That's what I thought. :)
>
> Yep, total crank, and rude too. But like a broken analog clock, he is not
> always wrong.

Yes I'm sure it's true that John is not always wrong but he is clearly going
to continue to work in his own system of thought and ignore everyone else.

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

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 4:00:43 AM UTC-4, NewAge Prophet (aka John Gabriel (JG), Troll Boy, Mr. Rectum) wrote:
> A 3 minute lesson on how we got numbers - for those who call themselves math professors:
>

Does it finally provide a definition of the natural numbers that enables you to prove that 2+2=4 in your goofy little system? NO??? Oh, well...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dan

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

On Sunday, 26 September 2021 at 20:03:47 UTC+3, Freda Parkins wrote:
> "FromTheRafters" <err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
> news:siphdc$l2u$1...@dont-email.me...
> > After serious thinking Freda Parkins wrote :

> Yes I'm sure it's true that John is not always wrong but he is clearly going
> to continue to work in his own system of thought and ignore everyone else.

Eram semper recta. Of course I shall ignore fools. I know my strengths and weaknesses. Intelligent people are self aware. I am a genius, ergo, I am self aware.

måndag 27 september 2021 kl. 08:13:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Sunday, 26 September 2021 at 20:03:47 UTC+3, Freda Parkins wrote:
> > "FromTheRafters" <err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
> > news:siphdc$l2u$1...@dont-email.me...
> > > After serious thinking Freda Parkins wrote :
> > Yes I'm sure it's true that John is not always wrong but he is clearly going
> > to continue to work in his own system of thought and ignore everyone else.
> Eram semper recta. Of course I shall ignore fools. I know my strengths and weaknesses. Intelligent people are self aware. I am a genius, ergo, I am self aware.
You are anything but a genius. You are quite the idiot.

måndag 27 september 2021 kl. 08:13:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Sunday, 26 September 2021 at 20:03:47 UTC+3, Freda Parkins wrote:
> > "FromTheRafters" <err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
> > news:siphdc$l2u$1...@dont-email.me...
> > > After serious thinking Freda Parkins wrote :
> > Yes I'm sure it's true that John is not always wrong but he is clearly going
> > to continue to work in his own system of thought and ignore everyone else.
> Eram semper recta. Of course I shall ignore fools. I know my strengths and weaknesses. Intelligent people are self aware. I am a genius, ergo, I am self aware.
Said every genius ever