onsdag 22 september 2021 kl. 08:28:58 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> 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.

We have many times here. Markus has shown, Dan has, I have. For example we have pointed out you do not understand integral domains vs fields and how factorization works in them.

Amongst many many many things.

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!

Refreshed due to troll activity.

torsdag 23 september 2021 kl. 08:11:11 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!
> Refreshed due to troll activity.
It isn't trolling pointing out where you're wrong.

On Thursday, 23 September 2021 at 13:27:24 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> torsdag 23 september 2021 kl. 08:11:11 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!
> > Refreshed due to troll activity.
> It isn't trolling pointing out where you're wrong.

It is trolling when you confirm with your every comment that you are a troll and that's what you do. I mean even the infamous troll Dan Christensen seems to have mellowed compared to you. Now that's a poke in your eye. LMAO.

If you have nothing to say, the best practice is to abstain from taking a dump on the thread by repeating your drivel over and over again - so typical of a troll.

fredag 24 september 2021 kl. 11:10:13 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Thursday, 23 September 2021 at 13:27:24 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > torsdag 23 september 2021 kl. 08:11:11 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!
> > > Refreshed due to troll activity.
> > It isn't trolling pointing out where you're wrong.
> It is trolling when you confirm with your every comment that you are a troll and that's what you do. I mean even the infamous troll Dan Christensen seems to have mellowed compared to you. Now that's a poke in your eye. LMAO.
>
> If you have nothing to say, the best practice is to abstain from taking a dump on the thread by repeating your drivel over and over again - so typical of a troll.
To be a troll I have to say things for the purpsoe of antagonizing people. I have no intent of antagonizing anyone. My intent is correcting you where you're wrong and boy there are many places where you are!

You repeat your drivel, so by your definition, you are a troll!

You are quite the hypocrite!

On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 11:49:00 PM 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!

All we have are troll comments and nothing of substance.

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.
Huh? This is how equality works.

You have sin(0)=0, so sin(0)/0=0/0, which is just nonsense.

If f(0) is 2, then you would have 0/0=2, which is not 1. So 0/0=1 doesn't make sense.

On Saturday, 25 September 2021 at 20:13:56 UTC+3, markus...@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.

> Huh? This is how equality works.

Indeed! IF f is defined as sin(x)/x = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... THEN f(0)=1.

>
> You have sin(0)=0, so sin(0)/0=0/0, which is just nonsense.
>
> If f(0) is 2, then you would have 0/0=2, which is not 1.

No. f(0)=1

Are you saying that (x + 3) =/= (x+3)(x-3)/(x-3) ? LMAO.

(x + 3) is ALWAYS equal to (x+3)(x-3)/(x-3) provided (x-3) and (x+3) are numbers, but if you are not talking about numbers, then you are not talking about mathematics, but some other gibberish.

söndag 26 september 2021 kl. 07:48:04 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Saturday, 25 September 2021 at 20:13:56 UTC+3, markus...@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.
>
> > Huh? This is how equality works.
> Indeed! IF f is defined as sin(x)/x = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... THEN f(0)=1.
> >
> > You have sin(0)=0, so sin(0)/0=0/0, which is just nonsense.
> >
> > If f(0) is 2, then you would have 0/0=2, which is not 1.
> No. f(0)=1
>
> Are you saying that (x + 3) =/= (x+3)(x-3)/(x-3) ? LMAO.
>
> (x + 3) is ALWAYS equal to (x+3)(x-3)/(x-3) provided (x-3) and (x+3) are numbers, but if you are not talking about numbers, then you are not talking about mathematics, but some other gibberish.
They attain the same value on their intersection of their domains. One is defined for all x, and the other one is defined for x all but 3.