On 2/14/2022 4:02 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 14 February 2022 at 21:56:57 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Monday, 14 February 2022 at 21:08:20 UTC+1, Python wrote:

>>>> 0 is a perfectly valid value for mass, as mass is a scalar.
>>>
>>> It is surely a fine value of mass, indeed, [snip profanity].
>>
>> You are the one pretending otherwise, anyway...
>
> You, on the other hand, are the one fabricating and lying,
> poor stinker.
>
>>> It is just not well suited for m/m dividing.
>> Given that it is the value a very obvious and natural procedure
>> in maths call "extension by continuity"
>
> Given it all, 0/0 is still invalid, poor stinker.
> But how would such an idiot know.

When you want to find the value of f(x)/g(x) which is valid for most x,
but there are points when you have f(x) and g(x) both 0 (or ∞) and
therefore you have an invalid form 0/0 (or ∞/∞), you have to invoke
something called L'Hopital's Rule. For instances where f(x)/g(x) is 0/0
or ∞/∞, take the derivative of f and g at x, and calculate f'(x)/g'(x)
at that value of x, and that's your answer. If f'(x) and g'(x) _still_
produces an invalid form 0/0 or ∞/∞, take the second derivative, and if
necessary, keep doing so until you have a valid form.

In this case, f(m) = GMm/r², while g(m) = m, and we want the value as m
approaches 0. For nonzero values of m, just factor out m and the answer
is just GM/r². But for m=0 we have to calculate f'(0)/g'(0). f'(m) =
GM/r^2, and g'(m) = 1. Calculate the value at m-0 and you have GM/r²,
just like every other nonzero value of m. So calculating the deflection
for a massless photon *is* valid, and is the same as for any massive
particle.

Note, that this is pretty much a math formalization of the "extension by
continuity" mentioned.

Sorry Maciej, but you're wrong. Again.

p.s. Maciej, your homework assignment is to find the value of sin(x)/x
when x=0. :-)

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 2:58:19 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 9:51:53 AM UTC+11, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> The path of the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is therefore a parabola. But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. We conclude, therefore, that a BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf
> PAGE 101 illustration.
> > >
> > > Pentcho Valev
> >
> >
> Interesting that this illustration and concept behind it, popular with relativists, actually destroys their own theory of GR.
> Because IF their claim is correct, that Gravity can cause a photon or light to bend, and that acceleration will have the same effect because of the equivalence principal, then this must also true:
> That just as the photon can be observed to be curving, then simply by moving the light source to be coincident with the direction of gravity pull or acceleration vector, then for the exact same reason given for the bending of light, the photon MUST necessarily be found to be moving FASTER when it is entering that capsule in the opposite direction as the capsule is moving or SLOWER if the light is entering the capsule in the same direction as capsule motion.
>
> You cant claim the first scenario is true, but claim the second is false, because all we did was to change the angle of motion.

Cretinoid,

COORDINATE light speed is frame invariant for INERTIAL frames.
COORDINATE light speed is frame variant in accelerated or rotating frames.

You are eating shit once again.

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 8:21:12 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> p.s. Maciej, your homework assignment is to find the value of sin(x)/x when x=0. :-)

Why the smile, asshole? This is the f(x) = sinc x function, used by EE, physicists and mathematicians for 70 years, since 1952, and f(0) = 1.

It was introduced by Philip Woodward, an English EE working in the development of radars. Its use was extended to almost any field
where time responses to Dirac impulse excitations were analyzed. Tipical use in electronic where "black boxes" limited in bandwidth are studied, and in digital communications of any kind.

As per Wikipedia, "the function itself was first mathematically derived in this form by Lord Rayleigh in his expression (Rayleigh's Formula) for the zeroth-order spherical Bessel function of the first kind".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinc_function

On 2/14/2022 11:31 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 8:21:12 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> p.s. Maciej, your homework assignment is to find the value of sin(x)/x when x=0. :-)
>
> Why the smile, asshole? This is the f(x) = sinc x function, used by EE, physicists and mathematicians for 70 years, since 1952, and f(0) = 1.
>
Of course I know what it is. But that problem wasn't for you, it was for
the drunk janitor. A function with a definite value at 0 despite being
0/0 at 0.

On Monday, 14 February 2022 at 22:11:41 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 14 February 2022 at 21:56:57 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 14 February 2022 at 21:08:20 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, 14 February 2022 at 20:29:07 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>>>> https://warbletoncouncil.org/teoria-corpuscular-luz-newton-3156
> >>>>> "The Newton's corpuscular theory of light (1704) proposes that light is
> >>>>> made up of material particles"
> >>>>> But nonononononononono! No mention that matter is massive.
> >>>>> Nononononononnonono!
> >>>> 0 is a perfectly valid value for mass, as mass is a scalar.
> >>>
> >>> It is surely a fine value of mass, indeed, [snip profanity].
> >>
> >> You are the one pretending otherwise, anyway...
> >
> > You, on the other hand, are the one fabricating and lying,
> > poor stinker.
> >
> >>> It is just not well suited for m/m dividing.
> >> Given that it is the value a very obvious and natural procedure
> >> in maths call "extension by continuity"
> >
> > Given it all, 0/0 is still invalid, [snip profanity].
>
> Surprise, you snipped the part of my post justifying it,

Well, take your part justifyinig it, and put it straight
into your dumb, fanatic ass, where it belongs, poor
stinker. Thinks won't change, 0/0 is not a valid
dividing.

On Monday, 14 February 2022 at 22:19:36 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, 14 February 2022 at 20:29:07 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, 14 February 2022 at 17:30:00 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, 14 February 2022 at 17:09:01 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Monday, 14 February 2022 at 16:05:18 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 14 February 2022 at 15:13:52 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 5:23:28 AM UTC+11, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Question: "If a light beam is sent tangent across earth would it curve
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> at 9.8 m/s^
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ?"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/627464/if-a-light-beam-is-sent-tangent-across-earth-would-it-curve-at-9-8-rm-m-s2/627496
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My answer: "Yes the light beam would curve at 9.8 m/s^2, as per
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Newton's theory":
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2-17, which shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Successive positions of the compartment are shown at equal time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating, the distance it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of the beam of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> light, as observed from inside the compartment, is therefore a parabola.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> velocity in a uniform gravitational field. We conclude, therefore, that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> An Einsteinian’s answer: "Yes it will curve, but not at 9.8 m/s^2 as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> predicted by Newton's theory. Its curvature will be twice that value as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> predicted by General Relativity."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Who is right?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pentcho Valev
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Pentcho, why would you even think that Light could ever be influenced by
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gravity?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is that what you believe?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sir, you may find it shocking that Newtonian mechanics does predict the
> >>>>>>>>>>> deflection of light by gravity.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Or maybe poor idiot woodworker doesn't distinguish between
> >>>>>>>>>> Newtonian mechanics, Newtonian gravity theory and Newtonian
> >>>>>>>>>> optics.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> This was first calculated in fact, in 1804,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Assuming massive light.
> >>>>>>>>> Nope.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And Odd Bodkin is a nickname of the queen of
> >>>>>>>> England.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It doesn’t really matter whether you believe things that are told to you
> >>>>>>> hear, does it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It only matters that a poor idiot woodworker believes them,
> >>>>>> doesn't it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> It doesn’t matter what ANYBODY believes, Woz. As I said, historical and
> >>>>> scientific facts are true
> >>>>
> >>>> And von Soldner formula was assuming massive light. Even if
> >>>> some idiot woodworkers believe it wasn't.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Try https://math pages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm.
> >>> It did assume a Newtonian corpuscular theory of light, but there is no mass
> >>> of the corpuscle in the calculation, and indeed the answer is independent
> >>> of any value of mass. And indeed it is obvious why: In Newtonian mechanics,
> >>> the orbit of a body is independent of the mass of the orbiting body, as
> >>> long as that mass is very small compared to the mass of the gravitating
> >>> body. Soldner’s paper (which is available both in English and German from
> >>> wikisource.org) in fact makes no mention of the light being assumed to be
> >>> massive, only that he treats “a light ray almost as a ponderable body”.
> >>> Almost.
> >>>
> >> No mention of corpuscular mass in either Newton or Soldner. Not one.
> >
> > https://warbletoncouncil.org/teoria-corpuscular-luz-newton-3156
> > "The Newton's corpuscular theory of light (1704) proposes that light is
> > made up of material particles"
> > But nonononononononono! No mention that matter is massive.
> > Nononononononnonono!
> >
> Indeed, he did not, though I see that you are using a website aimed at high
> school students and lay folk to try to make your case that it was implied..

Apart of them, of course, nobody would ever think that matter
could have any mass when it's uncomfortable to a poor idiot
woodworker.

> And in fact, though he wondered if there was a connection

Whatever he wondered, 0/0 is not a valid dividing.
His formulas can't be used for massless particles, poor
halfbrain.

On Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 00:21:12 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 2/14/2022 4:02 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 14 February 2022 at 21:56:57 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 14 February 2022 at 21:08:20 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>
> >>>> 0 is a perfectly valid value for mass, as mass is a scalar.
> >>>
> >>> It is surely a fine value of mass, indeed, [snip profanity].
> >>
> >> You are the one pretending otherwise, anyway...
> >
> > You, on the other hand, are the one fabricating and lying,
> > poor stinker.
> >
> >>> It is just not well suited for m/m dividing.
> >> Given that it is the value a very obvious and natural procedure
> >> in maths call "extension by continuity"
> >
> > Given it all, 0/0 is still invalid, poor stinker.
> > But how would such an idiot know.
> When you want to find the value of f(x)/g(x) which is valid for most x,
> but there are points when you have f(x) and g(x) both 0 (or ∞) and
> therefore you have an invalid form 0/0 (or ∞/∞), you have to invoke
> something called L'Hopital's Rule.

If I want to know what is the limit of f(x)/g(x) you can
invoke it. 0/0 is still not a valid dividing, stupid Mike.

> In this case, f(m) = GMm/r², while g(m) = m, and we want the value as m
> approaches 0.

In this case, stupid Mike, we don't need any rules, we just
substitute m/m=1. It doesn't make 0/0 a valid dividing,
though.

> just like every other nonzero value of m. So calculating the deflection
> for a massless photon *is* valid,

An opinion of stupid Mike and his fellow idiots; basic
arithmetics has a different one.

On Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 01:47:27 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:

> COORDINATE light speed is frame invariant for INERTIAL frames.

For all 0 inertial frames.

On 2/15/2022 1:39 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 00:21:12 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 2/14/2022 4:02 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Monday, 14 February 2022 at 21:56:57 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 14 February 2022 at 21:08:20 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>
>>>>>> 0 is a perfectly valid value for mass, as mass is a scalar.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is surely a fine value of mass, indeed, [snip profanity].
>>>>
>>>> You are the one pretending otherwise, anyway...
>>>
>>> You, on the other hand, are the one fabricating and lying,
>>> poor stinker.
>>>
>>>>> It is just not well suited for m/m dividing.
>>>> Given that it is the value a very obvious and natural procedure
>>>> in maths call "extension by continuity"
>>>
>>> Given it all, 0/0 is still invalid, poor stinker.
>>> But how would such an idiot know.
>> When you want to find the value of f(x)/g(x) which is valid for most x,
>> but there are points when you have f(x) and g(x) both 0 (or ∞) and
>> therefore you have an invalid form 0/0 (or ∞/∞), you have to invoke
>> something called L'Hopital's Rule.
>
> If I want to know what is the limit of f(x)/g(x) you can
> invoke it. 0/0 is still not a valid dividing, stupid Mike.

It's not, but the gravitational deflection of a massless particle is
valid because of this.
>
>> In this case, f(m) = GMm/r², while g(m) = m, and we want the value as m
>> approaches 0.
>
> In this case, stupid Mike, we don't need any rules, we just
> substitute m/m=1. It doesn't make 0/0 a valid dividing,
> though.

How dumb is that? "0/0 isn't a valid division, so when m=0 we
substitute 1 for m/m, because m/m=1" Oooo-kay...
>
>
>> just like every other nonzero value of m. So calculating the deflection
>> for a massless photon *is* valid,
>
> An opinion of stupid Mike and his fellow idiots; basic
> arithmetics has a different one.

Not an opinion, because basic calculus has L'Hopital's Rule, so basic
calculus tells us the gravitational acceleration of a massless particle
is the same as for a massive one.
>

On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 3:18:41 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> Of course I know what it is. But that problem wasn't for you, it was for
> the drunk janitor. A function with a definite value at 0 despite being 0/0 at 0.

The derivation of sin x/x value for x = 0 was made by a respected scientist of the stature of Lord Rayleigh. I expect that you are
not going to extend the same reasoning he used (limit of the auxiliary infinitesimal going to zero) to validate black holes throught
the Schwarzschild-Hilbert metric with the pretension that 1/0 has a physical meaning.

Anyway, 50,000 retarded are making a living with this shit right now, and the total since it started probably is aroun 80,000 cretins.

And everyone here is an amateur on such subject, as they don't profit from it even when relativists here support all that shit.

I don't understand the problem with maluw.

Quoting maluw: "Yeah, it is obvious: m/m gives 1. Just not for m=0, mr certified mathematician."

If m = m + ε, where ε is a very small parameter << m, then

lim [m --> 0] {(m + ε)/(m + ε)} = ε/ε = 1

So?

On Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 08:21:23 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 2/15/2022 1:39 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 00:21:12 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 2/14/2022 4:02 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 14 February 2022 at 21:56:57 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, 14 February 2022 at 21:08:20 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> 0 is a perfectly valid value for mass, as mass is a scalar.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is surely a fine value of mass, indeed, [snip profanity].
> >>>>
> >>>> You are the one pretending otherwise, anyway...
> >>>
> >>> You, on the other hand, are the one fabricating and lying,
> >>> poor stinker.
> >>>
> >>>>> It is just not well suited for m/m dividing.
> >>>> Given that it is the value a very obvious and natural procedure
> >>>> in maths call "extension by continuity"
> >>>
> >>> Given it all, 0/0 is still invalid, poor stinker.
> >>> But how would such an idiot know.
> >> When you want to find the value of f(x)/g(x) which is valid for most x,
> >> but there are points when you have f(x) and g(x) both 0 (or ∞) and
> >> therefore you have an invalid form 0/0 (or ∞/∞), you have to invoke
> >> something called L'Hopital's Rule.
> >
> > If I want to know what is the limit of f(x)/g(x) you can
> > invoke it. 0/0 is still not a valid dividing, stupid Mike.
> It's not, but the gravitational deflection of a massless particle is
> valid because of this.

Don't you know that the measured result is different, stupid
Mike?

> > In this case, stupid Mike, we don't need any rules, we just
> > substitute m/m=1. It doesn't make 0/0 a valid dividing,
> > though.
> How dumb is that? "0/0 isn't a valid division, so when m=0

The whole part was
>>> In this case, f(m) = GMm/r², while g(m) = m, and we want the value as m
>>> approaches 0.
> > In this case, stupid Mike, we don't need any rules, we just
> > substitute m/m=1. It doesn't make 0/0 a valid dividing,
> > though.

when m approaches to 0 it is not 0, stupid Mike.

> Not an opinion, because basic calculus has L'Hopital's Rule, so basic
> calculus tells us the gravitational acceleration of a massless particle
> is the same as for a massive one.

Experiment invalidates the "logic" of stupid Mike and his fellow
relativistic morons.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 3:18:41 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Of course I know what it is. But that problem wasn't for you, it was for
>> the drunk janitor. A function with a definite value at 0 despite being 0/0 at 0.
>
> The derivation of sin x/x value for x = 0 was made by a respected
> scientist of the stature of Lord Rayleigh. I expect that you are
> not going to extend the same reasoning he used (limit of the auxiliary
> infinitesimal going to zero) to validate black holes throught
> the Schwarzschild-Hilbert metric with the pretension that 1/0 has a physical meaning.
>
> Anyway, 50,000 retarded are making a living with this shit right now, and
> the total since it started probably is aroun 80,000 cretins.
>
> And everyone here is an amateur on such subject, as they don't profit
> from it even when relativists here support all that shit.
>
> I don't understand the problem with maluw.

What’s to understand? He’s weak on the basics, calls himself one of the
greatest logicians humanity has ever had, and cannot admit when he’s made a
mistake. He’s one of those people that despises jargon or any result that
flies in the face of everyday sensibilities.

>
> Quoting maluw: "Yeah, it is obvious: m/m gives 1. Just not for m=0, mr
> certified mathematician."
>
> If m = m + ε, where ε is a very small parameter << m, then
>
> lim [m --> 0] {(m + ε)/(m + ε)} = ε/ε = 1
>
> So?
>
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 15:02:02 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 3:18:41 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Of course I know what it is. But that problem wasn't for you, it was for
> >> the drunk janitor. A function with a definite value at 0 despite being 0/0 at 0.
> >
> > The derivation of sin x/x value for x = 0 was made by a respected
> > scientist of the stature of Lord Rayleigh. I expect that you are
> > not going to extend the same reasoning he used (limit of the auxiliary
> > infinitesimal going to zero) to validate black holes throught
> > the Schwarzschild-Hilbert metric with the pretension that 1/0 has a physical meaning.
> >
> > Anyway, 50,000 retarded are making a living with this shit right now, and
> > the total since it started probably is aroun 80,000 cretins.
> >
> > And everyone here is an amateur on such subject, as they don't profit
> > from it even when relativists here support all that shit.
> >
> > I don't understand the problem with maluw.
> What’s to understand? He’s weak on the basics, calls himself one of the
> greatest logicians humanity has ever had, and cannot admit when he’s made a
> mistake.

What's to understand, indeed. Being one of the best
logicians humanity ever had I easilly show poor stinker
Odd and his fellow idiots they're weak on the basics
and cannot admit when making a mistake. No wonder
they hate me.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 15:02:02 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
....
>> What’s to understand? He’s weak on the basics, calls himself one of the
>> greatest logicians humanity has ever had, and cannot admit when he’s made a
>> mistake.
>
> What's to understand, indeed. Being one of the best
> logicians humanity ever had I easilly show poor stinker
> Odd and his fellow idiots they're weak on the basics
> and cannot admit when making a mistake. No wonder
> they hate me.

Hate? What hate? You are only a laughing stock, Maciej.

On Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 15:12:59 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 15:02:02 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> ...
> >> What’s to understand? He’s weak on the basics, calls himself one of the
> >> greatest logicians humanity has ever had, and cannot admit when he’s made a
> >> mistake.
> >
> > What's to understand, indeed. Being one of the best
> > logicians humanity ever had I easilly show poor stinker
> > Odd and his fellow idiots they're weak on the basics
> > and cannot admit when making a mistake. No wonder
> > they hate me.
> Hate? What hate?

Your hate, poor stinker; as well as Odd's, Mike's
and others.

> You are only a laughing stock, Maciej.

And 2+2=sqrt(7)=2+3 in 9-ring, Godel's theorem is
provable in Peano arithemtics and so on.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> .... 9-ring

"9-ring" ?!!! LOL!

> Godel's theorem is
> provable in Peano arithemtics and so on.

It is.

On Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 15:22:08 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > .... 9-ring
>
> "9-ring" ?!!! LOL!
> > Godel's theorem is
> > provable in Peano arithemtics and so on.
> It is.

Of course, you don't know what you're talking
about, but feel free to think so, poor halfbrain.
Seems, BTW, you've learnt how stupid it was to
insist that there is a difference between AP
and AP+FOL?

Laughing stock, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 15:22:08 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> .... 9-ring
>>
>> "9-ring" ?!!! LOL!

(still laughing btw)

>>> Godel's theorem is
>>> provable in Peano arithemtics and so on.
>> It is.
>
> Of course, you don't know what you're talking
> about, but feel free to think so, [snip profanity]

I teach this stuff, clown.

> Seems, BTW, you've learnt how stupid it was to
> insist that there is a difference between AP
> and AP+FOL?

You still feel confused (and will stay so, unfortunately)
about the roles played by Peano and FOL in Gödel's theorem,
sure. You may (but won't, right?) look at actual implementation
of Peano Arithmetic (in CoQ for instance, but this can be
done in Python with abstract base classes), no need for FOL
there.

Python <python@example.invalid> wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 15:02:02 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> ...
>>> What’s to understand? He’s weak on the basics, calls himself one of the
>>> greatest logicians humanity has ever had, and cannot admit when he’s made a
>>> mistake.
>>
>> What's to understand, indeed. Being one of the best
>> logicians humanity ever had I easilly show poor stinker
>> Odd and his fellow idiots they're weak on the basics
>> and cannot admit when making a mistake. No wonder
>> they hate me.
>
> Hate? What hate? You are only a laughing stock, Maciej.
>
>

Exactly. He vastly overestimates both his abilities and his impact.

Has to, I suppose, to compensate for a lifetime of marginalization.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 15:34:22 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Laughing stock, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 15:22:08 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> .... 9-ring
> >>
> >> "9-ring" ?!!! LOL!
> (still laughing btw)
> >>> Godel's theorem is
> >>> provable in Peano arithemtics and so on.
> >> It is.
> >
> > Of course, you don't know what you're talking
> > about, but feel free to think so, [snip profanity]
>
> I teach this stuff, clown.

Too bad for your students then, poor stinker.

> > Seems, BTW, you've learnt how stupid it was to
> > insist that there is a difference between AP
> > and AP+FOL?
> You still feel confused (and will stay so, unfortunately)
> about the roles played by Peano and FOL in Gödel's theorem,

You can't distinguish between an assumption of a theorem and
the axioms of a theory; it's funny, but it's not confusing at
all.

> sure. You may (but won't, right?) look at actual implementation
> of Peano Arithmetic (in CoQ for instance, but this can be
> done in Python with abstract base classes), no need for FOL
> there.

So, as Peano arithmetics doesn't fulfill the assumptions of
Godel theorem - it's not a subject of the thesis of Godel's
theorem. Right, poor halfbrain?

On Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 15:44:35 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Python <pyt...@example.invalid> wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 15:02:02 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > ...
> >>> What’s to understand? He’s weak on the basics, calls himself one of the
> >>> greatest logicians humanity has ever had, and cannot admit when he’s made a
> >>> mistake.
> >>
> >> What's to understand, indeed. Being one of the best
> >> logicians humanity ever had I easilly show poor stinker
> >> Odd and his fellow idiots they're weak on the basics
> >> and cannot admit when making a mistake. No wonder
> >> they hate me.
> >
> > Hate? What hate? You are only a laughing stock, Maciej.
> >
> >
> Exactly. He vastly overestimates both his abilities and his impact.

Or maybe poor Odd, well known piece of lying shit, is just
a piece of lying shit.

> Has to, I suppose, to compensate for a lifetime of marginalization.

Well, what you suppose is as idiotic as always.

On 2/15/2022 9:20 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 15:12:59 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 15:02:02 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> ...
>>>> What’s to understand? He’s weak on the basics, calls himself one of the
>>>> greatest logicians humanity has ever had, and cannot admit when he’s made a
>>>> mistake.
>>>
>>> What's to understand, indeed. Being one of the best
>>> logicians humanity ever had I easilly show poor stinker
>>> Odd and his fellow idiots they're weak on the basics
>>> and cannot admit when making a mistake. No wonder
>>> they hate me.

>> Hate? What hate?
>
> Your hate, poor stinker; as well as Odd's, Mike's
> and others.

You don't understand the difference between laughter at clownish antics
and hate. People laughed at the likes of the Three Stooges. They loved
them, not hated them. We laugh at your bad physics and bad logic
because we love the entertainment, no hate involved.

>> You are only a laughing stock, Maciej.

And thanks for the laughs, Maciej!

Le 15/02/2022 à 16:14, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 15:34:22 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Laughing stock, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 15:22:08 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> .... 9-ring
>>>>
>>>> "9-ring" ?!!! LOL!
>> (still laughing btw)
>>>>> Godel's theorem is
>>>>> provable in Peano arithemtics and so on.
>>>> It is.
>>>
>>> Of course, you don't know what you're talking
>>> about, but feel free to think so, [snip profanity]
>>
>> I teach this stuff, clown.
>
> Too bad for your students then, [snip profanity].

Very good for them to know they won't end up being a crazy
old Polish laughing stock posting nonsense and fallacies
(and profanities) on sci.physics.relativity (or sci.math,
sci.logic, etc.)

>>> Seems, BTW, you've learnt how stupid it was to
>>> insist that there is a difference between AP
>>> and AP+FOL?
>> You still feel confused (and will stay so, unfortunately)
>> about the roles played by Peano and FOL in Gödel's theorem,
>
> You can't distinguish between an assumption of a theorem and
> the axioms of a theory; it's funny, but it's not confusing at
> all.

Still YOU are hightly confused.

>> sure. You may (but won't, right?) look at actual implementation
>> of Peano Arithmetic (in CoQ for instance, but this can be
>> done in Python with abstract base classes), no need for FOL
>> there.
>
> So, as Peano arithmetics doesn't fulfill the assumptions of
> Godel theorem - it's not a subject of the thesis of Godel's
> theorem. Right, [snip profanity]

Even more confused than I thought. You are a fractal of stupidities
Maciej.

On 2/15/2022 2:46 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 3:18:41 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> I don't understand the problem with maluw.
>
> Quoting maluw: "Yeah, it is obvious: m/m gives 1. Just not for m=0, mr certified mathematician."

He is merely trying to confuse matters, that's all.

"0/0 is invalid, but m/m=1 even for m=0" "Massless items aren't
deflected by gravity even if the math says they are, because 0/0 is
invalid even though we replaced m/m with 1" "L'Hopital's Rule doesn't
apply even if it does" etc. etc.

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 2/15/2022 9:20 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 15:12:59 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 15:02:02 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> What’s to understand? He’s weak on the basics, calls himself one of the
>>>>> greatest logicians humanity has ever had, and cannot admit when he’s made a
>>>>> mistake.
>>>>
>>>> What's to understand, indeed. Being one of the best
>>>> logicians humanity ever had I easilly show poor stinker
>>>> Odd and his fellow idiots they're weak on the basics
>>>> and cannot admit when making a mistake. No wonder
>>>> they hate me.
>
>>> Hate? What hate?
>>
>> Your hate, poor stinker; as well as Odd's, Mike's
>> and others.
>
> You don't understand the difference between laughter at clownish antics
> and hate. People laughed at the likes of the Three Stooges. They loved
> them, not hated them. We laugh at your bad physics and bad logic
> because we love the entertainment, no hate involved.
>
>>> You are only a laughing stock, Maciej.
>
> And thanks for the laughs, Maciej!
>

Woz *wants* confrontation. It makes him feel good. He doesn’t want to be
laughed at.

So it’s just easier on his psyche to believe that he’s generating hate and
anger than to believe he’s being laughed at.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables