Fiction numbers create fiction angles too

Discussion:

Fiction numbers create fiction angles too

(too old to reply)

bassam king karzeddin

2017-04-02 08:09:15 UTC

The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure

I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely

If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)

The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2ed, April, 2017
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017

Dan Christensen

2017-04-02 16:16:17 UTC

The fiction numbers...

No such thing. BKK just doesn't know what to do when he runs out fingers and toes.

Dan

a***@gmail.com

2017-04-03 00:36:06 UTC

how does one construct 21/90 of a quartercircle?

Vinicius Claudino Ferraz

2017-04-03 17:18:58 UTC

hey, wait!

the talk is about fiction angles or fiction angels?

Post by a***@gmail.com
how does one construct 21/90 of a quartercircle?

bassam king karzeddin

2017-04-04 08:08:13 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure
I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely
If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2ed, April, 2017
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017

Then it is so easy now to identify all the fiction angles in integer degrees,

So, if (n) is integer degree angle, and (n) is not divisible by (3), then it is a fiction and non existing angle (for sure)

Otherwise try constructing EXACTLY any angle of this integer form (3m + 1),
or (3m - 1), where (m) is integer number, in any possible triangle, having the whole universe as a board

And naturally, if (n) is divisible by (3), then such integer degree angle exists for sure

This simple rule principle can easily be expanded into rational or constructible form angle

** An important NOTE to secretive researchers or Wikipedia Writers**

Please try to understand completely the simple concept, just before you rush into your secretive research or Modifying or adding new wikipedia pages

Also, do not pretend that there was such references before many centuries and it is suddenly now becomes clearer, being honest is much more worth than your product, for sure

BK

BK

a***@gmail.com

2017-04-07 06:22:42 UTC

your supposition is ill-posed for,
if it were so, then trisection could
be done with compasses -- bZZZZZt

bassam king karzeddin

2017-04-08 06:40:28 UTC

Post by a***@gmail.com
your supposition is ill-posed for,
if it were so, then trisection could
be done with compasses -- bZZZZZt

And, yes it can be done by unmarked straightedge and compass, once you throw away all fiction numbers from your dictionary, for sure

BK

a***@gmail.com

2017-04-08 08:44:40 UTC

yes, as you said that you could trisect an angle
of 21/360 of a cycle -- just d00 it

Post by bassam king karzeddin
And, yes it can be done by unmarked straightedge and compass, once you throw away all fiction numbers from your dictionary, for sure
BK

a***@gmail.com

2017-04-08 22:35:38 UTC

it's only secondr00ts that are constructible, and
secodr00ts of secondr00ts; if you want to train a regular tetragon,
that is an optional.

I'm sure that your "pr00f" of Fermat's p-adic theorem is
of intrinsic interest, since that other guy showed what it was,
clearly not a pr00f of that

a***@gmail.com

2017-04-08 23:45:38 UTC

so, what is the third power of three in base_three;
what is the sec0np0wer of t00 in base t00; and
what is the first p0wer of 0ne in base_0ne. also,
always end with a trickquest ion

Post by a***@gmail.com
I'm sure that your "pr00f" of Fermat's p-adic theorem is
of intrinsic interest, since that other guy showed what it was,
clearly not a pr00f of that

bassam king karzeddin

2017-04-09 07:38:52 UTC

Post by a***@gmail.com
yes, as you said that you could trisect an angle
of 21/360 of a cycle -- just d00 it

Post by bassam king karzeddin
And, yes it can be done by unmarked straightedge and compass, once you throw away all fiction numbers from your dictionary, for sure
BK

It is so clear that you have understood nothing from my many posts regarding this simple issue

In integer degrees angle (say simply from 0 to 90), I had defined the existing angles of the form (3n), which implies directly that the integer degree angles are (0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45, 48, 51, 54, 57, 60, 63, 66, 69, 72, 75, 78, 81, 84, 87, 90)

But I defined also the integer degree angle (n) is fiction angle or non existing angle provided that (n) is not divisible by (3)

So, the tri sectable angles therefore are of the form (9n), those are

(0, 9, 18, 27, 36, 45, 54, 63, 72, 81, 90) degrees, are only the tri sectable angles for sure

And I assume your angle here is (21) degrees, not divisible by 9, therefore impossible to trisect, because its trisection angle does not exist for sure

Bassam King Karzeddin
9 th, April, 2017

Doc Ellis

2017-04-09 14:51:00 UTC

Shut up mathforum.org imbecile. Your insane rantings are entirely off-topic
and unwelcome. Go sodomize a goat (your mother).

bassam king karzeddin

2017-04-09 17:55:36 UTC

Post by Doc Ellis
Shut up mathforum.org imbecile. Your insane rantings are entirely off-topic
and unwelcome. Go sodomize a goat (your mother).

Another real imbecile (number 17 I think), recognized immediately from his first post, and hopefully the last one, wonder!

So, what can anyone expect from an imbecile as this?, wonder!

BK

t***@gmail.com

2017-04-09 15:36:04 UTC

you are waffling back & forth on an ill-posed problemma,
whether or not your formation of sec0ndp0wer tuples is a)
new, or b)
interseting -- even though it does not dys\prove the "last" theorem

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by a***@gmail.com
yes, as you said that you could trisect an angle
of 21/360 of a cycle -- just d00 it

In integer degrees angle (say simply from 0 to 90), I had defined the existing angles of the form (3n), which implies directly that the integer degree angles are (0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45, 48, 51, 54, 57, 60, 63, 66, 69, 72, 75, 78, 81, 84, 87, 90)
But I defined also the integer degree angle (n) is fiction angle or non existing angle provided that (n) is not divisible by (3)
So, the tri sectable angles therefore are of the form (9n), those are
And I assume your angle here is (21) degrees, not divisible by 9, therefore impossible to trisect, because its trisection angle does not exist for sure

a***@gmail.com

2017-04-10 00:38:45 UTC

as far as I am aware,
teh only way to construct angles is vie regular polygona,
as far as compasses are used;
do you have some other method?

Post by a***@gmail.com
yes, as you said that you could trisect an angle
of 21/360 of a cycle -- just d00 it

In integer degrees angle 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45, 48, 51, 54, 57, 60, 63, 66, 69, 72, 75, 78, 81, 84, 87, 90)

a***@gmail.com

2017-04-10 13:05:12 UTC

surely, you do not have any way to trisect a 21-degree angle, or
Bombelli et al would have found it, "imaginarily"

the only way to construct angles is vie regular polygona,
as far as compasses are used;
do you have some other method?

Post by a***@gmail.com
yes, as you said that you could trisect an angle
of 21/360 of a cycle -- just d00 it

In integer degrees angle 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45, 48, 51, 54, 57, 60, 63, 66, 69, 72, 75, 78, 81, 84, 87, 90)

bassam king karzeddin

2017-04-11 08:12:58 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure
I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely
If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017

And it is impossible existence of any triangle to exist with constructible sides and with at least one integer angle that is not divisible by (3), for sure

And the converse is true also, where a triangle with integer degree angles divisible by (3), must exist with constructible sides EXACTLY

Note here no INFINITE APPROXIMATION nonsense is allowed for the sides of the triangle

Bassam King Karzeddin
11 th, April, 2017

a***@gmail.com

2017-04-11 19:11:24 UTC

you mean, like the pentagon, of course; so,
I just will not be "allowed to construct any pentagonum,
what so ever" -- thanks for the heads "up"

bassam king karzeddin

2017-04-12 07:17:43 UTC

Post by a***@gmail.com
you mean, like the pentagon, of course; so,
I just will not be "allowed to construct any pentagonum,
what so ever" -- thanks for the heads "up"

Do not divert the issue or mislead others as usual Troll, (72) and (108) degrees angles are easily constructible angles from my definition, hence a pentagon is constructed, WHICH was done thousands of years back, even without your (e) or (i), for sure

BK

bassam king karzeddin

2017-05-09 17:51:29 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure
I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely
If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2ed, April, 2017
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017

Of course, a fiction number can not represent any physical length, but if we insist blindly and stubbornly on those fiction numbers, then we must face the problem again with angles, and angles can not cheat for sure

And yes, no triangle exists with exactly known sides that has one of its integer degrees angles not divisible by (3), sure

BK

bassam king karzeddin

2017-05-13 14:01:06 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure
I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely
If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2ed, April, 2017
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017

Ans still they cannot bring even one angle into existence, for sure

And so so oddly, they (the top professional mathematicians) refuse and do not want to understand what was the reason, wonder!

But frankly, mathematics is not only counting on fingers, and the Queen said it is not up to your damn silly convenience for sure

BKK

Python

2017-05-13 14:08:33 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Ans still they cannot bring even one angle into existence, for sure
And so so oddly, they (the top professional mathematicians) refuse and do not want to understand what was the reason, wonder!
But frankly, mathematics is not only counting on fingers, and the Queen said it is not up to your damn silly convenience for sure
BKK

Did you ever succeed in convincing any decent sane person of the
validity of your shit, Mr Karzeddin? For sure not. Wonder!

bassam king karzeddin

2017-05-14 07:53:43 UTC

Post by Python

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Ans still they cannot bring even one angle into existence, for sure
And so so oddly, they (the top professional mathematicians) refuse and do not want to understand what was the reason, wonder!
But frankly, mathematics is not only counting on fingers, and the Queen said it is not up to your damn silly convenience for sure
BKK

Did you ever succeed in convincing any decent sane person of the
validity of your shit, Mr Karzeddin? For sure not. Wonder!

As if mathematics is up to everyone convenience, especially a moron typo of your alike, wonder!

No stupid, true mathematics require your complete blind obedience (even without your choice), wonder!
And mathematics is not at all as a matter of democracy for sure

BKK

bassam king karzeddin

2017-05-31 08:53:07 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure
I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely
If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2ed, April, 2017
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)

So, nobody is capable of constructing such alleged any one of the alleged real angles existing angles with integer degrees but still, they claim their existence, and not only that they do claim so ignorantly that those angles can be trisected also

And the common sense conclusion we can say that if the angle itself is the nonexisting angle, then how the hell you can construct its one-third? wonder!

So, the main problem is only common sense that is not accepted method in mathematic.

So, the common sense principle must be added to the mathematical terminologies in order to clear out most of all those unsolved problems that are mind blocking and binding for sure

BKK

Post by bassam king karzeddin
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017

Markus Klyver

2017-05-31 09:26:00 UTC

Not all of them are constructable in the sense you are talking about. Doesn't mean we can't y'all usefully about them.

bassam king karzeddin

2017-05-31 10:07:33 UTC

Post by Markus Klyver
Not all of them are constructable in the sense you are talking about. Doesn't mean we can't y'all usefully about them.

Those given integer degree angles are fiction angles, and never think of trisecting or bisecting or generally dividing them, but their proper multiple may be real angles (this is the whole puzzle)

Otherwise Just try constructing exactly only one angle of those claimed (by me only) as a fiction angles,(Example: the integer degree angle (n), where gcd(n, 3) = 1,

and please do not tell me any approximation since they used this silly trick as Epsilon - Delta & Cauchy nonsense was illegally used to generate infinitely many fiction numbers as any real existing constructible number

And the poor people were easily mocked and got deceived, but the same silly nonsense game can not be played again with creation of fiction angles for sure

And still, this simple fact would take few more centuries to be realized by common typo mathematicians, and once adopted and enforced by top authorities in maths only, wonder!

So, only the common sense which was not considered in mathematics while discovering or manufacturing the real existing numbers?

BKK

Markus Klyver

2017-05-31 10:36:18 UTC

Again, the way you talk about "constructable numbers" is a pretty narrow view on numbers.

bassam king karzeddin

2017-06-06 11:23:20 UTC

Post by Markus Klyver
Again, the way you talk about "constructable numbers" is a pretty narrow view on numbers.

If you read more carefully, you would easily conclude that there are no (numbers or angles) that are not constructible

But if you got used to current modern maths, then sure you may imagine any number or any numerical angle and still think you are right

But reality was never any mathematical wrong imaginations

And the existing reality is very far away from any ill mathematical conceptualization for sure

BKK

Markus Klyver

2017-06-06 22:45:50 UTC

But you use non-constructive arguments everyday. Why should it be different in mathematics? Why limit ourselves to a pretty narrow and arbitrary view of mathematics?

Me

2017-06-06 23:17:15 UTC

Why limit ourselves to a pretty narrow and arbitrary view [...]?

Because "we" are cranks?

Markus Klyver

2017-06-06 23:52:54 UTC

Finitist and constructive mathematics is all fine, but it starts to get cranky IMO when you call mainstream math stupid and don't offer a reasonable explanation for why it doesn't work.

bassam king karzeddin

2017-06-07 09:52:52 UTC

Why limit ourselves to a pretty narrow and arbitrary view [...]?

Because "we" are cranks?

Actually, you are victims of so wrong and so cheap cheating education not suitable even for sheep, wonder!

BKK

Markus Klyver

2017-06-07 10:26:24 UTC

Spoken like a true crank.

bassam king karzeddin

2017-06-15 08:25:45 UTC

Post by Markus Klyver
Spoken like a true crank.

Most often, people don't like facts, hence they name them cranky, but it doesn't any matter for sure

BKK

Markus Klyver

2017-06-15 13:08:42 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Markus Klyver
Spoken like a true crank.

Most often, people don't like facts, hence they name them cranky, but it doesn't any matter for sure
BKK

Well, then tell me why compass-and-straightedge construction should be the only "valid construction" out there.

bassam king karzeddin

2017-06-17 08:20:07 UTC

Post by Markus Klyver

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Markus Klyver
Spoken like a true crank.

Most often, people don't like facts, hence they name them cranky, but it doesn't any matter for sure
BKK

Well, then tell me why compass-and-straightedge construction should be the only "valid construction" out there.

Because the whole issue is very tricky, and if you imagine that an arithmetical cube root of none cube integer must exist, then indeed there is something called numerical approximation which is not so difficult for a carpenter (even before BC), with little skill of computation or trial and error method, that are indeed much more precise than any alleged absolutely correct constructions that depends basically on a obvious fallacy

So, yes a carpenter can make a cube box of two units size, but APPROXIMATELY for sure

And You may guess what would happen if APPROXIMATION process itself becomes ENDLESS!

So for angle, APPROXIMATE measurements tools by mankalah is still far better APPROXIMATION than much-alleged constructions methods

The theme is too..... simple, you can not create something from imagination into a real existence based on endless operation, for sure

And if someone in old history had deceived the entire mathematical community for so many centuries now, then his damn silly cheating can not go for ever, and for sure

And you are free to check the moderated history sections of a cubic polynomial that there is not any rigorous proof of the existence of such roots as 2^{1/3}, but only unproven and naive or SO foolish conclusions, for sure

And because this is not any ordinary little issue like the so many daily published papers, but the issue is impossible to be considered by any professional authorities for so many silly reasons, then this must be publically addressed to the interest of the clever and brave students to start cleaning officially the old maths from all the so dirty dust that had been inherited and accumulated over the heads for so many centuries now, wonder!

BKK

s***@googlemail.com

2017-06-17 09:10:16 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Markus Klyver

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Markus Klyver
Spoken like a true crank.

Most often, people don't like facts, hence they name them cranky, but it doesn't any matter for sure
BKK

Well, then tell me why compass-and-straightedge construction should be the only "valid construction" out there.

Because the whole issue is very tricky, and if you imagine that an arithmetical cube root of none cube integer must exist, then indeed there is something called numerical approximation which is not so difficult for a carpenter (even before BC), with little skill of computation or trial and error method, that are indeed much more precise than any alleged absolutely correct constructions that depends basically on a obvious fallacy
So, yes a carpenter can make a cube box of two units size, but APPROXIMATELY for sure
And You may guess what would happen if APPROXIMATION process itself becomes ENDLESS!
So for angle, APPROXIMATE measurements tools by mankalah is still far better APPROXIMATION than much-alleged constructions methods
The theme is too..... simple, you can not create something from imagination into a real existence based on endless operation, for sure
And if someone in old history had deceived the entire mathematical community for so many centuries now, then his damn silly cheating can not go for ever, and for sure
And you are free to check the moderated history sections of a cubic polynomial that there is not any rigorous proof of the existence of such roots as 2^{1/3}, but only unproven and naive or SO foolish conclusions, for sure
And because this is not any ordinary little issue like the so many daily published papers, but the issue is impossible to be considered by any professional authorities for so many silly reasons, then this must be publically addressed to the interest of the clever and brave students to start cleaning officially the old maths from all the so dirty dust that had been inherited and accumulated over the heads for so many centuries now, wonder!
BKK

If only you'd understand math, bassy

Markus Klyver

2017-07-18 15:11:12 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Markus Klyver

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Markus Klyver
Spoken like a true crank.

Most often, people don't like facts, hence they name them cranky, but it doesn't any matter for sure
BKK

Well, then tell me why compass-and-straightedge construction should be the only "valid construction" out there.

Because the whole issue is very tricky, and if you imagine that an arithmetical cube root of none cube integer must exist, then indeed there is something called numerical approximation which is not so difficult for a carpenter (even before BC), with little skill of computation or trial and error method, that are indeed much more precise than any alleged absolutely correct constructions that depends basically on a obvious fallacy
So, yes a carpenter can make a cube box of two units size, but APPROXIMATELY for sure
And You may guess what would happen if APPROXIMATION process itself becomes ENDLESS!
So for angle, APPROXIMATE measurements tools by mankalah is still far better APPROXIMATION than much-alleged constructions methods
The theme is too..... simple, you can not create something from imagination into a real existence based on endless operation, for sure
And if someone in old history had deceived the entire mathematical community for so many centuries now, then his damn silly cheating can not go for ever, and for sure
And you are free to check the moderated history sections of a cubic polynomial that there is not any rigorous proof of the existence of such roots as 2^{1/3}, but only unproven and naive or SO foolish conclusions, for sure
And because this is not any ordinary little issue like the so many daily published papers, but the issue is impossible to be considered by any professional authorities for so many silly reasons, then this must be publically addressed to the interest of the clever and brave students to start cleaning officially the old maths from all the so dirty dust that had been inherited and accumulated over the heads for so many centuries now, wonder!
BKK

You have not still answered my question. Tell me why compass-and-straightedge construction should be the only "valid construction" out there!

bassam king karzeddin

2017-07-18 15:33:02 UTC

Post by Markus Klyver

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Markus Klyver

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Markus Klyver
Spoken like a true crank.

Most often, people don't like facts, hence they name them cranky, but it doesn't any matter for sure
BKK

Well, then tell me why compass-and-straightedge construction should be the only "valid construction" out there.

Because the whole issue is very tricky, and if you imagine that an arithmetical cube root of none cube integer must exist, then indeed there is something called numerical approximation which is not so difficult for a carpenter (even before BC), with little skill of computation or trial and error method, that are indeed much more precise than any alleged absolutely correct constructions that depends basically on a obvious fallacy
So, yes a carpenter can make a cube box of two units size, but APPROXIMATELY for sure
And You may guess what would happen if APPROXIMATION process itself becomes ENDLESS!
So for angle, APPROXIMATE measurements tools by mankalah is still far better APPROXIMATION than much-alleged constructions methods
The theme is too..... simple, you can not create something from imagination into a real existence based on endless operation, for sure
And if someone in old history had deceived the entire mathematical community for so many centuries now, then his damn silly cheating can not go for ever, and for sure
And you are free to check the moderated history sections of a cubic polynomial that there is not any rigorous proof of the existence of such roots as 2^{1/3}, but only unproven and naive or SO foolish conclusions, for sure
And because this is not any ordinary little issue like the so many daily published papers, but the issue is impossible to be considered by any professional authorities for so many silly reasons, then this must be publically addressed to the interest of the clever and brave students to start cleaning officially the old maths from all the so dirty dust that had been inherited and accumulated over the heads for so many centuries now, wonder!
BKK

You have not still answered my question. Tell me why compass-and-straightedge construction should be the only "valid construction" out there!

The compass might indicate the circle, but which circle? since we do know that the real perfect circle doesn't exist in reality, but constructible regular polygons do exist for sure, and not with any desired integer number of sides we wish, but only with many integers, where those regular polygons do intersect with that imaginable called perfect circle and thus can be scaled up to similarity to be truly visible to us

And why a straight line, of course, the sides of any constructible regular polygons are only straight lines, where the straight line is never any curve but the shortest distance between any two locations and their endless extension beyond their locations endlessly (Euclide and ancient original definition)

But if you claim that space isn't euclidean's, then this was never proven absolutely correct until date for sure

On the contrary, I had published a proof (in my posts) that space is only Euclidean

BKK

Markus Klyver

2017-07-18 16:25:21 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Markus Klyver

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Markus Klyver

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Markus Klyver
Spoken like a true crank.

Most often, people don't like facts, hence they name them cranky, but it doesn't any matter for sure
BKK

Well, then tell me why compass-and-straightedge construction should be the only "valid construction" out there.

Because the whole issue is very tricky, and if you imagine that an arithmetical cube root of none cube integer must exist, then indeed there is something called numerical approximation which is not so difficult for a carpenter (even before BC), with little skill of computation or trial and error method, that are indeed much more precise than any alleged absolutely correct constructions that depends basically on a obvious fallacy
So, yes a carpenter can make a cube box of two units size, but APPROXIMATELY for sure
And You may guess what would happen if APPROXIMATION process itself becomes ENDLESS!
So for angle, APPROXIMATE measurements tools by mankalah is still far better APPROXIMATION than much-alleged constructions methods
The theme is too..... simple, you can not create something from imagination into a real existence based on endless operation, for sure
And if someone in old history had deceived the entire mathematical community for so many centuries now, then his damn silly cheating can not go for ever, and for sure
And you are free to check the moderated history sections of a cubic polynomial that there is not any rigorous proof of the existence of such roots as 2^{1/3}, but only unproven and naive or SO foolish conclusions, for sure
And because this is not any ordinary little issue like the so many daily published papers, but the issue is impossible to be considered by any professional authorities for so many silly reasons, then this must be publically addressed to the interest of the clever and brave students to start cleaning officially the old maths from all the so dirty dust that had been inherited and accumulated over the heads for so many centuries now, wonder!
BKK

You have not still answered my question. Tell me why compass-and-straightedge construction should be the only "valid construction" out there!

The compass might indicate the circle, but which circle? since we do know that the real perfect circle doesn't exist in reality, but constructible regular polygons do exist for sure, and not with any desired integer number of sides we wish, but only with many integers, where those regular polygons do intersect with that imaginable called perfect circle and thus can be scaled up to similarity to be truly visible to us
And why a straight line, of course, the sides of any constructible regular polygons are only straight lines, where the straight line is never any curve but the shortest distance between any two locations and their endless extension beyond their locations endlessly (Euclide and ancient original definition)
But if you claim that space isn't euclidean's, then this was never proven absolutely correct until date for sure
On the contrary, I had published a proof (in my posts) that space is only Euclidean
BKK

"since we do know that the real perfect circle doesn't exist in reality, but constructible regular polygons do exist for sure"

Then give me examples of perfect polygons existing in physical reality.

bassam king karzeddin

2017-07-18 17:58:45 UTC

Post by Markus Klyver

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Markus Klyver

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Markus Klyver

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Markus Klyver
Spoken like a true crank.

Most often, people don't like facts, hence they name them cranky, but it doesn't any matter for sure
BKK

Well, then tell me why compass-and-straightedge construction should be the only "valid construction" out there.

Because the whole issue is very tricky, and if you imagine that an arithmetical cube root of none cube integer must exist, then indeed there is something called numerical approximation which is not so difficult for a carpenter (even before BC), with little skill of computation or trial and error method, that are indeed much more precise than any alleged absolutely correct constructions that depends basically on a obvious fallacy
So, yes a carpenter can make a cube box of two units size, but APPROXIMATELY for sure
And You may guess what would happen if APPROXIMATION process itself becomes ENDLESS!
So for angle, APPROXIMATE measurements tools by mankalah is still far better APPROXIMATION than much-alleged constructions methods
The theme is too..... simple, you can not create something from imagination into a real existence based on endless operation, for sure
And if someone in old history had deceived the entire mathematical community for so many centuries now, then his damn silly cheating can not go for ever, and for sure
And you are free to check the moderated history sections of a cubic polynomial that there is not any rigorous proof of the existence of such roots as 2^{1/3}, but only unproven and naive or SO foolish conclusions, for sure
And because this is not any ordinary little issue like the so many daily published papers, but the issue is impossible to be considered by any professional authorities for so many silly reasons, then this must be publically addressed to the interest of the clever and brave students to start cleaning officially the old maths from all the so dirty dust that had been inherited and accumulated over the heads for so many centuries now, wonder!
BKK

You have not still answered my question. Tell me why compass-and-straightedge construction should be the only "valid construction" out there!

The compass might indicate the circle, but which circle? since we do know that the real perfect circle doesn't exist in reality, but constructible regular polygons do exist for sure, and not with any desired integer number of sides we wish, but only with many integers, where those regular polygons do intersect with that imaginable called perfect circle and thus can be scaled up to similarity to be truly visible to us
And why a straight line, of course, the sides of any constructible regular polygons are only straight lines, where the straight line is never any curve but the shortest distance between any two locations and their endless extension beyond their locations endlessly (Euclide and ancient original definition)
But if you claim that space isn't euclidean's, then this was never proven absolutely correct until date for sure
On the contrary, I had published a proof (in my posts) that space is only Euclidean
BKK

"since we do know that the real perfect circle doesn't exist in reality, but constructible regular polygons do exist for sure"
Then give me examples of perfect polygons existing in physical reality.

I really gave you, but it seems that you don't get the meaning of the word existence in maths, or maybe you want it with material representation which is very different

OK, I will make it easy for you

Do you get the so easy meaning of the non-existence of (non-zero integer) solution for this Diophantine Equation, (n^2 = 2m^2)

Or the existence of the many integer solutions of this Diophantine Equation:

(n^2 = 2m^2 + 1), see bursegan solutions

So, the deep meaning of the meaning of the word existence in maths that you seem not to understand, wonder!

If the case is such, then you are a hopeless case for sure

BKK

konyberg

2017-07-18 22:41:36 UTC

(a^2 + b^2 - c^2) / (2ab) = cos(C)
How many values for cos(C)?
BKK Chew on this!
KON

bassam king karzeddin

2017-07-19 17:37:17 UTC

Post by konyberg
(a^2 + b^2 - c^2) / (2ab) = cos(C)
How many values for cos(C)?
BKK Chew on this!
KON

Most likely your question isn't clear enough!

But if you fix the angle (C), then the angle (C) is a constructible angle provided that (a, b, c) are real constructible numbers (forming a triangle with positive sides), and (abc =/= 0)

BKK

konyberg

2017-07-19 18:18:44 UTC

The conditions are the usual ones:
a+b>c, a+c>b and b+c>a.
And a,b and c are positive real.
KON

bassam king karzeddin

2017-07-19 18:38:55 UTC

Post by konyberg
a+b>c, a+c>b and b+c>a.
And a,b and c are positive real.
KON

So what is your point?

We stated that must form a triangle, where sum of any two sides is greater than the third (for non-straight line triangle)

BKK

bassam king karzeddin

2017-07-20 11:03:50 UTC

Post by konyberg
a+b>c, a+c>b and b+c>a.
And a,b and c are positive real.
KON

but if you meant to say something like, let the triangle be with real sides as (e, Pi, 1), of course, you and the mathematics may so naively imagine that triangle exists since it is according to definitions

But, you must know that exists ONLY in MIND or in CURRENT MATHEMATICS, and NEVER in REALITY for sure

I call it the fictitious triangle (that never exists)

Otherwise, give a good argument

BKK

Post by konyberg
a+b>c, a+c>b and b+c>a.
And a,b and c are positive real.
KON

konyberg

2017-07-20 12:23:47 UTC

What would it mean to you that cos(C) was a rational and C not rational? Is C now a proper angle?
KON

bassam king karzeddin

2017-07-20 13:01:13 UTC

Post by konyberg
What would it mean to you that cos(C) was a rational and C not rational? Is C now a proper angle?
KON

See, when we talk about (Pi) as an angle, then it is indeed rationalised in mind and reality because it is a constructible ANGLE but (Pi) is not an existing number itself, (it is the first fiction number in mathematics, a 2^{1/3} was the second)

What do I say so clearly that the existing real angles, in reality, are only those angles that can be found in any triangle with real constructible sides only, and therefore constructible angles too

where also the arbitrary real sides or angles are also constructible

Thus none of the angles I provided has any chance of existence in the physical reality around us, for sure

However, there are much more fiction angles to the list I have already mentioned, and if you don't believe it then let the whole mathematics create only one of those claimed as fiction angles by me as an existing angle but not in mind, (only in reality as so many other angles mentioned)

In short, if a length or an angle exists, then must be CONSTRUCTIBLE

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
7/20/2017

bassam king karzeddin

2017-08-06 12:23:32 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by konyberg
What would it mean to you that cos(C) was a rational and C not rational? Is C now a proper angle?
KON

See, when we talk about (Pi) as an angle, then it is indeed rationalised in mind and reality because it is a constructible ANGLE but (Pi) is not an existing number itself, (it is the first fiction number in mathematics, a 2^{1/3} was the second)
What do I say so clearly that the existing real angles, in reality, are only those angles that can be found in any triangle with real constructible sides only, and therefore constructible angles too
where also the arbitrary real sides or angles are also constructible
Thus none of the angles I provided has any chance of existence in the physical reality around us, for sure
However, there are much more fiction angles to the list I have already mentioned, and if you don't believe it then let the whole mathematics create only one of those claimed as fiction angles by me as an existing angle but not in mind, (only in reality as so many other angles mentioned)
In short, if a length or an angle exists, then must be CONSTRUCTIBLE
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
7/20/2017

And the professional moderators at Quora had most likely hidden this question without being able to refute my new claims that were based on rigorous proofs as if trying to hide the facts by spider threads anymore

https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-exactly-construct-a-triangle-with-known-sides-such-that-at-least-one-of-its-angles-is-in-integer-degree-n-where-n-is-not-a-multiple-of-3
BKK

Blaubeer Rotapfel

2017-10-18 02:11:09 UTC

Ask PrimeFan:

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52

Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Post by bassam king karzeddin
And the professional moderators at Quora had most likely hidden this question without being able to refute my new claims that were based on rigorous proofs as if trying to hide the facts by spider threads anymore
https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-exactly-construct-a-triangle-with-known-sides-such-that-at-least-one-of-its-angles-is-in-integer-degree-n-where-n-is-not-a-multiple-of-3
BKK

bassam king karzeddin

2017-10-18 07:42:26 UTC

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Post by bassam king karzeddin
And the professional moderators at Quora had most likely hidden this question without being able to refute my new claims that were based on rigorous proofs as if trying to hide the facts by spider threads anymore
https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-exactly-construct-a-triangle-with-known-sides-such-that-at-least-one-of-its-angles-is-in-integer-degree-n-where-n-is-not-a-multiple-of-3
BKK

Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!

And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure

BKK

Zelos Malum

2017-10-18 08:17:30 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!

All angles exist because it is a continuous projection of the complex units onto the unit circle.

Blaubeer Rotapfel

2017-10-18 11:07:11 UTC

Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

Ask PrimeFan:

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52

Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

bassam king karzeddin

2017-10-18 15:46:22 UTC

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?

And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?

The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!

You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits

Is it that so easy article yours? wonder!

Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure

BKK

Blaubeer Rotapfel

2017-10-18 15:51:30 UTC

Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle,
doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled.

You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated,
maybe learn some math. I guess PrimeFan's:

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52

Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Is enough to also cover your problem, which just
asking the same in a different phrasing and setup.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?
And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?
The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!
You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits
Is it that so easy article yours? wonder!
Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure
BKK

bassam king karzeddin

2017-10-18 16:44:55 UTC

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle,
doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled.
You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated,
constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf
Is enough to also cover your problem, which just
asking the same in a different phrasing and setup.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?
And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?
The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!
You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits
Is it that so easy article yours? wonder!
Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure
BKK

Not at all you well-known and stubborn moron, no connection for sure

Any unbiased independent specialist would immediately recognize the so easy issue you refer and the so hot issue I already introduced

And I discovered this fact so simply from the non-existing positive real numbers I had discovered, where I wrote so many topics, conjectures, formulas that you (bursegan) stood helplessly like a leg of a table by your misleading many participation (in those topics)

And your devilish interference here is so well-exposed

Show me only one reference stating clearly that only one angle doesn't exist, wonder!

And this list of fictional angles in mathematics is only one list of so many other lists of non-existing angles as stated earlier by me in many other threads based on proofs of non-existing of all real numbers that aren't constructible

The core issue is to convince any clever school student that most of the so-called advanced mathematics is actually a flowed mathematics that ultimately soon must be thrown to rubbish

So, people used to know before, that if the sum of the triangle degrees is 180 degrees then the triangle exists, but truly most of the triangles of this form are impossible existence in any imaginable universe unless the sides of the triangle are real constructible numbers, since no real numbers exist except the constructible numbers

where also, all other alleged real numbers (as algebraic or Transcendental) can't be represented except by constructible numbers (FOR MORE THAN SURE)

So, here is the main point that is still far away from your shallow fictional understanding

And the main discovery is only for so many clear scandals made (foolishly or devilishly in the history of mathematics), that is all

So, go now and define many more sets of fictional non-existing angles, it is very easy task I swear

Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 18, 2017

bassam king karzeddin

2017-10-18 17:21:00 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle,
doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled.
You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated,
constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf
Is enough to also cover your problem, which just
asking the same in a different phrasing and setup.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?
And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?
The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!
You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits
Is it that so easy article yours? wonder!
Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure
BKK

Not at all you well-known and stubborn moron, no connection for sure
Any unbiased independent specialist would immediately recognize the so easy issue you refer and the so hot issue I already introduced
And I discovered this fact so simply from the non-existing positive real numbers I had discovered, where I wrote so many topics, conjectures, formulas that you (bursegan) stood helplessly like a leg of a table by your misleading many participation (in those topics)
And your devilish interference here is so well-exposed
Show me only one reference stating clearly that only one angle doesn't exist, wonder!
And this list of fictional angles in mathematics is only one list of so many other lists of non-existing angles as stated earlier by me in many other threads based on proofs of non-existing of all real numbers that aren't constructible
The core issue is to convince any clever school student that most of the so-called advanced mathematics is actually a flowed mathematics that ultimately soon must be thrown to rubbish
So, people used to know before, that if the sum of the triangle degrees is 180 degrees then the triangle exists, but truly most of the triangles of this form are impossible existence in any imaginable universe unless the sides of the triangle are real constructible numbers, since no real numbers exist except the constructible numbers
where also, all other alleged real numbers (as algebraic or Transcendental) can't be represented except by constructible numbers (FOR MORE THAN SURE)
So, here is the main point that is still far away from your shallow fictional understanding
And the main discovery is only for so many clear scandals made (foolishly or devilishly in the history of mathematics), that is all
So, go now and define many more sets of fictional non-existing angles, it is very easy task I swear
Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 18, 2017

I would like to remind and add that even the arbitrary choice of the sides of the triangle must represent an existing (before your big eyes) real constructible numbers for the sides, that also must correspond to an existing three real constructible angles, where this only might give hope to the existence of continuity problem in mathematics! wonder!

BKK

Blaubeer Rotapfel

2017-10-18 17:32:47 UTC

Well it seems that the following "The missing brain
often feels as if it wibble thunderstruck purple
monkey dishwasher." is true for BKK.

If somebody asks:
"How can we exactly construct a triangle with
known sides such that at least one of its angles
is in integer degree (n), where (n) is
not a multiple of 3?"

And then there is a theorem:
"The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3"

What will be the answer to the question?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle,
doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled.
You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated,
constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf
Is enough to also cover your problem, which just
asking the same in a different phrasing and setup.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?
And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?
The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!
You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits
Is it that so easy article yours? wonder!
Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure
BKK

Not at all you well-known and stubborn moron, no connection for sure
Any unbiased independent specialist would immediately recognize the so easy issue you refer and the so hot issue I already introduced
And I discovered this fact so simply from the non-existing positive real numbers I had discovered, where I wrote so many topics, conjectures, formulas that you (bursegan) stood helplessly like a leg of a table by your misleading many participation (in those topics)
And your devilish interference here is so well-exposed
Show me only one reference stating clearly that only one angle doesn't exist, wonder!
And this list of fictional angles in mathematics is only one list of so many other lists of non-existing angles as stated earlier by me in many other threads based on proofs of non-existing of all real numbers that aren't constructible
The core issue is to convince any clever school student that most of the so-called advanced mathematics is actually a flowed mathematics that ultimately soon must be thrown to rubbish
So, people used to know before, that if the sum of the triangle degrees is 180 degrees then the triangle exists, but truly most of the triangles of this form are impossible existence in any imaginable universe unless the sides of the triangle are real constructible numbers, since no real numbers exist except the constructible numbers
where also, all other alleged real numbers (as algebraic or Transcendental) can't be represented except by constructible numbers (FOR MORE THAN SURE)
So, here is the main point that is still far away from your shallow fictional understanding
And the main discovery is only for so many clear scandals made (foolishly or devilishly in the history of mathematics), that is all
So, go now and define many more sets of fictional non-existing angles, it is very easy task I swear
Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 18, 2017

I would like to remind and add that even the arbitrary choice of the sides of the triangle must represent an existing (before your big eyes) real constructible numbers for the sides, that also must correspond to an existing three real constructible angles, where this only might give hope to the existence of continuity problem in mathematics! wonder!
BKK

bassam king karzeddin

2017-10-18 18:19:32 UTC

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well it seems that the following "The missing brain
often feels as if it wibble thunderstruck purple
monkey dishwasher." is true for BKK.
"How can we exactly construct a triangle with
known sides such that at least one of its angles
is in integer degree (n), where (n) is
not a multiple of 3?"
"The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3"
What will be the answer to the question?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle,
doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled.
You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated,
constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf
Is enough to also cover your problem, which just
asking the same in a different phrasing and setup.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?
And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?
The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!
You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits
Is it that so easy article yours? wonder!
Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure
BKK

Not at all you well-known and stubborn moron, no connection for sure
Any unbiased independent specialist would immediately recognize the so easy issue you refer and the so hot issue I already introduced
And I discovered this fact so simply from the non-existing positive real numbers I had discovered, where I wrote so many topics, conjectures, formulas that you (bursegan) stood helplessly like a leg of a table by your misleading many participation (in those topics)
And your devilish interference here is so well-exposed
Show me only one reference stating clearly that only one angle doesn't exist, wonder!
And this list of fictional angles in mathematics is only one list of so many other lists of non-existing angles as stated earlier by me in many other threads based on proofs of non-existing of all real numbers that aren't constructible
The core issue is to convince any clever school student that most of the so-called advanced mathematics is actually a flowed mathematics that ultimately soon must be thrown to rubbish
So, people used to know before, that if the sum of the triangle degrees is 180 degrees then the triangle exists, but truly most of the triangles of this form are impossible existence in any imaginable universe unless the sides of the triangle are real constructible numbers, since no real numbers exist except the constructible numbers
where also, all other alleged real numbers (as algebraic or Transcendental) can't be represented except by constructible numbers (FOR MORE THAN SURE)
So, here is the main point that is still far away from your shallow fictional understanding
And the main discovery is only for so many clear scandals made (foolishly or devilishly in the history of mathematics), that is all
So, go now and define many more sets of fictional non-existing angles, it is very easy task I swear
Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 18, 2017

I would like to remind and add that even the arbitrary choice of the sides of the triangle must represent an existing (before your big eyes) real constructible numbers for the sides, that also must correspond to an existing three real constructible angles, where this only might give hope to the existence of continuity problem in mathematics! wonder!
BKK

Again, the Permanent TROLL IS mixing up issues Deliberately to hide the core issue about the truly non-existing real numbers that constitute the vast majority of alleged real numbers in our modern mathematics nowadays, where this is ultimately the core issue that people had been deceived for so long centuries for sure's

And they hadn't developed yet something like Epsilon-delta, or similar famous cuts to real angle analysis where ultimately the fact would be at their alleged Fool's Paradise, and they safely can hide behind a nonsensible concept as Infinity as always as usual

After all, what is epsilon > 0, basically, it is a DISTANCE moron, can you deny that? wonder!

Or do you truly understand what does it mean exactly? no wonder here

BKK

Blaubeer Rotapfel

2017-10-18 18:22:44 UTC

So you think there are angles, constructible
ones, whch are not multiples of 3°, right?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well it seems that the following "The missing brain
often feels as if it wibble thunderstruck purple
monkey dishwasher." is true for BKK.
"How can we exactly construct a triangle with
known sides such that at least one of its angles
is in integer degree (n), where (n) is
not a multiple of 3?"
"The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3"
What will be the answer to the question?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle,
doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled.
You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated,
constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf
Is enough to also cover your problem, which just
asking the same in a different phrasing and setup.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?
And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?
The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!
You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits
Is it that so easy article yours? wonder!
Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure
BKK

Not at all you well-known and stubborn moron, no connection for sure
Any unbiased independent specialist would immediately recognize the so easy issue you refer and the so hot issue I already introduced
And I discovered this fact so simply from the non-existing positive real numbers I had discovered, where I wrote so many topics, conjectures, formulas that you (bursegan) stood helplessly like a leg of a table by your misleading many participation (in those topics)
And your devilish interference here is so well-exposed
Show me only one reference stating clearly that only one angle doesn't exist, wonder!
And this list of fictional angles in mathematics is only one list of so many other lists of non-existing angles as stated earlier by me in many other threads based on proofs of non-existing of all real numbers that aren't constructible
The core issue is to convince any clever school student that most of the so-called advanced mathematics is actually a flowed mathematics that ultimately soon must be thrown to rubbish
So, people used to know before, that if the sum of the triangle degrees is 180 degrees then the triangle exists, but truly most of the triangles of this form are impossible existence in any imaginable universe unless the sides of the triangle are real constructible numbers, since no real numbers exist except the constructible numbers
where also, all other alleged real numbers (as algebraic or Transcendental) can't be represented except by constructible numbers (FOR MORE THAN SURE)
So, here is the main point that is still far away from your shallow fictional understanding
And the main discovery is only for so many clear scandals made (foolishly or devilishly in the history of mathematics), that is all
So, go now and define many more sets of fictional non-existing angles, it is very easy task I swear
Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 18, 2017

I would like to remind and add that even the arbitrary choice of the sides of the triangle must represent an existing (before your big eyes) real constructible numbers for the sides, that also must correspond to an existing three real constructible angles, where this only might give hope to the existence of continuity problem in mathematics! wonder!
BKK

Again, the Permanent TROLL IS mixing up issues Deliberately to hide the core issue about the truly non-existing real numbers that constitute the vast majority of alleged real numbers in our modern mathematics nowadays, where this is ultimately the core issue that people had been deceived for so long centuries for sure's
And they hadn't developed yet something like Epsilon-delta, or similar famous cuts to real angle analysis where ultimately the fact would be at their alleged Fool's Paradise, and they safely can hide behind a nonsensible concept as Infinity as always as usual
After all, what is epsilon > 0, basically, it is a DISTANCE moron, can you deny that? wonder!
Or do you truly understand what does it mean exactly? no wonder here
BKK

Blaubeer Rotapfel

2017-10-18 18:23:54 UTC

Better lets ask:
So you think there are integer angles measured in degrees,
constructible ones, whch are not multiples of 3°, right?

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
So you think there are angles, constructible
ones, whch are not multiples of 3°, right?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well it seems that the following "The missing brain
often feels as if it wibble thunderstruck purple
monkey dishwasher." is true for BKK.
"How can we exactly construct a triangle with
known sides such that at least one of its angles
is in integer degree (n), where (n) is
not a multiple of 3?"
"The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3"
What will be the answer to the question?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle,
doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled.
You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated,
constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf
Is enough to also cover your problem, which just
asking the same in a different phrasing and setup.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?
And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?
The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!
You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits
Is it that so easy article yours? wonder!
Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure
BKK

Not at all you well-known and stubborn moron, no connection for sure
Any unbiased independent specialist would immediately recognize the so easy issue you refer and the so hot issue I already introduced
And I discovered this fact so simply from the non-existing positive real numbers I had discovered, where I wrote so many topics, conjectures, formulas that you (bursegan) stood helplessly like a leg of a table by your misleading many participation (in those topics)
And your devilish interference here is so well-exposed
Show me only one reference stating clearly that only one angle doesn't exist, wonder!
And this list of fictional angles in mathematics is only one list of so many other lists of non-existing angles as stated earlier by me in many other threads based on proofs of non-existing of all real numbers that aren't constructible
The core issue is to convince any clever school student that most of the so-called advanced mathematics is actually a flowed mathematics that ultimately soon must be thrown to rubbish
So, people used to know before, that if the sum of the triangle degrees is 180 degrees then the triangle exists, but truly most of the triangles of this form are impossible existence in any imaginable universe unless the sides of the triangle are real constructible numbers, since no real numbers exist except the constructible numbers
where also, all other alleged real numbers (as algebraic or Transcendental) can't be represented except by constructible numbers (FOR MORE THAN SURE)
So, here is the main point that is still far away from your shallow fictional understanding
And the main discovery is only for so many clear scandals made (foolishly or devilishly in the history of mathematics), that is all
So, go now and define many more sets of fictional non-existing angles, it is very easy task I swear
Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 18, 2017

I would like to remind and add that even the arbitrary choice of the sides of the triangle must represent an existing (before your big eyes) real constructible numbers for the sides, that also must correspond to an existing three real constructible angles, where this only might give hope to the existence of continuity problem in mathematics! wonder!
BKK

Again, the Permanent TROLL IS mixing up issues Deliberately to hide the core issue about the truly non-existing real numbers that constitute the vast majority of alleged real numbers in our modern mathematics nowadays, where this is ultimately the core issue that people had been deceived for so long centuries for sure's
And they hadn't developed yet something like Epsilon-delta, or similar famous cuts to real angle analysis where ultimately the fact would be at their alleged Fool's Paradise, and they safely can hide behind a nonsensible concept as Infinity as always as usual
After all, what is epsilon > 0, basically, it is a DISTANCE moron, can you deny that? wonder!
Or do you truly understand what does it mean exactly? no wonder here
BKK

bassam king karzeddin

2017-10-19 08:11:13 UTC

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well it seems that the following "The missing brain
often feels as if it wibble thunderstruck purple
monkey dishwasher." is true for BKK.
"How can we exactly construct a triangle with
known sides such that at least one of its angles
is in integer degree (n), where (n) is
not a multiple of 3?"
"The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3"
What will be the answer to the question?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle,
doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled.
You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated,
constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf
Is enough to also cover your problem, which just
asking the same in a different phrasing and setup.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?
And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?
The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!
You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits
Is it that so easy article yours? wonder!
Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure
BKK

Not at all you well-known and stubborn moron, no connection for sure
Any unbiased independent specialist would immediately recognize the so easy issue you refer and the so hot issue I already introduced
And I discovered this fact so simply from the non-existing positive real numbers I had discovered, where I wrote so many topics, conjectures, formulas that you (bursegan) stood helplessly like a leg of a table by your misleading many participation (in those topics)
And your devilish interference here is so well-exposed
Show me only one reference stating clearly that only one angle doesn't exist, wonder!
And this list of fictional angles in mathematics is only one list of so many other lists of non-existing angles as stated earlier by me in many other threads based on proofs of non-existing of all real numbers that aren't constructible
The core issue is to convince any clever school student that most of the so-called advanced mathematics is actually a flowed mathematics that ultimately soon must be thrown to rubbish
So, people used to know before, that if the sum of the triangle degrees is 180 degrees then the triangle exists, but truly most of the triangles of this form are impossible existence in any imaginable universe unless the sides of the triangle are real constructible numbers, since no real numbers exist except the constructible numbers
where also, all other alleged real numbers (as algebraic or Transcendental) can't be represented except by constructible numbers (FOR MORE THAN SURE)
So, here is the main point that is still far away from your shallow fictional understanding
And the main discovery is only for so many clear scandals made (foolishly or devilishly in the history of mathematics), that is all
So, go now and define many more sets of fictional non-existing angles, it is very easy task I swear
Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 18, 2017

I would like to remind and add that even the arbitrary choice of the sides of the triangle must represent an existing (before your big eyes) real constructible numbers for the sides, that also must correspond to an existing three real constructible angles, where this only might give hope to the existence of continuity problem in mathematics! wonder!
BKK

So, What does your reference say about saying the integer degree angle one?
And What do you personally say about the integer degree angle one?

I think firmly that both of your reference and you say that it is an existing angle, even if it is impossible constructible angle by unmarked straight edge and a compass, and I'm quite sure that the whole world agrees with your opinion for sure, noting that one-degree angle = (Pi/180)

But only me say something completely different, I simply say it is a non-existing and fictional angle that is impossible existence in any imaginable reality

Didn't you still understand the core point of my topic? wonder!

And regardless of me being right or wrong, and if it so, then the impossibility of its exact construction by any means is so obvious then for sure

How can one construct something really non-existing?

Or: How can one construct something unreal or non-existing and was only a naive result of his own brain fart? no wonder here

Of course, only genius mathematicians can do miracles too! wonder!

Still, I'm quite sure that you won't get anything since you are a Troll by birth, for sure

BKK

b***@gmail.com

2017-10-19 08:32:56 UTC

Hey monkey dishwasher there is only one reference,
and it clearly says 1° is not constructible.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well it seems that the following "The missing brain
often feels as if it wibble thunderstruck purple
monkey dishwasher." is true for BKK.
"How can we exactly construct a triangle with
known sides such that at least one of its angles
is in integer degree (n), where (n) is
not a multiple of 3?"
"The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3"
What will be the answer to the question?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle,
doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled.
You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated,
constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf
Is enough to also cover your problem, which just
asking the same in a different phrasing and setup.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?
And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?
The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!
You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits
Is it that so easy article yours? wonder!
Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure
BKK

Not at all you well-known and stubborn moron, no connection for sure
Any unbiased independent specialist would immediately recognize the so easy issue you refer and the so hot issue I already introduced
And I discovered this fact so simply from the non-existing positive real numbers I had discovered, where I wrote so many topics, conjectures, formulas that you (bursegan) stood helplessly like a leg of a table by your misleading many participation (in those topics)
And your devilish interference here is so well-exposed
Show me only one reference stating clearly that only one angle doesn't exist, wonder!
And this list of fictional angles in mathematics is only one list of so many other lists of non-existing angles as stated earlier by me in many other threads based on proofs of non-existing of all real numbers that aren't constructible
The core issue is to convince any clever school student that most of the so-called advanced mathematics is actually a flowed mathematics that ultimately soon must be thrown to rubbish
So, people used to know before, that if the sum of the triangle degrees is 180 degrees then the triangle exists, but truly most of the triangles of this form are impossible existence in any imaginable universe unless the sides of the triangle are real constructible numbers, since no real numbers exist except the constructible numbers
where also, all other alleged real numbers (as algebraic or Transcendental) can't be represented except by constructible numbers (FOR MORE THAN SURE)
So, here is the main point that is still far away from your shallow fictional understanding
And the main discovery is only for so many clear scandals made (foolishly or devilishly in the history of mathematics), that is all
So, go now and define many more sets of fictional non-existing angles, it is very easy task I swear
Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 18, 2017

I would like to remind and add that even the arbitrary choice of the sides of the triangle must represent an existing (before your big eyes) real constructible numbers for the sides, that also must correspond to an existing three real constructible angles, where this only might give hope to the existence of continuity problem in mathematics! wonder!
BKK

So, What does your reference say about saying the integer degree angle one?
And What do you personally say about the integer degree angle one?
I think firmly that both of your reference and you say that it is an existing angle, even if it is impossible constructible angle by unmarked straight edge and a compass, and I'm quite sure that the whole world agrees with your opinion for sure, noting that one-degree angle = (Pi/180)
But only me say something completely different, I simply say it is a non-existing and fictional angle that is impossible existence in any imaginable reality
Didn't you still understand the core point of my topic? wonder!
And regardless of me being right or wrong, and if it so, then the impossibility of its exact construction by any means is so obvious then for sure
How can one construct something really non-existing?
Or: How can one construct something unreal or non-existing and was only a naive result of his own brain fart? no wonder here
Of course, only genius mathematicians can do miracles too! wonder!
Still, I'm quite sure that you won't get anything since you are a Troll by birth, for sure
BKK

bassam king karzeddin

2017-10-19 08:54:18 UTC

On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 11:33:02 AM UTC+3, ***@gmail.com wrote:

The well-known Troll adds more nonsense of his bullshit words answer, just not answering the direct simplist question

Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey monkey dishwasher there is only one reference,
and it clearly says 1° is not constructible.

Everyone knows that, and probably you forgot to add "not constructible by unmarked straightedge and a compass within a finite number of steps"

Didn't you Enclopidea Math Man Moron? wonder!

But my question isn't answered yet and for sure

Look again Trollish boy and you are allowed to ask a friend or ask the whole world too, then answer the question straightforwardly

And never pretend that you don't get my question

BKK

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well it seems that the following "The missing brain
often feels as if it wibble thunderstruck purple
monkey dishwasher." is true for BKK.
"How can we exactly construct a triangle with
known sides such that at least one of its angles
is in integer degree (n), where (n) is
not a multiple of 3?"
"The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3"
What will be the answer to the question?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle,
doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled.
You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated,
constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf
Is enough to also cover your problem, which just
asking the same in a different phrasing and setup.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?
And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?
The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!
You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits
Is it that so easy article yours? wonder!
Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure
BKK

Not at all you well-known and stubborn moron, no connection for sure
Any unbiased independent specialist would immediately recognize the so easy issue you refer and the so hot issue I already introduced
And I discovered this fact so simply from the non-existing positive real numbers I had discovered, where I wrote so many topics, conjectures, formulas that you (bursegan) stood helplessly like a leg of a table by your misleading many participation (in those topics)
And your devilish interference here is so well-exposed
Show me only one reference stating clearly that only one angle doesn't exist, wonder!
And this list of fictional angles in mathematics is only one list of so many other lists of non-existing angles as stated earlier by me in many other threads based on proofs of non-existing of all real numbers that aren't constructible
The core issue is to convince any clever school student that most of the so-called advanced mathematics is actually a flowed mathematics that ultimately soon must be thrown to rubbish
So, people used to know before, that if the sum of the triangle degrees is 180 degrees then the triangle exists, but truly most of the triangles of this form are impossible existence in any imaginable universe unless the sides of the triangle are real constructible numbers, since no real numbers exist except the constructible numbers
where also, all other alleged real numbers (as algebraic or Transcendental) can't be represented except by constructible numbers (FOR MORE THAN SURE)
So, here is the main point that is still far away from your shallow fictional understanding
And the main discovery is only for so many clear scandals made (foolishly or devilishly in the history of mathematics), that is all
So, go now and define many more sets of fictional non-existing angles, it is very easy task I swear
Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 18, 2017

I would like to remind and add that even the arbitrary choice of the sides of the triangle must represent an existing (before your big eyes) real constructible numbers for the sides, that also must correspond to an existing three real constructible angles, where this only might give hope to the existence of continuity problem in mathematics! wonder!
BKK

So, What does your reference say about saying the integer degree angle one?
And What do you personally say about the integer degree angle one?
I think firmly that both of your reference and you say that it is an existing angle, even if it is impossible constructible angle by unmarked straight edge and a compass, and I'm quite sure that the whole world agrees with your opinion for sure, noting that one-degree angle = (Pi/180)
But only me say something completely different, I simply say it is a non-existing and fictional angle that is impossible existence in any imaginable reality
Didn't you still understand the core point of my topic? wonder!
And regardless of me being right or wrong, and if it so, then the impossibility of its exact construction by any means is so obvious then for sure
How can one construct something really non-existing?
Or: How can one construct something unreal or non-existing and was only a naive result of his own brain fart? no wonder here
Of course, only genius mathematicians can do miracles too! wonder!
Still, I'm quite sure that you won't get anything since you are a Troll by birth, for sure
BKK

Hey monkey dishwasher there is only one reference,
and it clearly says 1° is not constructible.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well it seems that the following "The missing brain
often feels as if it wibble thunderstruck purple
monkey dishwasher." is true for BKK.
"How can we exactly construct a triangle with
known sides such that at least one of its angles
is in integer degree (n), where (n) is
not a multiple of 3?"
"The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3"
What will be the answer to the question?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle,
doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled.
You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated,
constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf
Is enough to also cover your problem, which just
asking the same in a different phrasing and setup.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?
And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?
The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!
You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits
Is it that so easy article yours? wonder!
Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure
BKK

Not at all you well-known and stubborn moron, no connection for sure
Any unbiased independent specialist would immediately recognize the so easy issue you refer and the so hot issue I already introduced
And I discovered this fact so simply from the non-existing positive real numbers I had discovered, where I wrote so many topics, conjectures, formulas that you (bursegan) stood helplessly like a leg of a table by your misleading many participation (in those topics)
And your devilish interference here is so well-exposed
Show me only one reference stating clearly that only one angle doesn't exist, wonder!
And this list of fictional angles in mathematics is only one list of so many other lists of non-existing angles as stated earlier by me in many other threads based on proofs of non-existing of all real numbers that aren't constructible
The core issue is to convince any clever school student that most of the so-called advanced mathematics is actually a flowed mathematics that ultimately soon must be thrown to rubbish
So, people used to know before, that if the sum of the triangle degrees is 180 degrees then the triangle exists, but truly most of the triangles of this form are impossible existence in any imaginable universe unless the sides of the triangle are real constructible numbers, since no real numbers exist except the constructible numbers
where also, all other alleged real numbers (as algebraic or Transcendental) can't be represented except by constructible numbers (FOR MORE THAN SURE)
So, here is the main point that is still far away from your shallow fictional understanding
And the main discovery is only for so many clear scandals made (foolishly or devilishly in the history of mathematics), that is all
So, go now and define many more sets of fictional non-existing angles, it is very easy task I swear
Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 18, 2017

I would like to remind and add that even the arbitrary choice of the sides of the triangle must represent an existing (before your big eyes) real constructible numbers for the sides, that also must correspond to an existing three real constructible angles, where this only might give hope to the existence of continuity problem in mathematics! wonder!
BKK

So, What does your reference say about saying the integer degree angle one?
And What do you personally say about the integer degree angle one?
I think firmly that both of your reference and you say that it is an existing angle, even if it is impossible constructible angle by unmarked straight edge and a compass, and I'm quite sure that the whole world agrees with your opinion for sure, noting that one-degree angle = (Pi/180)
But only me say something completely different, I simply say it is a non-existing and fictional angle that is impossible existence in any imaginable reality
Didn't you still understand the core point of my topic? wonder!
And regardless of me being right or wrong, and if it so, then the impossibility of its exact construction by any means is so obvious then for sure
How can one construct something really non-existing?
Or: How can one construct something unreal or non-existing and was only a naive result of his own brain fart? no wonder here
Of course, only genius mathematicians can do miracles too! wonder!
Still, I'm quite sure that you won't get anything since you are a Troll by birth, for sure
BKK

Blaubeer Rotapfel

2017-10-19 09:02:23 UTC

And they why cant you solve the problem you linked here:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/tWIQqH3_AIA/IgPfNQI6BgAJ

By this paper linked here:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/tWIQqH3_AIA/YW4MphS_BAAJ

Post by bassam king karzeddin
The well-known Troll adds more nonsense of his bullshit words answer, just not answering the direct simplist question

Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey monkey dishwasher there is only one reference,
and it clearly says 1° is not constructible.

Everyone knows that, and probably you forgot to add "not constructible by unmarked straightedge and a compass within a finite number of steps"
Didn't you Enclopidea Math Man Moron? wonder!
But my question isn't answered yet and for sure
Look again Trollish boy and you are allowed to ask a friend or ask the whole world too, then answer the question straightforwardly
And never pretend that you don't get my question
BKK

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well it seems that the following "The missing brain
often feels as if it wibble thunderstruck purple
monkey dishwasher." is true for BKK.
"How can we exactly construct a triangle with
known sides such that at least one of its angles
is in integer degree (n), where (n) is
not a multiple of 3?"
"The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3"
What will be the answer to the question?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle,
doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled.
You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated,
constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf
Is enough to also cover your problem, which just
asking the same in a different phrasing and setup.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?
And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?
The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!
You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits
Is it that so easy article yours? wonder!
Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure
BKK

Not at all you well-known and stubborn moron, no connection for sure
Any unbiased independent specialist would immediately recognize the so easy issue you refer and the so hot issue I already introduced
And I discovered this fact so simply from the non-existing positive real numbers I had discovered, where I wrote so many topics, conjectures, formulas that you (bursegan) stood helplessly like a leg of a table by your misleading many participation (in those topics)
And your devilish interference here is so well-exposed
Show me only one reference stating clearly that only one angle doesn't exist, wonder!
And this list of fictional angles in mathematics is only one list of so many other lists of non-existing angles as stated earlier by me in many other threads based on proofs of non-existing of all real numbers that aren't constructible
The core issue is to convince any clever school student that most of the so-called advanced mathematics is actually a flowed mathematics that ultimately soon must be thrown to rubbish
So, people used to know before, that if the sum of the triangle degrees is 180 degrees then the triangle exists, but truly most of the triangles of this form are impossible existence in any imaginable universe unless the sides of the triangle are real constructible numbers, since no real numbers exist except the constructible numbers
where also, all other alleged real numbers (as algebraic or Transcendental) can't be represented except by constructible numbers (FOR MORE THAN SURE)
So, here is the main point that is still far away from your shallow fictional understanding
And the main discovery is only for so many clear scandals made (foolishly or devilishly in the history of mathematics), that is all
So, go now and define many more sets of fictional non-existing angles, it is very easy task I swear
Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 18, 2017

I would like to remind and add that even the arbitrary choice of the sides of the triangle must represent an existing (before your big eyes) real constructible numbers for the sides, that also must correspond to an existing three real constructible angles, where this only might give hope to the existence of continuity problem in mathematics! wonder!
BKK

So, What does your reference say about saying the integer degree angle one?
And What do you personally say about the integer degree angle one?
I think firmly that both of your reference and you say that it is an existing angle, even if it is impossible constructible angle by unmarked straight edge and a compass, and I'm quite sure that the whole world agrees with your opinion for sure, noting that one-degree angle = (Pi/180)
But only me say something completely different, I simply say it is a non-existing and fictional angle that is impossible existence in any imaginable reality
Didn't you still understand the core point of my topic? wonder!
And regardless of me being right or wrong, and if it so, then the impossibility of its exact construction by any means is so obvious then for sure
How can one construct something really non-existing?
Or: How can one construct something unreal or non-existing and was only a naive result of his own brain fart? no wonder here
Of course, only genius mathematicians can do miracles too! wonder!
Still, I'm quite sure that you won't get anything since you are a Troll by birth, for sure
BKK

Hey monkey dishwasher there is only one reference,
and it clearly says 1° is not constructible.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well it seems that the following "The missing brain
often feels as if it wibble thunderstruck purple
monkey dishwasher." is true for BKK.
"How can we exactly construct a triangle with
known sides such that at least one of its angles
is in integer degree (n), where (n) is
not a multiple of 3?"
"The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3"
What will be the answer to the question?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle,
doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled.
You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated,
constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf
Is enough to also cover your problem, which just
asking the same in a different phrasing and setup.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?
And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?
The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!
You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits
Is it that so easy article yours? wonder!
Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure
BKK

Not at all you well-known and stubborn moron, no connection for sure
Any unbiased independent specialist would immediately recognize the so easy issue you refer and the so hot issue I already introduced
And I discovered this fact so simply from the non-existing positive real numbers I had discovered, where I wrote so many topics, conjectures, formulas that you (bursegan) stood helplessly like a leg of a table by your misleading many participation (in those topics)
And your devilish interference here is so well-exposed
Show me only one reference stating clearly that only one angle doesn't exist, wonder!
And this list of fictional angles in mathematics is only one list of so many other lists of non-existing angles as stated earlier by me in many other threads based on proofs of non-existing of all real numbers that aren't constructible
The core issue is to convince any clever school student that most of the so-called advanced mathematics is actually a flowed mathematics that ultimately soon must be thrown to rubbish
So, people used to know before, that if the sum of the triangle degrees is 180 degrees then the triangle exists, but truly most of the triangles of this form are impossible existence in any imaginable universe unless the sides of the triangle are real constructible numbers, since no real numbers exist except the constructible numbers
where also, all other alleged real numbers (as algebraic or Transcendental) can't be represented except by constructible numbers (FOR MORE THAN SURE)
So, here is the main point that is still far away from your shallow fictional understanding
And the main discovery is only for so many clear scandals made (foolishly or devilishly in the history of mathematics), that is all
So, go now and define many more sets of fictional non-existing angles, it is very easy task I swear
Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 18, 2017

I would like to remind and add that even the arbitrary choice of the sides of the triangle must represent an existing (before your big eyes) real constructible numbers for the sides, that also must correspond to an existing three real constructible angles, where this only might give hope to the existence of continuity problem in mathematics! wonder!
BKK

So, What does your reference say about saying the integer degree angle one?
And What do you personally say about the integer degree angle one?
I think firmly that both of your reference and you say that it is an existing angle, even if it is impossible constructible angle by unmarked straight edge and a compass, and I'm quite sure that the whole world agrees with your opinion for sure, noting that one-degree angle = (Pi/180)
But only me say something completely different, I simply say it is a non-existing and fictional angle that is impossible existence in any imaginable reality
Didn't you still understand the core point of my topic? wonder!
And regardless of me being right or wrong, and if it so, then the impossibility of its exact construction by any means is so obvious then for sure
How can one construct something really non-existing?
Or: How can one construct something unreal or non-existing and was only a naive result of his own brain fart? no wonder here
Of course, only genius mathematicians can do miracles too! wonder!
Still, I'm quite sure that you won't get anything since you are a Troll by birth, for sure
BKK

bassam king karzeddin

2017-10-19 09:04:07 UTC

Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey monkey dishwasher there is only one reference,
and it clearly says 1° is not constructible.

I will make it very easy for you (real Math Monkey) to comprehend fully my simplist Question:

Did you mean one-degree angle is not constructible by any means? wonder!

Answer now IF you have the guts?

Don't worry too since the whole world supporting you real Monkey Math TROLL

I just want to DOCUMENT your Monkey Talent online for sure

BKK

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well it seems that the following "The missing brain
often feels as if it wibble thunderstruck purple
monkey dishwasher." is true for BKK.
"How can we exactly construct a triangle with
known sides such that at least one of its angles
is in integer degree (n), where (n) is
not a multiple of 3?"
"The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3"
What will be the answer to the question?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle,
doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled.
You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated,
constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf
Is enough to also cover your problem, which just
asking the same in a different phrasing and setup.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?
And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?
The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!
You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits
Is it that so easy article yours? wonder!
Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure
BKK

Not at all you well-known and stubborn moron, no connection for sure
Any unbiased independent specialist would immediately recognize the so easy issue you refer and the so hot issue I already introduced
And I discovered this fact so simply from the non-existing positive real numbers I had discovered, where I wrote so many topics, conjectures, formulas that you (bursegan) stood helplessly like a leg of a table by your misleading many participation (in those topics)
And your devilish interference here is so well-exposed
Show me only one reference stating clearly that only one angle doesn't exist, wonder!
And this list of fictional angles in mathematics is only one list of so many other lists of non-existing angles as stated earlier by me in many other threads based on proofs of non-existing of all real numbers that aren't constructible
The core issue is to convince any clever school student that most of the so-called advanced mathematics is actually a flowed mathematics that ultimately soon must be thrown to rubbish
So, people used to know before, that if the sum of the triangle degrees is 180 degrees then the triangle exists, but truly most of the triangles of this form are impossible existence in any imaginable universe unless the sides of the triangle are real constructible numbers, since no real numbers exist except the constructible numbers
where also, all other alleged real numbers (as algebraic or Transcendental) can't be represented except by constructible numbers (FOR MORE THAN SURE)
So, here is the main point that is still far away from your shallow fictional understanding
And the main discovery is only for so many clear scandals made (foolishly or devilishly in the history of mathematics), that is all
So, go now and define many more sets of fictional non-existing angles, it is very easy task I swear
Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 18, 2017

I would like to remind and add that even the arbitrary choice of the sides of the triangle must represent an existing (before your big eyes) real constructible numbers for the sides, that also must correspond to an existing three real constructible angles, where this only might give hope to the existence of continuity problem in mathematics! wonder!
BKK

So, What does your reference say about saying the integer degree angle one?
And What do you personally say about the integer degree angle one?
I think firmly that both of your reference and you say that it is an existing angle, even if it is impossible constructible angle by unmarked straight edge and a compass, and I'm quite sure that the whole world agrees with your opinion for sure, noting that one-degree angle = (Pi/180)
But only me say something completely different, I simply say it is a non-existing and fictional angle that is impossible existence in any imaginable reality
Didn't you still understand the core point of my topic? wonder!
And regardless of me being right or wrong, and if it so, then the impossibility of its exact construction by any means is so obvious then for sure
How can one construct something really non-existing?
Or: How can one construct something unreal or non-existing and was only a naive result of his own brain fart? no wonder here
Of course, only genius mathematicians can do miracles too! wonder!
Still, I'm quite sure that you won't get anything since you are a Troll by birth, for sure
BKK

Zelos Malum

2017-10-19 09:25:09 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Did you mean one-degree angle is not constructible by any means? wonder!

No, he means constructible as in compass adn straightedge constructable which is what "constructible" usually means.

When we use the full arsenal of mathematics it is fucking trivial.

Zelos Malum

2017-10-19 09:49:30 UTC

https://www.intmath.com/blog/mathematics/how-do-you-find-exact-values-for-the-sine-of-all-angles-6212

bassam king karzeddin

2017-10-21 08:29:58 UTC

Post by Zelos Malum
https://www.intmath.com/blog/mathematics/how-do-you-find-exact-values-for-the-sine-of-all-angles-6212

I had made the following comment (no.89) over there, where most likely they wouldn't allow to publish it for not any considerable reason, in any case, nothing would prevent me of republishing my comment here again

My comment was

Dear all:

I see people are lost generally in constructing the integer degrees angles of the form (3n +/- 1), where n is integer number

However, I had proved those integers degree angles defined below are fictional and non-existing angles, for sure

the fictional and non-existing angles of integer degrees say between zero and (Pi/2) are listed below:

{1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89}

This might sound like madness but truly this is the absolute fact

Reasons might be so astonishing to all, but that doesn't count anything before the absolute facts that would seem shocking to all

The reasons are as following:

1) The decision of making zero as a real number completely flowed since zero represents nothingness and real number is real but never nothingness

2) The decision of making negative numbers as real numbers completely flows since they are only mirror image of real numbers where no mirror image is ever real

3) The decision of making the imaginary unit (i^2 = - 1), was completely flowed as a result

4) The cubic root operation or higher prime root operation was never proved in mathematics but so naively concluded with endless process, so unlike the only proved rigorously Square Root Operation from the Pythagorean theorem

5) The story of what is the real numbers had been finished since thousands of years back during the Pythagorean era, where only the real positive constructible numbers do exist, where others are fictional numbers since they are associated with the unreality or non-existing term called Infinity in mathematics (from its own definition)

However, so many articles had been written in my profiles with published proofs and so much illustration (at the Math Forum, sci.math google groups, Quora and Stack Exchange (SE),

Noting that those types of issues can't be adopted in any mathematical Journal or University, hence they must be made publically in the hope that people would ultimately recognize the simplists truths independently and away from any invented or artificial mathematics that is mainly for unnecessarily business or very little practical applications

Here is only one relevant topic in this regard

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.math/tWIQqH3_AIA

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 21, 2017

Blaubeer Rotapfel

2017-10-19 09:55:06 UTC

The Paper by PrimeFan uses bezout identity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9zout's_identity

But I dunno whether this is really necessary to
simply show that 1° is not constructible.

Because if 1° were constructible, then 20° were
also constructible, but the later isn't. Right?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey monkey dishwasher there is only one reference,
and it clearly says 1° is not constructible.

Did you mean one-degree angle is not constructible by any means? wonder!
Answer now IF you have the guts?
Don't worry too since the whole world supporting you real Monkey Math TROLL
I just want to DOCUMENT your Monkey Talent online for sure
BKK

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well it seems that the following "The missing brain
often feels as if it wibble thunderstruck purple
monkey dishwasher." is true for BKK.
"How can we exactly construct a triangle with
known sides such that at least one of its angles
is in integer degree (n), where (n) is
not a multiple of 3?"
"The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3"
What will be the answer to the question?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle,
doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled.
You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated,
constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf
Is enough to also cover your problem, which just
asking the same in a different phrasing and setup.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?
And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?
The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!
You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits
Is it that so easy article yours? wonder!
Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure
BKK

Not at all you well-known and stubborn moron, no connection for sure
Any unbiased independent specialist would immediately recognize the so easy issue you refer and the so hot issue I already introduced
And I discovered this fact so simply from the non-existing positive real numbers I had discovered, where I wrote so many topics, conjectures, formulas that you (bursegan) stood helplessly like a leg of a table by your misleading many participation (in those topics)
And your devilish interference here is so well-exposed
Show me only one reference stating clearly that only one angle doesn't exist, wonder!
And this list of fictional angles in mathematics is only one list of so many other lists of non-existing angles as stated earlier by me in many other threads based on proofs of non-existing of all real numbers that aren't constructible
The core issue is to convince any clever school student that most of the so-called advanced mathematics is actually a flowed mathematics that ultimately soon must be thrown to rubbish
So, people used to know before, that if the sum of the triangle degrees is 180 degrees then the triangle exists, but truly most of the triangles of this form are impossible existence in any imaginable universe unless the sides of the triangle are real constructible numbers, since no real numbers exist except the constructible numbers
where also, all other alleged real numbers (as algebraic or Transcendental) can't be represented except by constructible numbers (FOR MORE THAN SURE)
So, here is the main point that is still far away from your shallow fictional understanding
And the main discovery is only for so many clear scandals made (foolishly or devilishly in the history of mathematics), that is all
So, go now and define many more sets of fictional non-existing angles, it is very easy task I swear
Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 18, 2017

I would like to remind and add that even the arbitrary choice of the sides of the triangle must represent an existing (before your big eyes) real constructible numbers for the sides, that also must correspond to an existing three real constructible angles, where this only might give hope to the existence of continuity problem in mathematics! wonder!
BKK

So, What does your reference say about saying the integer degree angle one?
And What do you personally say about the integer degree angle one?
I think firmly that both of your reference and you say that it is an existing angle, even if it is impossible constructible angle by unmarked straight edge and a compass, and I'm quite sure that the whole world agrees with your opinion for sure, noting that one-degree angle = (Pi/180)
But only me say something completely different, I simply say it is a non-existing and fictional angle that is impossible existence in any imaginable reality
Didn't you still understand the core point of my topic? wonder!
And regardless of me being right or wrong, and if it so, then the impossibility of its exact construction by any means is so obvious then for sure
How can one construct something really non-existing?
Or: How can one construct something unreal or non-existing and was only a naive result of his own brain fart? no wonder here
Of course, only genius mathematicians can do miracles too! wonder!
Still, I'm quite sure that you won't get anything since you are a Troll by birth, for sure
BKK

bassam king karzeddin

2017-10-21 12:43:45 UTC

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9zout's_identity
But I dunno whether this is really necessary to
simply show that 1° is not constructible.
Because if 1° were constructible, then 20° were
also constructible, but the later isn't. Right?

And the Winkey Plughfer (bursigan) still wants conformiation from another known Troll (Zelos) about one degree angle, and he can't get it independently that if one degree angle is constructible then all integer degrees angles are also constrctible where as the other Troll provides a reference that proves himself being so ignorant in those issues, probably he never reviewed all the comments made about the degree one angle, he was just so fascinated by constructible formulas for (3n) degrees angle, which is almost irrelevant to my core point, since it is damn easy to recognize those constructible angles where the calculation is trivial and usually a type of donkey works

But whenever it comes to the fictional formulas for other angles that are not divisible by 3, then everything collapses apart for sure

And more funnly they wanted to construct them using the most legendary numbers ever made in the historyof mythematics, using (e, Pi, and (i = sqrt(-1))

But frankly speaking, Trolls are so much needed to convey the truth, for sure, since without them the facts would remain unseen

So, more demand on Trolls and WELL-educated Cranks (In their unlimited ignorance) is urgently needed, for sure

BKK

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey monkey dishwasher there is only one reference,
and it clearly says 1° is not constructible.

Did you mean one-degree angle is not constructible by any means? wonder!
Answer now IF you have the guts?
Don't worry too since the whole world supporting you real Monkey Math TROLL
I just want to DOCUMENT your Monkey Talent online for sure
BKK

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well it seems that the following "The missing brain
often feels as if it wibble thunderstruck purple
monkey dishwasher." is true for BKK.
"How can we exactly construct a triangle with
known sides such that at least one of its angles
is in integer degree (n), where (n) is
not a multiple of 3?"
"The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3"
What will be the answer to the question?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle,
doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled.
You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated,
constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf
Is enough to also cover your problem, which just
asking the same in a different phrasing and setup.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?
And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?
The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!
You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits
Is it that so easy article yours? wonder!
Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure
BKK

Not at all you well-known and stubborn moron, no connection for sure
Any unbiased independent specialist would immediately recognize the so easy issue you refer and the so hot issue I already introduced
And I discovered this fact so simply from the non-existing positive real numbers I had discovered, where I wrote so many topics, conjectures, formulas that you (bursegan) stood helplessly like a leg of a table by your misleading many participation (in those topics)
And your devilish interference here is so well-exposed
Show me only one reference stating clearly that only one angle doesn't exist, wonder!
And this list of fictional angles in mathematics is only one list of so many other lists of non-existing angles as stated earlier by me in many other threads based on proofs of non-existing of all real numbers that aren't constructible
The core issue is to convince any clever school student that most of the so-called advanced mathematics is actually a flowed mathematics that ultimately soon must be thrown to rubbish
So, people used to know before, that if the sum of the triangle degrees is 180 degrees then the triangle exists, but truly most of the triangles of this form are impossible existence in any imaginable universe unless the sides of the triangle are real constructible numbers, since no real numbers exist except the constructible numbers
where also, all other alleged real numbers (as algebraic or Transcendental) can't be represented except by constructible numbers (FOR MORE THAN SURE)
So, here is the main point that is still far away from your shallow fictional understanding
And the main discovery is only for so many clear scandals made (foolishly or devilishly in the history of mathematics), that is all
So, go now and define many more sets of fictional non-existing angles, it is very easy task I swear
Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 18, 2017

I would like to remind and add that even the arbitrary choice of the sides of the triangle must represent an existing (before your big eyes) real constructible numbers for the sides, that also must correspond to an existing three real constructible angles, where this only might give hope to the existence of continuity problem in mathematics! wonder!
BKK

So, What does your reference say about saying the integer degree angle one?
And What do you personally say about the integer degree angle one?
I think firmly that both of your reference and you say that it is an existing angle, even if it is impossible constructible angle by unmarked straight edge and a compass, and I'm quite sure that the whole world agrees with your opinion for sure, noting that one-degree angle = (Pi/180)
But only me say something completely different, I simply say it is a non-existing and fictional angle that is impossible existence in any imaginable reality
Didn't you still understand the core point of my topic? wonder!
And regardless of me being right or wrong, and if it so, then the impossibility of its exact construction by any means is so obvious then for sure
How can one construct something really non-existing?
Or: How can one construct something unreal or non-existing and was only a naive result of his own brain fart? no wonder here
Of course, only genius mathematicians can do miracles too! wonder!
Still, I'm quite sure that you won't get anything since you are a Troll by birth, for sure
BKK

b***@gmail.com

2017-10-21 13:09:44 UTC

They are not called fiction angles, they are
called Unicorn angles, when will you learn some math?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9zout's_identity
But I dunno whether this is really necessary to
simply show that 1° is not constructible.
Because if 1° were constructible, then 20° were
also constructible, but the later isn't. Right?

And the Winkey Plughfer (bursigan) still wants conformiation from another known Troll (Zelos) about one degree angle, and he can't get it independently that if one degree angle is constructible then all integer degrees angles are also constrctible where as the other Troll provides a reference that proves himself being so ignorant in those issues, probably he never reviewed all the comments made about the degree one angle, he was just so fascinated by constructible formulas for (3n) degrees angle, which is almost irrelevant to my core point, since it is damn easy to recognize those constructible angles where the calculation is trivial and usually a type of donkey works
But whenever it comes to the fictional formulas for other angles that are not divisible by 3, then everything collapses apart for sure
And more funnly they wanted to construct them using the most legendary numbers ever made in the historyof mythematics, using (e, Pi, and (i = sqrt(-1))
But frankly speaking, Trolls are so much needed to convey the truth, for sure, since without them the facts would remain unseen
So, more demand on Trolls and WELL-educated Cranks (In their unlimited ignorance) is urgently needed, for sure
BKK

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey monkey dishwasher there is only one reference,
and it clearly says 1° is not constructible.

Did you mean one-degree angle is not constructible by any means? wonder!
Answer now IF you have the guts?
Don't worry too since the whole world supporting you real Monkey Math TROLL
I just want to DOCUMENT your Monkey Talent online for sure
BKK

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well it seems that the following "The missing brain
often feels as if it wibble thunderstruck purple
monkey dishwasher." is true for BKK.
"How can we exactly construct a triangle with
known sides such that at least one of its angles
is in integer degree (n), where (n) is
not a multiple of 3?"
"The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3"
What will be the answer to the question?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle,
doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled.
You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated,
constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf
Is enough to also cover your problem, which just
asking the same in a different phrasing and setup.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?
And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?
The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!
You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits
Is it that so easy article yours? wonder!
Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure
BKK

Not at all you well-known and stubborn moron, no connection for sure
Any unbiased independent specialist would immediately recognize the so easy issue you refer and the so hot issue I already introduced
And I discovered this fact so simply from the non-existing positive real numbers I had discovered, where I wrote so many topics, conjectures, formulas that you (bursegan) stood helplessly like a leg of a table by your misleading many participation (in those topics)
And your devilish interference here is so well-exposed
Show me only one reference stating clearly that only one angle doesn't exist, wonder!
And this list of fictional angles in mathematics is only one list of so many other lists of non-existing angles as stated earlier by me in many other threads based on proofs of non-existing of all real numbers that aren't constructible
The core issue is to convince any clever school student that most of the so-called advanced mathematics is actually a flowed mathematics that ultimately soon must be thrown to rubbish
So, people used to know before, that if the sum of the triangle degrees is 180 degrees then the triangle exists, but truly most of the triangles of this form are impossible existence in any imaginable universe unless the sides of the triangle are real constructible numbers, since no real numbers exist except the constructible numbers
where also, all other alleged real numbers (as algebraic or Transcendental) can't be represented except by constructible numbers (FOR MORE THAN SURE)
So, here is the main point that is still far away from your shallow fictional understanding
And the main discovery is only for so many clear scandals made (foolishly or devilishly in the history of mathematics), that is all
So, go now and define many more sets of fictional non-existing angles, it is very easy task I swear
Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 18, 2017

I would like to remind and add that even the arbitrary choice of the sides of the triangle must represent an existing (before your big eyes) real constructible numbers for the sides, that also must correspond to an existing three real constructible angles, where this only might give hope to the existence of continuity problem in mathematics! wonder!
BKK

So, What does your reference say about saying the integer degree angle one?
And What do you personally say about the integer degree angle one?
I think firmly that both of your reference and you say that it is an existing angle, even if it is impossible constructible angle by unmarked straight edge and a compass, and I'm quite sure that the whole world agrees with your opinion for sure, noting that one-degree angle = (Pi/180)
But only me say something completely different, I simply say it is a non-existing and fictional angle that is impossible existence in any imaginable reality
Didn't you still understand the core point of my topic? wonder!
And regardless of me being right or wrong, and if it so, then the impossibility of its exact construction by any means is so obvious then for sure
How can one construct something really non-existing?
Or: How can one construct something unreal or non-existing and was only a naive result of his own brain fart? no wonder here
Of course, only genius mathematicians can do miracles too! wonder!
Still, I'm quite sure that you won't get anything since you are a Troll by birth, for sure
BKK

b***@gmail.com

2017-10-21 13:16:22 UTC

There is a direct relationship to the Gabriel numbers(TM) and
the Gabrel decimal expansion. You can easly find that
that multiples of 3° are constructible, since by the inverse
prime number theorem of Unicorn numbers we have:

0.333..._Gabiel <> 1/3

So using finite sums and infinite additions, 1° can never
be constructible, even not in Geogebra. There is no ruler and
no compass in Geogebra, its impossible to have a ruler and
compass on a computer, since this would mean we measure

(see Gabriel number(TM)) an incommensurable magnitude ratio.
Its even impossible to have a ruler and a compass on a
computer when using logic, since sets are a junk concept, and
logic or axioms doesn't exist. Euclid didn't use

logic or axioms, he just sit in the sun, and wrote what
angles have vispered him. He didn't need some hard work or
hard thinking, he could even have been drunk when writing
his stuff. You know the Greek were very lazy and always drunk,

proof is Diogenes, so Pythagoras was the only sober and
the only who could deal with numbers, and all this geometry,
algebra or logic is pure nonsense.

Post by b***@gmail.com
They are not called fiction angles, they are
called Unicorn angles, when will you learn some math?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9zout's_identity
But I dunno whether this is really necessary to
simply show that 1° is not constructible.
Because if 1° were constructible, then 20° were
also constructible, but the later isn't. Right?

And the Winkey Plughfer (bursigan) still wants conformiation from another known Troll (Zelos) about one degree angle, and he can't get it independently that if one degree angle is constructible then all integer degrees angles are also constrctible where as the other Troll provides a reference that proves himself being so ignorant in those issues, probably he never reviewed all the comments made about the degree one angle, he was just so fascinated by constructible formulas for (3n) degrees angle, which is almost irrelevant to my core point, since it is damn easy to recognize those constructible angles where the calculation is trivial and usually a type of donkey works
But whenever it comes to the fictional formulas for other angles that are not divisible by 3, then everything collapses apart for sure
And more funnly they wanted to construct them using the most legendary numbers ever made in the historyof mythematics, using (e, Pi, and (i = sqrt(-1))
But frankly speaking, Trolls are so much needed to convey the truth, for sure, since without them the facts would remain unseen
So, more demand on Trolls and WELL-educated Cranks (In their unlimited ignorance) is urgently needed, for sure
BKK

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey monkey dishwasher there is only one reference,
and it clearly says 1° is not constructible.

Did you mean one-degree angle is not constructible by any means? wonder!
Answer now IF you have the guts?
Don't worry too since the whole world supporting you real Monkey Math TROLL
I just want to DOCUMENT your Monkey Talent online for sure
BKK

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well it seems that the following "The missing brain
often feels as if it wibble thunderstruck purple
monkey dishwasher." is true for BKK.
"How can we exactly construct a triangle with
known sides such that at least one of its angles
is in integer degree (n), where (n) is
not a multiple of 3?"
"The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3"
What will be the answer to the question?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle,
doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled.
You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated,
constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf
Is enough to also cover your problem, which just
asking the same in a different phrasing and setup.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?
And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?
The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!
You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits
Is it that so easy article yours? wonder!
Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure
BKK

Not at all you well-known and stubborn moron, no connection for sure
Any unbiased independent specialist would immediately recognize the so easy issue you refer and the so hot issue I already introduced
And I discovered this fact so simply from the non-existing positive real numbers I had discovered, where I wrote so many topics, conjectures, formulas that you (bursegan) stood helplessly like a leg of a table by your misleading many participation (in those topics)
And your devilish interference here is so well-exposed
Show me only one reference stating clearly that only one angle doesn't exist, wonder!
And this list of fictional angles in mathematics is only one list of so many other lists of non-existing angles as stated earlier by me in many other threads based on proofs of non-existing of all real numbers that aren't constructible
The core issue is to convince any clever school student that most of the so-called advanced mathematics is actually a flowed mathematics that ultimately soon must be thrown to rubbish
So, people used to know before, that if the sum of the triangle degrees is 180 degrees then the triangle exists, but truly most of the triangles of this form are impossible existence in any imaginable universe unless the sides of the triangle are real constructible numbers, since no real numbers exist except the constructible numbers
where also, all other alleged real numbers (as algebraic or Transcendental) can't be represented except by constructible numbers (FOR MORE THAN SURE)
So, here is the main point that is still far away from your shallow fictional understanding
And the main discovery is only for so many clear scandals made (foolishly or devilishly in the history of mathematics), that is all
So, go now and define many more sets of fictional non-existing angles, it is very easy task I swear
Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 18, 2017

I would like to remind and add that even the arbitrary choice of the sides of the triangle must represent an existing (before your big eyes) real constructible numbers for the sides, that also must correspond to an existing three real constructible angles, where this only might give hope to the existence of continuity problem in mathematics! wonder!
BKK

So, What does your reference say about saying the integer degree angle one?
And What do you personally say about the integer degree angle one?
I think firmly that both of your reference and you say that it is an existing angle, even if it is impossible constructible angle by unmarked straight edge and a compass, and I'm quite sure that the whole world agrees with your opinion for sure, noting that one-degree angle = (Pi/180)
But only me say something completely different, I simply say it is a non-existing and fictional angle that is impossible existence in any imaginable reality
Didn't you still understand the core point of my topic? wonder!
And regardless of me being right or wrong, and if it so, then the impossibility of its exact construction by any means is so obvious then for sure
How can one construct something really non-existing?
Or: How can one construct something unreal or non-existing and was only a naive result of his own brain fart? no wonder here
Of course, only genius mathematicians can do miracles too! wonder!
Still, I'm quite sure that you won't get anything since you are a Troll by birth, for sure
BKK

b***@gmail.com

2017-10-21 13:22:13 UTC

You see that the Greek were always drunk, already in
the meaning of the term (mathematical-)symposium.
It means nothing else than getting drunk in a group:

"In ancient Greece, the symposium (Greek: συμπόσιον
symposion, from συμπίνειν sympinein, "to drink together")
was a part of a banquet that took place after the meal,
when drinking for pleasure was accompanied by music,
dancing, recitals, or conversation"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symposium

So these Greeks were notorius alcoholics, and everything
that Archimedes, Euclid and Eudoxus (only attributed) wrote,
was pure nonsense from some excess drinking, written in
delirium state of mind.

So now you know what will happen here:
36th Annual Mathematics Symposium
Western Kentucky University
https://www.wku.edu/math/symposium2016.php

Same with MO and MSE, just a bunch of drunkjards...

Post by b***@gmail.com
There is a direct relationship to the Gabriel numbers(TM) and
the Gabrel decimal expansion. You can easly find that
that multiples of 3° are constructible, since by the inverse
0.333..._Gabiel <> 1/3
So using finite sums and infinite additions, 1° can never
be constructible, even not in Geogebra. There is no ruler and
no compass in Geogebra, its impossible to have a ruler and
compass on a computer, since this would mean we measure
(see Gabriel number(TM)) an incommensurable magnitude ratio.
Its even impossible to have a ruler and a compass on a
computer when using logic, since sets are a junk concept, and
logic or axioms doesn't exist. Euclid didn't use
logic or axioms, he just sit in the sun, and wrote what
angles have vispered him. He didn't need some hard work or
hard thinking, he could even have been drunk when writing
his stuff. You know the Greek were very lazy and always drunk,
proof is Diogenes, so Pythagoras was the only sober and
the only who could deal with numbers, and all this geometry,
algebra or logic is pure nonsense.

Post by b***@gmail.com
They are not called fiction angles, they are
called Unicorn angles, when will you learn some math?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9zout's_identity
But I dunno whether this is really necessary to
simply show that 1° is not constructible.
Because if 1° were constructible, then 20° were
also constructible, but the later isn't. Right?

And the Winkey Plughfer (bursigan) still wants conformiation from another known Troll (Zelos) about one degree angle, and he can't get it independently that if one degree angle is constructible then all integer degrees angles are also constrctible where as the other Troll provides a reference that proves himself being so ignorant in those issues, probably he never reviewed all the comments made about the degree one angle, he was just so fascinated by constructible formulas for (3n) degrees angle, which is almost irrelevant to my core point, since it is damn easy to recognize those constructible angles where the calculation is trivial and usually a type of donkey works
But whenever it comes to the fictional formulas for other angles that are not divisible by 3, then everything collapses apart for sure
And more funnly they wanted to construct them using the most legendary numbers ever made in the historyof mythematics, using (e, Pi, and (i = sqrt(-1))
But frankly speaking, Trolls are so much needed to convey the truth, for sure, since without them the facts would remain unseen
So, more demand on Trolls and WELL-educated Cranks (In their unlimited ignorance) is urgently needed, for sure
BKK

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey monkey dishwasher there is only one reference,
and it clearly says 1° is not constructible.

Did you mean one-degree angle is not constructible by any means? wonder!
Answer now IF you have the guts?
Don't worry too since the whole world supporting you real Monkey Math TROLL
I just want to DOCUMENT your Monkey Talent online for sure
BKK

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well it seems that the following "The missing brain
often feels as if it wibble thunderstruck purple
monkey dishwasher." is true for BKK.
"How can we exactly construct a triangle with
known sides such that at least one of its angles
is in integer degree (n), where (n) is
not a multiple of 3?"
"The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3"
What will be the answer to the question?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle,
doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled.
You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated,
constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf
Is enough to also cover your problem, which just
asking the same in a different phrasing and setup.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?
And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?
The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!
You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits
Is it that so easy article yours? wonder!
Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure
BKK

Not at all you well-known and stubborn moron, no connection for sure
Any unbiased independent specialist would immediately recognize the so easy issue you refer and the so hot issue I already introduced
And I discovered this fact so simply from the non-existing positive real numbers I had discovered, where I wrote so many topics, conjectures, formulas that you (bursegan) stood helplessly like a leg of a table by your misleading many participation (in those topics)
And your devilish interference here is so well-exposed
Show me only one reference stating clearly that only one angle doesn't exist, wonder!
And this list of fictional angles in mathematics is only one list of so many other lists of non-existing angles as stated earlier by me in many other threads based on proofs of non-existing of all real numbers that aren't constructible
The core issue is to convince any clever school student that most of the so-called advanced mathematics is actually a flowed mathematics that ultimately soon must be thrown to rubbish
So, people used to know before, that if the sum of the triangle degrees is 180 degrees then the triangle exists, but truly most of the triangles of this form are impossible existence in any imaginable universe unless the sides of the triangle are real constructible numbers, since no real numbers exist except the constructible numbers
where also, all other alleged real numbers (as algebraic or Transcendental) can't be represented except by constructible numbers (FOR MORE THAN SURE)
So, here is the main point that is still far away from your shallow fictional understanding
And the main discovery is only for so many clear scandals made (foolishly or devilishly in the history of mathematics), that is all
So, go now and define many more sets of fictional non-existing angles, it is very easy task I swear
Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 18, 2017

I would like to remind and add that even the arbitrary choice of the sides of the triangle must represent an existing (before your big eyes) real constructible numbers for the sides, that also must correspond to an existing three real constructible angles, where this only might give hope to the existence of continuity problem in mathematics! wonder!
BKK

So, What does your reference say about saying the integer degree angle one?
And What do you personally say about the integer degree angle one?
I think firmly that both of your reference and you say that it is an existing angle, even if it is impossible constructible angle by unmarked straight edge and a compass, and I'm quite sure that the whole world agrees with your opinion for sure, noting that one-degree angle = (Pi/180)
But only me say something completely different, I simply say it is a non-existing and fictional angle that is impossible existence in any imaginable reality
Didn't you still understand the core point of my topic? wonder!
And regardless of me being right or wrong, and if it so, then the impossibility of its exact construction by any means is so obvious then for sure
How can one construct something really non-existing?
Or: How can one construct something unreal or non-existing and was only a naive result of his own brain fart? no wonder here
Of course, only genius mathematicians can do miracles too! wonder!
Still, I'm quite sure that you won't get anything since you are a Troll by birth, for sure
BKK

b***@gmail.com

2017-10-21 13:25:12 UTC

The Greeks just sailing the mediteranean, and
drinking, thats all they could do. Sometimes they
were even too drunk to they knots:

What Knot to Do When Sailing
https://www.wku.edu/math/blownawayposter.pdf

Post by b***@gmail.com
You see that the Greek were always drunk, already in
the meaning of the term (mathematical-)symposium.
"In ancient Greece, the symposium (Greek: συμπόσιον
symposion, from συμπίνειν sympinein, "to drink together")
was a part of a banquet that took place after the meal,
when drinking for pleasure was accompanied by music,
dancing, recitals, or conversation"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symposium
So these Greeks were notorius alcoholics, and everything
that Archimedes, Euclid and Eudoxus (only attributed) wrote,
was pure nonsense from some excess drinking, written in
delirium state of mind.
36th Annual Mathematics Symposium
Western Kentucky University
https://www.wku.edu/math/symposium2016.php
Same with MO and MSE, just a bunch of drunkjards...

Post by b***@gmail.com
There is a direct relationship to the Gabriel numbers(TM) and
the Gabrel decimal expansion. You can easly find that
that multiples of 3° are constructible, since by the inverse
0.333..._Gabiel <> 1/3
So using finite sums and infinite additions, 1° can never
be constructible, even not in Geogebra. There is no ruler and
no compass in Geogebra, its impossible to have a ruler and
compass on a computer, since this would mean we measure
(see Gabriel number(TM)) an incommensurable magnitude ratio.
Its even impossible to have a ruler and a compass on a
computer when using logic, since sets are a junk concept, and
logic or axioms doesn't exist. Euclid didn't use
logic or axioms, he just sit in the sun, and wrote what
angles have vispered him. He didn't need some hard work or
hard thinking, he could even have been drunk when writing
his stuff. You know the Greek were very lazy and always drunk,
proof is Diogenes, so Pythagoras was the only sober and
the only who could deal with numbers, and all this geometry,
algebra or logic is pure nonsense.

Post by b***@gmail.com
They are not called fiction angles, they are
called Unicorn angles, when will you learn some math?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9zout's_identity
But I dunno whether this is really necessary to
simply show that 1° is not constructible.
Because if 1° were constructible, then 20° were
also constructible, but the later isn't. Right?

And the Winkey Plughfer (bursigan) still wants conformiation from another known Troll (Zelos) about one degree angle, and he can't get it independently that if one degree angle is constructible then all integer degrees angles are also constrctible where as the other Troll provides a reference that proves himself being so ignorant in those issues, probably he never reviewed all the comments made about the degree one angle, he was just so fascinated by constructible formulas for (3n) degrees angle, which is almost irrelevant to my core point, since it is damn easy to recognize those constructible angles where the calculation is trivial and usually a type of donkey works
But whenever it comes to the fictional formulas for other angles that are not divisible by 3, then everything collapses apart for sure
And more funnly they wanted to construct them using the most legendary numbers ever made in the historyof mythematics, using (e, Pi, and (i = sqrt(-1))
But frankly speaking, Trolls are so much needed to convey the truth, for sure, since without them the facts would remain unseen
So, more demand on Trolls and WELL-educated Cranks (In their unlimited ignorance) is urgently needed, for sure
BKK

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey monkey dishwasher there is only one reference,
and it clearly says 1° is not constructible.

Did you mean one-degree angle is not constructible by any means? wonder!
Answer now IF you have the guts?
Don't worry too since the whole world supporting you real Monkey Math TROLL
I just want to DOCUMENT your Monkey Talent online for sure
BKK

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well it seems that the following "The missing brain
often feels as if it wibble thunderstruck purple
monkey dishwasher." is true for BKK.
"How can we exactly construct a triangle with
known sides such that at least one of its angles
is in integer degree (n), where (n) is
not a multiple of 3?"
"The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3"
What will be the answer to the question?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle,
doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled.
You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated,
constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf
Is enough to also cover your problem, which just
asking the same in a different phrasing and setup.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?
And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?
The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!
You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits
Is it that so easy article yours? wonder!
Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure
BKK

Not at all you well-known and stubborn moron, no connection for sure
Any unbiased independent specialist would immediately recognize the so easy issue you refer and the so hot issue I already introduced
And I discovered this fact so simply from the non-existing positive real numbers I had discovered, where I wrote so many topics, conjectures, formulas that you (bursegan) stood helplessly like a leg of a table by your misleading many participation (in those topics)
And your devilish interference here is so well-exposed
Show me only one reference stating clearly that only one angle doesn't exist, wonder!
And this list of fictional angles in mathematics is only one list of so many other lists of non-existing angles as stated earlier by me in many other threads based on proofs of non-existing of all real numbers that aren't constructible
The core issue is to convince any clever school student that most of the so-called advanced mathematics is actually a flowed mathematics that ultimately soon must be thrown to rubbish
So, people used to know before, that if the sum of the triangle degrees is 180 degrees then the triangle exists, but truly most of the triangles of this form are impossible existence in any imaginable universe unless the sides of the triangle are real constructible numbers, since no real numbers exist except the constructible numbers
where also, all other alleged real numbers (as algebraic or Transcendental) can't be represented except by constructible numbers (FOR MORE THAN SURE)
So, here is the main point that is still far away from your shallow fictional understanding
And the main discovery is only for so many clear scandals made (foolishly or devilishly in the history of mathematics), that is all
So, go now and define many more sets of fictional non-existing angles, it is very easy task I swear
Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 18, 2017

I would like to remind and add that even the arbitrary choice of the sides of the triangle must represent an existing (before your big eyes) real constructible numbers for the sides, that also must correspond to an existing three real constructible angles, where this only might give hope to the existence of continuity problem in mathematics! wonder!
BKK

So, What does your reference say about saying the integer degree angle one?
And What do you personally say about the integer degree angle one?
I think firmly that both of your reference and you say that it is an existing angle, even if it is impossible constructible angle by unmarked straight edge and a compass, and I'm quite sure that the whole world agrees with your opinion for sure, noting that one-degree angle = (Pi/180)
But only me say something completely different, I simply say it is a non-existing and fictional angle that is impossible existence in any imaginable reality
Didn't you still understand the core point of my topic? wonder!
And regardless of me being right or wrong, and if it so, then the impossibility of its exact construction by any means is so obvious then for sure
How can one construct something really non-existing?
Or: How can one construct something unreal or non-existing and was only a naive result of his own brain fart? no wonder here
Of course, only genius mathematicians can do miracles too! wonder!
Still, I'm quite sure that you won't get anything since you are a Troll by birth, for sure
BKK

FromTheRafters

2017-10-21 13:35:28 UTC

Post by b***@gmail.com
You see that the Greek were always drunk, already in
the meaning of the term (mathematical-)symposium.
"In ancient Greece, the symposium (Greek: συμπόσιον
symposion, from συμπίνειν sympinein, "to drink together")
was a part of a banquet that took place after the meal,
when drinking for pleasure was accompanied by music,
dancing, recitals, or conversation"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symposium
So these Greeks were notorius alcoholics, and everything
that Archimedes, Euclid and Eudoxus (only attributed) wrote,
was pure nonsense from some excess drinking, written in
delirium state of mind.

Wine apparently tastes sweeter when coming from a lead vessel too. Yum!

bassam king karzeddin

2017-10-21 15:13:55 UTC

Post by b***@gmail.com
There is a direct relationship to the Gabriel numbers(TM) and
the Gabrel decimal expansion. You can easly find that
that multiples of 3° are constructible, since by the inverse
0.333..._Gabiel <> 1/3

I don't at all think you have got the simplest puzzle yet, and don't let the decimal point mislead you any more real moron, the dot isn't any magical tool that can turns immediately any meaningless number to real number

So, let us take you for a ride (for more fun) just before the Arabs had introduced that decimal notation and asking you to express first, (0.3), then (0.33), (0.333), and finally (0.333...)

The answer is simpler than you would imagine

0.3 = 3/10, 0.33 = 33/100, 333/1000, ..., N(m)/10^m

Where N(m) is a positive integer with integer number (m) sequence of digits, where all digits are 3's, isn't it? wonder!

But (m) can't be with infinite sequence of digits, since then the integer

(333...) IS meaningless in mathematics, same for the integer (100...)

So you can't use any mathematical notation on nonsense numbers as (=, <, >)

Therefore, your (in mind number) is a phobia and never any real number unless you have a defined number of digits, where then it becomes less than (1/3), for sure
Same principle applies for any phobia or ghost number (in mind) with endless digits or non-zero terms, and still, you would never understand anything for more than sure

Hint: how can you best approximate in rationals, the irrational length of the longest diagonal in a cube with unity side, Sqrt(3) without using decimal notation? wonder!

Still, no hint any Troll would like to get for more than sure

Post by b***@gmail.com
So using finite sums and infinite additions, 1° can never
be constructible, even not in Geogebra. There is no ruler and
no compass in Geogebra, its impossible to have a ruler and
compass on a computer, since this would mean we measure
(see Gabriel number(TM)) an incommensurable magnitude ratio.
Its even impossible to have a ruler and a compass on a
computer when using logic, since sets are a junk concept, and
logic or axioms doesn't exist. Euclid didn't use
logic or axioms, he just sit in the sun, and wrote what
angles have vispered him. He didn't need some hard work or
hard thinking, he could even have been drunk when writing
his stuff. You know the Greek were very lazy and always drunk,

The Greeks or all the ancient mathematicians never knew that many of integer degrees angles were not existing, for sure, otherwise, they would be had never stated their three well known impossible problems constructions, for sure

Please, don't pretend and don't get so distorted as a drank as always, also don't accuse the Greeks of being lazy and drunk, after all, they could understand mathematics as reality and not so fictional as our these days for sure, and naturally, they like much other civilization didn't know everything exactly

Post by b***@gmail.com
proof is Diogenes, so Pythagoras was the only sober and
the only who could deal with numbers, and all this geometry,
algebra or logic is pure nonsense.

Rarely anything in mathematics was logical as the Pythagorean theorem, and that is why we call it an absolute fact, that never depends on our own definitions nor our own existence to decide

Algebra basically was pure science introduced by the Arabs, for solving real problems but later was so distorted to unbelievable limits
[snip the repeated nonsense by a troll]

BKK

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9zout's_identity
But I dunno whether this is really necessary to
simply show that 1° is not constructible.
Because if 1° were constructible, then 20° were
also constructible, but the later isn't. Right?

And the Winkey Plughfer (bursigan) still wants conformiation from another known Troll (Zelos) about one degree angle, and he can't get it independently that if one degree angle is constructible then all integer degrees angles are also constrctible where as the other Troll provides a reference that proves himself being so ignorant in those issues, probably he never reviewed all the comments made about the degree one angle, he was just so fascinated by constructible formulas for (3n) degrees angle, which is almost irrelevant to my core point, since it is damn easy to recognize those constructible angles where the calculation is trivial and usually a type of donkey works
But whenever it comes to the fictional formulas for other angles that are not divisible by 3, then everything collapses apart for sure
And more funnly they wanted to construct them using the most legendary numbers ever made in the historyof mythematics, using (e, Pi, and (i = sqrt(-1))
But frankly speaking, Trolls are so much needed to convey the truth, for sure, since without them the facts would remain unseen
So, more demand on Trolls and WELL-educated Cranks (In their unlimited ignorance) is urgently needed, for sure
BKK

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey monkey dishwasher there is only one reference,
and it clearly says 1° is not constructible.

Did you mean one-degree angle is not constructible by any means? wonder!
Answer now IF you have the guts?
Don't worry too since the whole world supporting you real Monkey Math TROLL
I just want to DOCUMENT your Monkey Talent online for sure
BKK

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well it seems that the following "The missing brain
often feels as if it wibble thunderstruck purple
monkey dishwasher." is true for BKK.
"How can we exactly construct a triangle with
known sides such that at least one of its angles
is in integer degree (n), where (n) is
not a multiple of 3?"
"The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3"
What will be the answer to the question?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle,
doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled.
You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated,
constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf
Is enough to also cover your problem, which just
asking the same in a different phrasing and setup.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?
And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?
The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!
You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits
Is it that so easy article yours? wonder!
Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure
BKK

Not at all you well-known and stubborn moron, no connection for sure
Any unbiased independent specialist would immediately recognize the so easy issue you refer and the so hot issue I already introduced
And I discovered this fact so simply from the non-existing positive real numbers I had discovered, where I wrote so many topics, conjectures, formulas that you (bursegan) stood helplessly like a leg of a table by your misleading many participation (in those topics)
And your devilish interference here is so well-exposed
Show me only one reference stating clearly that only one angle doesn't exist, wonder!
And this list of fictional angles in mathematics is only one list of so many other lists of non-existing angles as stated earlier by me in many other threads based on proofs of non-existing of all real numbers that aren't constructible
The core issue is to convince any clever school student that most of the so-called advanced mathematics is actually a flowed mathematics that ultimately soon must be thrown to rubbish
So, people used to know before, that if the sum of the triangle degrees is 180 degrees then the triangle exists, but truly most of the triangles of this form are impossible existence in any imaginable universe unless the sides of the triangle are real constructible numbers, since no real numbers exist except the constructible numbers
where also, all other alleged real numbers (as algebraic or Transcendental) can't be represented except by constructible numbers (FOR MORE THAN SURE)
So, here is the main point that is still far away from your shallow fictional understanding
And the main discovery is only for so many clear scandals made (foolishly or devilishly in the history of mathematics), that is all
So, go now and define many more sets of fictional non-existing angles, it is very easy task I swear
Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 18, 2017

I would like to remind and add that even the arbitrary choice of the sides of the triangle must represent an existing (before your big eyes) real constructible numbers for the sides, that also must correspond to an existing three real constructible angles, where this only might give hope to the existence of continuity problem in mathematics! wonder!
BKK

So, What does your reference say about saying the integer degree angle one?
And What do you personally say about the integer degree angle one?
I think firmly that both of your reference and you say that it is an existing angle, even if it is impossible constructible angle by unmarked straight edge and a compass, and I'm quite sure that the whole world agrees with your opinion for sure, noting that one-degree angle = (Pi/180)
But only me say something completely different, I simply say it is a non-existing and fictional angle that is impossible existence in any imaginable reality
Didn't you still understand the core point of my topic? wonder!
And regardless of me being right or wrong, and if it so, then the impossibility of its exact construction by any means is so obvious then for sure
How can one construct something really non-existing?
Or: How can one construct something unreal or non-existing and was only a naive result of his own brain fart? no wonder here
Of course, only genius mathematicians can do miracles too! wonder!
Still, I'm quite sure that you won't get anything since you are a Troll by birth, for sure
BKK

bassam king karzeddin

2017-10-21 13:59:03 UTC

Post by b***@gmail.com
They are not called fiction angles, they are
called Unicorn angles, when will you learn some math?

Get away with this nonsence constant saying that had been debunked long time ago, in another thread where you claimed Foolishly that Sqrt(2) is unicon number

And slowly, you would convince yourself that your reference says one-degree angle is not constructible and by any means (shamelessly and by the time), where later you would claim more nonsense that the same reference you refer is the only source of discovering the fiction angles too, just a little fabrication needed, where your alike are so expert in this matters, after all, who is going to read every reference you add among so many tonnes of them

You are a typical example of an Eclupedia Moron, better than a library man

But, hey you are so exposed since all your ignorance would be so clear for many people who hardly understand anything now, just keep it for the record, or try removing my articles as many had done before

But, your alike are very much needed where nothing would protect your short neck from the sharp sword of the king (don't get panicked, no blood OR smoke or any fire in my wars but a trap that would drag all the fools on earth to their eventual destiny) for sure

BKK

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9zout's_identity
But I dunno whether this is really necessary to
simply show that 1° is not constructible.
Because if 1° were constructible, then 20° were
also constructible, but the later isn't. Right?

And the Winkey Plughfer (bursigan) still wants conformiation from another known Troll (Zelos) about one degree angle, and he can't get it independently that if one degree angle is constructible then all integer degrees angles are also constrctible where as the other Troll provides a reference that proves himself being so ignorant in those issues, probably he never reviewed all the comments made about the degree one angle, he was just so fascinated by constructible formulas for (3n) degrees angle, which is almost irrelevant to my core point, since it is damn easy to recognize those constructible angles where the calculation is trivial and usually a type of donkey works
But whenever it comes to the fictional formulas for other angles that are not divisible by 3, then everything collapses apart for sure
And more funnly they wanted to construct them using the most legendary numbers ever made in the historyof mythematics, using (e, Pi, and (i = sqrt(-1))
But frankly speaking, Trolls are so much needed to convey the truth, for sure, since without them the facts would remain unseen
So, more demand on Trolls and WELL-educated Cranks (In their unlimited ignorance) is urgently needed, for sure
BKK

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey monkey dishwasher there is only one reference,
and it clearly says 1° is not constructible.

Did you mean one-degree angle is not constructible by any means? wonder!
Answer now IF you have the guts?
Don't worry too since the whole world supporting you real Monkey Math TROLL
I just want to DOCUMENT your Monkey Talent online for sure
BKK

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well it seems that the following "The missing brain
often feels as if it wibble thunderstruck purple
monkey dishwasher." is true for BKK.
"How can we exactly construct a triangle with
known sides such that at least one of its angles
is in integer degree (n), where (n) is
not a multiple of 3?"
"The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3"
What will be the answer to the question?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle,
doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled.
You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated,
constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf
Is enough to also cover your problem, which just
asking the same in a different phrasing and setup.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?
And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?
The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!
You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits
Is it that so easy article yours? wonder!
Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure
BKK

Not at all you well-known and stubborn moron, no connection for sure
Any unbiased independent specialist would immediately recognize the so easy issue you refer and the so hot issue I already introduced
And I discovered this fact so simply from the non-existing positive real numbers I had discovered, where I wrote so many topics, conjectures, formulas that you (bursegan) stood helplessly like a leg of a table by your misleading many participation (in those topics)
And your devilish interference here is so well-exposed
Show me only one reference stating clearly that only one angle doesn't exist, wonder!
And this list of fictional angles in mathematics is only one list of so many other lists of non-existing angles as stated earlier by me in many other threads based on proofs of non-existing of all real numbers that aren't constructible
The core issue is to convince any clever school student that most of the so-called advanced mathematics is actually a flowed mathematics that ultimately soon must be thrown to rubbish
So, people used to know before, that if the sum of the triangle degrees is 180 degrees then the triangle exists, but truly most of the triangles of this form are impossible existence in any imaginable universe unless the sides of the triangle are real constructible numbers, since no real numbers exist except the constructible numbers
where also, all other alleged real numbers (as algebraic or Transcendental) can't be represented except by constructible numbers (FOR MORE THAN SURE)
So, here is the main point that is still far away from your shallow fictional understanding
And the main discovery is only for so many clear scandals made (foolishly or devilishly in the history of mathematics), that is all
So, go now and define many more sets of fictional non-existing angles, it is very easy task I swear
Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 18, 2017

I would like to remind and add that even the arbitrary choice of the sides of the triangle must represent an existing (before your big eyes) real constructible numbers for the sides, that also must correspond to an existing three real constructible angles, where this only might give hope to the existence of continuity problem in mathematics! wonder!
BKK

So, What does your reference say about saying the integer degree angle one?
And What do you personally say about the integer degree angle one?
I think firmly that both of your reference and you say that it is an existing angle, even if it is impossible constructible angle by unmarked straight edge and a compass, and I'm quite sure that the whole world agrees with your opinion for sure, noting that one-degree angle = (Pi/180)
But only me say something completely different, I simply say it is a non-existing and fictional angle that is impossible existence in any imaginable reality
Didn't you still understand the core point of my topic? wonder!
And regardless of me being right or wrong, and if it so, then the impossibility of its exact construction by any means is so obvious then for sure
How can one construct something really non-existing?
Or: How can one construct something unreal or non-existing and was only a naive result of his own brain fart? no wonder here
Of course, only genius mathematicians can do miracles too! wonder!
Still, I'm quite sure that you won't get anything since you are a Troll by birth, for sure
BKK

They are not called fiction angles, they are
called Unicorn angles, when will you learn some math?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9zout's_identity
But I dunno whether this is really necessary to
simply show that 1° is not constructible.
Because if 1° were constructible, then 20° were
also constructible, but the later isn't. Right?

And the Winkey Plughfer (bursigan) still wants conformiation from another known Troll (Zelos) about one degree angle, and he can't get it independently that if one degree angle is constructible then all integer degrees angles are also constrctible where as the other Troll provides a reference that proves himself being so ignorant in those issues, probably he never reviewed all the comments made about the degree one angle, he was just so fascinated by constructible formulas for (3n) degrees angle, which is almost irrelevant to my core point, since it is damn easy to recognize those constructible angles where the calculation is trivial and usually a type of donkey works
But whenever it comes to the fictional formulas for other angles that are not divisible by 3, then everything collapses apart for sure
And more funnly they wanted to construct them using the most legendary numbers ever made in the historyof mythematics, using (e, Pi, and (i = sqrt(-1))
But frankly speaking, Trolls are so much needed to convey the truth, for sure, since without them the facts would remain unseen
So, more demand on Trolls and WELL-educated Cranks (In their unlimited ignorance) is urgently needed, for sure
BKK

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey monkey dishwasher there is only one reference,
and it clearly says 1° is not constructible.

Did you mean one-degree angle is not constructible by any means? wonder!
Answer now IF you have the guts?
Don't worry too since the whole world supporting you real Monkey Math TROLL
I just want to DOCUMENT your Monkey Talent online for sure
BKK

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well it seems that the following "The missing brain
often feels as if it wibble thunderstruck purple
monkey dishwasher." is true for BKK.
"How can we exactly construct a triangle with
known sides such that at least one of its angles
is in integer degree (n), where (n) is
not a multiple of 3?"
"The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3"
What will be the answer to the question?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle,
doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled.
You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated,
constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf
Is enough to also cover your problem, which just
asking the same in a different phrasing and setup.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?
And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?
The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!
You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits
Is it that so easy article yours? wonder!
Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure
BKK

Not at all you well-known and stubborn moron, no connection for sure
Any unbiased independent specialist would immediately recognize the so easy issue you refer and the so hot issue I already introduced
And I discovered this fact so simply from the non-existing positive real numbers I had discovered, where I wrote so many topics, conjectures, formulas that you (bursegan) stood helplessly like a leg of a table by your misleading many participation (in those topics)
And your devilish interference here is so well-exposed
Show me only one reference stating clearly that only one angle doesn't exist, wonder!
And this list of fictional angles in mathematics is only one list of so many other lists of non-existing angles as stated earlier by me in many other threads based on proofs of non-existing of all real numbers that aren't constructible
The core issue is to convince any clever school student that most of the so-called advanced mathematics is actually a flowed mathematics that ultimately soon must be thrown to rubbish
So, people used to know before, that if the sum of the triangle degrees is 180 degrees then the triangle exists, but truly most of the triangles of this form are impossible existence in any imaginable universe unless the sides of the triangle are real constructible numbers, since no real numbers exist except the constructible numbers
where also, all other alleged real numbers (as algebraic or Transcendental) can't be represented except by constructible numbers (FOR MORE THAN SURE)
So, here is the main point that is still far away from your shallow fictional understanding
And the main discovery is only for so many clear scandals made (foolishly or devilishly in the history of mathematics), that is all
So, go now and define many more sets of fictional non-existing angles, it is very easy task I swear
Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 18, 2017

I would like to remind and add that even the arbitrary choice of the sides of the triangle must represent an existing (before your big eyes) real constructible numbers for the sides, that also must correspond to an existing three real constructible angles, where this only might give hope to the existence of continuity problem in mathematics! wonder!
BKK

So, What does your reference say about saying the integer degree angle one?
And What do you personally say about the integer degree angle one?
I think firmly that both of your reference and you say that it is an existing angle, even if it is impossible constructible angle by unmarked straight edge and a compass, and I'm quite sure that the whole world agrees with your opinion for sure, noting that one-degree angle = (Pi/180)
But only me say something completely different, I simply say it is a non-existing and fictional angle that is impossible existence in any imaginable reality
Didn't you still understand the core point of my topic? wonder!
And regardless of me being right or wrong, and if it so, then the impossibility of its exact construction by any means is so obvious then for sure
How can one construct something really non-existing?
Or: How can one construct something unreal or non-existing and was only a naive result of his own brain fart? no wonder here
Of course, only genius mathematicians can do miracles too! wonder!
Still, I'm quite sure that you won't get anything since you are a Troll by birth, for sure
BKK

b***@gmail.com

2017-10-21 15:14:47 UTC

Non no, the Unicorn symbolizes according to the wine god
Dionysus, unique horn, very similar to unique decimal
representation but via horn numbers. It was Dionysus who

first discovered that there are Unicorn numbers. Dionysus
was much more before Pythagoras, and Pythagoras adopted
Unicorn numbers from Dionysus.

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

There was the 60-th horn, and the 3600-horn. So it wasn't
really base 10. Here you have a painting by salvador
dali, showing Dionysus riding a Unicorn:

SALVADOR DALI Sterling Silver Medal
Dionysus on Unicorn
https://www.rubylane.com/item/61838-1057876x203175j/SALVADOR-DALI-Sterling-Silver-Medal-Dionysus?search=1

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by b***@gmail.com
They are not called fiction angles, they are
called Unicorn angles, when will you learn some math?

Get away with this nonsence constant saying that had been debunked long time ago, in another thread where you claimed Foolishly that Sqrt(2) is unicon number
And slowly, you would convince yourself that your reference says one-degree angle is not constructible and by any means (shamelessly and by the time), where later you would claim more nonsense that the same reference you refer is the only source of discovering the fiction angles too, just a little fabrication needed, where your alike are so expert in this matters, after all, who is going to read every reference you add among so many tonnes of them
You are a typical example of an Eclupedia Moron, better than a library man
But, hey you are so exposed since all your ignorance would be so clear for many people who hardly understand anything now, just keep it for the record, or try removing my articles as many had done before
But, your alike are very much needed where nothing would protect your short neck from the sharp sword of the king (don't get panicked, no blood OR smoke or any fire in my wars but a trap that would drag all the fools on earth to their eventual destiny) for sure
BKK

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9zout's_identity
But I dunno whether this is really necessary to
simply show that 1° is not constructible.
Because if 1° were constructible, then 20° were
also constructible, but the later isn't. Right?

And the Winkey Plughfer (bursigan) still wants conformiation from another known Troll (Zelos) about one degree angle, and he can't get it independently that if one degree angle is constructible then all integer degrees angles are also constrctible where as the other Troll provides a reference that proves himself being so ignorant in those issues, probably he never reviewed all the comments made about the degree one angle, he was just so fascinated by constructible formulas for (3n) degrees angle, which is almost irrelevant to my core point, since it is damn easy to recognize those constructible angles where the calculation is trivial and usually a type of donkey works
But whenever it comes to the fictional formulas for other angles that are not divisible by 3, then everything collapses apart for sure
And more funnly they wanted to construct them using the most legendary numbers ever made in the historyof mythematics, using (e, Pi, and (i = sqrt(-1))
But frankly speaking, Trolls are so much needed to convey the truth, for sure, since without them the facts would remain unseen
So, more demand on Trolls and WELL-educated Cranks (In their unlimited ignorance) is urgently needed, for sure
BKK

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey monkey dishwasher there is only one reference,
and it clearly says 1° is not constructible.

Did you mean one-degree angle is not constructible by any means? wonder!
Answer now IF you have the guts?
Don't worry too since the whole world supporting you real Monkey Math TROLL
I just want to DOCUMENT your Monkey Talent online for sure
BKK

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well it seems that the following "The missing brain
often feels as if it wibble thunderstruck purple
monkey dishwasher." is true for BKK.
"How can we exactly construct a triangle with
known sides such that at least one of its angles
is in integer degree (n), where (n) is
not a multiple of 3?"
"The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3"
What will be the answer to the question?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle,
doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled.
You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated,
constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf
Is enough to also cover your problem, which just
asking the same in a different phrasing and setup.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?
And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?
The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!
You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits
Is it that so easy article yours? wonder!
Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure
BKK

Not at all you well-known and stubborn moron, no connection for sure
Any unbiased independent specialist would immediately recognize the so easy issue you refer and the so hot issue I already introduced
And I discovered this fact so simply from the non-existing positive real numbers I had discovered, where I wrote so many topics, conjectures, formulas that you (bursegan) stood helplessly like a leg of a table by your misleading many participation (in those topics)
And your devilish interference here is so well-exposed
Show me only one reference stating clearly that only one angle doesn't exist, wonder!
And this list of fictional angles in mathematics is only one list of so many other lists of non-existing angles as stated earlier by me in many other threads based on proofs of non-existing of all real numbers that aren't constructible
The core issue is to convince any clever school student that most of the so-called advanced mathematics is actually a flowed mathematics that ultimately soon must be thrown to rubbish
So, people used to know before, that if the sum of the triangle degrees is 180 degrees then the triangle exists, but truly most of the triangles of this form are impossible existence in any imaginable universe unless the sides of the triangle are real constructible numbers, since no real numbers exist except the constructible numbers
where also, all other alleged real numbers (as algebraic or Transcendental) can't be represented except by constructible numbers (FOR MORE THAN SURE)
So, here is the main point that is still far away from your shallow fictional understanding
And the main discovery is only for so many clear scandals made (foolishly or devilishly in the history of mathematics), that is all
So, go now and define many more sets of fictional non-existing angles, it is very easy task I swear
Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 18, 2017

I would like to remind and add that even the arbitrary choice of the sides of the triangle must represent an existing (before your big eyes) real constructible numbers for the sides, that also must correspond to an existing three real constructible angles, where this only might give hope to the existence of continuity problem in mathematics! wonder!
BKK

So, What does your reference say about saying the integer degree angle one?
And What do you personally say about the integer degree angle one?
I think firmly that both of your reference and you say that it is an existing angle, even if it is impossible constructible angle by unmarked straight edge and a compass, and I'm quite sure that the whole world agrees with your opinion for sure, noting that one-degree angle = (Pi/180)
But only me say something completely different, I simply say it is a non-existing and fictional angle that is impossible existence in any imaginable reality
Didn't you still understand the core point of my topic? wonder!
And regardless of me being right or wrong, and if it so, then the impossibility of its exact construction by any means is so obvious then for sure
How can one construct something really non-existing?
Or: How can one construct something unreal or non-existing and was only a naive result of his own brain fart? no wonder here
Of course, only genius mathematicians can do miracles too! wonder!
Still, I'm quite sure that you won't get anything since you are a Troll by birth, for sure
BKK

They are not called fiction angles, they are
called Unicorn angles, when will you learn some math?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9zout's_identity
But I dunno whether this is really necessary to
simply show that 1° is not constructible.
Because if 1° were constructible, then 20° were
also constructible, but the later isn't. Right?

And the Winkey Plughfer (bursigan) still wants conformiation from another known Troll (Zelos) about one degree angle, and he can't get it independently that if one degree angle is constructible then all integer degrees angles are also constrctible where as the other Troll provides a reference that proves himself being so ignorant in those issues, probably he never reviewed all the comments made about the degree one angle, he was just so fascinated by constructible formulas for (3n) degrees angle, which is almost irrelevant to my core point, since it is damn easy to recognize those constructible angles where the calculation is trivial and usually a type of donkey works
But whenever it comes to the fictional formulas for other angles that are not divisible by 3, then everything collapses apart for sure
And more funnly they wanted to construct them using the most legendary numbers ever made in the historyof mythematics, using (e, Pi, and (i = sqrt(-1))
But frankly speaking, Trolls are so much needed to convey the truth, for sure, since without them the facts would remain unseen
So, more demand on Trolls and WELL-educated Cranks (In their unlimited ignorance) is urgently needed, for sure
BKK

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey monkey dishwasher there is only one reference,
and it clearly says 1° is not constructible.

Did you mean one-degree angle is not constructible by any means? wonder!
Answer now IF you have the guts?
Don't worry too since the whole world supporting you real Monkey Math TROLL
I just want to DOCUMENT your Monkey Talent online for sure
BKK

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well it seems that the following "The missing brain
often feels as if it wibble thunderstruck purple
monkey dishwasher." is true for BKK.
"How can we exactly construct a triangle with
known sides such that at least one of its angles
is in integer degree (n), where (n) is
not a multiple of 3?"
"The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3"
What will be the answer to the question?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Well putting 3 angles together into a triangle,
doesnt make the angles more or less constructibled.
You seem to be highly confused, brain amputated,
constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf
Is enough to also cover your problem, which just
asking the same in a different phrasing and setup.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Blaubeer Rotapfel
Do you even know what the word "only" means?
Are you brain amputated, or what?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks to the reference, but the reference never talks or claims anything about the non-existence of all other integer degrees angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by (3), does it? wonder!
And most likely you didn't get my content issue for sure
BKK

constructible angles with integer values in degrees∗
PrimeFan† 2013-03-21 17:15:52
Theorem 3 The only constructible angles measuring
an integer number of degrees are precisely
the multiples of 3◦.
http://planetmath.org/node/35728/pdf

Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?
And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?
The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!
You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits
Is it that so easy article yours? wonder!
Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure
BKK

Not at all you well-known and stubborn moron, no connection for sure
Any unbiased independent specialist would immediately recognize the so easy issue you refer and the so hot issue I already introduced
And I discovered this fact so simply from the non-existing positive real numbers I had discovered, where I wrote so many topics, conjectures, formulas that you (bursegan) stood helplessly like a leg of a table by your misleading many participation (in those topics)
And your devilish interference here is so well-exposed
Show me only one reference stating clearly that only one angle doesn't exist, wonder!
And this list of fictional angles in mathematics is only one list of so many other lists of non-existing angles as stated earlier by me in many other threads based on proofs of non-existing of all real numbers that aren't constructible
The core issue is to convince any clever school student that most of the so-called advanced mathematics is actually a flowed mathematics that ultimately soon must be thrown to rubbish
So, people used to know before, that if the sum of the triangle degrees is 180 degrees then the triangle exists, but truly most of the triangles of this form are impossible existence in any imaginable universe unless the sides of the triangle are real constructible numbers, since no real numbers exist except the constructible numbers
where also, all other alleged real numbers (as algebraic or Transcendental) can't be represented except by constructible numbers (FOR MORE THAN SURE)
So, here is the main point that is still far away from your shallow fictional understanding
And the main discovery is only for so many clear scandals made (foolishly or devilishly in the history of mathematics), that is all
So, go now and define many more sets of fictional non-existing angles, it is very easy task I swear
Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 18, 2017

I would like to remind and add that even the arbitrary choice of the sides of the triangle must represent an existing (before your big eyes) real constructible numbers for the sides, that also must correspond to an existing three real constructible angles, where this only might give hope to the existence of continuity problem in mathematics! wonder!
BKK

So, What does your reference say about saying the integer degree angle one?
And What do you personally say about the integer degree angle one?
I think firmly that both of your reference and you say that it is an existing angle, even if it is impossible constructible angle by unmarked straight edge and a compass, and I'm quite sure that the whole world agrees with your opinion for sure, noting that one-degree angle = (Pi/180)
But only me say something completely different, I simply say it is a non-existing and fictional angle that is impossible existence in any imaginable reality
Didn't you still understand the core point of my topic? wonder!
And regardless of me being right or wrong, and if it so, then the impossibility of its exact construction by any means is so obvious then for sure
How can one construct something really non-existing?
Or: How can one construct something unreal or non-existing and was only a naive result of his own brain fart? no wonder here
Of course, only genius mathematicians can do miracles too! wonder!
Still, I'm quite sure that you won't get anything since you are a Troll by birth, for sure
BKK

Timothy Russel

2017-10-19 15:02:54 UTC

ADIOS MORON

"bassam king karzeddin" wrote in message news:f8249e17-9a51-4546-bc9e-***@googlegroups.com...

"im a fukcwit"

Zelos Malum

2017-10-19 03:56:23 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Any unbiased independent specialist would immediately recognize the so easy issue you refer and the so hot issue I already introduced

No, because the issue is you confusing things and making shitty arguements, anyone with a brain realises that none of it follows.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
And I discovered this fact so simply from the non-existing positive real numbers I had discovered, where I wrote so many topics, conjectures, formulas that you (bursegan) stood helplessly like a leg of a table by your misleading many participation (in those topics

No, what you wrote was garbage.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Show me only one reference stating clearly that only one angle doesn't exist, wonder!

In mathematics, all angles exists.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
The core issue is to convince any clever school student that most of the so-called advanced mathematics is actually a flowed mathematics that ultimately soon must be thrown to rubbish

You are aware cranks like you have always said this and guess what? They were all wrong. The mathematics we have is useful and productive, yours is not.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
And they hadn't developed yet something like Epsilon-delta, or similar famous cuts to real angle analysis where ultimately the fact would be at their alleged Fool's Paradise, and they safely can hide behind a nonsensible concept as Infinity as always as usual

How is it non-sense? The axiom of infinity works perfectly fine.

Zelos Malum

2017-10-18 16:44:01 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Why do you moron use so many names (bursegan, j4, plumber, ...etc)?

Because you are the moron and we are different fucking people.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
And why do you want to mix up issues and distort others about the core issue?

We are trying to teach you the core, you are the one that is using superficial excuses for things without understanding the core.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
The reference talks clearly about constructible integer degree angles which is too easy topic, not contradicting my claim, but the reference doesn't claim anything which I claim here as non-existing integer degree angles of the form (3n +/- 1), so I think you got the issue but like to fabricate it, as if anyone claimed this absolute fact before me, wonder!

Again, why limit to straightedge and compass constructions?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
You are an obvious example of thief mathematickers, with a proven record of stupidity beyond limits

Really? How about you show that you are smarter? Prove this statement

In the algebraic structure of a ring, a congruence relation on it coincide with the ideal definition.

If you are so good at mathematics, show it~

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Or do you write at Wikipedia? since so many writers are hanging here under fictional names, waiting and smelling any bones to be thrown to them where they immediately hurry and start modifying or editing their own articles on any new idea or concept they can easily steal and understand, as if it is their own ideas, but the whole problem that they can't get the ideas correctly and they do that so shamelessly under the sunlight for sure

No, I don't hang on wikipedia, you got a problem with the site because it contradicts your idiocy?

b***@gmail.com

2017-06-15 15:06:57 UTC

BKK its not fiction numbers, its call Unicorn numbers.
When will you learn? Do you try to copy this guy:

Dilworth, William (1974), "A correction in Set Theory" (PDF),
Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts
and Letters, 62: 205–216, retrieved June 16, 2016
http://images.library.wisc.edu/WI/EFacs/transactions/WT1974/reference/wi.wt1974.wdilworth.pdf

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Markus Klyver
Spoken like a true crank.

Most often, people don't like facts, hence they name them cranky, but it doesn't any matter for sure
BKK

b***@gmail.com

2017-06-15 15:16:50 UTC

If you were consequent, you would call negative
numbers also fictions. And then you would be

in the same position as poor Cardano, who needed
to deal with all variants separately:
ax3 + bx + c = 0
ax3 + bx = c
ax3 + c = bx
ax3 = bx + c
etc..

Since he was not able to allow negative parametrs
a,b,c. Its always possible to put yourself in a more

retarded position as you already are. Take AP for
example, his last brain cells are about to evaporate

because of his own brain farts.

Post by b***@gmail.com
BKK its not fiction numbers, its call Unicorn numbers.
Dilworth, William (1974), "A correction in Set Theory" (PDF),
Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts
and Letters, 62: 205–216, retrieved June 16, 2016
http://images.library.wisc.edu/WI/EFacs/transactions/WT1974/reference/wi.wt1974.wdilworth.pdf

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Markus Klyver
Spoken like a true crank.

Most often, people don't like facts, hence they name them cranky, but it doesn't any matter for sure
BKK

Zeit Geist

2017-06-07 17:08:21 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Why limit ourselves to a pretty narrow and arbitrary view [...]?

Because "we" are cranks?

Actually, you are victims of so wrong and so cheap cheating education not suitable even for sheep, wonder!
BKK

Shit up stupid fucktarded asshole.
Thank you.

bassam king karzeddin

2017-06-22 05:41:10 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure
I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely
If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2ed, April, 2017
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017

Any clever student can notice now and so easily that the whole mathematics can't construct you exactly with any angle in integer degrees, say (n) degrees where (n) isn't divisible by (3) in any existing triangle with exact sides,

But of course, the alleged top professional mathematicians are extremely very expert in APPROXIMATION, especially that type of ENDLESS APPROXIMATIONS at the FOOLS PARADISE called INFINITY just to plough and cheat you without being shameful or regret

And the so sad part of this so obvious fiction story is mainly the Global common typo public mathematicians that constitute the vast majorities, where they are so simply not any real independent thinkers, and also big dreamers to make some more success nonsense out of nothing, wonder

Everyone must realise now that easy fictions are much more desirable to humans than any real naked facts since it is a kind of business mind games for normally abnormal people who are actually true failures and also big criminals for cheating the innocent human minds

And this is so, unfortunately, is the case with moderated human history not only in mathematics but also in all walks of life

And the mathematicians are generally paintings themselves with so much shames as usual by ignoring such hot issues to be clarified from its mere roots by hiding and keeping the forgery mathematics

History of mathematics isn't moderated anymore, for sure

And before you give a counter argument, just try to bring with you only one of those (not-existing angles claimed by me), in any triangle with exactly known sides

And you may ignore that infamous hired Troll in Sci.math who usually claim to have a reference for anything published publically in mathematics not discovered yet

And it was so necessary to publicly publish those sensitive many topics in this criticising manners just to enlighten and free the mathematicians from so long salvation

BKK

bassam king karzeddin

2017-07-18 14:03:25 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure
I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely
If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2ed, April, 2017
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017

So, it is so clear now (at least for me), why do we miss many angles by simple counting in real numbers, of course, it sounds like a crazy idea for the first time, but it is absolutely a fact that no one can refute since the absolute facts do remain irrefutable and forever for sure

SO, can you imagine then, the physical meaning of some missing non-existing angles in two dimensions at least? wonder!

Hint: ever listen to those alleged proffissional mathematicians who do object aimlessly unless they show you only one of those many angles that I do claim as fiction angles (of course with few published proofs)

BKK

bassam king karzeddin

2017-07-23 08:48:47 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure
I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely
If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2ed, April, 2017
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017

And the strongest evidence is just before your big eyes,

Did the mathematics invalidate only one of my claims? wonder!

They can't for more than (100%) suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure

And they wouldn't accept the obvious facts for so tiny negligible and psychological reasons, as if it truly matters, wonder!

Which is more important after all, your alleged fake intellectuality or the so obvious facts? wonder!

BKK

bassam king karzeddin

2017-07-29 14:55:39 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure
I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely
If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2ed, April, 2017
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017

And the most intriguing idea about dealing with fairy angles instead of fairy positive real numbers is that top professional mathematickers can't apply that silly tools of Epsilon Delta to manufacture those much real algebraic or transcendental numbers into manufacturing that many fairy angles for sure

Actually, they might have indeed forgotten to coordinate the fictions in both real numbers and angles timeously

But, certainly, in the near future, they would try to correct the issue accordingly, just keep this for the record and wait for those Wikipedia smugglers or secretive researchers for sure, but then you ought to expose them so openly and so loudly if you still have any drop of honesty

BKK

bassam king karzeddin

2017-08-05 12:17:49 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure
I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely
If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2ed, April, 2017
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017

And the most intriguing idea about dealing with fairy angles instead of fairy positive real numbers is that top professional mathematickers can't apply that silly tools of Epsilon Delta to manufacture those much real algebraic or transcendental numbers into manufacturing that many fairy angles for sure
Actually, they might have indeed forgotten to coordinate the fictions in both real numbers and angles timeously
But, certainly, in the near future, they would try to correct the issue accordingly, just keep this for the record and wait for those Wikipedia smugglers or secretive researchers for sure, but then you ought to expose them so openly and so loudly if you still have any drop of honesty
BKK

*

bassam king karzeddin

2017-08-09 12:41:45 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure
I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely
If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2ed, April, 2017
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017

So, few months elapsed now and the mathematics or the mathematicians couldn't show even angle, wonder!

Doesn't this you genius mathematicians intrigue you into anything? wonder!

Or, is it that you had eaten something very solid that is too difficult to digest? wonder!

Or do you like only your own REFUTED games of Epsilon - delta trick? WONDER!
bkk

bassam king karzeddin

2017-09-12 08:28:13 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure
I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely
If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2ed, April, 2017
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017

And who is on earth that can bring into our real existence the only one angle that I had identified (with rigorous proofs) as a fiction angles? wonder!

But the FOOLS would keep arguing aimlessly forever (without any evidence) unless the top Journals absorb it and announce it with usual tonnes of fabricated references, for sure

BKK

bassam king karzeddin

2017-10-11 17:01:35 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure
I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely
If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2ed, April, 2017
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017

and no one would be able to create such fictional angles except by his old cheating methods of using infinity, that is itself unreal and fictional too, sure

BKK

Zelos Malum

2017-10-12 11:48:57 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure
I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely
If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2ed, April, 2017
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017

and no one would be able to create such fictional angles except by his old cheating methods of using infinity, that is itself unreal and fictional too, sure
BKK

Dipshit, how many times do we have to tell you there is nothign "real" about mathematics, it doesn't deal with the real world!

bassam king karzeddin

2017-10-14 15:03:16 UTC

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin
The fiction numbers can create infinitely many fiction angles too, of course this might seems to you as a ridicules subject, but it is absolutely true, for sure
I know this is the first time in history of mathematics, such hot topics would be sounding like a shock to the professionals scientist, but this is true beyond doubt, and soon clever students with little common sense would realize this obvious fact, definitely
If you do not believe it, just try to construct EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)
The list of fiction – non existing angles in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2ed, April, 2017
(1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)
Number of checked angles (60)
I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles, but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree angles from (1 to 90), and I shall update any more missing elements from my list, since I suspect more angles to be added to those fiction angles
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
2 ed, April, 2017

and no one would be able to create such fictional angles except by his old cheating methods of using infinity, that is itself unreal and fictional too, sure
BKK

Zelos wrote more nonsense

Post by Zelos Malum
Dipshit, how many times do we have to tell you there is nothign "real" about mathematics, it doesn't deal with the real world!

This is not an excuse but rather a sin, to make mathematics unreal

I had been noticing recently many answers of this like moron developed attitudes especially at Quora, just to mix up the facts and run away with all their sins, and that was mainly due to my Q/As.

But no, mathematics is reality for sure

Isn't Geometry is also reality? wonder!

BKK

Zelos Malum

2017-10-16 06:02:01 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
This is not an excuse but rather a sin, to make mathematics unreal

It is a virtue, it is good that mathematics stays away from the real world.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
I had been noticing recently many answers of this like moron developed attitudes especially at Quora, just to mix up the facts and run away with all their sins, and that was mainly due to my Q/As

The issue is that you are trying to force your delusional idea on mathematics. But it won't do it because for the last 700 years, it has been seen that the less mathematics deal with reality and is restrained by it, the better it does and the more useful it becomes.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Isn't Geometry is also reality? wonder!

Geometry is a branch in mathematics, but like all, doesn't deal with reality.

Something in mathematics being applicable does not mean it deals with reality.

bassam king karzeddin

2017-10-17 17:52:14 UTC

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by bassam king karzeddin
This is not an excuse but rather a sin, to make mathematics unreal

Zelos Malum (a fictional character most likely defending hopelessly the fictional mathematics)

Post by Zelos Malum
It is a virtue, it is good that mathematics stays away from the real world.

It isn't a virtue moron, it is a scandal for sure

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by bassam king karzeddin
I had been noticing recently many answers of this like moron developed attitudes especially at Quora, just to mix up the facts and run away with all their sins, and that was mainly due to my Q/As

See here another academic (Danya Rose) answer from Quora:

https://www.quora.com/While-Natural-numbers-exist-according-for-example-to-set-theory-Do-real-numbers-exist

Just observe how he is so confused with all his non-sense education by starting claiming that all numbers are imaginary, wonder!

And of course, the rest follows ...

Actually, I had driven him mad by my Q/A/C

So, this is the newly developed attitudes with all moron professionals, just mix up the concepts and run away and hide behind infinity to justify any kind of nonsense or unreal mathematics

And they make it real whenever it is applicable to reality, but imaginations and unreality whenever it fails in reality

They simply don't want to be governed by any law or any ethics or any common sense, so unlike physics for instance that can't escape from a gravity law

Post by Zelos Malum
The issue is that you are trying to force your delusional idea on mathematics. But it won't do it because for the last 700 years, it has been seen that the less mathematics deal with reality and is restrained by it, the better it does and the more useful it becomes.

It is not the King who is trying to force his ideas or anything on others, but it is the true Queen or the absolute facts that are outside your silly definitions or sick imaginations that must be imposed on every ignorant skull in order to be a clean mind

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Isn't Geometry is also reality? wonder!

Geometry is a branch in mathematics, but like all, doesn't deal with reality.

Oops, Geometry doesn't deal with reality, then why do we need it all then?

A really so ignorant opinion for sure

Post by Zelos Malum
Something in mathematics being applicable does not mean it deals with reality.

Or maybe it depends on your choice like Dyana Rose! wonder!

Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 17, 2017

Zelos Malum

2017-10-18 04:42:25 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
It isn't a virtue moron, it is a scandal for sure

No, it is a virtue. History has shown us as mathematics departed from caring about reality, it got increasingly better and paradoxicly, more useful.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, this is the newly developed attitudes with all moron professionals, just mix up the concepts and run away and hide behind infinity to justify any kind of nonsense or unreal mathematics

They don't "mix up concepts", they keep it very clear and distinct. You being too stupid doesn't make them wrong.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
They simply don't want to be governed by any law or any ethics or any common sense, so unlike physics for instance that can't escape from a gravity law

why would one care about ethics? Mathematics don't deal with human beings! Common sense is known to be fundamentally flawed in science and mathematics.

Your gravity law would be impossible without modern mathematics, including the infinities.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Oops, Geometry doesn't deal with reality, then why do we need it all then?

You are confusing the APPLICATION of geometry with geometry, the latter is using mathematics to solve real world issues, the latter is just a pure mathematical endevour that doesn't care about reality. In mathematics, we can have any exact perfect angle, in reality, we cannot.

bassam king karzeddin

2017-10-18 07:25:36 UTC

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by bassam king karzeddin
It isn't a virtue moron, it is a scandal for sure

Zelos Whalum attitude about unreality in mathematics

Post by Zelos Malum
No, it is a virtue. History has shown us as
mathematics departed from caring about reality, it
got increasingly better and paradoxicly, more useful.

Yes, of course, paradoxically and more useful to the unnecessary buissness mathematicians, and why should they care about reality, if it is too difficult to offer any silly business mathematics? wonder!

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, this is the newly developed attitudes with all
moron professionals, just mix up the concepts and run
away and hide behind infinity to justify any kind of
nonsense or unreal mathematics

************

Post by Zelos Malum
They don't "mix up concepts", they keep it very clear
and distinct. You being too stupid doesn't make them
wrong.

Inherited Stupidity is generally a known and well-proven case with the professional mathematicians, and you aren't an exception for sure,

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by bassam king karzeddin
They simply don't want to be governed by any law or

any ethics or any common sense, so unlike physics for
instance that can't escape from a gravity law

Zelos adds his morality

Post by Zelos Malum
why would one care about ethics? Mathematics don't
deal with human beings! Common sense is known to be
fundamentally flawed in science and mathematics.

Yes indeed, why one should care about ethics too, especially in mathematics? wonder!

Actually here, you are pronouncing the full truth of this so negligible category of human beings as named mathematicians, even though other categories are not any more with more ethical for sure

And the common sense we are describing is the very basic common sense that a layperson must acquire as explained earlier

Post by Zelos Malum
Your gravity law would be impossible without modern
mathematics, including the infinities.

So, let the mathematicians be away from physics too since physicians like Engineers are also natural mathematicians who deal with reality

And it is more than enough that the influence of maths. on physics had ruined it beyond limits (as explained earlier quite many times)
**************

Post by Zelos Malum

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Oops, Geometry doesn't deal with reality, then why

do we need it all then?

Zelos adds

Post by Zelos Malum
You are confusing the APPLICATION of geometry with
geometry, the latter is using mathematics to solve
real world issues, the latter is just a pure
mathematical endevour that doesn't care about
reality. In mathematics, we can have any exact
perfect angle, in reality, we cannot.

Of course, in reality, we can't construct any integer degree angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by 3, and the simplest reason because such angles don't exist and not because they do exist in reality and it is impossible to construct them (as the false claim of modern mathematics)

Did you ever comprehend the huge difference in understanding what was the problem first? wonder!

And if this reasoning was clear enough to all ancient mathematicians, then certainly the Greeks would never announce all their impossible problems as angle trisection, doubling the cube or squaring the circle

But how possibly could they know if humans up to this date not understanding the true reasons despite being proved and published here quite many times? wonder!

So, no true understanding of the very basic mathematics was achieved even after many thousands of years for sure

But, keep this for the record and observe soon how suddenly many secretive researchers or Wikipedia writers would come up finally with same my ideas as if it is their own discoveries (by adding or fabricating so much missing old resource and so many explanations)

Since internet publishing is freely available to anyone freely as if it is his own intellectual property

And by the time, they would remove all the older public free links to the issue since they own lawfully the ideas

Bassam King Karzeddin
Oct. 18, 2017

Zelos Malum

2017-10-18 10:18:54 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Yes, of course, paradoxically and more useful to the unnecessary buissness mathematicians, and why should they care about reality, if it is too difficult to offer any silly business mathematics? wonder!

No, it got more useful to humanit you imbecile.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Yes indeed, why one should care about ethics too, especially in mathematics? wonder!

Ethics has its place, it isn't in mathematics, physics or even chemistry BECAUSE NONE OF THEM DEALS WITH PEOPLE!

Post by bassam king karzeddin
And the common sense we are describing is the very basic common sense that a layperson must acquire as explained earlie

Which is known to be FLAWED!

Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, let the mathematicians be away from physics too since physicians like Engineers are also natural mathematicians who deal with reality

They are not mathematicians, ESPECIALLY NOT stupid engineers. Engineers are the dumbest pieces of shits ever.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
And it is more than enough that the influence of maths. on physics had ruined it beyond limits (as explained earlier quite many times)

Talk to physicists then, not mathematicians.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Of course, in reality, we can't construct any integer degree angle (n), where (n) isn't divisible by 3

We can't construct ANY angels of ANY degrees because we cannot make straight lines, we cannot measure anything precisely, we cannot do any of it.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Did you ever comprehend the huge difference in understanding what was the problem first? wonder!

I understand mathematics perfectly fine, you do not.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
And if this reasoning was clear enough to all ancient mathematicians, then certainly the Greeks would never announce all their impossible problems as angle trisection, doubling the cube or squaring the circle

They couldn't find the solutions, but you know what proved them impossible? The abstract mathematics you hate.

266 Replies
18 Views
Permalink to this page
Disable enhanced parsing

Thread Navigation

bassam king karzeddin 2017-04-02 08:09:15 UTC

Dan Christensen 2017-04-02 16:16:17 UTC

a***@gmail.com 2017-04-03 00:36:06 UTC

Vinicius Claudino Ferraz 2017-04-03 17:18:58 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-04-04 08:08:13 UTC

a***@gmail.com 2017-04-07 06:22:42 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-04-08 06:40:28 UTC

a***@gmail.com 2017-04-08 08:44:40 UTC

a***@gmail.com 2017-04-08 22:35:38 UTC

a***@gmail.com 2017-04-08 23:45:38 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-04-09 07:38:52 UTC

Doc Ellis 2017-04-09 14:51:00 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-04-09 17:55:36 UTC

t***@gmail.com 2017-04-09 15:36:04 UTC

a***@gmail.com 2017-04-10 00:38:45 UTC

a***@gmail.com 2017-04-10 13:05:12 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-04-11 08:12:58 UTC

a***@gmail.com 2017-04-11 19:11:24 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-04-12 07:17:43 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-05-09 17:51:29 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-05-13 14:01:06 UTC

Python 2017-05-13 14:08:33 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-05-14 07:53:43 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-05-31 08:53:07 UTC

Markus Klyver 2017-05-31 09:26:00 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-05-31 10:07:33 UTC

Markus Klyver 2017-05-31 10:36:18 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-06-06 11:23:20 UTC

Markus Klyver 2017-06-06 22:45:50 UTC

Me 2017-06-06 23:17:15 UTC

Markus Klyver 2017-06-06 23:52:54 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-06-07 09:52:52 UTC

Markus Klyver 2017-06-07 10:26:24 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-06-15 08:25:45 UTC

Markus Klyver 2017-06-15 13:08:42 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-06-17 08:20:07 UTC

s***@googlemail.com 2017-06-17 09:10:16 UTC

Markus Klyver 2017-07-18 15:11:12 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-07-18 15:33:02 UTC

Markus Klyver 2017-07-18 16:25:21 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-07-18 17:58:45 UTC

konyberg 2017-07-18 22:41:36 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-07-19 17:37:17 UTC

konyberg 2017-07-19 18:18:44 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-07-19 18:38:55 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-07-20 11:03:50 UTC

konyberg 2017-07-20 12:23:47 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-07-20 13:01:13 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-08-06 12:23:32 UTC

Blaubeer Rotapfel 2017-10-18 02:11:09 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-10-18 07:42:26 UTC

Zelos Malum 2017-10-18 08:17:30 UTC

Blaubeer Rotapfel 2017-10-18 11:07:11 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-10-18 15:46:22 UTC

Blaubeer Rotapfel 2017-10-18 15:51:30 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-10-18 16:44:55 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-10-18 17:21:00 UTC

Blaubeer Rotapfel 2017-10-18 17:32:47 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-10-18 18:19:32 UTC

Blaubeer Rotapfel 2017-10-18 18:22:44 UTC

Blaubeer Rotapfel 2017-10-18 18:23:54 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-10-19 08:11:13 UTC

b***@gmail.com 2017-10-19 08:32:56 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-10-19 08:54:18 UTC

Blaubeer Rotapfel 2017-10-19 09:02:23 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-10-19 09:04:07 UTC

Zelos Malum 2017-10-19 09:25:09 UTC

Zelos Malum 2017-10-19 09:49:30 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-10-21 08:29:58 UTC

Blaubeer Rotapfel 2017-10-19 09:55:06 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-10-21 12:43:45 UTC

b***@gmail.com 2017-10-21 13:09:44 UTC

b***@gmail.com 2017-10-21 13:16:22 UTC

b***@gmail.com 2017-10-21 13:22:13 UTC

b***@gmail.com 2017-10-21 13:25:12 UTC

FromTheRafters 2017-10-21 13:35:28 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-10-21 15:13:55 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-10-21 13:59:03 UTC

b***@gmail.com 2017-10-21 15:14:47 UTC

Timothy Russel 2017-10-19 15:02:54 UTC

Zelos Malum 2017-10-19 03:56:23 UTC

Zelos Malum 2017-10-18 16:44:01 UTC

b***@gmail.com 2017-06-15 15:06:57 UTC

b***@gmail.com 2017-06-15 15:16:50 UTC

Zeit Geist 2017-06-07 17:08:21 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-06-22 05:41:10 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-07-18 14:03:25 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-07-23 08:48:47 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-07-29 14:55:39 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-08-05 12:17:49 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-08-09 12:41:45 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-09-12 08:28:13 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-10-11 17:01:35 UTC

Zelos Malum 2017-10-12 11:48:57 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-10-14 15:03:16 UTC

Zelos Malum 2017-10-16 06:02:01 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-10-17 17:52:14 UTC

Zelos Malum 2017-10-18 04:42:25 UTC

bassam king karzeddin 2017-10-18 07:25:36 UTC

Zelos Malum 2017-10-18 10:18:54 UTC

about - legalese

Loading...