Another fake number!

[bassam king karzeddin]

Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)

Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.

So the following Diophantine equation is impossible in positive integers:

(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)

And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.

See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,

Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!

They (morons) simply took the cube roots of both sides of Eqn. (1), and deliberately considered them equal, so they got as this:
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)

And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,

Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)

And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number

Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line

And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making

The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously

For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,

First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),

And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.

For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,

Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.

But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact

You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)

Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

In better words, neither the surd symbol "cubrt(2)" nor its assumed endless digital representation do exist as on the real number line,

They are both fake numbers that do not exist except in the skulls of professional mathematician’s minds, and many of them worship those factious numbers since they constitute a source for them to keep adding infinitely many of a like numbers forever, thinking that no law must govern the creation of numbers
I know it is not your fault, nor the previous generation fault but old in the corrupted history of mathematics
So, what is your duty now "professional" to clear out this so obvious shame that covers you from top to bottom in order to please the real King and the Queen?
Or do you prefer to be painted with guilt and shame forever!
Do not feel excited by the enjoyment that you are addicted to by creating infinitely many fake numbers and so easily as silly interesting games for you only, luckily, people do not even pay a little attention to what you daily produce,
Numbers are the only existing objects that have sacred locations, they are only constructible numbers, they live together perpetually, one after another, rational followed by irrational (but constructible), they are all created from one, the unity, and you are not allowed and cannot add anything that is created from your delusional concepts.
So, hurry up to your secretive research or Wikipedia page and do the necessary work before your students teach you so many other elementary proofs.
And do not think that your factious inherited stories are those mentioned here only, there are many more that you would not believe!

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

[Virgil]

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing
real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous
number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient
mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven
rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three
impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle,
and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked
intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to
keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge
volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly
come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous
mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
They (morons) simply took the cube roots of both sides of Eqn. (1), and
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so
innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass
their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so
unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy
(where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to
cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established
fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists
behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and
rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the
cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of
steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual
valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as
being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as
Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even
they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which
is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with
finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction
number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their
unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any
rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for
cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive
integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you
think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number,
but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely ,
same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists,
and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in
mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to
use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set
theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations,
limits, infinity, 
 etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in
mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any
digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in
mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of
exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may
be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not
constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real
number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

In better words, neither the surd symbol "cubrt(2)" nor its assumed endless
digital representation do exist as on the real number line,
They are both fake numbers that do not exist except in the skulls of
professional mathematician’s minds

They also exist in the minds of physicists, chemists, physicians,
engineers, all scientists and all manner of non-scientists.

And until you, or someone else, can show that the assumption of a number
representing the cube rot of two causes errors in arithmetic, the cube
root of two will continue to exist everywhere outside of your private
world.


, and many of them worship those factious

Post by bassam king karzeddin
numbers since they constitute a source for them to keep adding infinitely
many of a like numbers forever, thinking that no law must govern the
creation of numbers
I know it is not your fault, nor the previous generation fault but old in
the corrupted history of mathematics
So, what is your duty now "professional" to clear out this so obvious shame
that covers you from top to bottom in order to please the real King and the
Queen?
Or do you prefer to be painted with guilt and shame forever!
Do not feel excited by the enjoyment that you are addicted to by creating
infinitely many fake numbers and so easily as silly interesting games for
you only, luckily, people do not even pay a little attention to what you
daily produce,
Numbers are the only existing objects that have sacred locations, they are
only constructible numbers, they live together perpetually, one after
another, rational followed by irrational (but constructible), they are all
created from one, the unity, and you are not allowed and cannot add anything
that is created from your delusional concepts.
So, hurry up to your secretive research or Wikipedia page and do the
necessary work before your students teach you so many other elementary
proofs.
And do not think that your factious inherited stories are those mentioned
here only, there are many more that you would not believe!
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

[John Gabriel]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

I was the first human to write:

A number is the measure of a magnitude.

However, the Ancient Greeks knew this because Euclid succeeded in writing down the perfect derivation of number from nothing.

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by John Gabriel

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

A number is the measure of a magnitude.

Yes of course, and if anyone claim it befor you, then he must show a documented evidence with exact date, or post, topic or thread, etc

Post by John Gabriel
However, the Ancient Greeks knew this because Euclid succeeded in writing down the perfect derivation of number from nothing.

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin

[Dan Christensen]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)

Fake numbers??? You must be joking.

To get anywhere, Bassam, you are going to have to show how the incredibly effective techniques of real and complex analysis used in science and engineering are somehow more easily obtained in whatever new system you might be proposing here. It seems you are off to a VERY poor start, and going entirely in the wrong direction.

Dan

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by Dan Christensen

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)

Fake numbers??? You must be joking.
To get anywhere, Bassam, you are going to have to show how the incredibly effective techniques of real and complex analysis used in science and engineering are somehow more easily obtained in whatever new system you might be proposing here. It seems you are off to a VERY poor start, and going entirely in the wrong direction.
Dan

I would gladly believe you if you show a valid construction of cubrt(2), with finite number of steps by any means and without any approximation, and not necessarily by unmarked straightedge and a compass, so I removed the restrictions of using the tools that make it impossible!

So can you or anybody else do it without any kind of cheating?

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin

[Dan Christensen]

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Dan Christensen

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)

Fake numbers??? You must be joking.
To get anywhere, Bassam, you are going to have to show how the incredibly effective techniques of real and complex analysis used in science and engineering are somehow more easily obtained in whatever new system you might be proposing here. It seems you are off to a VERY poor start, and going entirely in the wrong direction.
Dan

I would gladly believe you if you show a valid construction of cubrt(2), with finite number of steps by any means and without any approximation, and not necessarily by unmarked straightedge and a compass, so I removed the restrictions of using the tools that make it impossible!
So can you or anybody else do it without any kind of cheating?

You are the one suggesting that the mathematical techniques used by scientists and engineers with such amzing results are somehow illegitimate and will lead to erroneous results. The onus is on you to make that case. Simply saying that some well established techniques seem counter-intuitive to you isn't enough at this point.

Dan

[Virgil]

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Dan Christensen

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)

Fake numbers??? You must be joking.
To get anywhere, Bassam, you are going to have to show how the incredibly
effective techniques of real and complex analysis used in science and
engineering are somehow more easily obtained in whatever new system you
might be proposing here. It seems you are off to a VERY poor start, and
going entirely in the wrong direction.
Dan

I would gladly believe you if you show a valid construction of cubrt(2),
with finite number of steps by any means and without any approximation, and
not necessarily by unmarked straightedge and a compass, so I removed the
restrictions of using the tools that make it impossible!
So can you or anybody else do it without any kind of cheating?

One can finitely define a monotone sequence of rationals
converging to the cube root of 2, which in proper mathematics
is sufficient to establish its existence.

In standard mathematics, there is a real number for every monotone
bounded sequence of rationals.

WHile it may be possible to construct a mathematical system of reals in
which this does not hold true, you could never sell it to the scientific
community.

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by Dan Christensen

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)

Fake numbers??? You must be joking.
To get anywhere, Bassam, you are going to have to show how the incredibly effective techniques of real and complex analysis used in science and engineering are somehow more easily obtained in whatever new system you might be proposing here. It seems you are off to a VERY poor start, and going entirely in the wrong direction.
Dan

I would offer you another choice, If you or anybody else can express cubrt(2) in terms of any constructible numbers (with finite terms), then you may be right!,

But I think personally, this offer or that previous one are impossible to make, because we can not assume something in mind and intuitively conclude its existence, just because we think that we can go very close to it. here is the illusion,

To explain it further step, Fermat's last theorem was proved by (Andrew Wiles and Taylor), to have no integer solution, and assuming the proof that nobody understand it (except very few as they claim), is absolutely true,

Then one in the future might get three integer numbers with trillions of billions of digits that can fill the galaxy and claim it is a counter example, whereas it may be very near solution with difference one only. so this is would not be regarded as a counter example, and this is the real meaning of exactness (even in real endless numbers)

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin

[Dan Christensen]

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Dan Christensen

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)

Fake numbers??? You must be joking.
To get anywhere, Bassam, you are going to have to show how the incredibly effective techniques of real and complex analysis used in science and engineering are somehow more easily obtained in whatever new system you might be proposing here. It seems you are off to a VERY poor start, and going entirely in the wrong direction.
Dan

I would offer you another choice, If you or anybody else can express cubrt(2) in terms of any constructible numbers (with finite terms), then you may be right!,

You are the one making outrageous claims about "fake numbers," Bassam. The is onus is you to substantiate them. If you are going to suggest that scientists and engineers will obtain erroneous results from well established techniques of real or complex analysis, you will have to prove it -- by counter-example or otherwise.

Dan

[Virgil]

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Dan Christensen

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)

Fake numbers??? You must be joking.
To get anywhere, Bassam, you are going to have to show how the incredibly
effective techniques of real and complex analysis used in science and
engineering are somehow more easily obtained in whatever new system you
might be proposing here. It seems you are off to a VERY poor start, and
going entirely in the wrong direction.
Dan

I would offer you another choice, If you or anybody else can express
cubrt(2) in terms of any constructible numbers (with finite terms), then you
may be right!,
But I think personally

I see no evidence of it!

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely
y believed as an existing real number on the real
number line, this was the second most famous number
after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the
ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek,
where simply they had proven rigorously the
impossibility of such number, by their most famous
three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary
angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube),
which are all impossible to solve.
So the following Diophantine equation is impossible
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics
cs was provoked intentionally by the most famous
mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding
infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create
huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that
eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the
most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is
s derived or comes out of it!
They (morons) simply took the cube roots of both
sides of Eqn. (1), and deliberately considered them
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be
(cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can
convince the so innocent (as you) that there is
nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty
talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be
noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many
generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the
history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being
degree of accuracy (where they can present a long
numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and
nd convince you how close is it ) to indicate that
well established fake number that never exists, but
what they actually claim that exists behind (what was
later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and
rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of
such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually
constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight
edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which
was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the
actual valid reason of such impossibility, because
the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real
number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by
other means as Origami, but I would tell them the
truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be
able to construct a cube root of a given cube number,
which is not interesting at all, but cheating and
business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of
two by any means with finite number of steps is due
to its non existing or being fake and fiction number
(introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to
pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a
intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as
the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10
base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k)
is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer
with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep
increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer
and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it
exactly, you would need (k) to be increased
indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would
arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no
o largest integer exists, and second, (integers with
endless digits are not accepted in mathematics),
(this proof is basically a common sense proof, no
need to use all those called advanced mathematics or
modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts,
intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations,
limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this
clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it
yourself with numerical approximation to any digits
of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified
above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or
r fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided
that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness
and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this
s constructible approximation may be convenient (but
constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other
constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any
positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational
numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being
fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation
of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or
without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those
e matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

In better words, neither the surd symbol "cubrt(2)" nor its assumed endless digital representation do exist as on the real number line,

They are both fake numbers that do not exist except in the skulls of professional mathematician’s minds, and many of them worship those factious numbers since they constitute a source for them to keep adding infinitely many of a like numbers forever, thinking that no law must govern the creation of numbers
I know it is not your fault, nor the previous generation fault but old in the corrupted history of mathematics
So, what is your duty now "professional" to clear out this so obvious shame that covers you from top to bottom in order to please the real King and the Queen?
Or do you prefer to be painted with guilt and shame forever!
Do not feel excited by the enjoyment that you are addicted to by creating infinitely many fake numbers and so easily as silly interesting games for you only, luckily, people do not even pay a little attention to what you daily produce,
Numbers are the only existing objects that have sacred locations, they are only constructible numbers, they live together perpetually, one after another, rational followed by irrational (but constructible), they are all created from one, the unity, and you are not allowed and cannot add anything that is created from your delusional concepts.
So, hurry up to your secretive research or Wikipedia page and do the necessary work before your students teach you so many other elementary proofs.

And do not think that your factious inherited stories are those mentioned here only, there are many more that you would not believe!

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

[Virgil]

In article

Post by bassam king karzeddin
In better words, neither the surd symbol "cubrt(2)" nor its assumed endless
digital representation do exist as on the real number line

They do on all MY real number lines, along with a point for the
limit of each bounded monotone sequence of rationals.

They do on Euclid's real number lines, along with a point for the
limit of each bounded monotone sequence of rationals.

In bassam king karzeddin's odd math there must be all sorts of
bounded monotone sequences of rational without limits.
There must be all sorts of polynomial equations with no complex
solutions at all. and many other oddments differing from standard
mthematics, making bassam king karzeddin's math unusable by
anyone else.

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:24:59 AM UTC-5,

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 3:59:20 PM UTC+3,

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 3:47:36 AM

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)

Fake numbers??? You must be joking.
To get anywhere, Bassam, you are going to have to

show how the incredibly effective techniques of real
and complex analysis used in science and engineering
are somehow more easily obtained in whatever new
system you might be proposing here. It seems you are
off to a VERY poor start, and going entirely in the
wrong direction.

Dan

I would gladly believe you if you show a valid

construction of cubrt(2), with finite number of steps
by any means and without any approximation, and not
necessarily by unmarked straightedge and a compass,
so I removed the restrictions of using the tools that
make it impossible!

So can you or anybody else do it without any kind

of cheating?
You are the one suggesting that the mathematical
techniques used by scientists and engineers with such
amzing results are somehow illegitimate and will lead
to erroneous results. The onus is on you to make that
case. Simply saying that some well established
techniques seem counter-intuitive to you isn't enough
at this point.
Dan

Remember that one day, only rational numbers were accepted by the Greek, they did not accept this number (cubrt(2)) as a real number, they even did not accept the sqrt(2) as real number till was proved rigorously existing by the Pythagoreans,

But later, and without any rigorous proof, the mathematicians deliberately and by only intuitive conclusions they allowed this number to be called real number. (it was the fatal mistake in the history of mathematics, despite the warning from the Greek with rigorous proof that was an impossible number)

Then after, the doors are opened so widely for mathematicians to add infinitely many fake numbers up to our date and most likely in the future

The real line number is going to explode with fake numbers, since it got so saturated that it would collapse on itself sweeping away most of the fake mathematics that are filling the universe

Adding any kind of numbers must be done with rigorous proofs and not by intuitive conclusions

But if every thing was defined correctly as (say best approximation in constructible numbers for non existing object, then it would be resolved, or magnitude as John Gabriel claims repeatedly, but nobody understands what is an existing object from its magnitude which is not even a number it self. wonder!

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin

[Dan Christensen]

Post by bassam king karzeddin

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:24:59 AM UTC-5,

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 3:59:20 PM UTC+3,

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 3:47:36 AM

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)

Fake numbers??? You must be joking.
To get anywhere, Bassam, you are going to have to

show how the incredibly effective techniques of real
and complex analysis used in science and engineering
are somehow more easily obtained in whatever new
system you might be proposing here. It seems you are
off to a VERY poor start, and going entirely in the
wrong direction.

Dan

I would gladly believe you if you show a valid

construction of cubrt(2), with finite number of steps
by any means and without any approximation, and not
necessarily by unmarked straightedge and a compass,
so I removed the restrictions of using the tools that
make it impossible!

So can you or anybody else do it without any kind

of cheating?
You are the one suggesting that the mathematical
techniques used by scientists and engineers with such
amzing results are somehow illegitimate and will lead
to erroneous results. The onus is on you to make that
case. Simply saying that some well established
techniques seem counter-intuitive to you isn't enough
at this point.
Dan

Remember that one day, only rational numbers were accepted by the Greek, they did not accept this number (cubrt(2)) as a real number, they even did not accept the sqrt(2) as real number till was proved rigorously existing by the Pythagoreans,
But later, and without any rigorous proof, the mathematicians deliberately and by only intuitive conclusions they allowed this number to be called real number. (it was the fatal mistake in the history of mathematics, despite the warning from the Greek with rigorous proof that was an impossible number)

Do you actually claim that these "fake numbers" of yours lead to some erroneous results? If so, let's see an actual example. Or is this all just more hand-waving?

Dan

[John Gabriel]

Post by bassam king karzeddin

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:24:59 AM UTC-5,

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 3:59:20 PM UTC+3,

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 3:47:36 AM

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)

Fake numbers??? You must be joking.
To get anywhere, Bassam, you are going to have to

show how the incredibly effective techniques of real
and complex analysis used in science and engineering
are somehow more easily obtained in whatever new
system you might be proposing here. It seems you are
off to a VERY poor start, and going entirely in the
wrong direction.

Dan

I would gladly believe you if you show a valid

construction of cubrt(2), with finite number of steps
by any means and without any approximation, and not
necessarily by unmarked straightedge and a compass,
so I removed the restrictions of using the tools that
make it impossible!

So can you or anybody else do it without any kind

of cheating?
You are the one suggesting that the mathematical
techniques used by scientists and engineers with such
amzing results are somehow illegitimate and will lead
to erroneous results. The onus is on you to make that
case. Simply saying that some well established
techniques seem counter-intuitive to you isn't enough
at this point.
Dan

Remember that one day, only rational numbers were accepted by the Greek, they did not accept this number (cubrt(2)) as a real number, they even did not accept the sqrt(2) as real number till was proved rigorously existing by the Pythagoreans,
But later, and without any rigorous proof, the mathematicians deliberately and by only intuitive conclusions they allowed this number to be called real number. (it was the fatal mistake in the history of mathematics, despite the warning from the Greek with rigorous proof that was an impossible number)
Then after, the doors are opened so widely for mathematicians to add infinitely many fake numbers up to our date and most likely in the future
The real line number is going to explode with fake numbers, since it got so saturated that it would collapse on itself sweeping away most of the fake mathematics that are filling the universe
Adding any kind of numbers must be done with rigorous proofs and not by intuitive conclusions
But if every thing was defined correctly as (say best approximation in constructible numbers for non existing object, then it would be resolved, or magnitude as John Gabriel claims repeatedly, but nobody understands what is an existing object from its magnitude which is not even a number it self. wonder!
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin

You are aware that trying to discuss anything with a troll like DC is a futile exercise, aren't you?

Cranks cannot be turned.

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by John Gabriel

Post by bassam king karzeddin

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:24:59 AM UTC-5,

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 3:59:20 PM UTC+3,

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 3:47:36 AM

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)

Fake numbers??? You must be joking.
To get anywhere, Bassam, you are going to have to

show how the incredibly effective techniques of real
and complex analysis used in science and engineering
are somehow more easily obtained in whatever new
system you might be proposing here. It seems you are
off to a VERY poor start, and going entirely in the
wrong direction.

Dan

I would gladly believe you if you show a valid

construction of cubrt(2), with finite number of steps
by any means and without any approximation, and not
necessarily by unmarked straightedge and a compass,
so I removed the restrictions of using the tools that
make it impossible!

So can you or anybody else do it without any kind

of cheating?
You are the one suggesting that the mathematical
techniques used by scientists and engineers with such
amzing results are somehow illegitimate and will lead
to erroneous results. The onus is on you to make that
case. Simply saying that some well established
techniques seem counter-intuitive to you isn't enough
at this point.
Dan

Remember that one day, only rational numbers were accepted by the Greek, they did not accept this number (cubrt(2)) as a real number, they even did not accept the sqrt(2) as real number till was proved rigorously existing by the Pythagoreans,
But later, and without any rigorous proof, the mathematicians deliberately and by only intuitive conclusions they allowed this number to be called real number. (it was the fatal mistake in the history of mathematics, despite the warning from the Greek with rigorous proof that was an impossible number)
Then after, the doors are opened so widely for mathematicians to add infinitely many fake numbers up to our date and most likely in the future
The real line number is going to explode with fake numbers, since it got so saturated that it would collapse on itself sweeping away most of the fake mathematics that are filling the universe
Adding any kind of numbers must be done with rigorous proofs and not by intuitive conclusions
But if every thing was defined correctly as (say best approximation in constructible numbers for non existing object, then it would be resolved, or magnitude as John Gabriel claims repeatedly, but nobody understands what is an existing object from its magnitude which is not even a number it self. wonder!
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin

You are aware that trying to discuss anything with a troll like DC is a futile exercise, aren't you?
Cranks cannot be turned.

I am giving him with anybody else a chance to refute the claim, also giving him or anyone else a chance to get out of fiction mathematics, in case they could do something useful, then we might learn something, and I really wish they could, since then we might learn something new, but I Am quite sure that they can not.

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin

[Dan Christensen]

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by John Gabriel

Post by bassam king karzeddin

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:24:59 AM UTC-5,

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 3:59:20 PM UTC+3,

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 3:47:36 AM

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)

Fake numbers??? You must be joking.
To get anywhere, Bassam, you are going to have to

show how the incredibly effective techniques of real
and complex analysis used in science and engineering
are somehow more easily obtained in whatever new
system you might be proposing here. It seems you are
off to a VERY poor start, and going entirely in the
wrong direction.

Dan

I would gladly believe you if you show a valid

construction of cubrt(2), with finite number of steps
by any means and without any approximation, and not
necessarily by unmarked straightedge and a compass,
so I removed the restrictions of using the tools that
make it impossible!

So can you or anybody else do it without any kind

of cheating?
You are the one suggesting that the mathematical
techniques used by scientists and engineers with such
amzing results are somehow illegitimate and will lead
to erroneous results. The onus is on you to make that
case. Simply saying that some well established
techniques seem counter-intuitive to you isn't enough
at this point.
Dan

Remember that one day, only rational numbers were accepted by the Greek, they did not accept this number (cubrt(2)) as a real number, they even did not accept the sqrt(2) as real number till was proved rigorously existing by the Pythagoreans,
But later, and without any rigorous proof, the mathematicians deliberately and by only intuitive conclusions they allowed this number to be called real number. (it was the fatal mistake in the history of mathematics, despite the warning from the Greek with rigorous proof that was an impossible number)
Then after, the doors are opened so widely for mathematicians to add infinitely many fake numbers up to our date and most likely in the future
The real line number is going to explode with fake numbers, since it got so saturated that it would collapse on itself sweeping away most of the fake mathematics that are filling the universe
Adding any kind of numbers must be done with rigorous proofs and not by intuitive conclusions
But if every thing was defined correctly as (say best approximation in constructible numbers for non existing object, then it would be resolved, or magnitude as John Gabriel claims repeatedly, but nobody understands what is an existing object from its magnitude which is not even a number it self. wonder!
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin

You are aware that trying to discuss anything with a troll like DC is a futile exercise, aren't you?
Cranks cannot be turned.

I am giving him with anybody else a chance to refute the claim, also giving him or anyone else a chance to get out of fiction mathematics, in case they could do something useful, then we might learn something, and I really wish they could, since then we might learn something new, but I Am quite sure that they can not.

So, you cannot give an example a single example to support your claim. Thought so. Like they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. EOD

Dan

[Virgil]

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by John Gabriel

Post by bassam king karzeddin

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:24:59 AM UTC-5,

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 3:59:20 PM UTC+3,

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 3:47:36 AM

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)

Fake numbers??? You must be joking.
To get anywhere, Bassam, you are going to have to

show how the incredibly effective techniques of real
and complex analysis used in science and engineering
are somehow more easily obtained in whatever new
system you might be proposing here. It seems you are
off to a VERY poor start, and going entirely in the
wrong direction.

Dan

I would gladly believe you if you show a valid

construction of cubrt(2), with finite number of steps
by any means and without any approximation, and not
necessarily by unmarked straightedge and a compass,
so I removed the restrictions of using the tools that
make it impossible!

So can you or anybody else do it without any kind

of cheating?
You are the one suggesting that the mathematical
techniques used by scientists and engineers with such
amzing results are somehow illegitimate and will lead
to erroneous results. The onus is on you to make that
case. Simply saying that some well established
techniques seem counter-intuitive to you isn't enough
at this point.
Dan

Remember that one day, only rational numbers were accepted by the Greek,
they did not accept this number (cubrt(2)) as a real number, they even
did not accept the sqrt(2) as real number till was proved rigorously
existing by the Pythagoreans,
But later, and without any rigorous proof, the mathematicians
deliberately and by only intuitive conclusions they allowed this number
to be called real number. (it was the fatal mistake in the history of
mathematics, despite the warning from the Greek with rigorous proof that
was an impossible number)
Then after, the doors are opened so widely for mathematicians to add
infinitely many fake numbers up to our date and most likely in the
future
The real line number is going to explode with fake numbers, since it got
so saturated that it would collapse on itself sweeping away most of the
fake mathematics that are filling the universe
Adding any kind of numbers must be done with rigorous proofs and not by
intuitive conclusions
But if every thing was defined correctly as (say best approximation in
constructible numbers for non existing object, then it would be
resolved, or magnitude as John Gabriel claims repeatedly, but nobody
understands what is an existing object from its magnitude which is not
even a number it self. wonder!
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin

You are aware that trying to discuss anything with a troll like DC is a
futile exercise, aren't you?
Cranks cannot be turned.

I am giving him with anybody else a chance to refute the claim, also giving
him or anyone else a chance to get out of fiction mathematics, in case they
could do something useful, then we might learn something, and I really wish
they could, since then we might learn something new, but I Am quite sure
that they can not.
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin

The mathematics that Bassam King Karzeddin regards as fictional has so
far been miraculously successful is science, engineering, commerce, and
every other form of application.
Why try to fix what is so obviously not broke?

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by Virgil

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by John Gabriel

Post by bassam king karzeddin

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:24:59 AM UTC-5,

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 3:59:20 PM UTC+3,

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 3:47:36 AM

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)

Fake numbers??? You must be joking.
To get anywhere, Bassam, you are going to have to

show how the incredibly effective techniques of real
and complex analysis used in science and engineering
are somehow more easily obtained in whatever new
system you might be proposing here. It seems you are
off to a VERY poor start, and going entirely in the
wrong direction.

Dan

I would gladly believe you if you show a valid

construction of cubrt(2), with finite number of steps
by any means and without any approximation, and not
necessarily by unmarked straightedge and a compass,
so I removed the restrictions of using the tools that
make it impossible!

So can you or anybody else do it without any kind

of cheating?
You are the one suggesting that the mathematical
techniques used by scientists and engineers with such
amzing results are somehow illegitimate and will lead
to erroneous results. The onus is on you to make that
case. Simply saying that some well established
techniques seem counter-intuitive to you isn't enough
at this point.
Dan

Remember that one day, only rational numbers were accepted by the Greek,
they did not accept this number (cubrt(2)) as a real number, they even
did not accept the sqrt(2) as real number till was proved rigorously
existing by the Pythagoreans,
But later, and without any rigorous proof, the mathematicians
deliberately and by only intuitive conclusions they allowed this number
to be called real number. (it was the fatal mistake in the history of
mathematics, despite the warning from the Greek with rigorous proof that
was an impossible number)
Then after, the doors are opened so widely for mathematicians to add
infinitely many fake numbers up to our date and most likely in the
future
The real line number is going to explode with fake numbers, since it got
so saturated that it would collapse on itself sweeping away most of the
fake mathematics that are filling the universe
Adding any kind of numbers must be done with rigorous proofs and not by
intuitive conclusions
But if every thing was defined correctly as (say best approximation in
constructible numbers for non existing object, then it would be
resolved, or magnitude as John Gabriel claims repeatedly, but nobody
understands what is an existing object from its magnitude which is not
even a number it self. wonder!
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin

You are aware that trying to discuss anything with a troll like DC is a
futile exercise, aren't you?
Cranks cannot be turned.

I am giving him with anybody else a chance to refute the claim, also giving
him or anyone else a chance to get out of fiction mathematics, in case they
could do something useful, then we might learn something, and I really wish
they could, since then we might learn something new, but I Am quite sure
that they can not.
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin

The mathematics that Bassam King Karzeddin regards as fictional has so
far been miraculously successful is science, engineering, commerce, and
every other form of application.
Why try to fix what is so obviously not broke?
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)

It was broken from the beginnings, but on the perfection level of the deep meaning of existence and not on the little applicable level that isn't even any true mathematics, exactly the way you broke one year ago, for sure
BKK

[a***@gmail.com]

you have to start with the shpere, and pi,
to really comprehend any\every thing about the theory
of numbers, as begun by Fermatttt with his little theorem
(whereas, the "last" theorem was one of his first insights
into the p-adic numbers, as had to be used by Wiles e.g

all of these numbers are perfectly construtable, even though
one can ne'er obtain perfect accuracy (infinite precision ...
takes t00 long

[Virgil]

In article

Post by bassam king karzeddin

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:24:59 AM UTC-5,

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 3:59:20 PM UTC+3,

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 3:47:36 AM

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)

Fake numbers??? You must be joking.
To get anywhere, Bassam, you are going to have to

show how the incredibly effective techniques of real
and complex analysis used in science and engineering
are somehow more easily obtained in whatever new
system you might be proposing here. It seems you are
off to a VERY poor start, and going entirely in the
wrong direction.

Dan

I would gladly believe you if you show a valid

construction of cubrt(2), with finite number of steps
by any means and without any approximation, and not
necessarily by unmarked straightedge and a compass,
so I removed the restrictions of using the tools that
make it impossible!

So can you or anybody else do it without any kind

of cheating?
You are the one suggesting that the mathematical
techniques used by scientists and engineers with such
amzing results are somehow illegitimate and will lead
to erroneous results. The onus is on you to make that
case. Simply saying that some well established
techniques seem counter-intuitive to you isn't enough
at this point.
Dan

Remember that one day, only rational numbers were accepted by the Greek, they
did not accept this number (cubrt(2)) as a real number, they even did not
accept the sqrt(2) as real number till was proved rigorously existing by the
Pythagoreans,
But later, and without any rigorous proof, the mathematicians deliberately
and by only intuitive conclusions they allowed this number to be called real
number. (it was the fatal mistake in the history of mathematics, despite the
warning from the Greek with rigorous proof that was an impossible number)

Then according to bassam king karzeddin, the real continuum must be
discontinuous.

Since the Greek and current assumptions of a continuous continuum has as
yet produced no detectable errors in either arithmetic or geometry,
we will continue to use them until some such errors are discovered.

But if ever discovered, it will not be by anyone so inept as bassam king
karzeddin.

[Virgil]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing
real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number
after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians,
especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the
impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles,
(trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube),
which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked
intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to
keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge
volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come
to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
They (morons) simply took the cube roots of both sides of Eqn. (1), and
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so
innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their
dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so
unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where
they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and
convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number
that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was
later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the
Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2),
using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which
was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of
such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing
real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami,
but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might
be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not
interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with
finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction
number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their
unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any
rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for
cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive
integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you
think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but
to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for
(n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and
second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics),
(this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those
called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous
cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, 

etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in
mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any
digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in
mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of
exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be
convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not
constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number
line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)

Does BKK deny the existence of rationals?
Every bounded monotone sequence of rationals determines a real number.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters

Your opinion is not worth the time it takes to read it
or the miniscule energy it takes to refute it.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

Many, Many more fiction non-existing alleged real numbers (in mathematics) are there, For sure
BKK

[Zelos Malum]

All numbers are equally fictional you moron.

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

Hence: 2^{1/3} Doesn't exist, for (100%) sure

BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

I claimed few years back that the real absolute arithmetical cube root of two isn't any existing number, at Quora site (below link), based in many earlier Q/A/Comments posted to them, thinking that the alleged genius professional world mathematicians would immediately understand from BIG HINTS only, but later I realized that they refuse to understand even with many rigorous proofs, since this basically contradicts strictly most of their old and many WRONG beliefs, beside stopping their empty tons of useless businesses, and expose badly their incompetent ability and endless stupidity , and this is truly the mean genion reasons for such a Big current and century Tragedy with the alleged top most professional genius mathematicians on earth, for sure

Link:
https://www.quora.com/Are-there-instances-of-irrational-numbers-in-3D/answer/Bassam-Karzeddin-1

BKK

[Zelos Malum]

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

I claimed few years back that the real absolute arithmetical cube root of two isn't any existing number, at Quora site (below link), based in many earlier Q/A/Comments posted to them, thinking that the alleged genius professional world mathematicians would immediately understand from BIG HINTS only, but later I realized that they refuse to understand even with many rigorous proofs, since this basically contradicts strictly most of their old and many WRONG beliefs, beside stopping their empty tons of useless businesses, and expose badly their incompetent ability and endless stupidity , and this is truly the mean genion reasons for such a Big current and century Tragedy with the alleged top most professional genius mathematicians on earth, for sure
https://www.quora.com/Are-there-instances-of-irrational-numbers-in-3D/answer/Bassam-Karzeddin-1
BKK

You have given no rigorous proofs, your "proofs" are essentially "They don't conform to my prefered view, ergo they do not exist"

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

I claimed few years back that the real absolute arithmetical cube root of two isn't any existing number, at Quora site (below link), based in many earlier Q/A/Comments posted to them, thinking that the alleged genius professional world mathematicians would immediately understand from BIG HINTS only, but later I realized that they refuse to understand even with many rigorous proofs, since this basically contradicts strictly most of their old and many WRONG beliefs, beside stopping their empty tons of useless businesses, and expose badly their incompetent ability and endless stupidity , and this is truly the mean genion reasons for such a Big current and century Tragedy with the alleged top most professional genius mathematicians on earth, for sure
https://www.quora.com/Are-there-instances-of-irrational-numbers-in-3D/answer/Bassam-Karzeddin-1
BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

********

[Python]

...

Post by bassam king karzeddin
You should consider the following points

...

Post by bassam king karzeddin
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)

Wrong.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters

Sane people have no tolerance for your opinion, as your opinion is
bullshit.

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by Python
...

Post by bassam king karzeddin
You should consider the following points

...

Post by bassam king karzeddin
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)

Wrong.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters

Sane people have no tolerance for your opinion, as your opinion is
bullshit.

I know very well that people have no tolerance for my opinions, because it is truly hurting their so sensitive feelings up to their inner rusted bones, but at least they can't shout as you do baby, because I had put so many rigorous proofs in their big mouths, where then it is too difficult to shout aimlessly, otherwise you would certainly see many of them shouting more loudly than you, beside screaming madly at me, but they can't since they know the consequences when facing the KING even remotely, but they can't also confess it loudly, since it becomes more painful than ever, for sure

So, keep silent and visit a doctor as I advised you now, please

Good luck

BKK

[Zelos Malum]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
I know very well that people have no tolerance for my opinions, because it is truly hurting their so sensitive feelings up to their inner rusted bones,

No, it is the fact you are arrogant and ignorant that makes people not tolerate you.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
because I had put so many rigorous proofs in their big mouths

HAHAHAHAHA! YOU WISH!

It is NOT rigorous, I have read it and they are flawed at every step.

Like your complain that powers/roots don't distribute over negative reals/complex numbers, that is not a proof of them being invalid, it is simply a fact that the function of powering is not distributive over that large of a domain!

[Simon Roberts]

Post by Python
...

Post by bassam king karzeddin
You should consider the following points

...

Post by bassam king karzeddin
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)

Wrong.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters

Sane people have no tolerance for your opinion, as your opinion is
bullshit.

Why would you care about BS. Why would you obviously dispise BS and those you supposedly spout it. I think it is you you give tolerance when you should have none for yourself. Why give your lies credence. You know you have been wrong on many occasion as you try to dismiss other's so called BS. WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM. YOUR_PROBLEM, SIR. and I thought I was hateful. ANYONE can smell the hate on you, boy.

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

REALLY FAKE NUMBER, no wonder! (WITH SO EASY ELEMENTARY PROOFS AS WELL), SURE

BKK

[Python]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
...
REALLY FAKE NUMBER, no wonder! (WITH SO EASY ELEMENTARY PROOFS AS WELL), SURE

Again, King of idiots, here is the cube root of two, without
approximation:

2^(1/3) = ( { p/q : p^3 < 2q^3 }, { p/q : p^3 >= 2q^3 } )

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by Python

Post by bassam king karzeddin
...
REALLY FAKE NUMBER, no wonder! (WITH SO EASY ELEMENTARY PROOFS AS WELL), SURE

Again, King of idiots, here is the cube root of two, without
2^(1/3) = ( { p/q : p^3 < 2q^3 }, { p/q : p^3 >= 2q^3 } )
{ p/q : p^3 >= 2q^3 }

Make up your mind or ask a clever student which mathematical sign notation to use? wonder!

This (>), OR (=), but you need both, don't you? wonder!

They always fail, even in the so elementary mathematics, for sure

Of course, you aren't permitted to use (=), since (2) is not any rational cube number idiot, hence you are after that largest rational cube number that is less than 2, where this never exists (ask any beginner in number theory stupid)

Or you are after the least rational cube number that is greater than 2, which never exists either for sure, (ask any beginner in number theory very stupid)

The whole infamous cut come down as if asked by a kid what is the largest integer? wonder!

It doesn't exist, so simply (Finished)

And this is a piece of addition to your so vast ignorance especially in mathematics, for sure, but luckily you have so many companies of your likes

No wonder!

BKK

[Python]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
This (>), OR (=), but you need both, don't you? wonder!

facepalm. Oh dear... this is bad.

https://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2265/index.htm

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by Python

Post by bassam king karzeddin
This (>), OR (=), but you need both, don't you? wonder!

facepalm. Oh dear... this is bad.
https://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2265/index.htm

What can a reference save you? wonder!

You are still suffering so badly in very elementary mathematics, for sure

How can (p^3 = 2 q^3)? wonder! where (p, q) are non zero positive integers!

Didn't you learn at the age of 10 years the famous Greek proof of the impossibility of the solution of this INSOLVABLE Diophantine Eqn. in the whole natural integers? wonder!

Please go back to elementary school before you DO retreat blindly like a dump parrot the SO Famous historical alleged genius CRANKS proofs of Dedekind cuts or Cushy sequences or Euler limits (SO BIG idiots), for (100%) sure

BKK

[Zelos Malum]

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

REALLY FAKE NUMBER, no wonder! (WITH SO EASY ELEMENTARY PROOFS AS WELL), SURE
BKK

Why is it you think you being ignorant somehow invalidates mathematics?

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

And if you are still hiding from understanding the silly illegal trick of such fake non-existing real numbers as cubrt(3), then you are just a hypocrite and a big cheater professional mathematician, for more than sure

Or most likely, confessing the so obvious facts require a rare courage that is never available in the mainstream professional mathematicians, sure

Or you may be hiding a similar theorem similar to Pythagoras theorem that states:

X^3 + Y^3 = Z^3, Where (x, y, z) are real constructible numbers

But this is absolutely true and for sure

Didn't I teach you so many times about it earlier? wonder!

But most likely the same exposed reasons are behind such incomprehensible stubbornness and eternal stupidity of the alleged and so skilled professional mathematicians, for sure

Just imagine, how nice you would react to new facts announced by the KING if you were just made up from an artificial intelligence, not at all mixed with blood that is so much polluted by so many inherited and incurable diseases, sure

BKK

[Zelos Malum]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
And if you are still hiding from understanding the silly illegal trick of such fake non-existing real numbers as cubrt(3), then you are just a hypocrite and a big cheater professional mathematician, for more than sure

Tehre are no tricks used in it, using proper mathematical tools we can show it exists. Want me to show you how?

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

I'm truly so disappointed about so many things in mathematics, FOR SURE

BKK

[q***@gmail.com]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
I'm truly so disappointed about so many things in mathematics, FOR SURE
BKK

Instead of whining and complaining and being disappointed for the rest of your life... That is childish.

Instead of whining and begging over and over to get someone say "3" and when someone finally does say "3" you reply "HA HA HA HA... I don't believe in 3!" and I think you are stupid and I am smart because I made you say "3"... That is childish

Instead of saying you picked your axioms, everyone else picked their
axioms, but you demand everyone give up their axioms and use only your axioms... That is childish.

Instead of saying "Can't solve this problem", "That is illegal", "This doesn't exist", "That is a fiction", "FOR SURE!" which impresses and convinces no one, not even you... That is childish.

Why don't you do something that will make you happier and less disappointed and impress people and perhaps even get them to consider adopting your axioms?...

To do this you demonstrate that you have produced a detailed correct convincing solution to a very very hard problem.

Carefully choose a problem at the very limit of what you are able to do, but that you can demonstrate simply and exactly how to solve correctly. Show that this does not have only a trivial solution or no solution.

If any part of that spends time whining about how everyone else's axioms are wrong and they must use yours or any part of that has any tiny mistake then that will discredit you and your solution and your axioms.

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
I'm truly so disappointed about so many things in mathematics, FOR SURE
BKK

Instead of whining and complaining and being disappointed for the rest of your life... That is childish.
Instead of whining and begging over and over to get someone say "3" and when someone finally does say "3" you reply "HA HA HA HA... I don't believe in 3!" and I think you are stupid and I am smart because I made you say "3"... That is childish
Instead of saying you picked your axioms, everyone else picked their
axioms, but you demand everyone give up their axioms and use only your axioms... That is childish.
Instead of saying "Can't solve this problem", "That is illegal", "This doesn't exist", "That is a fiction", "FOR SURE!" which impresses and convinces no one, not even you... That is childish.
Why don't you do something that will make you happier and less disappointed and impress people and perhaps even get them to consider adopting your axioms?...
To do this you demonstrate that you have produced a detailed correct convincing solution to a very very hard problem.
Carefully choose a problem at the very limit of what you are able to do, but that you can demonstrate simply and exactly how to solve correctly. Show that this does not have only a trivial solution or no solution.
If any part of that spends time whining about how everyone else's axioms are wrong and they must use yours or any part of that has any tiny mistake then that will discredit you and your solution and your axioms.

I always talk about absolute facts that are so irrelevant to human perception or existence or any tools of axioms he/she usually makes in order to solve the proposed problems, where this may be applicable on solutions of earthy engineering problems (which is not any pure mathematics but seeming like mathematics since it involves some numerical calculations to the desired degree)

And no axioms of any human have so far proven successful in dealing with many problems especially in number theory that are still standing for thousands of years and many centuries

And, wonder if you are still unable to recognize any problem that I had completely solved even in this article just before your eyes! wonder!

And how further I can explain it to you in order to get the spoken idea? wonder!

OK, Let us try to simplify it again for everyone to make it require only a few seconds to get them (hopefully), wonder!

Consider AGAIN this INSOLVABLE DIOPHANTINE Eqn. (1)

[(N(m)]^3 = 2*[10^{m - 1}]^3 .... (1)

Any beginner in number theory would immediately realize and only from the first glance that Eqn. (1) has no existing integer solutions, (FINISHED)

And the oldest proof was taught in elementary schools due to the ancient Greeks in half a page or LESS, FOR SURE

So, rearrange it like this:

[(N(m)/10^{m - 1}]^3 = 2, ...(2)

But when you algebraically take the cube root of both sides, you get this:

Cubrt(2) = N(m)/10^{m - 1}, ....(3),

Where N(m) is a natural number with (m) number of sequence digits in 10 base number system, for sure

But since the LHS of Eqn.(3) is defined irrational number and the RHS is always rational number, hence cubrt(2) isn't any existing real number FOR SURE

No matter however long is that decimal number for 2^{1/3} is expressed

Adding historically, the geometrical fact of imposibility of constructing EXACTLY such an alleged real number of cubrt(2), stated originally by ancient Greeks and proved by Wantzel (in 1836)

So to say, neither the notation of cubrt(2) exists as a real number nor its assumed in mind "endless decimal number" exists also

However, and since people needed that KIND of numbers to make a cube with a side to be with a size of two units, the skilled carpenters could also make it convenient even by trial and error and even before BC, FOR SURE

Does this fact needs any silly peer review? wonder!

Didn't you get it yourself? wonder!

But you know certainly the many bad effects upon modern mathematics of accepting such a non-real existing number of cubrt(2), FOR SURE

Ask if you still have any little doubt

And never blame me again, for sure

Bassam King Karzeddin

[q***@gmail.com]

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
I'm truly so disappointed about so many things in mathematics, FOR SURE
BKK

Instead of whining and complaining and being disappointed for the rest of your life... That is childish.
Instead of whining and begging over and over to get someone say "3" and when someone finally does say "3" you reply "HA HA HA HA... I don't believe in 3!" and I think you are stupid and I am smart because I made you say "3"... That is childish
Instead of saying you picked your axioms, everyone else picked their
axioms, but you demand everyone give up their axioms and use only your axioms... That is childish.
Instead of saying "Can't solve this problem", "That is illegal", "This doesn't exist", "That is a fiction", "FOR SURE!" which impresses and convinces no one, not even you... That is childish.
Why don't you do something that will make you happier and less disappointed and impress people and perhaps even get them to consider adopting your axioms?...
To do this you demonstrate that you have produced a detailed correct convincing solution to a very very hard problem.
Carefully choose a problem at the very limit of what you are able to do, but that you can demonstrate simply and exactly how to solve correctly. Show that this does not have only a trivial solution or no solution.
If any part of that spends time whining about how everyone else's axioms are wrong and they must use yours or any part of that has any tiny mistake then that will discredit you and your solution and your axioms.

I always talk about absolute facts that are so irrelevant to human perception or existence or any tools of axioms he/she usually makes in order to solve the proposed problems, where this may be applicable on solutions of earthy engineering problems (which is not any pure mathematics but seeming like mathematics since it involves some numerical calculations to the desired degree)
And no axioms of any human have so far proven successful in dealing with many problems especially in number theory that are still standing for thousands of years and many centuries
And, wonder if you are still unable to recognize any problem that I had completely solved even in this article just before your eyes! wonder!
And how further I can explain it to you in order to get the spoken idea? wonder!
OK, Let us try to simplify it again for everyone to make it require only a few seconds to get them (hopefully), wonder!
Consider AGAIN this INSOLVABLE DIOPHANTINE Eqn. (1)
[(N(m)]^3 = 2*[10^{m - 1}]^3 .... (1)
Any beginner in number theory would immediately realize and only from the first glance that Eqn. (1) has no existing integer solutions, (FINISHED)
And the oldest proof was taught in elementary schools due to the ancient Greeks in half a page or LESS, FOR SURE
[(N(m)/10^{m - 1}]^3 = 2, ...(2)
Cubrt(2) = N(m)/10^{m - 1}, ....(3),
Where N(m) is a natural number with (m) number of sequence digits in 10 base number system, for sure
But since the LHS of Eqn.(3) is defined irrational number and the RHS is always rational number, hence cubrt(2) isn't any existing real number FOR SURE
No matter however long is that decimal number for 2^{1/3} is expressed
Adding historically, the geometrical fact of imposibility of constructing EXACTLY such an alleged real number of cubrt(2), stated originally by ancient Greeks and proved by Wantzel (in 1836)
So to say, neither the notation of cubrt(2) exists as a real number nor its assumed in mind "endless decimal number" exists also
However, and since people needed that KIND of numbers to make a cube with a side to be with a size of two units, the skilled carpenters could also make it convenient even by trial and error and even before BC, FOR SURE
Does this fact needs any silly peer review? wonder!
Didn't you get it yourself? wonder!
But you know certainly the many bad effects upon modern mathematics of accepting such a non-real existing number of cubrt(2), FOR SURE
Ask if you still have any little doubt
And never blame me again, for sure
Bassam King Karzeddin

So you understand that you are doomed to whine and complain and be disappointed for the rest of your life about things which feel are completely irrelevant.

And you understand that the axioms you have chosen mean that you have a far greater list of problems that are insoluble for you than there are for almost everyone else who has chosen a different set of axioms.

And you understand everything that you have "solved" consists of declaring that these problems have no solution if you are restricted to the axioms that you have chosen, but can be solved by people who have chosen a different set of axioms.

And yet you still desperately need to whine and complain and be disappointed for the rest of your life trying to convince everyone in the world to abandon their axioms and their solutions and their mathematics and adopt yours.

It is unclear whether you understand and accept that you are never going to convince anyone else to give up their axioms and adopt your axioms, but it seems very clear that this is never going to happen. If you do not understand and accept that almost certain fact then I would certainly blame you for this. FOR SURE!!

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
I'm truly so disappointed about so many things in mathematics, FOR SURE
BKK

Instead of whining and complaining and being disappointed for the rest of your life... That is childish.
Instead of whining and begging over and over to get someone say "3" and when someone finally does say "3" you reply "HA HA HA HA... I don't believe in 3!" and I think you are stupid and I am smart because I made you say "3"... That is childish
Instead of saying you picked your axioms, everyone else picked their
axioms, but you demand everyone give up their axioms and use only your axioms... That is childish.
Instead of saying "Can't solve this problem", "That is illegal", "This doesn't exist", "That is a fiction", "FOR SURE!" which impresses and convinces no one, not even you... That is childish.
Why don't you do something that will make you happier and less disappointed and impress people and perhaps even get them to consider adopting your axioms?...
To do this you demonstrate that you have produced a detailed correct convincing solution to a very very hard problem.
Carefully choose a problem at the very limit of what you are able to do, but that you can demonstrate simply and exactly how to solve correctly. Show that this does not have only a trivial solution or no solution.
If any part of that spends time whining about how everyone else's axioms are wrong and they must use yours or any part of that has any tiny mistake then that will discredit you and your solution and your axioms.

I always talk about absolute facts that are so irrelevant to human perception or existence or any tools of axioms he/she usually makes in order to solve the proposed problems, where this may be applicable on solutions of earthy engineering problems (which is not any pure mathematics but seeming like mathematics since it involves some numerical calculations to the desired degree)
And no axioms of any human have so far proven successful in dealing with many problems especially in number theory that are still standing for thousands of years and many centuries
And, wonder if you are still unable to recognize any problem that I had completely solved even in this article just before your eyes! wonder!
And how further I can explain it to you in order to get the spoken idea? wonder!
OK, Let us try to simplify it again for everyone to make it require only a few seconds to get them (hopefully), wonder!
Consider AGAIN this INSOLVABLE DIOPHANTINE Eqn. (1)
[(N(m)]^3 = 2*[10^{m - 1}]^3 .... (1)
Any beginner in number theory would immediately realize and only from the first glance that Eqn. (1) has no existing integer solutions, (FINISHED)
And the oldest proof was taught in elementary schools due to the ancient Greeks in half a page or LESS, FOR SURE
[(N(m)/10^{m - 1}]^3 = 2, ...(2)
Cubrt(2) = N(m)/10^{m - 1}, ....(3),
Where N(m) is a natural number with (m) number of sequence digits in 10 base number system, for sure
But since the LHS of Eqn.(3) is defined irrational number and the RHS is always rational number, hence cubrt(2) isn't any existing real number FOR SURE
No matter however long is that decimal number for 2^{1/3} is expressed
Adding historically, the geometrical fact of imposibility of constructing EXACTLY such an alleged real number of cubrt(2), stated originally by ancient Greeks and proved by Wantzel (in 1836)
So to say, neither the notation of cubrt(2) exists as a real number nor its assumed in mind "endless decimal number" exists also
However, and since people needed that KIND of numbers to make a cube with a side to be with a size of two units, the skilled carpenters could also make it convenient even by trial and error and even before BC, FOR SURE
Does this fact needs any silly peer review? wonder!
Didn't you get it yourself? wonder!
But you know certainly the many bad effects upon modern mathematics of accepting such a non-real existing number of cubrt(2), FOR SURE
Ask if you still have any little doubt
And never blame me again, for sure
Bassam King Karzeddin

qbwr(..??..) wrote:

Of course, this is a sound of a very professional mathematician with a high degree that we are so familiar and accustomed to, and strictly in so elementary mathematics disputes FOR SURE

But we are also accustomed to the defenders of wrong mathematics to hide their true identity names since they know the facts FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com
So you understand that you are doomed to whine and complain and be disappointed for the rest of your life about things which feel are completely irrelevant.

This would be gladly much better than being a plain stubborn Troll for the rest of my life, FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com
And you understand that the axioms you have chosen mean that you have a far greater list of problems that are insoluble for you than there are for almost everyone else who has chosen a different set of axioms.

If axioms of mathematicians contradict strictly and openly the very elementary proven mathematics (since many thousands of years), then it must be total rubbish axioms FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com
And you understand everything that you have "solved" consists of declaring that these problems have no solution if you are restricted to the axioms that you have chosen,

Still, not any hint you have got FOR SURE

It is not me or anyone else axioms who decided that no integer solution exists for this Diophantine Eqn. (n^3 = 2m^3), in natural numbers

BIG HINT: it was the ancient Greeks who proved it so rigorously in a few lines only, but do you remember the proof? wonder!

ANOTHER BIGGER HINT FOR you, you may write the same like that to be clearer

(n^3 = m^3 + m^3), haven't any integer solution by older proof of FLT

Post by q***@gmail.com
but can be solved by people who have chosen a different set of axioms.

Which nonsense axioms and who are those smart people that can validate something proven rigorously impossible? wonder!

Post by q***@gmail.com
And yet you still desperately need to whine and complain and be disappointed for the rest of your life trying to convince everyone in the world to abandon their axioms and their solutions and their mathematics and adopt yours.

Yes, we want people to think too carefully when adopting any arbitrary axioms to make sure those axioms must not contradict any elementary common sense or any elementary proven theorems just for the sake of making huge baseless mathematics that can create so much of unnecessary business for them on the shoulders of those innocent students and the societies they belong too, FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com
It is unclear whether you understand and accept that you are never going to convince anyone else to give up their axioms and adopt your axioms, but it seems very clear that this is never going to happen. If you do not understand and accept that almost certain fact then I would certainly blame you for this. FOR SURE!!

Note that I have no axioms to convince others to adopt it, and I know that people generally tend to business more than the proven facts, otherwise what else they can do more especially in true mathematics? no wonder!

And assuming in good faith that you are still suffering to understand my So clear point, then let us explain it step by step for you again in the hope you finally obey the absolute proven facts FOR SURE

Consider AGAIN this INSOLVABLE DIOPHANTINE Eqn. (1)

[(N(m)]^3 = 2*[10^{m - 1}]^3 .... (1)

Any beginner in number theory would immediately realize and only from the first glance that Eqn. (1) has no existing integer solutions, (FINISHED)

And the oldest proof was taught in elementary schools due to the ancient Greeks in half a page or LESS, FOR SURE

So, rearrange it like this:

[(N(m)/10^{m - 1}]^3 = 2, ...(2)

But when you algebraically take the cube root of both sides, you get this:

Cubrt(2) = N(m)/10^{m - 1}, ....(3),

Where N(m) is a natural number with (m) number of sequence digits in 10 base number system, for sure

But since the LHS of Eqn. (3) is defined as the irrational number and the RHS is always a rational number, hence cubrt(2) isn't any existing real number FOR SURE

For (m = 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., m)

2^{1/3} =/= {1, 12/10, 125/100, 1259/1000, 12599/10000, ...}

2^{1/3} =/= (12599210498948731...)/{10000000000000000...}

Since this is not a number (12599210498948731...), nor this any number

{10000000000000000...}

Hence, cubrt(2) = 2^{1/3}, isn't any existing real number, FOR SURE

But utterly odd and only in modern mathematics the false human sick minds axioms make a real number for sure and no wonder also

But if they call it truly as it is as "an unreal" number, then no problem at all dealing with it up to any required degree of accuracy we may require for practical purposes of making a cube, FOR SURE

Let us hope any clever school students can help the professional teachers of mathematics understand strictly this obvious proven fact FOR SURE

BKK

[q***@gmail.com]

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
I'm truly so disappointed about so many things in mathematics, FOR SURE

So you understand that you are doomed to whine and complain and be disappointed for the rest of your life about things which feel are completely irrelevant.

This would be gladly much better than being a plain stubborn Troll for the rest of my life, FOR SURE

Since you seem to understand your doomed future then that is enough.
I was not at all certain that you really understood and now I do. Thank you.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
And you understand that the axioms you have chosen mean that you have a far greater list of problems that are insoluble for you than there are for almost everyone else who has chosen a different set of axioms.

If axioms of mathematicians contradict strictly and openly the very elementary proven mathematics (since many thousands of years), then it must be total rubbish axioms FOR SURE

If you can demonstrate a contradiction in THEIR solution under THEIR axioms then you will be famous, but that will almost certainly never happen. But demonstrating a contradiction in their solution under YOUR axioms accomplishes less than nothing.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
And you understand everything that you have "solved" consists of declaring that these problems have no solution if you are restricted to the axioms that you have chosen,

Still, not any hint you have got FOR SURE

That is true. I have likely missed one or more examples in your ten years or more where you solved a very hard problem under your axioms and obtained a result which was not "this has no solution." When I asked you to consider such problems you responded with yet another problem with no solution and told me that all you can do is show problems which have no solution under your axioms.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
It is not me or anyone else axioms who decided that no integer solution exists for this Diophantine Eqn. (n^3 = 2m^3), in natural numbers

You do not need to show me any more problems where there are no solutions under your axioms. I believe you do not need to show ANYONE any more problems where there are no solutions under your axioms. I believe that EVERYONE understands there are many many problems with no solutions under your axioms. Showing people more of these accomplishes nothing.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Which nonsense axioms and who are those smart people that can validate something proven rigorously impossible? wonder!

EVERYONE understands you picked your axioms and they picked theirs.
EVERYONE understands you think your axioms are right and theirs are wrong.
EVERYONE understands using your axioms means there are no solutions to many many problems.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
And yet you still desperately need to whine and complain and be disappointed for the rest of your life trying to convince everyone in the world to abandon their axioms and their solutions and their mathematics and adopt yours.

Yes, we want people to think too carefully when adopting any arbitrary axioms to make sure those axioms must not contradict any elementary common sense or any elementary proven theorems just for the sake of making huge baseless mathematics that can create so much of unnecessary business for them on the shoulders of those innocent students and the societies they belong too, FOR SURE

YOU want people "to think too carefully", there is no "we", you are alone.
I believe that a few people have thought very carefully selecting their axioms, the rest of us use the axioms from those people because they work.
"Common sense" is much more elusive and perhaps you do not want to appeal to that.
But contradicting elementary proven theorems, that is a different matter.
Again, if you can demonstrate a contradiction in THEIR solution under
THEIR axioms then you will be famous, but that will almost certainly never happen in your lifetime.
It appears that all you can claim are contradictions in THEIR solution
under YOUR axioms and that is a completely different matter.
If you have found a contradiction in THEIR solution under THEIR axioms and you have made no mistake then present the most detailed and precisely correct proof they have given and then show exactly what step has an error and what that error is and what the correct step should be.
Presenting a poor proof of their result that cannot be fixed will accomplish nothing.
Claiming at step 6 that you do not believe in the cube root of 3 will accomplish less than nothing, that is YOUR axiom, not THEIRS.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
It is unclear whether you understand and accept that you are never going to convince anyone else to give up their axioms and adopt your axioms, but it seems very clear that this is never going to happen. If you do not understand and accept that almost certain fact then I would certainly blame you for this. FOR SURE!!

Note that I have no axioms to convince others to adopt it, and I know that people generally tend to business more than the proven facts, otherwise what else they can do more especially in true mathematics? no wonder!

I believe that sentence is nonsense at best and a lie at worst.

One of YOUR axioms, perhaps the only one, ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST.

That seems to be pretty much all that you have to say.

If you have nothing to convince others of then why would you spend a decade telling everyone that they are wrong and you are right and they should all be using your strictly constructivist mathematics?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
And assuming in good faith that you are still suffering to understand my So clear point, then let us explain it step by step for you again in the hope you finally obey the absolute proven facts FOR SURE
Consider AGAIN this INSOLVABLE DIOPHANTINE Eqn. (1)
[(N(m)]^3 = 2*[10^{m - 1}]^3 .... (1)
Any beginner in number theory would immediately realize and only from the first glance that Eqn. (1) has no existing integer solutions, (FINISHED)

Again, you do not have to show me any more of your problems where there is no solution under your CONSTRUCTIVIST mathematics. You do not have to show anyone any more of your problems where there is no solution under your CONSTRUCTIVIST mathematics. I believe EVERYONE understands that. If you really feel the urge that you cannot resist then you could start every one of your posts from now on with the first line

ASSUMING ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST

and then continue your post.

I believe if you were to do that then there might be far less dispute between you and everyone else.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
...
Hence, cubrt(2) = 2^{1/3}, isn't any existing real number, FOR SURE
...

Yes, yes, yes, you don't believe in cube roots, EVERYONE understands that YOU don't believe in cube roots, YOU believe the only numbers that exist are those which can be exactly constructed. YOU have repeated this hourly for ten years. Everyone understands this. There is no need for YOU to repeat this ever again if you start all your future posts with

ASSUMING ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST

Post by bassam king karzeddin
But utterly odd and only in modern mathematics the false human sick minds axioms make a real number for sure and no wonder also

That is their axioms, not yours. You believe their axioms are wrong. That is clear. You don't have to repeat that again. Everyone understands you believe their axioms, including things like the classic construction of the real numbers exist, are wrong. You don't believe in that. Everyone understands that. You never ever ever ever ever ever need to repeat that again.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
But if they call it truly as it is as "an unreal" number, then no problem at all dealing with it up to any required degree of accuracy we may require for practical purposes of making a cube, FOR SURE

"up to any required degree of accuracy" is a completely different subject. Under their axioms the cube root of three is exactly the cube root of three, there is no degree of accuracy involved.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Let us hope any clever school students can help the professional teachers of mathematics understand strictly this obvious proven fact FOR SURE

As I wrote in a previous message, that is never going to happen, not in your lifetime and not in their lifetime. You desperately want to convince people to come over and agree with you and live with you under YOUR axioms. That is a strange need of some humans, to try to get others to agree with them. Perhaps people feel less threatened if they are surrounded by people who they can get to agree with them.

Summary

You and everyone are each completely free to pick the axioms you desire. You simply have to live with the consequences of that choice.

You believe everyone else is wrong. Everyone else believes you are wrong. It does not appear that will ever change. At least there is symmetry in that.

I thought you might be able to keep your axioms and change your methods and improve the chances that you might convince a few thoughtful people to consider your axioms, but you explained that this will not be possible.

I thought you might be able to keep your axioms and produce some positive results and be less disappointed with your past and your future, but you explained that this will not be possible.

Perhaps you can make all your future posts to be only

ASSUMING ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST
MANY AND PERHAPS ALMOST ALL PROBLEMS HAVE NO SOLUTIONS
PROOF: ALMOST ALL SOLUTIONS REQUIRE NONCONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS
QED
BKK

I believe that focuses your position into the most concise mathematics possible. I believe that no one sensible could disagree with that.

I do sincerely hope your life works out for you

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
I'm truly so disappointed about so many things in mathematics, FOR SURE

So you understand that you are doomed to whine and complain and be disappointed for the rest of your life about things which feel are completely irrelevant.

This would be gladly much better than being a plain stubborn Troll for the rest of my life, FOR SURE

Since you seem to understand your doomed future then that is enough.
I was not at all certain that you really understood and now I do. Thank you.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
And you understand that the axioms you have chosen mean that you have a far greater list of problems that are insoluble for you than there are for almost everyone else who has chosen a different set of axioms.

If axioms of mathematicians contradict strictly and openly the very elementary proven mathematics (since many thousands of years), then it must be total rubbish axioms FOR SURE

If you can demonstrate a contradiction in THEIR solution under THEIR axioms then you will be famous, but that will almost certainly never happen. But demonstrating a contradiction in their solution under YOUR axioms accomplishes less than nothing.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
And you understand everything that you have "solved" consists of declaring that these problems have no solution if you are restricted to the axioms that you have chosen,

Still, not any hint you have got FOR SURE

That is true. I have likely missed one or more examples in your ten years or more where you solved a very hard problem under your axioms and obtained a result which was not "this has no solution." When I asked you to consider such problems you responded with yet another problem with no solution and told me that all you can do is show problems which have no solution under your axioms.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
It is not me or anyone else axioms who decided that no integer solution exists for this Diophantine Eqn. (n^3 = 2m^3), in natural numbers

You do not need to show me any more problems where there are no solutions under your axioms. I believe you do not need to show ANYONE any more problems where there are no solutions under your axioms. I believe that EVERYONE understands there are many many problems with no solutions under your axioms. Showing people more of these accomplishes nothing.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Which nonsense axioms and who are those smart people that can validate something proven rigorously impossible? wonder!

EVERYONE understands you picked your axioms and they picked theirs.
EVERYONE understands you think your axioms are right and theirs are wrong.
EVERYONE understands using your axioms means there are no solutions to many many problems.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
And yet you still desperately need to whine and complain and be disappointed for the rest of your life trying to convince everyone in the world to abandon their axioms and their solutions and their mathematics and adopt yours.

Yes, we want people to think too carefully when adopting any arbitrary axioms to make sure those axioms must not contradict any elementary common sense or any elementary proven theorems just for the sake of making huge baseless mathematics that can create so much of unnecessary business for them on the shoulders of those innocent students and the societies they belong too, FOR SURE

YOU want people "to think too carefully", there is no "we", you are alone.
I believe that a few people have thought very carefully selecting their axioms, the rest of us use the axioms from those people because they work.
"Common sense" is much more elusive and perhaps you do not want to appeal to that.
But contradicting elementary proven theorems, that is a different matter.
Again, if you can demonstrate a contradiction in THEIR solution under
THEIR axioms then you will be famous, but that will almost certainly never happen in your lifetime.
It appears that all you can claim are contradictions in THEIR solution
under YOUR axioms and that is a completely different matter.
If you have found a contradiction in THEIR solution under THEIR axioms and you have made no mistake then present the most detailed and precisely correct proof they have given and then show exactly what step has an error and what that error is and what the correct step should be.
Presenting a poor proof of their result that cannot be fixed will accomplish nothing.
Claiming at step 6 that you do not believe in the cube root of 3 will accomplish less than nothing, that is YOUR axiom, not THEIRS.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
It is unclear whether you understand and accept that you are never going to convince anyone else to give up their axioms and adopt your axioms, but it seems very clear that this is never going to happen. If you do not understand and accept that almost certain fact then I would certainly blame you for this. FOR SURE!!

Note that I have no axioms to convince others to adopt it, and I know that people generally tend to business more than the proven facts, otherwise what else they can do more especially in true mathematics? no wonder!

I believe that sentence is nonsense at best and a lie at worst.
One of YOUR axioms, perhaps the only one, ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST.
That seems to be pretty much all that you have to say.
If you have nothing to convince others of then why would you spend a decade telling everyone that they are wrong and you are right and they should all be using your strictly constructivist mathematics?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
And assuming in good faith that you are still suffering to understand my So clear point, then let us explain it step by step for you again in the hope you finally obey the absolute proven facts FOR SURE
Consider AGAIN this INSOLVABLE DIOPHANTINE Eqn. (1)
[(N(m)]^3 = 2*[10^{m - 1}]^3 .... (1)
Any beginner in number theory would immediately realize and only from the first glance that Eqn. (1) has no existing integer solutions, (FINISHED)

Again, you do not have to show me any more of your problems where there is no solution under your CONSTRUCTIVIST mathematics. You do not have to show anyone any more of your problems where there is no solution under your CONSTRUCTIVIST mathematics. I believe EVERYONE understands that. If you really feel the urge that you cannot resist then you could start every one of your posts from now on with the first line
ASSUMING ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST
and then continue your post.
I believe if you were to do that then there might be far less dispute between you and everyone else.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
...
Hence, cubrt(2) = 2^{1/3}, isn't any existing real number, FOR SURE
...

Yes, yes, yes, you don't believe in cube roots, EVERYONE understands that YOU don't believe in cube roots, YOU believe the only numbers that exist are those which can be exactly constructed. YOU have repeated this hourly for ten years. Everyone understands this. There is no need for YOU to repeat this ever again if you start all your future posts with
ASSUMING ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST

Post by bassam king karzeddin
But utterly odd and only in modern mathematics the false human sick minds axioms make a real number for sure and no wonder also

That is their axioms, not yours. You believe their axioms are wrong. That is clear. You don't have to repeat that again. Everyone understands you believe their axioms, including things like the classic construction of the real numbers exist, are wrong. You don't believe in that. Everyone understands that. You never ever ever ever ever ever need to repeat that again.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
But if they call it truly as it is as "an unreal" number, then no problem at all dealing with it up to any required degree of accuracy we may require for practical purposes of making a cube, FOR SURE

"up to any required degree of accuracy" is a completely different subject. Under their axioms the cube root of three is exactly the cube root of three, there is no degree of accuracy involved.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Let us hope any clever school students can help the professional teachers of mathematics understand strictly this obvious proven fact FOR SURE

As I wrote in a previous message, that is never going to happen, not in your lifetime and not in their lifetime. You desperately want to convince people to come over and agree with you and live with you under YOUR axioms. That is a strange need of some humans, to try to get others to agree with them. Perhaps people feel less threatened if they are surrounded by people who they can get to agree with them.
Summary
You and everyone are each completely free to pick the axioms you desire. You simply have to live with the consequences of that choice.
You believe everyone else is wrong. Everyone else believes you are wrong. It does not appear that will ever change. At least there is symmetry in that.
I thought you might be able to keep your axioms and change your methods and improve the chances that you might convince a few thoughtful people to consider your axioms, but you explained that this will not be possible.
I thought you might be able to keep your axioms and produce some positive results and be less disappointed with your past and your future, but you explained that this will not be possible.
Perhaps you can make all your future posts to be only
ASSUMING ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST
MANY AND PERHAPS ALMOST ALL PROBLEMS HAVE NO SOLUTIONS
PROOF: ALMOST ALL SOLUTIONS REQUIRE NONCONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS
QED
BKK
I believe that focuses your position into the most concise mathematics possible. I believe that no one sensible could disagree with that.
I do sincerely hope your life works out for you

Hello. Perhaps you will be interested to know how Newton (the 1686 one)uses his 3 original Axioms, or Laws of motion in his monumental Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy ("Principia..."). Use the following link:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Mathematical_Principles_of_Natural_Philosophy_(1846)/BookI-I

Know about his "method of first and last ratios of quantities", not accepted today as a valid mathematical theory, even after been used in ALL his "Principia..." very successfully.

Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato (RVHG)

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
I'm truly so disappointed about so many things in mathematics, FOR SURE

So you understand that you are doomed to whine and complain and be disappointed for the rest of your life about things which feel are completely irrelevant.

This would be gladly much better than being a plain stubborn Troll for the rest of my life, FOR SURE

Since you seem to understand your doomed future then that is enough.
I was not at all certain that you really understood and now I do. Thank you.

My doomed future is already doomed to failure, but this is so irrelevant to the hidden facts of the well-forged mathematics for many centuries now, FOR SUR

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
And you understand that the axioms you have chosen mean that you have a far greater list of problems that are insoluble for you than there are for almost everyone else who has chosen a different set of axioms.

If you can demonstrate a contradiction in THEIR solution under THEIR axioms then you will be famous, but that will almost certainly never happen. But demonstrating a contradiction in their solution under YOUR axioms accomplishes less than nothing.

When wrong axioms become as a matter of solid “beliefs” then yes no one would accomplish anything FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
If axioms of mathematicians contradict strictly and openly the very elementary proven mathematics (since many thousands of years), then it must be total rubbish axioms FOR SURE

If you can demonstrate a contradiction in THEIR solution under THEIR axioms then you will be famous, but that will almost certainly never happen. But demonstrating a contradiction in their solution under YOUR axioms accomplishes less than nothing.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
And you understand everything that you have "solved" consists of declaring that these problems have no solution if you are restricted to the axioms that you have chosen,

Still, not any hint you have got FOR SURE

That is true. I have likely missed one or more examples in your ten years or more where you solved a very hard problem under your axioms and obtained a result which was not "this has no solution." When I asked you to consider such problems you responded with yet another problem with no solution and told me that all you can do is show problems which have no solution under your axioms.

Did you mean this problem? Wonder!

https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/3257/sum-of-like-powers-in-real-numbers

Or another one, since I had truly solved so many more, but that one above was solved for more than 30 years and before the century proof of FLT, and utterly in the same language and axiom that mathematicians generally adopt or believe in, where this, shamelessly also didn’t work with any mathematical Journal I did contact in the early 1990s, FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
It is not me or anyone else axioms who decided that no integer solution exists for this Diophantine Eqn. (n^3 = 2m^3), in natural numbers

You do not need to show me any more problems where there are no solutions under your axioms. I believe you do not need to show ANYONE any more problems where there are no solutions under your axioms. I believe that EVERYONE understands there are many many problems with no solutions under your axioms. Showing people more of these accomplishes nothing.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Which nonsense axioms and who are those smart people that can validate something proven rigorously impossible? wonder!

EVERYONE understands you picked your axioms and they picked theirs.
EVERYONE understands you think your axioms are right and theirs are wrong.
EVERYONE understands using your axioms means there are no solutions to many many problems.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
And yet you still desperately need to whine and complain and be disappointed for the rest of your life trying to convince everyone in the world to abandon their axioms and their solutions and their mathematics and adopt yours.

Yes, we want people to think too carefully when adopting any arbitrary axioms to make sure those axioms must not contradict any elementary common sense or any elementary proven theorems just for the sake of making huge baseless mathematics that can create so much of unnecessary business for them on the shoulders of those innocent students and the societies they belong too, FOR SURE

YOU want people "to think too carefully", there is no "we", you are alone.
I believe that a few people have thought very carefully selecting their axioms, the rest of us use the axioms from those people because they work.
"Common sense" is much more elusive and perhaps you do not want to appeal to that.
But contradicting elementary proven theorems, that is a different matter.
Again, if you can demonstrate a contradiction in THEIR solution under
THEIR axioms then you will be famous, but that will almost certainly never happen in your lifetime.
It appears that all you can claim are contradictions in THEIR solution
under YOUR axioms and that is a completely different matter.
If you have found a contradiction in THEIR solution under THEIR axioms and you have made no mistake then present the most detailed and precisely correct proof they have given and then show exactly what step has an error and what that error is and what the correct step should be.
Presenting a poor proof of their result that cannot be fixed will accomplish nothing.
Claiming at step 6 that you do not believe in the cube root of 3 will accomplish less than nothing, that is YOUR axiom, not THEIRS.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
It is unclear whether you understand and accept that you are never going to convince anyone else to give up their axioms and adopt your axioms, but it seems very clear that this is never going to happen. If you do not understand and accept that almost certain fact then I would certainly blame you for this. FOR SURE!!

Note that I have no axioms to convince others to adopt it, and I know that people generally tend to business more than the proven facts, otherwise what else they can do more especially in true mathematics? no wonder!

I believe that sentence is nonsense at best and a lie at worst.
One of YOUR axioms, perhaps the only one, ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST.
That seems to be pretty much all that you have to say.
If you have nothing to convince others of then why would you spend a decade telling everyone that they are wrong and you are right and they should all be using your strictly constructivist mathematics?

Since that, I’m not any specialized professional mathematician but only a modest Civil Engineer, I wish to know what are those my so peculiar axioms other than very basic elementary theorems in geometry and number theory that anyone learns at school, Wonder!

Also, constructible numbers were basically a very old discovery since the Pythagorean era, not my own special discovery FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
And assuming in good faith that you are still suffering to understand my So clear point, then let us explain it step by step for you again in the hope you finally obey the absolute proven facts FOR SURE
Consider AGAIN this INSOLVABLE DIOPHANTINE Eqn. (1)
[(N(m)]^3 = 2*[10^{m - 1}]^3 .... (1)
Any beginner in number theory would immediately realize and only from the first glance that Eqn. (1) has no existing integer solutions, (FINISHED)

Again, you do not have to show me any more of your problems where there is no solution under your CONSTRUCTIVIST mathematics. You do not have to show anyone any more of your problems where there is no solution under your CONSTRUCTIVIST mathematics. I believe EVERYONE understands that.

But showing OR proving that Fermat’s last theorem has no solution been considered one of the greatest successes ever in the history of mathematics, wasn’t it? No Wonder!

Or maybe the issue here is a matter of selection? No Wonder!

Since the cube root of a non-cube and non-zero integer was never being noticed as a matter of existence, but only assumed wrongly existing in mind and in advance as existing real number without any proof and without any theorem that is strictly supporting its existence and so unlike the case of sqrt(2), which is EXACTLY the diagonal existing distance of a square with unity side supported strictly by the Pythagorean theorem FOR SURE

so like the case with (PI), where no true circle ever exists (but only regular constructible polygons with many sides that truly do exist, where it is almost impossible to distinguish by laypersons or mathematicians, FOR SURE

But truly speaking, I did find three (NON-EXISTING integers),
where (A^3 + B^3 = C^3),

And in the same way, they usually do work with those very meaningless ellipses (...)

A = 867569735858490865304017061409147551384753718547192831...

B = 662670538747666907983753680457597152866152691137388307...

C = 980973626304803340369595949177624242734580267403237824...

And generally to say it more clearly to convey my EVER rarest point in the entire history of mathematics, that states:

(A^3 + B^3) / C^3 = 0.999… =?

Hence, (0.999…) = Nothing, FOR SURE

Not to mention that this proof isn’t the best of my PUBLISHED proofs publically, but many others are even more rigorous than this one, FOR SURE

But with true facts of non-existing prime roots greater than two, the theorem of FLT may be made easily accessible to even school students or laypersons as well
So, why people should miss again this great chance and stay more ignorant? wonder!

But the true reason is truly intolerable to bear since this stated and proven fact would certainly destroy all the well-established mathematics (without proofs), and since the early ages of Babylons and Sumerians, where all those topics had been well-proved in my posts, FOR SURE


If you really feel the urge that you cannot resist then you could start every one of your posts from now on with the first line

Post by q***@gmail.com
ASSUMING ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST
and then continue your post.
I believe if you were to do that then there might be far less dispute between you and everyone else.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
...
Hence, cubrt(2) = 2^{1/3}, isn't any existing real number, FOR SURE
...

Yes, yes, yes, you don't believe in cube roots, EVERYONE understands that YOU don't believe in cube roots, YOU believe the only numbers that exist are those which can be exactly constructed. YOU have repeated this hourly for ten years. Everyone understands this. There is no need for YOU to repeat this ever again if you start all your future posts with
ASSUMING ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST

Post by bassam king karzeddin
But utterly odd and only in modern mathematics the false human sick minds axioms make a real number for sure and no wonder also

That is their axioms, not yours. You believe their axioms are wrong. That is clear. You don't have to repeat that again. Everyone understands you believe their axioms, including things like the classic construction of the real numbers exist, are wrong. You don't believe in that. Everyone understands that. You never ever ever ever ever ever need to repeat that again.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
But if they call it truly as it is as "an unreal" number, then no problem at all dealing with it up to any required degree of accuracy we may require for practical purposes of making a cube, FOR SURE

"up to any required degree of accuracy" is a completely different subject. Under their axioms the cube root of three is exactly the cube root of three, there is no degree of accuracy involved.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Let us hope any clever school students can help the professional teachers of mathematics understand strictly this obvious proven fact FOR SURE

As I wrote in a previous message, that is never going to happen, not in your lifetime and not in their lifetime. You desperately want to convince people to come over and agree with you and live with you under YOUR axioms. That is a strange need of some humans, to try to get others to agree with them. Perhaps people feel less threatened if they are surrounded by people who they can get to agree with them.
Summary
You and everyone are each completely free to pick the axioms you desire. You simply have to live with the consequences of that choice.
You believe everyone else is wrong. Everyone else believes you are wrong. It does not appear that will ever change. At least there is symmetry in that.
I thought you might be able to keep your axioms and change your methods and improve the chances that you might convince a few thoughtful people to consider your axioms, but you explained that this will not be possible.
I thought you might be able to keep your axioms and produce some positive results and be less disappointed with your past and your future, but you explained that this will not be possible.
Perhaps you can make all your future posts to be only
ASSUMING ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST
MANY AND PERHAPS ALMOST ALL PROBLEMS HAVE NO SOLUTIONS
PROOF: ALMOST ALL SOLUTIONS REQUIRE NONCONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS
QED
BKK
I believe that focuses your position into the most concise mathematics possible. I believe that no one sensible could disagree with that.
I do sincerely hope your life works out for you

But, It is still a BIG magical point for me about how axioms of primitive humans complicate things, where the elementary facts give us direct proof for recorded unsolved problems like wither (e + pi) or (pi - e) is a rational number

And once you realize those too non-existing integers, you would immediately solve this one for example as direct as this:

Nither (pi + e) nor (pi - e) is an existing real number FOR SURE

So to say, axioms of proven elementary facts are the strongest tool than any arbitrary and contradictory primitive human axioms that lead to more of madness and more of nonsenses FOR SURER

Regards

Bassam King Karzeddin

Jan 31st, 2018

[j4n bur53]

Did you try, for a natural number n:

x = floor(1/12 (sqrt(93) - 3) 2n)

y = 2n

z = x+n

What is this limit:

x^3+y^3
lim n->oo ------- = ?
z^3

So far I get:

n a_n
10 1.0075585789871504
100 1.0075585789871504
1000 1.0002836244346145
10000 1.0000774299765942
100000 1.0000052835926614
1000000 1.0000001307095137
10000000 1.0000000276524352
100000000 1.0000000070410224
1000000000 1.0000000008575989
10000000000 1.0000000000331422

But its a little jumpy inbetween.
Can we prove convergence?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
I'm truly so disappointed about so many things in mathematics, FOR SURE

So you understand that you are doomed to whine and complain and be disappointed for the rest of your life about things which feel are completely irrelevant.

This would be gladly much better than being a plain stubborn Troll for the rest of my life, FOR SURE

Since you seem to understand your doomed future then that is enough.
I was not at all certain that you really understood and now I do. Thank you.

My doomed future is already doomed to failure, but this is so irrelevant to the hidden facts of the well-forged mathematics for many centuries now, FOR SUR

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
And you understand that the axioms you have chosen mean that you have a far greater list of problems that are insoluble for you than there are for almost everyone else who has chosen a different set of axioms.

If you can demonstrate a contradiction in THEIR solution under THEIR axioms then you will be famous, but that will almost certainly never happen. But demonstrating a contradiction in their solution under YOUR axioms accomplishes less than nothing.

When wrong axioms become as a matter of solid “beliefs” then yes no one would accomplish anything FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
If axioms of mathematicians contradict strictly and openly the very elementary proven mathematics (since many thousands of years), then it must be total rubbish axioms FOR SURE

If you can demonstrate a contradiction in THEIR solution under THEIR axioms then you will be famous, but that will almost certainly never happen. But demonstrating a contradiction in their solution under YOUR axioms accomplishes less than nothing.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
And you understand everything that you have "solved" consists of declaring that these problems have no solution if you are restricted to the axioms that you have chosen,

Still, not any hint you have got FOR SURE

That is true. I have likely missed one or more examples in your ten years or more where you solved a very hard problem under your axioms and obtained a result which was not "this has no solution." When I asked you to consider such problems you responded with yet another problem with no solution and told me that all you can do is show problems which have no solution under your axioms.

Did you mean this problem? Wonder!
https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/3257/sum-of-like-powers-in-real-numbers
Or another one, since I had truly solved so many more, but that one above was solved for more than 30 years and before the century proof of FLT, and utterly in the same language and axiom that mathematicians generally adopt or believe in, where this, shamelessly also didn’t work with any mathematical Journal I did contact in the early 1990s, FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
It is not me or anyone else axioms who decided that no integer solution exists for this Diophantine Eqn. (n^3 = 2m^3), in natural numbers

You do not need to show me any more problems where there are no solutions under your axioms. I believe you do not need to show ANYONE any more problems where there are no solutions under your axioms. I believe that EVERYONE understands there are many many problems with no solutions under your axioms. Showing people more of these accomplishes nothing.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Which nonsense axioms and who are those smart people that can validate something proven rigorously impossible? wonder!

EVERYONE understands you picked your axioms and they picked theirs.
EVERYONE understands you think your axioms are right and theirs are wrong.
EVERYONE understands using your axioms means there are no solutions to many many problems.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
And yet you still desperately need to whine and complain and be disappointed for the rest of your life trying to convince everyone in the world to abandon their axioms and their solutions and their mathematics and adopt yours.

Yes, we want people to think too carefully when adopting any arbitrary axioms to make sure those axioms must not contradict any elementary common sense or any elementary proven theorems just for the sake of making huge baseless mathematics that can create so much of unnecessary business for them on the shoulders of those innocent students and the societies they belong too, FOR SURE

YOU want people "to think too carefully", there is no "we", you are alone.
I believe that a few people have thought very carefully selecting their axioms, the rest of us use the axioms from those people because they work.
"Common sense" is much more elusive and perhaps you do not want to appeal to that.
But contradicting elementary proven theorems, that is a different matter.
Again, if you can demonstrate a contradiction in THEIR solution under
THEIR axioms then you will be famous, but that will almost certainly never happen in your lifetime.
It appears that all you can claim are contradictions in THEIR solution
under YOUR axioms and that is a completely different matter.
If you have found a contradiction in THEIR solution under THEIR axioms and you have made no mistake then present the most detailed and precisely correct proof they have given and then show exactly what step has an error and what that error is and what the correct step should be.
Presenting a poor proof of their result that cannot be fixed will accomplish nothing.
Claiming at step 6 that you do not believe in the cube root of 3 will accomplish less than nothing, that is YOUR axiom, not THEIRS.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
It is unclear whether you understand and accept that you are never going to convince anyone else to give up their axioms and adopt your axioms, but it seems very clear that this is never going to happen. If you do not understand and accept that almost certain fact then I would certainly blame you for this. FOR SURE!!

Note that I have no axioms to convince others to adopt it, and I know that people generally tend to business more than the proven facts, otherwise what else they can do more especially in true mathematics? no wonder!

I believe that sentence is nonsense at best and a lie at worst.
One of YOUR axioms, perhaps the only one, ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST.
That seems to be pretty much all that you have to say.
If you have nothing to convince others of then why would you spend a decade telling everyone that they are wrong and you are right and they should all be using your strictly constructivist mathematics?

Since that, I’m not any specialized professional mathematician but only a modest Civil Engineer, I wish to know what are those my so peculiar axioms other than very basic elementary theorems in geometry and number theory that anyone learns at school, Wonder!
Also, constructible numbers were basically a very old discovery since the Pythagorean era, not my own special discovery FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
And assuming in good faith that you are still suffering to understand my So clear point, then let us explain it step by step for you again in the hope you finally obey the absolute proven facts FOR SURE
Consider AGAIN this INSOLVABLE DIOPHANTINE Eqn. (1)
[(N(m)]^3 = 2*[10^{m - 1}]^3 .... (1)
Any beginner in number theory would immediately realize and only from the first glance that Eqn. (1) has no existing integer solutions, (FINISHED)

Again, you do not have to show me any more of your problems where there is no solution under your CONSTRUCTIVIST mathematics. You do not have to show anyone any more of your problems where there is no solution under your CONSTRUCTIVIST mathematics. I believe EVERYONE understands that.

But showing OR proving that Fermat’s last theorem has no solution been considered one of the greatest successes ever in the history of mathematics, wasn’t it? No Wonder!
Or maybe the issue here is a matter of selection? No Wonder!
Since the cube root of a non-cube and non-zero integer was never being noticed as a matter of existence, but only assumed wrongly existing in mind and in advance as existing real number without any proof and without any theorem that is strictly supporting its existence and so unlike the case of sqrt(2), which is EXACTLY the diagonal existing distance of a square with unity side supported strictly by the Pythagorean theorem FOR SURE
so like the case with (PI), where no true circle ever exists (but only regular constructible polygons with many sides that truly do exist, where it is almost impossible to distinguish by laypersons or mathematicians, FOR SURE
But truly speaking, I did find three (NON-EXISTING integers),
where (A^3 + B^3 = C^3),
And in the same way, they usually do work with those very meaningless ellipses (...)
A = 867569735858490865304017061409147551384753718547192831...
B = 662670538747666907983753680457597152866152691137388307...
C = 980973626304803340369595949177624242734580267403237824...
(A^3 + B^3) / C^3 = 0.999… =?
Hence, (0.999…) = Nothing, FOR SURE
Not to mention that this proof isn’t the best of my PUBLISHED proofs publically, but many others are even more rigorous than this one, FOR SURE
But with true facts of non-existing prime roots greater than two, the theorem of FLT may be made easily accessible to even school students or laypersons as well
So, why people should miss again this great chance and stay more ignorant? wonder!
But the true reason is truly intolerable to bear since this stated and proven fact would certainly destroy all the well-established mathematics (without proofs), and since the early ages of Babylons and Sumerians, where all those topics had been well-proved in my posts, FOR SURE
If you really feel the urge that you cannot resist then you could start every one of your posts from now on with the first line

Post by q***@gmail.com
ASSUMING ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST
and then continue your post.
I believe if you were to do that then there might be far less dispute between you and everyone else.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
...
Hence, cubrt(2) = 2^{1/3}, isn't any existing real number, FOR SURE
...

Yes, yes, yes, you don't believe in cube roots, EVERYONE understands that YOU don't believe in cube roots, YOU believe the only numbers that exist are those which can be exactly constructed. YOU have repeated this hourly for ten years. Everyone understands this. There is no need for YOU to repeat this ever again if you start all your future posts with
ASSUMING ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST

Post by bassam king karzeddin
But utterly odd and only in modern mathematics the false human sick minds axioms make a real number for sure and no wonder also

That is their axioms, not yours. You believe their axioms are wrong. That is clear. You don't have to repeat that again. Everyone understands you believe their axioms, including things like the classic construction of the real numbers exist, are wrong. You don't believe in that. Everyone understands that. You never ever ever ever ever ever need to repeat that again.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
But if they call it truly as it is as "an unreal" number, then no problem at all dealing with it up to any required degree of accuracy we may require for practical purposes of making a cube, FOR SURE

"up to any required degree of accuracy" is a completely different subject. Under their axioms the cube root of three is exactly the cube root of three, there is no degree of accuracy involved.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Let us hope any clever school students can help the professional teachers of mathematics understand strictly this obvious proven fact FOR SURE

As I wrote in a previous message, that is never going to happen, not in your lifetime and not in their lifetime. You desperately want to convince people to come over and agree with you and live with you under YOUR axioms. That is a strange need of some humans, to try to get others to agree with them. Perhaps people feel less threatened if they are surrounded by people who they can get to agree with them.
Summary
You and everyone are each completely free to pick the axioms you desire. You simply have to live with the consequences of that choice.
You believe everyone else is wrong. Everyone else believes you are wrong. It does not appear that will ever change. At least there is symmetry in that.
I thought you might be able to keep your axioms and change your methods and improve the chances that you might convince a few thoughtful people to consider your axioms, but you explained that this will not be possible.
I thought you might be able to keep your axioms and produce some positive results and be less disappointed with your past and your future, but you explained that this will not be possible.
Perhaps you can make all your future posts to be only
ASSUMING ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST
MANY AND PERHAPS ALMOST ALL PROBLEMS HAVE NO SOLUTIONS
PROOF: ALMOST ALL SOLUTIONS REQUIRE NONCONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS
QED
BKK
I believe that focuses your position into the most concise mathematics possible. I believe that no one sensible could disagree with that.
I do sincerely hope your life works out for you

But, It is still a BIG magical point for me about how axioms of primitive humans complicate things, where the elementary facts give us direct proof for recorded unsolved problems like wither (e + pi) or (pi - e) is a rational number
Nither (pi + e) nor (pi - e) is an existing real number FOR SURE
So to say, axioms of proven elementary facts are the strongest tool than any arbitrary and contradictory primitive human axioms that lead to more of madness and more of nonsenses FOR SURER
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Jan 31st, 2018

[j4n bur53]

1/6*(sqrt(93)-3) is an exact solution of:

X^3+2^3 = (X+1)^3

Ha Ha

Post by j4n bur53
x = floor(1/12 (sqrt(93) - 3) 2n)
y = 2n
z = x+n
x^3+y^3
lim n->oo ------- = ?
z^3
n a_n
10 1.0075585789871504
100 1.0075585789871504
1000 1.0002836244346145
10000 1.0000774299765942
100000 1.0000052835926614
1000000 1.0000001307095137
10000000 1.0000000276524352
100000000 1.0000000070410224
1000000000 1.0000000008575989
10000000000 1.0000000000331422
But its a little jumpy inbetween.
Can we prove convergence?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
I'm truly so disappointed about so many things in mathematics, FOR SURE

So you understand that you are doomed to whine and complain and be disappointed for the rest of your life about things which feel are completely irrelevant.

This would be gladly much better than being a plain stubborn Troll for the rest of my life, FOR SURE

Since you seem to understand your doomed future then that is enough.
I was not at all certain that you really understood and now I do. Thank you.

My doomed future is already doomed to failure, but this is so irrelevant to the hidden facts of the well-forged mathematics for many centuries now, FOR SUR

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
And you understand that the axioms you have chosen mean that you have a far greater list of problems that are insoluble for you than there are for almost everyone else who has chosen a different set of axioms.

If you can demonstrate a contradiction in THEIR solution under THEIR axioms then you will be famous, but that will almost certainly never happen. But demonstrating a contradiction in their solution under YOUR axioms accomplishes less than nothing.

When wrong axioms become as a matter of solid “beliefs” then yes no one would accomplish anything FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
If axioms of mathematicians contradict strictly and openly the very elementary proven mathematics (since many thousands of years), then it must be total rubbish axioms FOR SURE

If you can demonstrate a contradiction in THEIR solution under THEIR axioms then you will be famous, but that will almost certainly never happen. But demonstrating a contradiction in their solution under YOUR axioms accomplishes less than nothing.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
And you understand everything that you have "solved" consists of declaring that these problems have no solution if you are restricted to the axioms that you have chosen,

Still, not any hint you have got FOR SURE

That is true. I have likely missed one or more examples in your ten years or more where you solved a very hard problem under your axioms and obtained a result which was not "this has no solution." When I asked you to consider such problems you responded with yet another problem with no solution and told me that all you can do is show problems which have no solution under your axioms.

Did you mean this problem? Wonder!
https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/3257/sum-of-like-powers-in-real-numbers
Or another one, since I had truly solved so many more, but that one above was solved for more than 30 years and before the century proof of FLT, and utterly in the same language and axiom that mathematicians generally adopt or believe in, where this, shamelessly also didn’t work with any mathematical Journal I did contact in the early 1990s, FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
It is not me or anyone else axioms who decided that no integer solution exists for this Diophantine Eqn. (n^3 = 2m^3), in natural numbers

You do not need to show me any more problems where there are no solutions under your axioms. I believe you do not need to show ANYONE any more problems where there are no solutions under your axioms. I believe that EVERYONE understands there are many many problems with no solutions under your axioms. Showing people more of these accomplishes nothing.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Which nonsense axioms and who are those smart people that can validate something proven rigorously impossible? wonder!

EVERYONE understands you picked your axioms and they picked theirs.
EVERYONE understands you think your axioms are right and theirs are wrong.
EVERYONE understands using your axioms means there are no solutions to many many problems.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
And yet you still desperately need to whine and complain and be disappointed for the rest of your life trying to convince everyone in the world to abandon their axioms and their solutions and their mathematics and adopt yours.

Yes, we want people to think too carefully when adopting any arbitrary axioms to make sure those axioms must not contradict any elementary common sense or any elementary proven theorems just for the sake of making huge baseless mathematics that can create so much of unnecessary business for them on the shoulders of those innocent students and the societies they belong too, FOR SURE

YOU want people "to think too carefully", there is no "we", you are alone.
I believe that a few people have thought very carefully selecting their axioms, the rest of us use the axioms from those people because they work.
"Common sense" is much more elusive and perhaps you do not want to appeal to that.
But contradicting elementary proven theorems, that is a different matter.
Again, if you can demonstrate a contradiction in THEIR solution under
THEIR axioms then you will be famous, but that will almost certainly never happen in your lifetime.
It appears that all you can claim are contradictions in THEIR solution
under YOUR axioms and that is a completely different matter.
If you have found a contradiction in THEIR solution under THEIR axioms and you have made no mistake then present the most detailed and precisely correct proof they have given and then show exactly what step has an error and what that error is and what the correct step should be.
Presenting a poor proof of their result that cannot be fixed will accomplish nothing.
Claiming at step 6 that you do not believe in the cube root of 3 will accomplish less than nothing, that is YOUR axiom, not THEIRS.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
It is unclear whether you understand and accept that you are never going to convince anyone else to give up their axioms and adopt your axioms, but it seems very clear that this is never going to happen. If you do not understand and accept that almost certain fact then I would certainly blame you for this. FOR SURE!!

Note that I have no axioms to convince others to adopt it, and I know that people generally tend to business more than the proven facts, otherwise what else they can do more especially in true mathematics? no wonder!

I believe that sentence is nonsense at best and a lie at worst.
One of YOUR axioms, perhaps the only one, ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST.
That seems to be pretty much all that you have to say.
If you have nothing to convince others of then why would you spend a decade telling everyone that they are wrong and you are right and they should all be using your strictly constructivist mathematics?

Since that, I’m not any specialized professional mathematician but only a modest Civil Engineer, I wish to know what are those my so peculiar axioms other than very basic elementary theorems in geometry and number theory that anyone learns at school, Wonder!
Also, constructible numbers were basically a very old discovery since the Pythagorean era, not my own special discovery FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
And assuming in good faith that you are still suffering to understand my So clear point, then let us explain it step by step for you again in the hope you finally obey the absolute proven facts FOR SURE
Consider AGAIN this INSOLVABLE DIOPHANTINE Eqn. (1)
[(N(m)]^3 = 2*[10^{m - 1}]^3 .... (1)
Any beginner in number theory would immediately realize and only from the first glance that Eqn. (1) has no existing integer solutions, (FINISHED)

Again, you do not have to show me any more of your problems where there is no solution under your CONSTRUCTIVIST mathematics. You do not have to show anyone any more of your problems where there is no solution under your CONSTRUCTIVIST mathematics. I believe EVERYONE understands that.

But showing OR proving that Fermat’s last theorem has no solution been considered one of the greatest successes ever in the history of mathematics, wasn’t it? No Wonder!
Or maybe the issue here is a matter of selection? No Wonder!
Since the cube root of a non-cube and non-zero integer was never being noticed as a matter of existence, but only assumed wrongly existing in mind and in advance as existing real number without any proof and without any theorem that is strictly supporting its existence and so unlike the case of sqrt(2), which is EXACTLY the diagonal existing distance of a square with unity side supported strictly by the Pythagorean theorem FOR SURE
so like the case with (PI), where no true circle ever exists (but only regular constructible polygons with many sides that truly do exist, where it is almost impossible to distinguish by laypersons or mathematicians, FOR SURE
But truly speaking, I did find three (NON-EXISTING integers),
where (A^3 + B^3 = C^3),
And in the same way, they usually do work with those very meaningless ellipses (...)
A = 867569735858490865304017061409147551384753718547192831...
B = 662670538747666907983753680457597152866152691137388307...
C = 980973626304803340369595949177624242734580267403237824...
(A^3 + B^3) / C^3 = 0.999… =?
Hence, (0.999…) = Nothing, FOR SURE
Not to mention that this proof isn’t the best of my PUBLISHED proofs publically, but many others are even more rigorous than this one, FOR SURE
But with true facts of non-existing prime roots greater than two, the theorem of FLT may be made easily accessible to even school students or laypersons as well
So, why people should miss again this great chance and stay more ignorant? wonder!
But the true reason is truly intolerable to bear since this stated and proven fact would certainly destroy all the well-established mathematics (without proofs), and since the early ages of Babylons and Sumerians, where all those topics had been well-proved in my posts, FOR SURE
If you really feel the urge that you cannot resist then you could start every one of your posts from now on with the first line

Post by q***@gmail.com
ASSUMING ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST
and then continue your post.
I believe if you were to do that then there might be far less dispute between you and everyone else.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
...
Hence, cubrt(2) = 2^{1/3}, isn't any existing real number, FOR SURE
...

Yes, yes, yes, you don't believe in cube roots, EVERYONE understands that YOU don't believe in cube roots, YOU believe the only numbers that exist are those which can be exactly constructed. YOU have repeated this hourly for ten years. Everyone understands this. There is no need for YOU to repeat this ever again if you start all your future posts with
ASSUMING ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST

Post by bassam king karzeddin
But utterly odd and only in modern mathematics the false human sick minds axioms make a real number for sure and no wonder also

That is their axioms, not yours. You believe their axioms are wrong. That is clear. You don't have to repeat that again. Everyone understands you believe their axioms, including things like the classic construction of the real numbers exist, are wrong. You don't believe in that. Everyone understands that. You never ever ever ever ever ever need to repeat that again.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
But if they call it truly as it is as "an unreal" number, then no problem at all dealing with it up to any required degree of accuracy we may require for practical purposes of making a cube, FOR SURE

"up to any required degree of accuracy" is a completely different subject. Under their axioms the cube root of three is exactly the cube root of three, there is no degree of accuracy involved.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Let us hope any clever school students can help the professional teachers of mathematics understand strictly this obvious proven fact FOR SURE

As I wrote in a previous message, that is never going to happen, not in your lifetime and not in their lifetime. You desperately want to convince people to come over and agree with you and live with you under YOUR axioms. That is a strange need of some humans, to try to get others to agree with them. Perhaps people feel less threatened if they are surrounded by people who they can get to agree with them.
Summary
You and everyone are each completely free to pick the axioms you desire. You simply have to live with the consequences of that choice.
You believe everyone else is wrong. Everyone else believes you are wrong. It does not appear that will ever change. At least there is symmetry in that.
I thought you might be able to keep your axioms and change your methods and improve the chances that you might convince a few thoughtful people to consider your axioms, but you explained that this will not be possible.
I thought you might be able to keep your axioms and produce some positive results and be less disappointed with your past and your future, but you explained that this will not be possible.
Perhaps you can make all your future posts to be only
ASSUMING ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST
MANY AND PERHAPS ALMOST ALL PROBLEMS HAVE NO SOLUTIONS
PROOF: ALMOST ALL SOLUTIONS REQUIRE NONCONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS
QED
BKK
I believe that focuses your position into the most concise mathematics possible. I believe that no one sensible could disagree with that.
I do sincerely hope your life works out for you

But, It is still a BIG magical point for me about how axioms of primitive humans complicate things, where the elementary facts give us direct proof for recorded unsolved problems like wither (e + pi) or (pi - e) is a rational number
Nither (pi + e) nor (pi - e) is an existing real number FOR SURE
So to say, axioms of proven elementary facts are the strongest tool than any arbitrary and contradictory primitive human axioms that lead to more of madness and more of nonsenses FOR SURER
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Jan 31st, 2018

[j4n bur53]

If you use ceiling, i.e.:

x = ceiling(1/12 (sqrt(93) - 3) 2n)

You get:

n a_n
10 0.9135987978963186
100 0.9972003200789957
1000 0.9992535691164902
10000 0.9999743671536847
100000 0.9999949778836941
1000000 0.9999991001397636
10000000 0.99999992459538
100000000 0.9999999967353164
1000000000 0.9999999998270281
10000000000 0.9999999999300854

Post by j4n bur53
X^3+2^3 = (X+1)^3
Ha Ha

Post by j4n bur53
x = floor(1/12 (sqrt(93) - 3) 2n)
y = 2n
z = x+n
x^3+y^3
lim n->oo ------- = ?
z^3
n a_n
10 1.0075585789871504
100 1.0075585789871504
1000 1.0002836244346145
10000 1.0000774299765942
100000 1.0000052835926614
1000000 1.0000001307095137
10000000 1.0000000276524352
100000000 1.0000000070410224
1000000000 1.0000000008575989
10000000000 1.0000000000331422
But its a little jumpy inbetween.
Can we prove convergence?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
I'm truly so disappointed about so many things in mathematics, FOR SURE

So you understand that you are doomed to whine and complain and be disappointed for the rest of your life about things which feel are completely irrelevant.

This would be gladly much better than being a plain stubborn Troll for the rest of my life, FOR SURE

Since you seem to understand your doomed future then that is enough.
I was not at all certain that you really understood and now I do. Thank you.

My doomed future is already doomed to failure, but this is so irrelevant to the hidden facts of the well-forged mathematics for many centuries now, FOR SUR

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
And you understand that the axioms you have chosen mean that you have a far greater list of problems that are insoluble for you than there are for almost everyone else who has chosen a different set of axioms.

If you can demonstrate a contradiction in THEIR solution under THEIR axioms then you will be famous, but that will almost certainly never happen. But demonstrating a contradiction in their solution under YOUR axioms accomplishes less than nothing.

When wrong axioms become as a matter of solid “beliefs” then yes no one would accomplish anything FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
If axioms of mathematicians contradict strictly and openly the very elementary proven mathematics (since many thousands of years), then it must be total rubbish axioms FOR SURE

If you can demonstrate a contradiction in THEIR solution under THEIR axioms then you will be famous, but that will almost certainly never happen. But demonstrating a contradiction in their solution under YOUR axioms accomplishes less than nothing.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
And you understand everything that you have "solved" consists of declaring that these problems have no solution if you are restricted to the axioms that you have chosen,

Still, not any hint you have got FOR SURE

That is true. I have likely missed one or more examples in your ten years or more where you solved a very hard problem under your axioms and obtained a result which was not "this has no solution." When I asked you to consider such problems you responded with yet another problem with no solution and told me that all you can do is show problems which have no solution under your axioms.

Did you mean this problem? Wonder!
https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/3257/sum-of-like-powers-in-real-numbers
Or another one, since I had truly solved so many more, but that one above was solved for more than 30 years and before the century proof of FLT, and utterly in the same language and axiom that mathematicians generally adopt or believe in, where this, shamelessly also didn’t work with any mathematical Journal I did contact in the early 1990s, FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
It is not me or anyone else axioms who decided that no integer solution exists for this Diophantine Eqn. (n^3 = 2m^3), in natural numbers

You do not need to show me any more problems where there are no solutions under your axioms. I believe you do not need to show ANYONE any more problems where there are no solutions under your axioms. I believe that EVERYONE understands there are many many problems with no solutions under your axioms. Showing people more of these accomplishes nothing.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Which nonsense axioms and who are those smart people that can validate something proven rigorously impossible? wonder!

EVERYONE understands you picked your axioms and they picked theirs.
EVERYONE understands you think your axioms are right and theirs are wrong.
EVERYONE understands using your axioms means there are no solutions to many many problems.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
And yet you still desperately need to whine and complain and be disappointed for the rest of your life trying to convince everyone in the world to abandon their axioms and their solutions and their mathematics and adopt yours.

Yes, we want people to think too carefully when adopting any arbitrary axioms to make sure those axioms must not contradict any elementary common sense or any elementary proven theorems just for the sake of making huge baseless mathematics that can create so much of unnecessary business for them on the shoulders of those innocent students and the societies they belong too, FOR SURE

YOU want people "to think too carefully", there is no "we", you are alone.
I believe that a few people have thought very carefully selecting their axioms, the rest of us use the axioms from those people because they work.
"Common sense" is much more elusive and perhaps you do not want to appeal to that.
But contradicting elementary proven theorems, that is a different matter.
Again, if you can demonstrate a contradiction in THEIR solution under
THEIR axioms then you will be famous, but that will almost certainly never happen in your lifetime.
It appears that all you can claim are contradictions in THEIR solution
under YOUR axioms and that is a completely different matter.
If you have found a contradiction in THEIR solution under THEIR axioms and you have made no mistake then present the most detailed and precisely correct proof they have given and then show exactly what step has an error and what that error is and what the correct step should be.
Presenting a poor proof of their result that cannot be fixed will accomplish nothing.
Claiming at step 6 that you do not believe in the cube root of 3 will accomplish less than nothing, that is YOUR axiom, not THEIRS.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
It is unclear whether you understand and accept that you are never going to convince anyone else to give up their axioms and adopt your axioms, but it seems very clear that this is never going to happen. If you do not understand and accept that almost certain fact then I would certainly blame you for this. FOR SURE!!

Note that I have no axioms to convince others to adopt it, and I know that people generally tend to business more than the proven facts, otherwise what else they can do more especially in true mathematics? no wonder!

I believe that sentence is nonsense at best and a lie at worst.
One of YOUR axioms, perhaps the only one, ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST.
That seems to be pretty much all that you have to say.
If you have nothing to convince others of then why would you spend a decade telling everyone that they are wrong and you are right and they should all be using your strictly constructivist mathematics?

Since that, I’m not any specialized professional mathematician but only a modest Civil Engineer, I wish to know what are those my so peculiar axioms other than very basic elementary theorems in geometry and number theory that anyone learns at school, Wonder!
Also, constructible numbers were basically a very old discovery since the Pythagorean era, not my own special discovery FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
And assuming in good faith that you are still suffering to understand my So clear point, then let us explain it step by step for you again in the hope you finally obey the absolute proven facts FOR SURE
Consider AGAIN this INSOLVABLE DIOPHANTINE Eqn. (1)
[(N(m)]^3 = 2*[10^{m - 1}]^3 .... (1)
Any beginner in number theory would immediately realize and only from the first glance that Eqn. (1) has no existing integer solutions, (FINISHED)

Again, you do not have to show me any more of your problems where there is no solution under your CONSTRUCTIVIST mathematics. You do not have to show anyone any more of your problems where there is no solution under your CONSTRUCTIVIST mathematics. I believe EVERYONE understands that.

But showing OR proving that Fermat’s last theorem has no solution been considered one of the greatest successes ever in the history of mathematics, wasn’t it? No Wonder!
Or maybe the issue here is a matter of selection? No Wonder!
Since the cube root of a non-cube and non-zero integer was never being noticed as a matter of existence, but only assumed wrongly existing in mind and in advance as existing real number without any proof and without any theorem that is strictly supporting its existence and so unlike the case of sqrt(2), which is EXACTLY the diagonal existing distance of a square with unity side supported strictly by the Pythagorean theorem FOR SURE
so like the case with (PI), where no true circle ever exists (but only regular constructible polygons with many sides that truly do exist, where it is almost impossible to distinguish by laypersons or mathematicians, FOR SURE
But truly speaking, I did find three (NON-EXISTING integers),
where (A^3 + B^3 = C^3),
And in the same way, they usually do work with those very meaningless ellipses (...)
A = 867569735858490865304017061409147551384753718547192831...
B = 662670538747666907983753680457597152866152691137388307...
C = 980973626304803340369595949177624242734580267403237824...
(A^3 + B^3) / C^3 = 0.999… =?
Hence, (0.999…) = Nothing, FOR SURE
Not to mention that this proof isn’t the best of my PUBLISHED proofs publically, but many others are even more rigorous than this one, FOR SURE
But with true facts of non-existing prime roots greater than two, the theorem of FLT may be made easily accessible to even school students or laypersons as well
So, why people should miss again this great chance and stay more ignorant? wonder!
But the true reason is truly intolerable to bear since this stated and proven fact would certainly destroy all the well-established mathematics (without proofs), and since the early ages of Babylons and Sumerians, where all those topics had been well-proved in my posts, FOR SURE
If you really feel the urge that you cannot resist then you could start every one of your posts from now on with the first line

Post by q***@gmail.com
ASSUMING ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST
and then continue your post.
I believe if you were to do that then there might be far less dispute between you and everyone else.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
...
Hence, cubrt(2) = 2^{1/3}, isn't any existing real number, FOR SURE
...

Yes, yes, yes, you don't believe in cube roots, EVERYONE understands that YOU don't believe in cube roots, YOU believe the only numbers that exist are those which can be exactly constructed. YOU have repeated this hourly for ten years. Everyone understands this. There is no need for YOU to repeat this ever again if you start all your future posts with
ASSUMING ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST

Post by bassam king karzeddin
But utterly odd and only in modern mathematics the false human sick minds axioms make a real number for sure and no wonder also

That is their axioms, not yours. You believe their axioms are wrong. That is clear. You don't have to repeat that again. Everyone understands you believe their axioms, including things like the classic construction of the real numbers exist, are wrong. You don't believe in that. Everyone understands that. You never ever ever ever ever ever need to repeat that again.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
But if they call it truly as it is as "an unreal" number, then no problem at all dealing with it up to any required degree of accuracy we may require for practical purposes of making a cube, FOR SURE

"up to any required degree of accuracy" is a completely different subject. Under their axioms the cube root of three is exactly the cube root of three, there is no degree of accuracy involved.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Let us hope any clever school students can help the professional teachers of mathematics understand strictly this obvious proven fact FOR SURE

As I wrote in a previous message, that is never going to happen, not in your lifetime and not in their lifetime. You desperately want to convince people to come over and agree with you and live with you under YOUR axioms. That is a strange need of some humans, to try to get others to agree with them. Perhaps people feel less threatened if they are surrounded by people who they can get to agree with them.
Summary
You and everyone are each completely free to pick the axioms you desire. You simply have to live with the consequences of that choice.
You believe everyone else is wrong. Everyone else believes you are wrong. It does not appear that will ever change. At least there is symmetry in that.
I thought you might be able to keep your axioms and change your methods and improve the chances that you might convince a few thoughtful people to consider your axioms, but you explained that this will not be possible.
I thought you might be able to keep your axioms and produce some positive results and be less disappointed with your past and your future, but you explained that this will not be possible.
Perhaps you can make all your future posts to be only
ASSUMING ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST
MANY AND PERHAPS ALMOST ALL PROBLEMS HAVE NO SOLUTIONS
PROOF: ALMOST ALL SOLUTIONS REQUIRE NONCONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS
QED
BKK
I believe that focuses your position into the most concise mathematics possible. I believe that no one sensible could disagree with that.
I do sincerely hope your life works out for you

But, It is still a BIG magical point for me about how axioms of primitive humans complicate things, where the elementary facts give us direct proof for recorded unsolved problems like wither (e + pi) or (pi - e) is a rational number
Nither (pi + e) nor (pi - e) is an existing real number FOR SURE
So to say, axioms of proven elementary facts are the strongest tool than any arbitrary and contradictory primitive human axioms that lead to more of madness and more of nonsenses FOR SURER
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Jan 31st, 2018

[j4n bur53]

Instead of a parameter n, giving us some value, that
we floor or ceil, we could directly use a sequence
that approximates sqrt(93).

How about:

Ancient Square Roots
https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath190.htm

The formula for iterating towards sqrt(93) would
be simple as follows:

s_n + 93/s_n
s_n+1 = ------------
2

"This formula is sometimes attributed to Heron
of Alexandria, because he described it in his
"Metrica", but it was evidently known to the
Babylonians much earlier."

So what do we get now? Converges fast:

n sn an
1 9.00000000000000 1.125000000000000
2 9.66666666666667 0.996063566117509
3 9.64367816091954 0.999995293764087
4 9.64365076103188 0.999999999993314
5 9.64365076099295 1.000000000000000

Post by j4n bur53
x = ceiling(1/12 (sqrt(93) - 3) 2n)
n a_n
10 0.9135987978963186
100 0.9972003200789957
1000 0.9992535691164902
10000 0.9999743671536847
100000 0.9999949778836941
1000000 0.9999991001397636
10000000 0.99999992459538
100000000 0.9999999967353164
1000000000 0.9999999998270281
10000000000 0.9999999999300854

Post by j4n bur53
X^3+2^3 = (X+1)^3
Ha Ha

Post by j4n bur53
x = floor(1/12 (sqrt(93) - 3) 2n)
y = 2n
z = x+n
x^3+y^3
lim n->oo ------- = ?
z^3
n a_n
10 1.0075585789871504
100 1.0075585789871504
1000 1.0002836244346145
10000 1.0000774299765942
100000 1.0000052835926614
1000000 1.0000001307095137
10000000 1.0000000276524352
100000000 1.0000000070410224
1000000000 1.0000000008575989
10000000000 1.0000000000331422
But its a little jumpy inbetween.
Can we prove convergence?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
I'm truly so disappointed about so many things in mathematics, FOR SURE

So you understand that you are doomed to whine and complain and be disappointed for the rest of your life about things which feel are completely irrelevant.

This would be gladly much better than being a plain stubborn Troll for the rest of my life, FOR SURE

Since you seem to understand your doomed future then that is enough.
I was not at all certain that you really understood and now I do. Thank you.

My doomed future is already doomed to failure, but this is so irrelevant to the hidden facts of the well-forged mathematics for many centuries now, FOR SUR

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
And you understand that the axioms you have chosen mean that you have a far greater list of problems that are insoluble for you than there are for almost everyone else who has chosen a different set of axioms.

If you can demonstrate a contradiction in THEIR solution under THEIR axioms then you will be famous, but that will almost certainly never happen. But demonstrating a contradiction in their solution under YOUR axioms accomplishes less than nothing.

When wrong axioms become as a matter of solid “beliefs” then yes no one would accomplish anything FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
If axioms of mathematicians contradict strictly and openly the very elementary proven mathematics (since many thousands of years), then it must be total rubbish axioms FOR SURE

If you can demonstrate a contradiction in THEIR solution under THEIR axioms then you will be famous, but that will almost certainly never happen. But demonstrating a contradiction in their solution under YOUR axioms accomplishes less than nothing.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
And you understand everything that you have "solved" consists of declaring that these problems have no solution if you are restricted to the axioms that you have chosen,

Still, not any hint you have got FOR SURE

That is true. I have likely missed one or more examples in your ten years or more where you solved a very hard problem under your axioms and obtained a result which was not "this has no solution." When I asked you to consider such problems you responded with yet another problem with no solution and told me that all you can do is show problems which have no solution under your axioms.

Did you mean this problem? Wonder!
https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/3257/sum-of-like-powers-in-real-numbers
Or another one, since I had truly solved so many more, but that one above was solved for more than 30 years and before the century proof of FLT, and utterly in the same language and axiom that mathematicians generally adopt or believe in, where this, shamelessly also didn’t work with any mathematical Journal I did contact in the early 1990s, FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
It is not me or anyone else axioms who decided that no integer solution exists for this Diophantine Eqn. (n^3 = 2m^3), in natural numbers

You do not need to show me any more problems where there are no solutions under your axioms. I believe you do not need to show ANYONE any more problems where there are no solutions under your axioms. I believe that EVERYONE understands there are many many problems with no solutions under your axioms. Showing people more of these accomplishes nothing.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Which nonsense axioms and who are those smart people that can validate something proven rigorously impossible? wonder!

EVERYONE understands you picked your axioms and they picked theirs.
EVERYONE understands you think your axioms are right and theirs are wrong.
EVERYONE understands using your axioms means there are no solutions to many many problems.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
And yet you still desperately need to whine and complain and be disappointed for the rest of your life trying to convince everyone in the world to abandon their axioms and their solutions and their mathematics and adopt yours.

Yes, we want people to think too carefully when adopting any arbitrary axioms to make sure those axioms must not contradict any elementary common sense or any elementary proven theorems just for the sake of making huge baseless mathematics that can create so much of unnecessary business for them on the shoulders of those innocent students and the societies they belong too, FOR SURE

YOU want people "to think too carefully", there is no "we", you are alone.
I believe that a few people have thought very carefully selecting their axioms, the rest of us use the axioms from those people because they work.
"Common sense" is much more elusive and perhaps you do not want to appeal to that.
But contradicting elementary proven theorems, that is a different matter.
Again, if you can demonstrate a contradiction in THEIR solution under
THEIR axioms then you will be famous, but that will almost certainly never happen in your lifetime.
It appears that all you can claim are contradictions in THEIR solution
under YOUR axioms and that is a completely different matter.
If you have found a contradiction in THEIR solution under THEIR axioms and you have made no mistake then present the most detailed and precisely correct proof they have given and then show exactly what step has an error and what that error is and what the correct step should be.
Presenting a poor proof of their result that cannot be fixed will accomplish nothing.
Claiming at step 6 that you do not believe in the cube root of 3 will accomplish less than nothing, that is YOUR axiom, not THEIRS.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
It is unclear whether you understand and accept that you are never going to convince anyone else to give up their axioms and adopt your axioms, but it seems very clear that this is never going to happen. If you do not understand and accept that almost certain fact then I would certainly blame you for this. FOR SURE!!

Note that I have no axioms to convince others to adopt it, and I know that people generally tend to business more than the proven facts, otherwise what else they can do more especially in true mathematics? no wonder!

I believe that sentence is nonsense at best and a lie at worst.
One of YOUR axioms, perhaps the only one, ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST.
That seems to be pretty much all that you have to say.
If you have nothing to convince others of then why would you spend a decade telling everyone that they are wrong and you are right and they should all be using your strictly constructivist mathematics?

Since that, I’m not any specialized professional mathematician but only a modest Civil Engineer, I wish to know what are those my so peculiar axioms other than very basic elementary theorems in geometry and number theory that anyone learns at school, Wonder!
Also, constructible numbers were basically a very old discovery since the Pythagorean era, not my own special discovery FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
And assuming in good faith that you are still suffering to understand my So clear point, then let us explain it step by step for you again in the hope you finally obey the absolute proven facts FOR SURE
Consider AGAIN this INSOLVABLE DIOPHANTINE Eqn. (1)
[(N(m)]^3 = 2*[10^{m - 1}]^3 .... (1)
Any beginner in number theory would immediately realize and only from the first glance that Eqn. (1) has no existing integer solutions, (FINISHED)

Again, you do not have to show me any more of your problems where there is no solution under your CONSTRUCTIVIST mathematics. You do not have to show anyone any more of your problems where there is no solution under your CONSTRUCTIVIST mathematics. I believe EVERYONE understands that.

But showing OR proving that Fermat’s last theorem has no solution been considered one of the greatest successes ever in the history of mathematics, wasn’t it? No Wonder!
Or maybe the issue here is a matter of selection? No Wonder!
Since the cube root of a non-cube and non-zero integer was never being noticed as a matter of existence, but only assumed wrongly existing in mind and in advance as existing real number without any proof and without any theorem that is strictly supporting its existence and so unlike the case of sqrt(2), which is EXACTLY the diagonal existing distance of a square with unity side supported strictly by the Pythagorean theorem FOR SURE
so like the case with (PI), where no true circle ever exists (but only regular constructible polygons with many sides that truly do exist, where it is almost impossible to distinguish by laypersons or mathematicians, FOR SURE
But truly speaking, I did find three (NON-EXISTING integers),
where (A^3 + B^3 = C^3),
And in the same way, they usually do work with those very meaningless ellipses (...)
A = 867569735858490865304017061409147551384753718547192831...
B = 662670538747666907983753680457597152866152691137388307...
C = 980973626304803340369595949177624242734580267403237824...
(A^3 + B^3) / C^3 = 0.999… =?
Hence, (0.999…) = Nothing, FOR SURE
Not to mention that this proof isn’t the best of my PUBLISHED proofs publically, but many others are even more rigorous than this one, FOR SURE
But with true facts of non-existing prime roots greater than two, the theorem of FLT may be made easily accessible to even school students or laypersons as well
So, why people should miss again this great chance and stay more ignorant? wonder!
But the true reason is truly intolerable to bear since this stated and proven fact would certainly destroy all the well-established mathematics (without proofs), and since the early ages of Babylons and Sumerians, where all those topics had been well-proved in my posts, FOR SURE
If you really feel the urge that you cannot resist then you could start every one of your posts from now on with the first line

Post by q***@gmail.com
ASSUMING ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST
and then continue your post.
I believe if you were to do that then there might be far less dispute between you and everyone else.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
...
Hence, cubrt(2) = 2^{1/3}, isn't any existing real number, FOR SURE
...

Yes, yes, yes, you don't believe in cube roots, EVERYONE understands that YOU don't believe in cube roots, YOU believe the only numbers that exist are those which can be exactly constructed. YOU have repeated this hourly for ten years. Everyone understands this. There is no need for YOU to repeat this ever again if you start all your future posts with
ASSUMING ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST

Post by bassam king karzeddin
But utterly odd and only in modern mathematics the false human sick minds axioms make a real number for sure and no wonder also

That is their axioms, not yours. You believe their axioms are wrong. That is clear. You don't have to repeat that again. Everyone understands you believe their axioms, including things like the classic construction of the real numbers exist, are wrong. You don't believe in that. Everyone understands that. You never ever ever ever ever ever need to repeat that again.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
But if they call it truly as it is as "an unreal" number, then no problem at all dealing with it up to any required degree of accuracy we may require for practical purposes of making a cube, FOR SURE

"up to any required degree of accuracy" is a completely different subject. Under their axioms the cube root of three is exactly the cube root of three, there is no degree of accuracy involved.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Let us hope any clever school students can help the professional teachers of mathematics understand strictly this obvious proven fact FOR SURE

As I wrote in a previous message, that is never going to happen, not in your lifetime and not in their lifetime. You desperately want to convince people to come over and agree with you and live with you under YOUR axioms. That is a strange need of some humans, to try to get others to agree with them. Perhaps people feel less threatened if they are surrounded by people who they can get to agree with them.
Summary
You and everyone are each completely free to pick the axioms you desire. You simply have to live with the consequences of that choice.
You believe everyone else is wrong. Everyone else believes you are wrong. It does not appear that will ever change. At least there is symmetry in that.
I thought you might be able to keep your axioms and change your methods and improve the chances that you might convince a few thoughtful people to consider your axioms, but you explained that this will not be possible.
I thought you might be able to keep your axioms and produce some positive results and be less disappointed with your past and your future, but you explained that this will not be possible.
Perhaps you can make all your future posts to be only
ASSUMING ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST
MANY AND PERHAPS ALMOST ALL PROBLEMS HAVE NO SOLUTIONS
PROOF: ALMOST ALL SOLUTIONS REQUIRE NONCONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS
QED
BKK
I believe that focuses your position into the most concise mathematics possible. I believe that no one sensible could disagree with that.
I do sincerely hope your life works out for you

But, It is still a BIG magical point for me about how axioms of primitive humans complicate things, where the elementary facts give us direct proof for recorded unsolved problems like wither (e + pi) or (pi - e) is a rational number
Nither (pi + e) nor (pi - e) is an existing real number FOR SURE
So to say, axioms of proven elementary facts are the strongest tool than any arbitrary and contradictory primitive human axioms that lead to more of madness and more of nonsenses FOR SURER
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Jan 31st, 2018

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by j4n bur53
Instead of a parameter n, giving us some value, that
we floor or ceil, we could directly use a sequence
that approximates sqrt(93).
Ancient Square Roots
https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath190.htm
The formula for iterating towards sqrt(93) would
s_n + 93/s_n
s_n+1 = ------------
2
"This formula is sometimes attributed to Heron
of Alexandria, because he described it in his
"Metrica", but it was evidently known to the
Babylonians much earlier."
n sn an
1 9.00000000000000 1.125000000000000
2 9.66666666666667 0.996063566117509
3 9.64367816091954 0.999995293764087
4 9.64365076103188 0.999999999993314
5 9.64365076099295 1.000000000000000

Post by j4n bur53
x = ceiling(1/12 (sqrt(93) - 3) 2n)
n a_n
10 0.9135987978963186
100 0.9972003200789957
1000 0.9992535691164902
10000 0.9999743671536847
100000 0.9999949778836941
1000000 0.9999991001397636
10000000 0.99999992459538
100000000 0.9999999967353164
1000000000 0.9999999998270281
10000000000 0.9999999999300854

Post by j4n bur53
X^3+2^3 = (X+1)^3
Ha Ha

Post by j4n bur53
x = floor(1/12 (sqrt(93) - 3) 2n)
y = 2n
z = x+n
x^3+y^3
lim n->oo ------- = ?
z^3
n a_n
10 1.0075585789871504
100 1.0075585789871504
1000 1.0002836244346145
10000 1.0000774299765942
100000 1.0000052835926614
1000000 1.0000001307095137
10000000 1.0000000276524352
100000000 1.0000000070410224
1000000000 1.0000000008575989
10000000000 1.0000000000331422
But its a little jumpy inbetween.
Can we prove convergence?

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
I'm truly so disappointed about so many things in mathematics, FOR SURE

So you understand that you are doomed to whine and complain and be disappointed for the rest of your life about things which feel are completely irrelevant.

This would be gladly much better than being a plain stubborn Troll for the rest of my life, FOR SURE

Since you seem to understand your doomed future then that is enough.
I was not at all certain that you really understood and now I do. Thank you.

My doomed future is already doomed to failure, but this is so irrelevant to the hidden facts of the well-forged mathematics for many centuries now, FOR SUR

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
And you understand that the axioms you have chosen mean that you have a far greater list of problems that are insoluble for you than there are for almost everyone else who has chosen a different set of axioms.

If you can demonstrate a contradiction in THEIR solution under THEIR axioms then you will be famous, but that will almost certainly never happen. But demonstrating a contradiction in their solution under YOUR axioms accomplishes less than nothing.

When wrong axioms become as a matter of solid “beliefs” then yes no one would accomplish anything FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
If axioms of mathematicians contradict strictly and openly the very elementary proven mathematics (since many thousands of years), then it must be total rubbish axioms FOR SURE

If you can demonstrate a contradiction in THEIR solution under THEIR axioms then you will be famous, but that will almost certainly never happen. But demonstrating a contradiction in their solution under YOUR axioms accomplishes less than nothing.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
And you understand everything that you have "solved" consists of declaring that these problems have no solution if you are restricted to the axioms that you have chosen,

Still, not any hint you have got FOR SURE

That is true. I have likely missed one or more examples in your ten years or more where you solved a very hard problem under your axioms and obtained a result which was not "this has no solution." When I asked you to consider such problems you responded with yet another problem with no solution and told me that all you can do is show problems which have no solution under your axioms.

Did you mean this problem? Wonder!
https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/3257/sum-of-like-powers-in-real-numbers
Or another one, since I had truly solved so many more, but that one above was solved for more than 30 years and before the century proof of FLT, and utterly in the same language and axiom that mathematicians generally adopt or believe in, where this, shamelessly also didn’t work with any mathematical Journal I did contact in the early 1990s, FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
It is not me or anyone else axioms who decided that no integer solution exists for this Diophantine Eqn. (n^3 = 2m^3), in natural numbers

You do not need to show me any more problems where there are no solutions under your axioms. I believe you do not need to show ANYONE any more problems where there are no solutions under your axioms. I believe that EVERYONE understands there are many many problems with no solutions under your axioms. Showing people more of these accomplishes nothing.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Which nonsense axioms and who are those smart people that can validate something proven rigorously impossible? wonder!

EVERYONE understands you picked your axioms and they picked theirs.
EVERYONE understands you think your axioms are right and theirs are wrong.
EVERYONE understands using your axioms means there are no solutions to many many problems.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
And yet you still desperately need to whine and complain and be disappointed for the rest of your life trying to convince everyone in the world to abandon their axioms and their solutions and their mathematics and adopt yours.

Yes, we want people to think too carefully when adopting any arbitrary axioms to make sure those axioms must not contradict any elementary common sense or any elementary proven theorems just for the sake of making huge baseless mathematics that can create so much of unnecessary business for them on the shoulders of those innocent students and the societies they belong too, FOR SURE

YOU want people "to think too carefully", there is no "we", you are alone.
I believe that a few people have thought very carefully selecting their axioms, the rest of us use the axioms from those people because they work.
"Common sense" is much more elusive and perhaps you do not want to appeal to that.
But contradicting elementary proven theorems, that is a different matter.
Again, if you can demonstrate a contradiction in THEIR solution under
THEIR axioms then you will be famous, but that will almost certainly never happen in your lifetime.
It appears that all you can claim are contradictions in THEIR solution
under YOUR axioms and that is a completely different matter.
If you have found a contradiction in THEIR solution under THEIR axioms and you have made no mistake then present the most detailed and precisely correct proof they have given and then show exactly what step has an error and what that error is and what the correct step should be.
Presenting a poor proof of their result that cannot be fixed will accomplish nothing.
Claiming at step 6 that you do not believe in the cube root of 3 will accomplish less than nothing, that is YOUR axiom, not THEIRS.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
It is unclear whether you understand and accept that you are never going to convince anyone else to give up their axioms and adopt your axioms, but it seems very clear that this is never going to happen. If you do not understand and accept that almost certain fact then I would certainly blame you for this. FOR SURE!!

Note that I have no axioms to convince others to adopt it, and I know that people generally tend to business more than the proven facts, otherwise what else they can do more especially in true mathematics? no wonder!

I believe that sentence is nonsense at best and a lie at worst.
One of YOUR axioms, perhaps the only one, ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST.
That seems to be pretty much all that you have to say.
If you have nothing to convince others of then why would you spend a decade telling everyone that they are wrong and you are right and they should all be using your strictly constructivist mathematics?

Since that, I’m not any specialized professional mathematician but only a modest Civil Engineer, I wish to know what are those my so peculiar axioms other than very basic elementary theorems in geometry and number theory that anyone learns at school, Wonder!
Also, constructible numbers were basically a very old discovery since the Pythagorean era, not my own special discovery FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
And assuming in good faith that you are still suffering to understand my So clear point, then let us explain it step by step for you again in the hope you finally obey the absolute proven facts FOR SURE
Consider AGAIN this INSOLVABLE DIOPHANTINE Eqn. (1)
[(N(m)]^3 = 2*[10^{m - 1}]^3 .... (1)
Any beginner in number theory would immediately realize and only from the first glance that Eqn. (1) has no existing integer solutions, (FINISHED)

Again, you do not have to show me any more of your problems where there is no solution under your CONSTRUCTIVIST mathematics. You do not have to show anyone any more of your problems where there is no solution under your CONSTRUCTIVIST mathematics. I believe EVERYONE understands that.

But showing OR proving that Fermat’s last theorem has no solution been considered one of the greatest successes ever in the history of mathematics, wasn’t it? No Wonder!
Or maybe the issue here is a matter of selection? No Wonder!
Since the cube root of a non-cube and non-zero integer was never being noticed as a matter of existence, but only assumed wrongly existing in mind and in advance as existing real number without any proof and without any theorem that is strictly supporting its existence and so unlike the case of sqrt(2), which is EXACTLY the diagonal existing distance of a square with unity side supported strictly by the Pythagorean theorem FOR SURE
so like the case with (PI), where no true circle ever exists (but only regular constructible polygons with many sides that truly do exist, where it is almost impossible to distinguish by laypersons or mathematicians, FOR SURE
But truly speaking, I did find three (NON-EXISTING integers),
where (A^3 + B^3 = C^3),
And in the same way, they usually do work with those very meaningless ellipses (...)
A = 867569735858490865304017061409147551384753718547192831...
B = 662670538747666907983753680457597152866152691137388307...
C = 980973626304803340369595949177624242734580267403237824...
(A^3 + B^3) / C^3 = 0.999… =?
Hence, (0.999…) = Nothing, FOR SURE
Not to mention that this proof isn’t the best of my PUBLISHED proofs publically, but many others are even more rigorous than this one, FOR SURE
But with true facts of non-existing prime roots greater than two, the theorem of FLT may be made easily accessible to even school students or laypersons as well
So, why people should miss again this great chance and stay more ignorant? wonder!
But the true reason is truly intolerable to bear since this stated and proven fact would certainly destroy all the well-established mathematics (without proofs), and since the early ages of Babylons and Sumerians, where all those topics had been well-proved in my posts, FOR SURE
If you really feel the urge that you cannot resist then you could start every one of your posts from now on with the first line

Post by q***@gmail.com
ASSUMING ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST
and then continue your post.
I believe if you were to do that then there might be far less dispute between you and everyone else.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
...
Hence, cubrt(2) = 2^{1/3}, isn't any existing real number, FOR SURE
...

Yes, yes, yes, you don't believe in cube roots, EVERYONE understands that YOU don't believe in cube roots, YOU believe the only numbers that exist are those which can be exactly constructed. YOU have repeated this hourly for ten years. Everyone understands this. There is no need for YOU to repeat this ever again if you start all your future posts with
ASSUMING ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST

Post by bassam king karzeddin
But utterly odd and only in modern mathematics the false human sick minds axioms make a real number for sure and no wonder also

That is their axioms, not yours. You believe their axioms are wrong. That is clear. You don't have to repeat that again. Everyone understands you believe their axioms, including things like the classic construction of the real numbers exist, are wrong. You don't believe in that. Everyone understands that. You never ever ever ever ever ever need to repeat that again.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
But if they call it truly as it is as "an unreal" number, then no problem at all dealing with it up to any required degree of accuracy we may require for practical purposes of making a cube, FOR SURE

"up to any required degree of accuracy" is a completely different subject. Under their axioms the cube root of three is exactly the cube root of three, there is no degree of accuracy involved.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Let us hope any clever school students can help the professional teachers of mathematics understand strictly this obvious proven fact FOR SURE

As I wrote in a previous message, that is never going to happen, not in your lifetime and not in their lifetime. You desperately want to convince people to come over and agree with you and live with you under YOUR axioms. That is a strange need of some humans, to try to get others to agree with them. Perhaps people feel less threatened if they are surrounded by people who they can get to agree with them.
Summary
You and everyone are each completely free to pick the axioms you desire. You simply have to live with the consequences of that choice.
You believe everyone else is wrong. Everyone else believes you are wrong. It does not appear that will ever change. At least there is symmetry in that.
I thought you might be able to keep your axioms and change your methods and improve the chances that you might convince a few thoughtful people to consider your axioms, but you explained that this will not be possible.
I thought you might be able to keep your axioms and produce some positive results and be less disappointed with your past and your future, but you explained that this will not be possible.
Perhaps you can make all your future posts to be only
ASSUMING ONLY CONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS EXIST
MANY AND PERHAPS ALMOST ALL PROBLEMS HAVE NO SOLUTIONS
PROOF: ALMOST ALL SOLUTIONS REQUIRE NONCONSTRUCTIBLE NUMBERS
QED
BKK
I believe that focuses your position into the most concise mathematics possible. I believe that no one sensible could disagree with that.
I do sincerely hope your life works out for you

But, It is still a BIG magical point for me about how axioms of primitive humans complicate things, where the elementary facts give us direct proof for recorded unsolved problems like wither (e + pi) or (pi - e) is a rational number
Nither (pi + e) nor (pi - e) is an existing real number FOR SURE
So to say, axioms of proven elementary facts are the strongest tool than any arbitrary and contradictory primitive human axioms that lead to more of madness and more of nonsenses FOR SURER
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Jan 31st, 2018

So to say, I'm observing carefully your tireless hopeless tries to save and protect your oldest and most beloved numbers like those alleged real numbers (cubrt(2) and Pi) from the "KING", But frankly, you miserably failed and FOR SURE
Neither you nor anybody else would ever dare to invalidate my "PUBLISHED" proofs in the true meaning of the original word "PUBLISH" in the English language FOR SURER

And very soon, I shall teach the world kids and laypersons about it, until so many legall cases would finally be raised in the world COURTS against the very WRONG teaching of (Pi) at schools and universities as well and FOR SURE

Where people aren't generally that VERY BIG STUPIDS not to understand the most simple facts in too elementary mathematics

So, stop your so silly convergence or limits or so, since it is certainly the same divergence to nothingness (but with only a decimal notation)

As if the decimal notation is a magical tool that can turn immediately the "endless" non-existing numbers suddenly into real numbers, wonder!

And the "KING" orders you ALL, to stop all kinds of human minds cheating "especially in mathematics" FOR SURE

BKK

[q***@gmail.com]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
When wrong axioms become as a matter of solid “beliefs” then yes no one would accomplish anything FOR SURE

It is not clear to me how you decide what are "wrong axioms."
As I wrote earlier, anyone is free to choose any axioms,
They simply must live with the consequences of their decision.
I wonder whether your beliefs are giving your constructive axiom
rather than your constructive axiom giving your beliefs.
I would not be surprised if your belief came before your axiom.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
That is true. I have likely missed one or more examples in your ten years or more where you solved a very hard problem under your axioms and obtained a result which was not "this has no solution." When I asked you to consider such problems you responded with yet another problem with no solution and told me that all you can do is show problems which have no solution under your axioms.

Did you mean this problem? Wonder!
https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/3257/sum-of-like-powers-in-real-numbers

That seems to be a positive result instead of a negative result. Good.
But that is using any real number r and it is using the log function.
Neither of those are constructible except for very special cases.

Is this perhaps from before you chose to accept only the constructible numbers?

If I were a strict constructivist I would think that claim to be meaningless.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Or another one, since I had truly solved so many more, but that one above was solved for more than 30 years and before the century proof of FLT, and utterly in the same language and axiom that mathematicians generally adopt or believe in, where this, shamelessly also didn’t work with any mathematical Journal I did contact in the early 1990s, FOR SURE

Do you have other positive results which are strictly constructible?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Since that, I’m not any specialized professional mathematician but only a modest Civil Engineer, I wish to know what are those my so peculiar axioms other than very basic elementary theorems in geometry and number theory that anyone learns at school, Wonder!

I have not spent years trying to understand every detail of your claims.
What little I understand seems that your primary claim is that only
constructible numbers exist. That is an understood and established branch
of mathematics and the consequences of that have been long well known.
I suspect there is nothing new for you to contribute to that knowledge.

If you go further than that and claim things like zero does not exist
then I suspect that you have much bigger and deeper problems to face.
But it certainly seems that I can construct 3+4 and 5-3 and in the same
way I can construct 3-3.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Also, constructible numbers were basically a very old discovery since the Pythagorean era, not my own special discovery FOR SURE

Yes. That is done. There is likely nothing new either of us could find there.

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
Again, you do not have to show me any more of your problems where there is no solution under your CONSTRUCTIVIST mathematics. You do not have to show anyone any more of your problems where there is no solution under your CONSTRUCTIVIST mathematics. I believe EVERYONE understands that.

But showing OR proving that Fermat’s last theorem has no solution been considered one of the greatest successes ever in the history of mathematics, wasn’t it? No Wonder!

Yes. It was a very hard problem. Proving very hard problems is important.
But I offer the suggestion that all your negative results have been for
trivial problems, not hard problems. All your negative results reduce to
"I don't believe in that number" or "I can't construct that number", nothing more.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Or maybe the issue here is a matter of selection? No Wonder!

Exactly! That shows you might understand.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Since the cube root of a non-cube and non-zero integer was never being noticed as a matter of existence, but only assumed wrongly existing in mind and in advance as existing real number without any proof and without any theorem that is strictly supporting its existence and so unlike the case of sqrt(2), which is EXACTLY the diagonal existing distance of a square with unity side supported strictly by the Pythagorean theorem FOR SURE

Constructivist mathematics has been studied for a very long time. The lack
of existence of the cube root in constructivist mathematics has been known
for all that time. As you have said, this is not a new discovery of yours.

This appears to only be that you feel everyone else in the world is wrong
BECAUSE they have not given up all current mathematics as wrong and adopted
your constructivist position. I am sorry, but everyone else doesn't care.

I politely suggest that axioms are not wrong, despite your being certain
that those which disagree with you are wrong. I could suppose the axiom
that 3 does not exist. That is perhaps a silly axiom, there are consequences
of my choosing that axiom, but we can explore those consequences and see
what we find. If there is no 3 then perhaps there is no cube and no cube
root, but perhaps all the other real numbers still exist. I can be mad and
post endlessly that everyone else is wrong because they have not seen that
I am right and that 3 does not exist. Nobody else will care.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
But truly speaking, I did find three (NON-EXISTING integers),
where (A^3 + B^3 = C^3),

And you are repeating more negative results and nobody cares.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
And in the same way, they usually do work with those very meaningless ellipses (...)
A = 867569735858490865304017061409147551384753718547192831...
B = 662670538747666907983753680457597152866152691137388307...
C = 980973626304803340369595949177624242734580267403237824...

And more negative results and nobody cares

Post by bassam king karzeddin
(A^3 + B^3) / C^3 = 0.999… =?
Hence, (0.999…) = Nothing, FOR SURE

And more negative results and nobody cares

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Not to mention that this proof isn’t the best of my PUBLISHED proofs publically, but many others are even more rigorous than this one, FOR SURE

Then what are the best of your positive published results?
The entire field of constructive mathematics is built on the foundation
of explicitly constructing real solutions to problems.
I have suggested again and again that you start presenting those.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
But with true facts of non-existing prime roots greater than two, the theorem of FLT may be made easily accessible to even school students or laypersons as well

If I choose the axiom that no numbers exist then all problems are trivial.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, why people should miss again this great chance and stay more ignorant? wonder!

Suppose just for a few minutes that you are successful and all of existing
mathematics is burned, everything, every book, every page, every library,
every professor and the only thing that remains is your constructivist
mathematics. How much of the world stops working because of the mathematics
that you just burned? How much of the world depends on this mathematics
which you are certain is all false? All of trigonometry is gone. All of
calculus is gone. All of compound interest is gone. All of weather
forecasting. All of economic modeling is gone. If you really destroy all
of that and a million other things just because you despise the cube root
so intensely then what is left? What would have been left of your
engineering if you erased everything except constructivist mathematics?
Nothing?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
But the true reason is truly intolerable to bear since this stated and proven fact would certainly destroy all the well-established mathematics (without proofs), and since the early ages of Babylons and Sumerians, where all those topics had been well-proved in my posts, FOR SURE

I understand you have taken up a holy crusade to overthrow all of
mathematics and abolish everything except constructivist mathematics.
You are certain that you are correct and everyone else is wrong and
that you must convince the world to believe what you believe.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Nither (pi + e) nor (pi - e) is an existing real number FOR SURE

Please, I beg you, demonstrate an explicit constructivist proof that
neither pi+e nor pi-e can be constructed. Just claiming that neither
pi nor e can be constructed is not sufficient, the sum might possibly
be some rational. But as you say you are a lowly engineer I doubt
that you will ever be able to do that, you only imagine it is true
and have no way of ever proving that. I do not criticize you for not
being able to prove this, I could never prove this and neither could
far far brighter people than either of us.

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
When wrong axioms become as a matter of solid “beliefs” then yes no one would accomplish anything FOR SURE

It is not clear to me how you decide what are "wrong axioms."

Good, you asked, despite your question was answered almost hundreds of times and not only by me but by (JG, WM, ...), but let it I take the pain and time to repeat it again and again

Look kindly at your "backbone" axiom that starts with "infinity" first then many infinities later, and observe how it is so easily "broken axiom" from the first look only and "for sure"

Q: What is infinity in mathematics? wonder!

A: From it is a basic definition and only from mathematics, it is "NOT" a "REAL" number, but "ODDLY" greater than any "REAL" NUMBER, "FINISHED" NO WONDER and "FOR SURE"

But of course, it is not also a "DYIANSOUR" nor a "TREE" nor "ANYTHING ELSE" for "SURER"

But again, and considering the "NATURAL" numbers, which are a continuous chain of "ENDLESS" sucessive integers with no existing "LARGEST", where the greater of any natural number is so simply the successive natural number and not at all that too silly "FICTION" named "INFINITY" in your mathematics which is never any real number to be comparable with real numbers "FOR SURE"

So to say, having been convened by the total "FICTIONALITY" of such a humiliating to all human mind "concept" then the way is straight forward to see everything much clearer than ever, "FOR SURE"

So, immediately and by direct deductive "ZERO" order "LOGIC", you can so simply remove or sweep all trash "ALLEGED" real numbers that are "STRICTLY" associated with obvious "FICTION" as infinity in "MODERN" mathematics, for sure

Hence, no "EXISTING" real numbers (assumed in the primitive minds with an endless sequence of "DIGITS" or "TERMS" for sure

Since they never have even that sizeless position on the real number line, which is the only "TRUE" reason behind the "IMPOSSIBILITY" of their "EXACT" constructions and by any "MEANS" (I ADDED, FOR SURE)

So to say, doesn't mean to throw them away from mathematics, but to fully understand them "IN DEPTH" and rename them as "NON-REAL" or "GHOST" numbers, since in many cases they can give us a very good "HINT" to where they are going to land on a real constructible number but never "EXACTLY" and successfully "FOR SURE"

And what would remain only from the real numbers is "ONLY" the real "PROVEN" "CONSTRUCTIBLE" numbers (as an "EXACT DISTANCES" in "GEOMETRY") that are never any arbitrary human "AXIOMS", but may be considered as "AXIOMS" of "ABSOLUTE PROVEN FACTS" that everyone and especially mathematicians "MUST OBEY", for sure


Any wise person (not at all necessary to be a genius mathematician

Post by q***@gmail.com
As I wrote earlier, anyone is free to choose any axioms,

I think this must not be allowed strictly for mathematicians since you know NOW What does this mean OR leas to, but for scientists and engineers or others this may be allowed in order to solve their particular problems that never require the "PERFECTION" that mathematics requires FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com
They simply must live with the consequences of their decision.

Mathematics MUST NOT be a matter of choice but a matter of "FORCE" where democracy in mathematics would ruin it completely FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com
I wonder whether your beliefs are giving your constructive axiom

Those are called the "AXIOMS" of "PROVEN ABSOLUTE FACTS" I keep talking about them for so many years by now, for sure

Post by q***@gmail.com
rather than your constructive axiom giving your beliefs.

No "beliefs" at all on my "ISSUE" and "FOR SURE"

Post by q***@gmail.com
I would not be surprised if your belief came before your axiom.

It must be so clear to you "NOE" that there are so many "WRONG BELIEFS" only in your "MODERN" mathematics "FOR SURER"

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
That is true. I have likely missed one or more examples in your ten years or more where you solved a very hard problem under your axioms and obtained a result which was not "this has no solution." When I asked you to consider such problems you responded with yet another problem with no solution and told me that all you can do is show problems which have no solution under your axioms.

Did you mean this problem? Wonder!
https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/3257/sum-of-like-powers-in-real-numbers

That seems to be a positive result instead of a negative result. Good.
But that is using any real number r and it is using the log function.
Neither of those are constructible except for very special cases.
Is this perhaps from before you chose to accept only the constructible numbers?

In the early 1990s, I used to think in the same way that any mathematician generally thinks (including you), with all that many wrong "beliefs" for sure

Post by q***@gmail.com
If I were a strict constructivist I would think that claim to be meaningless.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Or another one, since I had truly solved so many more, but that one above was solved for more than 30 years and before the century proof of FLT, and utterly in the same language and axiom that mathematicians generally adopt or believe in, where this, shamelessly also didn’t work with any mathematical Journal I did contact in the early 1990s, FOR SURE

Do you have other positive results which are strictly constructible?

This link might provide you with little help in this regard, sure

https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-professional-mathematicians-defend-their-mathematics

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Since that, I’m not any specialized professional mathematician but only a modest Civil Engineer, I wish to know what are those my so peculiar axioms other than very basic elementary theorems in geometry and number theory that anyone learns at school, Wonder!

I have not spent years trying to understand every detail of your claims.
What little I understand seems that your primary claim is that only
constructible numbers exist. That is an understood and established branch
of mathematics and the consequences of that have been long well known.
I suspect there is nothing new for you to contribute to that knowledge.
If you go further than that and claim things like zero does not exist
then I suspect that you have much bigger and deeper problems to face.
But it certainly seems that I can construct 3+4 and 5-3 and in the same
way I can construct 3-3.

OK, Let zero as it is, it doesn't make any difference to me, but I can observe how do people suffer a lot and get so many confusions and lost when dealing with that thing, sure

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Also, constructible numbers were basically a very old discovery since the Pythagorean era, not my own special discovery FOR SURE

Yes. That is done. There is likely nothing new either of us could find there.

ONLY With the true understanding, there would be so many things that Would be more than thrilling, but you don't know yet, FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
Again, you do not have to show me any more of your problems where there is no solution under your CONSTRUCTIVIST mathematics. You do not have to show anyone any more of your problems where there is no solution under your CONSTRUCTIVIST mathematics. I believe EVERYONE understands that.

But showing OR proving that Fermat’s last theorem has no solution been considered one of the greatest successes ever in the history of mathematics, wasn’t it? No Wonder!

Yes. It was a very hard problem. Proving very hard problems is important.
But I offer the suggestion that all your negative results have been for
trivial problems, not hard problems. All your negative results reduce to
"I don't believe in that number" or "I can't construct that number", nothing more.

So to say it frankly, if the facts are so "BITTER" or so "UGLY" and more precisely, so "UNDESIRABLE", then it is not any problem for sure

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Or maybe the issue here is a matter of selection? No Wonder!

Exactly! That shows you might understand.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Since the cube root of a non-cube and non-zero integer was never being noticed as a matter of existence, but only assumed wrongly existing in mind and in advance as existing real number without any proof and without any theorem that is strictly supporting its existence and so unlike the case of sqrt(2), which is EXACTLY the diagonal existing distance of a square with unity side supported strictly by the Pythagorean theorem FOR SURE

Constructivist mathematics has been studied for a very long time. The lack
of the existence of the cube root in constructivist mathematics has been known
for all that time. As you have said, this is not a new discovery of yours.

NO, nobody from older mathematicians talked about the non-existence of the cube root of two, but they used to discuss its hard exact construction which implies that strictly believed in its existence, including "WENTZEL" who did proof the impossibility of its "EXACT" construction in (1837), where he never understood the only true reason behind such impossibility which is so simple the new principle of "NON-EXISTENCE" prooved solely by myself

And certainly, you may be shocked once you had heard the "NON-EXISTENCE" of any integer degree angles that aren't divisible by (3), FOR SURE

Those are only my claims and my true "PROVEN DISCOVERIES" for sure

Post by q***@gmail.com
This appears to only be that you feel everyone else in the world is wrong
BECAUSE they have not given up all current mathematics as wrong and adopted
your constructivist position. I am sorry, but everyone else doesn't care.

That is well-understood, only a human mind incurable psychological and incurable diseases since they know the bad consequences where they had never thought otherwise and outside the "BOX" and "FOR SURE"

But how long they can hide behind many Paradisal fictions? wonder!

Not for so long and FOR SURER

Post by q***@gmail.com
I politely suggest that axioms are not wrong, despite your being certain
that those which disagree with you are wrong. I could suppose the axiom
that 3 does not exist. That is perhaps a silly axiom, there are consequences
of my choosing that axiom, but we can explore those consequences and see
what we find. If there is no 3 then perhaps there is no cube and no cube
root, but perhaps all the other real numbers still exist. I can be mad and
post endlessly that everyone else is wrong because they have not seen that
I am right and that 3 does not exist. Nobody else will care.

all that you say, have no meaning, since "TRUE" mathematics is not a free game where anyone can ply safly, for sure

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
But truly speaking, I did find three (NON-EXISTING integers),
where (A^3 + B^3 = C^3),

And you are repeating more negative results and nobody cares.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
And in the same way, they usually do work with those very meaningless ellipses (...)
A = 867569735858490865304017061409147551384753718547192831...
B = 662670538747666907983753680457597152866152691137388307...
C = 980973626304803340369595949177624242734580267403237824...

And more negative results and nobody cares

Post by bassam king karzeddin
(A^3 + B^3) / C^3 = 0.999… =?
Hence, (0.999…) = Nothing, FOR SURE

And more negative results and nobody cares

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Not to mention that this proof isn’t the best of my PUBLISHED proofs publically, but many others are even more rigorous than this one, FOR SURE

Then what are the best of your positive published results?

On my profiles, here and the Science CLOSED Forum, Quora (but not all visible), and at SE, where they had deleted and stolen most of them, sure

Post by q***@gmail.com
The entire field of constructive mathematics is built on the foundation
of explicitly constructing real solutions to problems.
I have suggested again and again that you start presenting those.

What else I can present? wonder!

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
But with true facts of non-existing prime roots greater than two, the theorem of FLT may be made easily accessible to even school students or laypersons as well

If I choose the axiom that no numbers exist then all problems are trivial.

WE had just shown you many facts, FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, why people should miss again this great chance and stay more ignorant? wonder!

Suppose just for a few minutes that you are successful and all of existing
mathematics is burned, everything, every book, every page, every library,
every professor and the only thing that remains is your constructivist
mathematics. How much of the world stops working because of the mathematics
that you just burned? How much of the world depends on this mathematics
which you are certain is all false? All of trigonometry is gone. All of
calculus is gone. All of compound interest is gone. All of weather
forecasting. All of economic modeling is gone. If you really destroy all
of that and a million other things just because you despise the cube root
so intensely then what is left? What would have been left of your
engineering if you erased everything except constructivist mathematics?
Nothing?

Did you know that three beloved numbers for all people (PI, Cubrt(2), zer0) Where being adopted "UTTERLY" in mathematics and without any existing proof "FROM HISTORY"? NO Wonder!

And the so silly story of the scientific progress was built only upon the mathematician's shoulders (that we have explained very well earlier) is truly the funniest

As if scientists and Engineers or other scientific discipline followers aren't also a butter mathematicians (since early childhood or at schools" to make all that successful progress, wonder!

Thet actually being admitted in higher branches of science based solely on their "HIGHER IQ" mainly in mathematics, where generally current professional mathematicians couldn't be admitted into such branches

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
But the true reason is truly intolerable to bear since this stated and proven fact would certainly destroy all the well-established mathematics (without proofs), and since the early ages of Babylons and Sumerians, where all those topics had been well-proved in my posts, FOR SURE

I understand you have taken up a holy crusade to overthrow all of
mathematics and abolish everything except constructivist mathematics.
You are certain that you are correct and everyone else is wrong and
that you must convince the world to believe what you believe.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Nither (pi + e) nor (pi - e) is an existing real number FOR SURE

Did you see it as easy as any silly problem now? wonder!

But take a hint, whatever their sum or difference would be forever a constructible number generally, but with FICTION as infinity, they go as non-existing numbers as they are, "FOR SURE"

Post by q***@gmail.com
Please, I beg you, demonstrate an explicit constructivist proof that
neither pi+e nor pi-e can be constructed. Just claiming that neither
pi nor e can be constructed is not sufficient, the sum might possibly
be some rational. But as you say you are a lowly engineer I doubt
that you will ever be able to do that, you only imagine it is true
and have no way of ever proving that. I do not criticize you for not
being able to prove this, I could never prove this and neither could
far far brighter people than either of us.

I will try to make it, even with your axioms, but not "FOR SURE"

Regards

Bassam King Karzeddin
Feb 2ed, 2019

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
When wrong axioms become as a matter of solid “beliefs” then yes no one would accomplish anything FOR SURE

It is not clear to me how you decide what are "wrong axioms."

Good, you asked, despite your question was answered almost hundreds of times and not only by me but by (JG, WM, ...), but let it I take the pain and time to repeat it again and again
Look kindly at your "backbone" axiom that starts with "infinity" first then many infinities later, and observe how it is so easily "broken axiom" from the first look only and "for sure"
Q: What is infinity in mathematics? wonder!
A: From it is a basic definition and only from mathematics, it is "NOT" a "REAL" number, but "ODDLY" greater than any "REAL" NUMBER, "FINISHED" NO WONDER and "FOR SURE"
But of course, it is not also a "DYIANSOUR" nor a "TREE" nor "ANYTHING ELSE" for "SURER"
But again, and considering the "NATURAL" numbers, which are a continuous chain of "ENDLESS" sucessive integers with no existing "LARGEST", where the greater of any natural number is so simply the successive natural number and not at all that too silly "FICTION" named "INFINITY" in your mathematics which is never any real number to be comparable with real numbers "FOR SURE"
So to say, having been convened by the total "FICTIONALITY" of such a humiliating to all human mind "concept" then the way is straight forward to see everything much clearer than ever, "FOR SURE"
So, immediately and by direct deductive "ZERO" order "LOGIC", you can so simply remove or sweep all trash "ALLEGED" real numbers that are "STRICTLY" associated with obvious "FICTION" as infinity in "MODERN" mathematics, for sure
Hence, no "EXISTING" real numbers (assumed in the primitive minds with an endless sequence of "DIGITS" or "TERMS" for sure
Since they never have even that sizeless position on the real number line, which is the only "TRUE" reason behind the "IMPOSSIBILITY" of their "EXACT" constructions and by any "MEANS" (I ADDED, FOR SURE)
So to say, doesn't mean to throw them away from mathematics, but to fully understand them "IN DEPTH" and rename them as "NON-REAL" or "GHOST" numbers, since in many cases they can give us a very good "HINT" to where they are going to land on a real constructible number but never "EXACTLY" and successfully "FOR SURE"
And what would remain only from the real numbers is "ONLY" the real "PROVEN" "CONSTRUCTIBLE" numbers (as an "EXACT DISTANCES" in "GEOMETRY") that are never any arbitrary human "AXIOMS", but may be considered as "AXIOMS" of "ABSOLUTE PROVEN FACTS" that everyone and especially mathematicians "MUST OBEY", for sure
Any wise person (not at all necessary to be a genius mathematician

Post by q***@gmail.com
As I wrote earlier, anyone is free to choose any axioms,

I think this must not be allowed strictly for mathematicians since you know NOW What does this mean OR leas to, but for scientists and engineers or others this may be allowed in order to solve their particular problems that never require the "PERFECTION" that mathematics requires FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com
They simply must live with the consequences of their decision.

Mathematics MUST NOT be a matter of choice but a matter of "FORCE" where democracy in mathematics would ruin it completely FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com
I wonder whether your beliefs are giving your constructive axiom

Those are called the "AXIOMS" of "PROVEN ABSOLUTE FACTS" I keep talking about them for so many years by now, for sure

Post by q***@gmail.com
rather than your constructive axiom giving your beliefs.

No "beliefs" at all on my "ISSUE" and "FOR SURE"

Post by q***@gmail.com
I would not be surprised if your belief came before your axiom.

It must be so clear to you "NOE" that there are so many "WRONG BELIEFS" only in your "MODERN" mathematics "FOR SURER"

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
That is true. I have likely missed one or more examples in your ten years or more where you solved a very hard problem under your axioms and obtained a result which was not "this has no solution." When I asked you to consider such problems you responded with yet another problem with no solution and told me that all you can do is show problems which have no solution under your axioms.

Did you mean this problem? Wonder!
https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/3257/sum-of-like-powers-in-real-numbers

That seems to be a positive result instead of a negative result. Good.
But that is using any real number r and it is using the log function.
Neither of those are constructible except for very special cases.
Is this perhaps from before you chose to accept only the constructible numbers?

In the early 1990s, I used to think in the same way that any mathematician generally thinks (including you), with all that many wrong "beliefs" for sure

Post by q***@gmail.com
If I were a strict constructivist I would think that claim to be meaningless.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Or another one, since I had truly solved so many more, but that one above was solved for more than 30 years and before the century proof of FLT, and utterly in the same language and axiom that mathematicians generally adopt or believe in, where this, shamelessly also didn’t work with any mathematical Journal I did contact in the early 1990s, FOR SURE

Do you have other positive results which are strictly constructible?

This link might provide you with little help in this regard, sure
https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-professional-mathematicians-defend-their-mathematics

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Since that, I’m not any specialized professional mathematician but only a modest Civil Engineer, I wish to know what are those my so peculiar axioms other than very basic elementary theorems in geometry and number theory that anyone learns at school, Wonder!

I have not spent years trying to understand every detail of your claims.
What little I understand seems that your primary claim is that only
constructible numbers exist. That is an understood and established branch
of mathematics and the consequences of that have been long well known.
I suspect there is nothing new for you to contribute to that knowledge.
If you go further than that and claim things like zero does not exist
then I suspect that you have much bigger and deeper problems to face.
But it certainly seems that I can construct 3+4 and 5-3 and in the same
way I can construct 3-3.

OK, Let zero as it is, it doesn't make any difference to me, but I can observe how do people suffer a lot and get so many confusions and lost when dealing with that thing, sure

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Also, constructible numbers were basically a very old discovery since the Pythagorean era, not my own special discovery FOR SURE

Yes. That is done. There is likely nothing new either of us could find there.

ONLY With the true understanding, there would be so many things that Would be more than thrilling, but you don't know yet, FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
Again, you do not have to show me any more of your problems where there is no solution under your CONSTRUCTIVIST mathematics. You do not have to show anyone any more of your problems where there is no solution under your CONSTRUCTIVIST mathematics. I believe EVERYONE understands that.

But showing OR proving that Fermat’s last theorem has no solution been considered one of the greatest successes ever in the history of mathematics, wasn’t it? No Wonder!

Yes. It was a very hard problem. Proving very hard problems is important.
But I offer the suggestion that all your negative results have been for
trivial problems, not hard problems. All your negative results reduce to
"I don't believe in that number" or "I can't construct that number", nothing more.

So to say it frankly, if the facts are so "BITTER" or so "UGLY" and more precisely, so "UNDESIRABLE", then it is not any problem for sure

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Or maybe the issue here is a matter of selection? No Wonder!

Exactly! That shows you might understand.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Since the cube root of a non-cube and non-zero integer was never being noticed as a matter of existence, but only assumed wrongly existing in mind and in advance as existing real number without any proof and without any theorem that is strictly supporting its existence and so unlike the case of sqrt(2), which is EXACTLY the diagonal existing distance of a square with unity side supported strictly by the Pythagorean theorem FOR SURE

Constructivist mathematics has been studied for a very long time. The lack
of the existence of the cube root in constructivist mathematics has been known
for all that time. As you have said, this is not a new discovery of yours.

NO, nobody from older mathematicians talked about the non-existence of the cube root of two, but they used to discuss its hard exact construction which implies that strictly believed in its existence, including "WENTZEL" who did proof the impossibility of its "EXACT" construction in (1837), where he never understood the only true reason behind such impossibility which is so simple the new principle of "NON-EXISTENCE" prooved solely by myself
And certainly, you may be shocked once you had heard the "NON-EXISTENCE" of any integer degree angles that aren't divisible by (3), FOR SURE
Those are only my claims and my true "PROVEN DISCOVERIES" for sure

Post by q***@gmail.com
This appears to only be that you feel everyone else in the world is wrong
BECAUSE they have not given up all current mathematics as wrong and adopted
your constructivist position. I am sorry, but everyone else doesn't care.

That is well-understood, only a human mind incurable psychological and incurable diseases since they know the bad consequences where they had never thought otherwise and outside the "BOX" and "FOR SURE"
But how long they can hide behind many Paradisal fictions? wonder!
Not for so long and FOR SURER

Post by q***@gmail.com
I politely suggest that axioms are not wrong, despite your being certain
that those which disagree with you are wrong. I could suppose the axiom
that 3 does not exist. That is perhaps a silly axiom, there are consequences
of my choosing that axiom, but we can explore those consequences and see
what we find. If there is no 3 then perhaps there is no cube and no cube
root, but perhaps all the other real numbers still exist. I can be mad and
post endlessly that everyone else is wrong because they have not seen that
I am right and that 3 does not exist. Nobody else will care.

all that you say, have no meaning, since "TRUE" mathematics is not a free game where anyone can ply safly, for sure

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
But truly speaking, I did find three (NON-EXISTING integers),
where (A^3 + B^3 = C^3),

And you are repeating more negative results and nobody cares.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
And in the same way, they usually do work with those very meaningless ellipses (...)
A = 867569735858490865304017061409147551384753718547192831...
B = 662670538747666907983753680457597152866152691137388307...
C = 980973626304803340369595949177624242734580267403237824...

And more negative results and nobody cares

Post by bassam king karzeddin
(A^3 + B^3) / C^3 = 0.999… =?
Hence, (0.999…) = Nothing, FOR SURE

And more negative results and nobody cares

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Not to mention that this proof isn’t the best of my PUBLISHED proofs publically, but many others are even more rigorous than this one, FOR SURE

Then what are the best of your positive published results?

On my profiles, here and the Science CLOSED Forum, Quora (but not all visible), and at SE, where they had deleted and stolen most of them, sure

Post by q***@gmail.com
The entire field of constructive mathematics is built on the foundation
of explicitly constructing real solutions to problems.
I have suggested again and again that you start presenting those.

What else I can present? wonder!

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
But with true facts of non-existing prime roots greater than two, the theorem of FLT may be made easily accessible to even school students or laypersons as well

If I choose the axiom that no numbers exist then all problems are trivial.

WE had just shown you many facts, FOR SURE

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, why people should miss again this great chance and stay more ignorant? wonder!

Suppose just for a few minutes that you are successful and all of existing
mathematics is burned, everything, every book, every page, every library,
every professor and the only thing that remains is your constructivist
mathematics. How much of the world stops working because of the mathematics
that you just burned? How much of the world depends on this mathematics
which you are certain is all false? All of trigonometry is gone. All of
calculus is gone. All of compound interest is gone. All of weather
forecasting. All of economic modeling is gone. If you really destroy all
of that and a million other things just because you despise the cube root
so intensely then what is left? What would have been left of your
engineering if you erased everything except constructivist mathematics?
Nothing?

Did you know that three beloved numbers for all people (PI, Cubrt(2), zer0) Where being adopted "UTTERLY" in mathematics and without any existing proof "FROM HISTORY"? NO Wonder!
And the so silly story of the scientific progress was built only upon the mathematician's shoulders (that we have explained very well earlier) is truly the funniest
As if scientists and Engineers or other scientific discipline followers aren't also a butter mathematicians (since early childhood or at schools" to make all that successful progress, wonder!
Thet actually being admitted in higher branches of science based solely on their "HIGHER IQ" mainly in mathematics, where generally current professional mathematicians couldn't be admitted into such branches

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
But the true reason is truly intolerable to bear since this stated and proven fact would certainly destroy all the well-established mathematics (without proofs), and since the early ages of Babylons and Sumerians, where all those topics had been well-proved in my posts, FOR SURE

I understand you have taken up a holy crusade to overthrow all of
mathematics and abolish everything except constructivist mathematics.
You are certain that you are correct and everyone else is wrong and
that you must convince the world to believe what you believe.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Nither (pi + e) nor (pi - e) is an existing real number FOR SURE

Did you see it as easy as any silly problem now? wonder!
But take a hint, whatever their sum or difference would be forever a constructible number generally, but with FICTION as infinity, they go as non-existing numbers as they are, "FOR SURE"

Post by q***@gmail.com
Please, I beg you, demonstrate an explicit constructivist proof that
neither pi+e nor pi-e can be constructed.

Can't you do it yourself now? wonder!

Even by your false axioms FOR SURE

BKK


Just claiming that neither

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com
pi nor e can be constructed is not sufficient, the sum might possibly
be some rational. But as you say you are a lowly engineer I doubt
that you will ever be able to do that, you only imagine it is true
and have no way of ever proving that. I do not criticize you for not
being able to prove this, I could never prove this and neither could
far far brighter people than either of us.

I will try to make it, even with your axioms, but not "FOR SURE"
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Feb 2ed, 2019

[Zelos Malum]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
When wrong axioms become as a matter of solid “beliefs” then yes no one would accomplish anything FOR SURE

Wrong, according to who? You? Who cares?

[Zelos Malum]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
I always talk about absolute facts that are so irrelevant to human perception or existence or any tools of axioms he/she usually makes in order to solve the proposed problems, where this may be applicable on solutions of earthy engineering problems (which is not any pure mathematics but seeming like mathematics since it involves some numerical calculations to the desired degree)

Correct, it is not mathematics so stop talking about mathematics as a whole.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
And no axioms of any human have so far proven successful in dealing with many problems especially in number theory that are still standing for thousands of years and many centuries

Outright false, the axiomatic system we have now has dealt with them and still is to this day.

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
I'm truly so disappointed about so many things in mathematics, FOR SURE
BKK

Instead of whining and complaining and being disappointed for the rest of your life... That is childish.
Instead of whining and begging over and over to get someone say "3" and when someone finally does say "3" you reply "HA HA HA HA... I don't believe in 3!" and I think you are stupid and I am smart because I made you say "3"... That is childish
Instead of saying you picked your axioms, everyone else picked their
axioms, but you demand everyone give up their axioms and use only your axioms... That is childish.
Instead of saying "Can't solve this problem", "That is illegal", "This doesn't exist", "That is a fiction", "FOR SURE!" which impresses and convinces no one, not even you... That is childish.
Why don't you do something that will make you happier and less disappointed and impress people and perhaps even get them to consider adopting your axioms?...
To do this you demonstrate that you have produced a detailed correct convincing solution to a very very hard problem.
Carefully choose a problem at the very limit of what you are able to do, but that you can demonstrate simply and exactly how to solve correctly. Show that this does not have only a trivial solution or no solution.
If any part of that spends time whining about how everyone else's axioms are wrong and they must use yours or any part of that has any tiny mistake then that will discredit you and your solution and your axioms.

I always talk about absolute facts that are so irrelevant to human perception or existence or any tools of axioms he/she usually makes in order to solve the proposed problems, where this may be applicable on solutions of earthy engineering problems (which is not any pure mathematics but seeming like mathematics since it involves some numerical calculations to the desired degree)
And no axioms of any human have so far proven successful in dealing with many problems especially in number theory that are still standing for thousands of years and many centuries
And, wonder if you are still unable to recognize any problem that I had completely solved even in this article just before your eyes! wonder!
And how further I can explain it to you in order to get the spoken idea? wonder!
OK, Let us try to simplify it again for everyone to make it require only a few seconds to get them (hopefully), wonder!
Consider AGAIN this INSOLVABLE DIOPHANTINE Eqn. (1)
[(N(m)]^3 = 2*[10^{m - 1}]^3 .... (1)
Any beginner in number theory would immediately realize and only from the first glance that Eqn. (1) has no existing integer solutions, (FINISHED)
And the oldest proof was taught in elementary schools due to the ancient Greeks in half a page or LESS, FOR SURE
[(N(m)/10^{m - 1}]^3 = 2, ...(2)
Cubrt(2) = N(m)/10^{m - 1}, ....(3),
Where N(m) is a natural number with (m) number of sequence digits in 10 base number system, for sure
But since the LHS of Eqn.(3) is defined irrational number and the RHS is always rational number, hence cubrt(2) isn't any existing real number FOR SURE
No matter however long is that decimal number for 2^{1/3} is expressed
Adding historically, the geometrical fact of imposibility of constructing EXACTLY such an alleged real number of cubrt(2), stated originally by ancient Greeks and proved by Wantzel (in 1836)
So to say, neither the notation of cubrt(2) exists as a real number nor its assumed in mind "endless decimal number" exists also
However, and since people needed that KIND of numbers to make a cube with a side to be with a size of two units, the skilled carpenters could also make it convenient even by trial and error and even before BC, FOR SURE
Does this fact needs any silly peer review? wonder!
Didn't you get it yourself? wonder!
But you know certainly the many bad effects upon modern mathematics of accepting such a non-real existing number of cubrt(2), FOR SURE
Ask if you still have any little doubt
And never blame me again, for sure
Bassam King Karzeddin

Oops, recently and since few days till yesterday we were concentrating on the OLD GREEK UNSOLVABLE PROBLEMS in other few threads, were a few hours ago *Mathologrt* has launched a new video proving the impossibility of those construction but most likely without the true reasoning of non-existence

Anyway, enjoy it since the guy is quite well-known for his interesting videos
Sure
BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
I'm truly so disappointed about so many things in mathematics, FOR SURE
BKK

Instead of whining and complaining and being disappointed for the rest of your life... That is childish.
Instead of whining and begging over and over to get someone say "3" and when someone finally does say "3" you reply "HA HA HA HA... I don't believe in 3!" and I think you are stupid and I am smart because I made you say "3"... That is childish
Instead of saying you picked your axioms, everyone else picked their
axioms, but you demand everyone give up their axioms and use only your axioms... That is childish.
Instead of saying "Can't solve this problem", "That is illegal", "This doesn't exist", "That is a fiction", "FOR SURE!" which impresses and convinces no one, not even you... That is childish.
Why don't you do something that will make you happier and less disappointed and impress people and perhaps even get them to consider adopting your axioms?...
To do this you demonstrate that you have produced a detailed correct convincing solution to a very very hard problem.
Carefully choose a problem at the very limit of what you are able to do, but that you can demonstrate simply and exactly how to solve correctly. Show that this does not have only a trivial solution or no solution.
If any part of that spends time whining about how everyone else's axioms are wrong and they must use yours or any part of that has any tiny mistake then that will discredit you and your solution and your axioms.

I always talk about absolute facts that are so irrelevant to human perception or existence or any tools of axioms he/she usually makes in order to solve the proposed problems, where this may be applicable on solutions of earthy engineering problems (which is not any pure mathematics but seeming like mathematics since it involves some numerical calculations to the desired degree)
And no axioms of any human have so far proven successful in dealing with many problems especially in number theory that are still standing for thousands of years and many centuries
And, wonder if you are still unable to recognize any problem that I had completely solved even in this article just before your eyes! wonder!
And how further I can explain it to you in order to get the spoken idea? wonder!
OK, Let us try to simplify it again for everyone to make it require only a few seconds to get them (hopefully), wonder!
Consider AGAIN this INSOLVABLE DIOPHANTINE Eqn. (1)
[(N(m)]^3 = 2*[10^{m - 1}]^3 .... (1)
Any beginner in number theory would immediately realize and only from the first glance that Eqn. (1) has no existing integer solutions, (FINISHED)
And the oldest proof was taught in elementary schools due to the ancient Greeks in half a page or LESS, FOR SURE
[(N(m)/10^{m - 1}]^3 = 2, ...(2)
Cubrt(2) = N(m)/10^{m - 1}, ....(3),
Where N(m) is a natural number with (m) number of sequence digits in 10 base number system, for sure
But since the LHS of Eqn.(3) is defined irrational number and the RHS is always rational number, hence cubrt(2) isn't any existing real number FOR SURE
No matter however long is that decimal number for 2^{1/3} is expressed
Adding historically, the geometrical fact of imposibility of constructing EXACTLY such an alleged real number of cubrt(2), stated originally by ancient Greeks and proved by Wantzel (in 1836)
So to say, neither the notation of cubrt(2) exists as a real number nor its assumed in mind "endless decimal number" exists also
However, and since people needed that KIND of numbers to make a cube with a side to be with a size of two units, the skilled carpenters could also make it convenient even by trial and error and even before BC, FOR SURE
Does this fact needs any silly peer review? wonder!
Didn't you get it yourself? wonder!
But you know certainly the many bad effects upon modern mathematics of accepting such a non-real existing number of cubrt(2), FOR SURE
Ask if you still have any little doubt
And never blame me again, for sure
Bassam King Karzeddin

Oops, recently and since few days till yesterday we were concentrating on the OLD GREEK UNSOLVABLE PROBLEMS in other few threads, were a few hours ago *Mathologrt* has launched a new video proving the impossibility of those construction but most likely without the true reasoning of non-existence
Anyway, enjoy it since the guy is quite well-known for his interesting videos
Sure
BKK

lINK BELOW

BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

Despite making 2 comments few hours ago, where my PC or Mobile shows me that they are on the top comments, where hundreds of comments were added by many others about generally liking this vidio, where also no replies or anything else to my classified top comments, which makes one wonder if my comments were even allowed to be visible by anyone else except myself
So, can someone please confirm my doubts, where this isn't the first case with the aut6hor of this vidio, sure
Thanks
BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

Is it possible? Wonder!

Nobody is coperating to tell me wither my comments are just visible or not on the TOP? Wonder!
The whole task would take only few seconds from any volunteer for sure, since this would help me not to waste my time with such videos, to enlighten the mainstream about this issue, sure
BKK

[Simply Curious]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Is it possible? Wonder!
Nobody is coperating to tell me wither my comments are just visible or not on the TOP? Wonder!
The whole task would take only few seconds from any volunteer for sure, since this would help me not to waste my time with such videos, to enlighten the mainstream about this issue, sure
BKK

Oh wow you cared about it that much? No, your comment is not on the top and thank god for that.

[Simply Curious]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Is it possible? Wonder!
Nobody is coperating to tell me wither my comments are just visible or not on the TOP? Wonder!
The whole task would take only few seconds from any volunteer for sure, since this would help me not to waste my time with such videos, to enlighten the mainstream about this issue, sure
BKK

Of course... whenever you type your own comment, it is automatically highlighted for you at the top, because, you know, it is yours, and you might need to have easy access to reply to comments. It is not on the top for everyone else.

Did you really not know this?

[bassam king karzeddin]

In any case, did you at least see them
Thanks
Bkk

[Simply Curious]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
In any case, did you at least see them
Thanks
Bkk

No, and I scrolled quite a bit using Ctrl-F finder.

You see them at the top because everywhere comment you write it is automatically at the top when viewed from your account.

[bassam king karzeddin]

Thanks
That's my point that I suspected seriously, my comments are never allowed to be visible by others, since then specialist would know how easy polgarisim can be made by well-know acadimic people like this Mythbloger, where the producers of this Video are in full controll to show the so innocent minds whatever would go for their favourite, and immediately hide any things of importance that would simply expose their entire hidden motives behid this video, and of course this is never, any fair to the majority of those too innocent minds who generally have to be so impressed by such a wounerful talents at the same time some else like myself trying too hard to make the mere fact of the whole issue too clear even to the fools
So to say, this truly a new kind of big war against the true knowledge ever made before by the guards of ignorance, For Sure
Bkk

[Simply Curious]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Thanks
That's my point that I suspected seriously, my comments are never allowed to be visible by others, since then specialist would know how easy polgarisim can be made by well-know acadimic people like this Mythbloger, where the producers of this Video are in full controll to show the so innocent minds whatever would go for their favourite, and immediately hide any things of importance that would simply expose their entire hidden motives behid this video, and of course this is never, any fair to the majority of those too innocent minds who generally have to be so impressed by such a wounerful talents at the same time some else like myself trying too hard to make the mere fact of the whole issue too clear even to the fools
So to say, this truly a new kind of big war against the true knowledge ever made before by the guards of ignorance, For Sure
Bkk

So you are saying, "COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONSPIRACY"

I am saying many people leave comments. What are the odds yours are the top and easily seen?

Hint: Low.

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by Simply Curious

Post by bassam king karzeddin
In any case, did you at least see them
Thanks
Bkk

No, and I scrolled quite a bit using Ctrl-F finder.
You see them at the top because everywhere comment you write it is automatically at the top when viewed from your account.

You said No, i.e my comments were not visible to a searcher, despite the first was quite long as here exactly what I wrote:

"I like your videos, sure
Does the author know that the real number of the cube root of two was proven rigorously as a non-existing number on the real number line, What do I mean exactly that it was assumed in advance as a real number (and exactly like the number pi), but without any historical proof, mainly due to their real needs first and secondly due to the very high density of the real constructible numbers on the number line, where generally any suitable approximation would convince a layperson that was indeed a real number, whereas the very bitter fact can easily be proven by too elementary methods to prove that nither cube root of two nor the (pi) are ever any real existing numbers (except in human minds), so much of articles written freely there on sci.math immoderate site where generally professional mathematicians do hide these very sensitive issues from innocent public minds in moderated or official sites for mathematics since they do strictly contradict their own old and wrong beliefs about the issue,
Noting that, those two numbers weren't truly understood by the ancient Greeks, since if they were correctly understood as being no numbers, then definitely we would have never heard about their three most famous in the history of mathematics that isn't well-understood up to this moment correctly, many more issues are also more thrilling to know were proved in my public profiles and a few others as well,
Recently, a genius scientist and notable mathematicians were announcing loudly that no true circle exists, and (pi) isn't a number, (all there on sci.math)


Here is only one link out of too many to the story of fiction number like cube root of two
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.math/xi40c_erOQc
Good luck everybody with the hardest undesirable facts, FOR SURE
Regards
Bassam Karzeddin"

And the second one is:

"I forgot to add this important note I think, the impossibility of constructing such numbers like (2^{1/3} and (pi) ) was actually due to their non-existence, where the tools of constructions stated by the Greek rules are never important since basically the issue is discovered EXACT existing mathematical objects rather than constructing it by any means, hence all the other alleged methods of exact constructions are in fact pure approximations that never ends but may be considered appropriate for a layperson, (in short they are false), since it is indeed impossible to construct something basically non-existing even by any other tools, sure"

And they are on the top comments by classifying the comments, and not because you say, everybody comments must appear on the top since this becoming a clear cheat
My observation is that everything is under control to what others must see, it could be the case with many others whom we don't see their comments too, and if they don't like our comments, then simply they can hide it frankly where a commenter knows this fact and not simply by cheating him and making him believe that his or her comments are viewable

Because one may simply observe too many short comments with no information content and the type of joke comments are very much viewable and with many replies and so, then how come to very informative comments like mine not to receive so many dislikes at least? Wonder!

I don't know if my reply here is even viewable? wonder!

Yes, mathematics is escaping from the free equal ground competition generally in the biggest issues, FOR SURE

BKK

[Simply Curious]

Question: what is your youtube username?

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by Simply Curious
Question: what is your youtube username?

Bassam Karzeddin

[Simply Curious]

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Simply Curious
Question: what is your youtube username?

Bassam Karzeddin

Can you send a full screenshot of the comment with the relative comments near it?

If it is someone removing it, they are blind to a lot of stuff I am seeing...

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by Simply Curious

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Simply Curious
Question: what is your youtube username?

Bassam Karzeddin

Can you send a full screenshot of the comment with the relative comments near it?
If it is someone removing it, they are blind to a lot of stuff I am seeing...

Well I wanted to print the page in order to a pdf copy, but that seems not permissible, Anyway, I copied the page and let me try to paste it here if possible
*********************
Today's video is about the resolution of four problems that remained open for over 2000 years from when they were first puzzled over in ancient Greece: Is it possible, just using an ideal mathematical ruler and an ideal mathematical compass, to double cubes, trisect angles, construct regular heptagons, or to square circles? Towards the end of a pure maths degree students often have to survive a "boss" course on Galois theory and somewhere in this course they are presented with proofs that it is actually not possible to accomplish any of those four troublesome tasks. These proofs are easy consequences of the very general tools that are developed in Galois theory. However, taken in isolation, it is actually possible to present proofs that don't require much apart from a certain familiarity with simple proofs by contradiction of the type used to show that numbers like root 2 are irrational. I've been meaning to publish a nice exposition of these "simple" proofs ever since my own Galois theory days (a long, long time ago. Finally, today is the day :) For some more background reading I recommend: 1. chapter 3 of the book "What is mathematics?" by Courant and Robbins (in general this is a great book and a must read for anybody interested in beautiful maths). 2. The textbook "Field theory and its classical problems" by Hadlock (everything I talk about and much more, but you need a fairly strong background in maths for this one). Here is a great two-page summary by the mathematician Drew Armstrong of what is going on in this video http://www.math.miami.edu/~armstrong/... Here is a derivation of the cubic polynomial for the regular heptagon construction by (I think) the mathematician Reinhard Schultz http://math.ucr.edu/~res/math153/s10/... (there is a little typo towards the bottom of the page. It should be 8 cos^3 theta + 4 cos^2 theta - (!) 4 cos theta -1 = 0. Replace cos theta by x and you get the cubic equation I mention in the video. ) Here is an interesting paper that explores why Wantzel's results did not get recognised during his lifetime https://www.sciencedirect.com/science... Thank you to Marty and Karl for your help with creating this video. And thank you to Cleon Teunissen for pointing out that the picture of Pierre Wantzel that I use in this video is actually not showing Pierre Wantzel but rather Gustave Gaspard de Coriolis who was also a mathematician and lived around the same time as Pierre Wantzel. It appears that whenever there does not exist an actual picture of some person Google and other internet gods simply declare some more or less random picture to be the real thing. See also this page by the SciFi writer Greg Egan whose made sure that no actual picture of himself is to be found on the internet: https://www.gregegan.net/images/GregE... Enjoy! Burkard
SHOW MORE
701 Comments
SORT BY

Add a public comment...

bassam karzeddin23 hours ago
I like your videos, sure Does the author know that the real number of the cube root of two was proven rigorously as a non-existing number on the real number line, What do I mean exactly that it was assumed in advance as a real number (and exactly like the number pi), but without any historical proof, mainly due to their real needs first and secondly due to the very high density of the real constructible numbers on the number line, where generally any suitable approximation would convince a layperson that was indeed a real number, whereas the very bitter fact can easily be proven by too elementary methods to prove that nither cube root of two nor the (pi) are ever any real existing numbers (except in human minds), so much of articles written freely there on sci.math immoderate site where generally professional mathematicians do hide these very sensitive issues from innocent public minds in moderated or official sites for mathematics since they do strictly contradict their own old and wrong beliefs about the issue, Noting that, those two numbers weren't truly understood by the ancient Greeks, since if they were correctly understood as being no numbers, then definitely we would have never heard about their three most famous in the history of mathematics that isn't well-understood up to this moment correctly, many more issues are also more thrilling to know were proved in my public profiles and a few others as well, Recently, a genius scientist and notable mathematicians were announcing loudly that no true circle exists, and (pi) isn't a number, (all there on sci.math) Here is only one link out of too many to the story of fiction number like cube root of two https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.math/xi40c_erOQc Good luck everybody with the hardest undesirable facts, FOR SURE Regards Bassam Karzeddin
Read more
REPLY
Hide replies

bassam karzeddin23 hours ago
I forgot to add this important note I think, the impossibility of constructing such numbers like (2^{1/3} and (pi) ) was actually due to their non-existence, where the tools of constructions stated by the Greek rules are never important since basically the issue is discovered EXACT existing mathematical objects rather than constructing it by any means, hence all the other alleged methods of exact constructions are in fact pure approximations that never ends but may be considered appropriate for a layperson, (in short they are false), since it is indeed impossible to construct something basically non-existing even by any other tools, sure
Show less
REPLY
but you see images don't appear

BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Simply Curious

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Simply Curious
Question: what is your youtube username?

Bassam Karzeddin

Can you send a full screenshot of the comment with the relative comments near it?
If it is someone removing it, they are blind to a lot of stuff I am seeing...

Well I wanted to print the page in order to a pdf copy, but that seems not permissible, Anyway, I copied the page and let me try to paste it here if possible
*********************
Today's video is about the resolution of four problems that remained open for over 2000 years from when they were first puzzled over in ancient Greece: Is it possible, just using an ideal mathematical ruler and an ideal mathematical compass, to double cubes, trisect angles, construct regular heptagons, or to square circles? Towards the end of a pure maths degree students often have to survive a "boss" course on Galois theory and somewhere in this course they are presented with proofs that it is actually not possible to accomplish any of those four troublesome tasks. These proofs are easy consequences of the very general tools that are developed in Galois theory. However, taken in isolation, it is actually possible to present proofs that don't require much apart from a certain familiarity with simple proofs by contradiction of the type used to show that numbers like root 2 are irrational. I've been meaning to publish a nice exposition of these "simple" proofs ever since my own Galois theory days (a long, long time ago. Finally, today is the day :) For some more background reading I recommend: 1. chapter 3 of the book "What is mathematics?" by Courant and Robbins (in general this is a great book and a must read for anybody interested in beautiful maths). 2. The textbook "Field theory and its classical problems" by Hadlock (everything I talk about and much more, but you need a fairly strong background in maths for this one). Here is a great two-page summary by the mathematician Drew Armstrong of what is going on in this video http://www.math.miami.edu/~armstrong/... Here is a derivation of the cubic polynomial for the regular heptagon construction by (I think) the mathematician Reinhard Schultz http://math.ucr.edu/~res/math153/s10/... (there is a little typo towards the bottom of the page. It should be 8 cos^3 theta + 4 cos^2 theta - (!) 4 cos theta -1 = 0. Replace cos theta by x and you get the cubic equation I mention in the video. ) Here is an interesting paper that explores why Wantzel's results did not get recognised during his lifetime https://www.sciencedirect.com/science... Thank you to Marty and Karl for your help with creating this video. And thank you to Cleon Teunissen for pointing out that the picture of Pierre Wantzel that I use in this video is actually not showing Pierre Wantzel but rather Gustave Gaspard de Coriolis who was also a mathematician and lived around the same time as Pierre Wantzel. It appears that whenever there does not exist an actual picture of some person Google and other internet gods simply declare some more or less random picture to be the real thing. See also this page by the SciFi writer Greg Egan whose made sure that no actual picture of himself is to be found on the internet: https://www.gregegan.net/images/GregE... Enjoy! Burkard
SHOW MORE
701 Comments
SORT BY
Add a public comment...
bassam karzeddin23 hours ago
I like your videos, sure Does the author know that the real number of the cube root of two was proven rigorously as a non-existing number on the real number line, What do I mean exactly that it was assumed in advance as a real number (and exactly like the number pi), but without any historical proof, mainly due to their real needs first and secondly due to the very high density of the real constructible numbers on the number line, where generally any suitable approximation would convince a layperson that was indeed a real number, whereas the very bitter fact can easily be proven by too elementary methods to prove that nither cube root of two nor the (pi) are ever any real existing numbers (except in human minds), so much of articles written freely there on sci.math immoderate site where generally professional mathematicians do hide these very sensitive issues from innocent public minds in moderated or official sites for mathematics since they do strictly contradict their own old and wrong beliefs about the issue, Noting that, those two numbers weren't truly understood by the ancient Greeks, since if they were correctly understood as being no numbers, then definitely we would have never heard about their three most famous in the history of mathematics that isn't well-understood up to this moment correctly, many more issues are also more thrilling to know were proved in my public profiles and a few others as well, Recently, a genius scientist and notable mathematicians were announcing loudly that no true circle exists, and (pi) isn't a number, (all there on sci.math) Here is only one link out of too many to the story of fiction number like cube root of two https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.math/xi40c_erOQc Good luck everybody with the hardest undesirable facts, FOR SURE Regards Bassam Karzeddin
Read more
REPLY
Hide replies
bassam karzeddin23 hours ago
I forgot to add this important note I think, the impossibility of constructing such numbers like (2^{1/3} and (pi) ) was actually due to their non-existence, where the tools of constructions stated by the Greek rules are never important since basically the issue is discovered EXACT existing mathematical objects rather than constructing it by any means, hence all the other alleged methods of exact constructions are in fact pure approximations that never ends but may be considered appropriate for a layperson, (in short they are false), since it is indeed impossible to construct something basically non-existing even by any other tools, sure
Show less
REPLY
but you see images don't appear
BKK

So to say, this is why such a Math blogger had hidden my comments without even letting me know but instead by cheating me always that your own comments are kept on the top comments where only (me and he) can read

But he can delete my comment frankly and bravely by my own knowledge, but why didn't he act normally in this regard? wonder!

Truly jugglers of mathematics are too lucky with such idiots audiences by millions where then all kind of brainwash can be simply practised on them with their agreements and being so happy and excited too, no wonder!
BKK

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Post by Simply Curious

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Simply Curious
Question: what is your youtube username?

Bassam Karzeddin

Can you send a full screenshot of the comment with the relative comments near it?
If it is someone removing it, they are blind to a lot of stuff I am seeing...

I found this video on his YouTube:

I must be missing something but it seems like John is saying that:

f(x) = sin(x)/x

equals 1 when x is zero? This is not correct because that would be
dividing by zero, which is undefined. Oh well.

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by Chris M. Thomasson

Post by Simply Curious

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Simply Curious
Question: what is your youtube username?

Bassam Karzeddin

Can you send a full screenshot of the comment with the relative comments near it?
If it is someone removing it, they are blind to a lot of stuff I am seeing...

http://youtu.be/mYr1IlStncY
f(x) = sin(x)/x
equals 1 when x is zero? This is not correct because that would be
dividing by zero, which is undefined. Oh well.

For every well defined constructible *EXISTING* angle (x)
sin(x) =/= x, where zero is unreal human invented like a number that we must ignore or relay on in any fact we may wish to derive, hence,
sin(x)/x =/= 1, FOR SURE

However, most of the well-known angles in (OLD & MODERN) mathematics are non-existing and fiction angles as was simply proved in my relevant earlier posts, for surer
The butter we call them angels instead of angles
BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by Simply Curious

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Simply Curious
Question: what is your youtube username?

Bassam Karzeddin

Can you send a full screenshot of the comment with the relative comments near it?
If it is someone removing it, they are blind to a lot of stuff I am seeing...

No, they aren't blind at all, they are aware of what they do, they don't simply the fact to be revealed by others, if you note inside the video, they talk tangentially or indirectly that cube root of two isn't a number, they simply want to steal any super discovery to themselves in the near future, but later they keep juggling aimlessly about such impossible constructions by simply changing the rules, were changing the rules would never make dead objects to be alive again, or maybe they want to protect their earlier involvement with wrong mathematics teaching
They aren't simply one person but a group who keeps learning continuously from public free sources and make use of them without even confessing this fact, but on the contrary, they want to suppress any new big issues not originated from the highest sources for mathematics, or else, they would be forced to something they dislike as learning from what they consider as rubbish sources as here for example, and they know that if it happens once, then they would lose everything eventually
Those are simply the true jugglers of maths who want to keep running an endless business for the very sheep mainstream audiences they know far better, especially when they take them for around in the deep and far high dimensions where the sheep get so excited, sure
Otherwise, why do they hide my comments, and most likely other people unseen comments? wonder!
Can't they simply come here and defeat me instead? wonder!
But indeed, the sheep do always love the wolves and so for the wolves who are in love with the sheep, no wonder!
BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by Simply Curious

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by Simply Curious
Question: what is your youtube username?

Bassam Karzeddin

Can you send a full screenshot of the comment with the relative comments near it?
If it is someone removing it, they are blind to a lot of stuff I am seeing...

So, I showed you the case, can you or someone else add my same comments there? to check by himself wither this is truly a free site to comment or a selective and very biased site where they allow only things that are suitable for them, and most likely by fabrication or many devilish ways that aren't known to the innocent mainstream whatever? wonder!

They could simply delete my comments and inform me about it instead of cheating me like, OK, your comments are on the top

The reason is that they don't want to appear exactly as their facts, liars, anti-truth suppressors, jugglers and magicians, FOR SURE

And one more note, this is not the only case with them, where I discovered their ugly facts now, for sure
BKK

[Sergi o]

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

I'm truly so disappointed about so many things in mathematics, FOR SURE
BKK

a happy (-1)^(0.5) to you too!

[Dan Christensen]

More trolling from BKK...

Another Fake number...

Dear reader,

Are you fed up with trolls like this idiot BKK and his endless, repetitive torrents of abuse and misinformation? Join me at a new, lightly moderated math forum at Google Groups. Its open format promises to be a troll-free zone for serious discussions of mathematical topics at all levels.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sci-math-moderated

All can visit and read.


Dan

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

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by Dan Christensen
More trolling from BKK...

Another Fake number...

Dear reader,
Are you fed up with trolls like this idiot BKK and his endless, repetitive torrents of abuse and misinformation? Join me at a new, lightly moderated math forum at Google Groups. Its open format promises to be a troll-free zone for serious discussions of mathematical topics at all levels.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sci-math-moderated
All can visit and read.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

let us see if you still can comprehend a well-designed proof that is most suitable for school students, FOR SURE

But I doubt your ability, for surer
BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

2^{1/3}, fake, fake I mean strictly unreal number FOR SURE

No distance exactly associated with that number in the space of foolish minds only, sure

BKK

[Python]

BKK is King of Idiots.

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

I would like to guarantee full understanding by school kids to this issue, sure
BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

More examples of ghost non-numbers
This is an absolutely very wrong common practice among all mathematicians **Globally** I swear

Sin(pi/4) = cos(pi/4) = 0.7071067811865475244...

Simply because the **Rational-Decimal-Approximation** of an irrational number as [1/sqrt{2}] as (sine(pi/4), cos(pi/4) and one) are impossible to form any right angle triangle

See here how people simply get deceived by those **fake** non-existing alleged real numbers (with endless digital forms or terms) as [sin(pi/4) = cos(pi/4) = 0.7071067811865475244...), where those usually completed by meaningless three ellipses that means more and more digits or terms without any end

So, where is that right angle triangle with those alleged real numbers for legs of the triangle as sin and cosine of 45 degrees? wonder

So you are supposed to have a right angle triangle with equal legs and hypotenuse one as (1, 0.7071067811865475244..., 0.7071067811865475244...)

Of course, making similar triangles with integers are not forbidden in mathematics where your same triangle would seem like this (without affecting the angles FOR SURE), LIKE this:

(10^n, 7071067811865475244..., 7071067811865475244...), where (n) represents the natural number of accurate digits that **YOU** think would be suitable to make your right angle triangle true in the real sense of exactness meaning **strictly in mathematics**

So, start approximating and observe that your right angle triangle is an absolutely impossible achievement with more and more of those accurate digits you do usually believe in and exactly the same way that you're grand master mathematicians were so deceived like you are here

Look the first approximation with a triangle (10, 7, 7), where this is absolutely not any right angle triangle, since square differences (10^2 - 7^2 - 7^2 = 2), see the difference here is only 2

Try more accurate digits (in the hope that the difference get vanished ultimately), so consider the second approximation with a triangle
(100, 70, 70), and the square difference becomes (100^2 - 70^2 - 70^2 = 200 > 0)

Try more accurate digits say (3), with a triangle (1000, 707, 707), and still, the square differences must be exactly
(Hypotenious^2 - leg(1)^2 - leg(2)^2 = 0), but we actually have (1000^2 - 2*707^2 = 302 > 0), hence not a right angle triangle

***Important note: the difference is absolutely increasing with more digits of accuracy we may consider, where it is absolutely impossible to have a right angle triangle for sin and cosine of the pi/4 angle, just from the first look on the first digits you use***

Consider 10 accurate digits and check the difference of squares, please

for a triangle (10^10, 7071067811, 7071067811) and we have a much larger squre differences as (10^20 - 2*(7071067811)^2 = 24479336558 >> 0)

Do you want more, there are of course an endless number of pieces of evidence for our rarest claim ever made in the history of mathematics

Consider more accurate digits as with the same triangle:
( 10^19, 7071067811865475244, 7071067811865475244) and the square differences that make it impossible to form the right angle triangle becomes much larger as here (10^38 - 2*(7071067811865475244)^2 = 238821668046280928 >>>> 0)

But that doesn't mean at all that the angle (pi/4 = 45 degrees) don't exist since it is indeed existing constructible angle with exact terms as real irrational constructible numbers as:
sin(pi/4) = cos(pi/4) = 1/sqrt{2} =/= 0.7071067811865475244...

So what are those unfinished numbers generally completed by the most foolish notation of three ellipses or dots as those (0.7071067811865475244...)? WONDER!

As for years by now, we are teaching you freeeeeeeeeeely here that those are non-existing and fake numbers (as simple as that)

since **true** existing real irrational numbers (named as constructible numbers in mathematics) are impossible to be equated absolutely with a rational-decimal form number no matter however large size you are capable to present it

Now, wise clever school students are kindly requested to explain this simple mere fact to their own teachers in details, where their teachers have to go immediately to their alleged best masters in order to correct many huge errors where their greatest living masters are kindly requested to come here before the true "KING" to learn more about more **bitter** important lessons that had never occurred to their so **delusional** minds, FOR SURE

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

**Note that for non-mathematical works as carpentry and engineering, no harm of approximating things since, in practice, most of those problems never require any perfection that only and strictly mathematics require**

So to say, it is not at all advisable for the expert professional mathematicians to mimic exactly the carpenters and the engineering problem solving and hide very foolishly under their protection

Mathematicians must be finally liberated from all the imposed things on mathematics by many others sciences under so many practical issues that require a little drop of mathematics

Let see who can understand this old repeated long lesson? Wonder!

BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

More examples of ghost non-numbers
This is an absolutely very wrong common practice among all mathematicians **Globally** I swear
Sin(pi/4) = cos(pi/4) = 0.7071067811865475244...
Simply because the **Rational-Decimal-Approximation** of an irrational number as [1/sqrt{2}] as (sine(pi/4), cos(pi/4) and one) are impossible to form any right angle triangle
See here how people simply get deceived by those **fake** non-existing alleged real numbers (with endless digital forms or terms) as [sin(pi/4) = cos(pi/4) = 0.7071067811865475244...), where those usually completed by meaningless three ellipses that means more and more digits or terms without any end
So, where is that right angle triangle with those alleged real numbers for legs of the triangle as sin and cosine of 45 degrees? wonder
So you are supposed to have a right angle triangle with equal legs and hypotenuse one as (1, 0.7071067811865475244..., 0.7071067811865475244...)
(10^n, 7071067811865475244..., 7071067811865475244...), where (n) represents the natural number of accurate digits that **YOU** think would be suitable to make your right angle triangle true in the real sense of exactness meaning **strictly in mathematics**
So, start approximating and observe that your right angle triangle is an absolutely impossible achievement with more and more of those accurate digits you do usually believe in and exactly the same way that you're grand master mathematicians were so deceived like you are here
Look the first approximation with a triangle (10, 7, 7), where this is absolutely not any right angle triangle, since square differences (10^2 - 7^2 - 7^2 = 2), see the difference here is only 2
Try more accurate digits (in the hope that the difference get vanished ultimately), so consider the second approximation with a triangle
(100, 70, 70), and the square difference becomes (100^2 - 70^2 - 70^2 = 200 > 0)
Try more accurate digits say (3), with a triangle (1000, 707, 707), and still, the square differences must be exactly
(Hypotenious^2 - leg(1)^2 - leg(2)^2 = 0), but we actually have (1000^2 - 2*707^2 = 302 > 0), hence not a right angle triangle
***Important note: the difference is absolutely increasing with more digits of accuracy we may consider, where it is absolutely impossible to have a right angle triangle for sin and cosine of the pi/4 angle, just from the first look on the first digits you use***
Consider 10 accurate digits and check the difference of squares, please
for a triangle (10^10, 7071067811, 7071067811) and we have a much larger squre differences as (10^20 - 2*(7071067811)^2 = 24479336558 >> 0)
Do you want more, there are of course an endless number of pieces of evidence for our rarest claim ever made in the history of mathematics
( 10^19, 7071067811865475244, 7071067811865475244) and the square differences that make it impossible to form the right angle triangle becomes much larger as here (10^38 - 2*(7071067811865475244)^2 = 238821668046280928 >>>> 0)
sin(pi/4) = cos(pi/4) = 1/sqrt{2} =/= 0.7071067811865475244...
So what are those unfinished numbers generally completed by the most foolish notation of three ellipses or dots as those (0.7071067811865475244...)? WONDER!
As for years by now, we are teaching you freeeeeeeeeeely here that those are non-existing and fake numbers (as simple as that)
since **true** existing real irrational numbers (named as constructible numbers in mathematics) are impossible to be equated absolutely with a rational-decimal form number no matter however large size you are capable to present it
Now, wise clever school students are kindly requested to explain this simple mere fact to their own teachers in details, where their teachers have to go immediately to their alleged best masters in order to correct many huge errors where their greatest living masters are kindly requested to come here before the true "KING" to learn more about more **bitter** important lessons that had never occurred to their so **delusional** minds, FOR SURE
*************************
**Note that for non-mathematical works as carpentry and engineering, no harm of approximating things since, in practice, most of those problems never require any perfection that only and strictly mathematics require**
So to say, it is not at all advisable for the expert professional mathematicians to mimic exactly the carpenters and the engineering problem solving and hide very foolishly under their protection
Mathematicians must be finally liberated from all the imposed things on mathematics by many others sciences under so many practical issues that require a little drop of mathematics
Let see who can understand this old repeated long lesson? Wonder!
BKK

Good that I could finally design this kind of software especially for mathematicians, where at least they don't object, where also their objections or silence (if at all existing) is too meaningless FOR SURE
BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

And if sqrt(2) originally was legalized only and strictly by the Pythagorean theorem as being a number distance of the exact diagonal of a square with unity side and nothing else, then what another theorem in mathematics (if at all existing) would have legalized the real cube root of two? wonder!

It was the only naive primitive conclusions due to the high density of real constructible numbers on the real number line that supported that wrong conclusion (cheating the human minds by picking up another real constructible number that practically makes you feel so close to that alleged real root that can never exist by any means in accordance with too elementary proofs besides the Fermat's last theorem as well)

So to say, (1^3 + 1^3 = (no existing distance side)^3), for sure
But how can you reach this fact even after hundreds of free lectures on this issue)? Wonder

How can I reduce the gap to make you simply understand this ever simplist fact? no wonder!
OR truly, didn't you realize it but too secretly as always as usual? wonder!

Or do you think only aliens can understand such simple facts? wonder!

I can't truly and very frankly believe so far the limit of stupidity among the mainstream global professional mathematicians, for sure

Now, the stupidity itself and strictly among the alleged top-most "living" professional mathematicians on earth is truly another biggest puzzle for me to explore too deeply in order to solve it and save the mathematicians and all coming generations from its perpetual lasting curse upon the human minds

Since deads are forgiven from this global confrontation about facts

Are there truly invisible Devils behind this tragedic situation? wonder!

Or was it a kind of black magic that was practised upon human minds for unseen reasons to keep them away from devils action on the dark? wonder!

But this is truly abnormal stupidity that can't be hidden anymore for sure
since facts had been already launched globally and in all directions to hit their hidden targets precisely, no matter where they are hiding under the ground or swimming freely in their too far galaxies and fake paradise where you or even me can't help it to clock back the time and cover it as before

Of course, screams and shouting are becoming heard and clearer than before where it seems that people tend to group in two directions where one must survive in any case
So, you have the choice to take the side of the absolute truth and you have the other choice to stand against it where you would be completely responsible for your own choice at the end
And since the black magic that had been practised for so long centuries upon you mercilessly where this was completely damaged by the "KING" and few others as well, then you have to choose the right choice or else would lose everything in this issue

And don't let that little piece of earthy sweet that you have obtained make you bias in your final choice since BIGGER ISSUES are about to be launched again in all directions where then you would find no place (deep under the ground or even in the far space) to safely hide and run away with your sins

And for those too delusional or acting and pretending so with no wight to consider since eventually, they would follow what a wise authority would ultimately decide in accordance with a wonderful piece of evidence that is impossible to hide by the spiders' threads any more, FOR SURE
BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

So to say, who dares to say frankly and openly (with true identity name) that (she/he) has finally grasped those real fake numbers? wonder!

And who dares to say that only Fermat's last theorem refutes their entire existence on the real number line, FOR SURE

And the absolute *FACTS* would keep hammering your so HOLLOWED heads untill you completely *surrender* FOR SURE
BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

Post by bassam king karzeddin

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

So to say, who dares to say frankly and openly (with true identity name) that (she/he) has finally grasped those real fake numbers? wonder!
And who dares to say that only Fermat's last theorem refutes their entire existence on the real number line, FOR SURE
And the absolute *FACTS* would keep hammering your so HOLLOWED heads untill you completely *surrender* FOR SURE
BKK

Good that nobody dares so far, for sure
BKK

[bassam karzeddin]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

Let us say, cube root two is an artificial number of many uncountable numbers of those of human mind make (based sometimes on their carpentry needs) but never a true discovery or exactly existing since they are fairy human mind numbers presented approximately in a constructible form

However, nobody has ever constructed them exactly nor will be and with the Greeks tools or with any other means since they are non-existing distances relative to any arbitrary existing unity distance, and FOR SURE

And with this fact, the old problem of the Greek about the impossibility of doubling the cube was completely solved for the first time after nearly 2700 years

But the main problem is that the entire mathematical negligible world don't ever like those problems to be solved forever since they would take them back to the early start of mathematics by the circle where they could never understand that circle doesn't exist but regular existing polygons that seem to them like a circle

However, there was no formula for the circle discovered but hundreds of formulas for regular existing polygons

Congratulations mathematicians and alike with this greatest breakthrough that you keep denying constantly for day and night, FOR SURE

Bassam Karzeddin

[Mike Hart]

You are two centuries late, dude.

[bassam karzeddin]

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Another Fake number, (the cube root of two)
Consider the real number cubrt(2) which is widely believed as an existing real number on the real number line, this was the second most famous number after (Pi), that had been incomprehensible by the ancient mathematicians, especially by the Greek, where simply they had proven rigorously the impossibility of such number, by their most famous three impossible puzzles, (trisecting an arbitrary angle, squaring the circle, and doubling the cube), which are all impossible to solve.
(n^3 / m^3 = 2) Eqn. (1)
And let us see how this holy grail of mathematics was provoked intentionally by the most famous mathematicians in later stages, just to keep adding infinitely many fake non existing numbers and create huge volumes of fake misleading mathematics that eventually would certainly come to a dead end.
See the so clear cheating in mathematics made by the most famous mathematicians those days,
Eqn. (1) is impossible, therefore anything that is derived or comes out of it!
(cubrt(2) = n/m), whereas this fact must be (cubrt(2) =/= n/m)
And the silly trick they rely on is that, if they can convince the so innocent (as you) that there is nearly a solution, then they could pass their dirty talents into your skulls, since this rarely can be noticed,
Betraying the Queen of science and so many generations to come (so unbelievable crime in the history of mathematics)
And then, they introduced the new concept as being degree of accuracy (where they can present a long numbers after the decimal notation to cheat and convince you how close is it ) to indicate that well established fake number that never exists, but what they actually claim that exists behind (what was later called infinity), ignoring the so simple and rigorous proof by the Greek, of the impossibility of such number
Some would argue that the problem was actually constructing of the cubrt(2), using unmarked straight edge and a compass with finite number of steps, which was impossible, (true), but the Greek never knew the actual valid reason of such impossibility, because the deep deception of (Pi) as being an existing real number on the number line
And some would argue that construction can be made by other means as Origami, but I would tell them the truth that must be clear cheating, even they might be able to construct a cube root of a given cube number, which is not interesting at all, but cheating and business making
The fact that you cannot construct the cube root of two by any means with finite number of steps is due to its non existing or being fake and fiction number (introduced devilishly by old mathematicians just to pass their unnecessarily talents and was purely a intuitive conclusion without any rigorous proof as the case of sqrt(2) which was proved rigorously
For simplicity, the representation in our decimal 10 base number here for cubrt(2), (m = 10^k), where (k) is positive integer, and ( n ) is positive integer with (k + 1) digits, so like this if you keep increasing (k), you think that you are getting closer and closer to the assumed mind number, but to get it exactly, you would need (k) to be increased indefinitely , same for (n, m ), then you would arrive at the so obvious contradictions,
First, this is impossible to achieve because no largest integer exists, and second, (integers with endless digits are not accepted in mathematics), (this proof is basically a common sense proof, no need to use all those called advanced mathematics or modern tools, as the set theories, famous cuts, intermediate theorem, Newton’s approximations, limits, infinity, … etc),
And yes it is a fake number beyond doubt.
For interested school students to comprehend this clear fiction story in mathematics, better try it yourself with numerical approximation to any digits of accuracy starting in increasing order as specified above,
Then you would certainly conclude those illusions or fiction stories in mathematics yourself provided that you insist on the absolute meaning of exactness and never be satisfied with “this is enough”.
But for practical problems on earth, this constructible approximation may be convenient (but constructible), so this is the fact
You should consider the following points
1) It does not matter if you make it in any other constructible base number system
2) It does not matter if you choose (n, m) as any positive constructible numbers
3) This is applicable and includes all the irrational numbers (that are not constructible numbers) as being fake non existing numbers on the real number line
4) This is applicable to any infinite representation of any constructible numbers
5) No number exists with endless terms (with or without a decimal notation)
Thanking your tolerance for my opinion in those matters
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
9th, Nov., 2016

We have another too elementary and very rigorous proof for this proven fact that is most suitable for mid-school students FOR SURE

But I FEEL too lazy to write it for all academic imbeciles who never like the truth to raise up again FOR SURE
BKK

[Dan Christensen]

Post by bassam karzeddin
We have another too elementary and very rigorous proof for this proven fact that is most suitable for mid-school students FOR SURE
But I FEEL too lazy to write it for all academic imbeciles who never like the truth to raise up again FOR SURE
BKK

From Psycho Troll BKK who also wrote here:

“Those many challenges of mine (in my posts) weren't actually designed for human beings, but for the future artificial beings that would certainly replace them not far away from now, for sure.”
-- BKK, Dec. 6, 2017

"The Devils deeds that are strictly and basically sourced from mathematicians like humans, FOR SURE!"
-- BKK, June 11, 2020 *** NEW ***

“You know certainly that I'm the man, and more specially the KING who is going to upside down most of your current false mathematics for all future generations.”
-- BKK, Nov. 22, 2018

“Despite thousands of years of continuous juggling and false definitions of what is truly the real number, they [us carbon-based lifeforms?] truly don't want to understand it as was discovered strictly by the *KING* [BKK Himself!]”
-- BKK, Nov. 28, 2019

“I don't believe even in one being a number”
-- BKK, Dec. 31, 2019

Math failure, BKK, doesn't believe in negative numbers, zero, one or numbers like pi and root 2. He doesn't even believe in 40 degree angles or circles. Simple speed-distance-time problems seem to be impossible for him. Really!

Needless to say his own goofy little system is getting nowhere and never will. As such he is insanely jealous of wildly successful mainstream mathematics. He seems to believe these super-intelligent artificial beings of his will somehow be enlisting his aid to "reform" mathematics worldwide when they take over the planet in the near future. He is truly delusional.


Dan

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

[Mitch Raemsch]

Null math is not a quantity... but it is together with quantity
necessary for building all bases except the unlimited.