What is (e/pi) in modern mathematics? wonder!

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Big Hint: remove both decimals notations from (e & pi) to estimate (e/pi) to avoid any confusions

OMG! My calculator blew up when I tried to divide e/pi!!!

But seriously folks, I got 0.8652559794

Get a life Crank Boy.

Dan

bassam king karzeddin

2017-05-27 09:20:17 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Big Hint: remove both decimals notations from (e & pi) to estimate (e/pi) to avoid any confusions

OMG! My calculator blew up when I tried to divide e/pi!!!
But seriously folks, I got 0.8652559794
Get a life Crank Boy.
Dan

Always clueless Troll Dan, for sure

The same naive question was asked at Quora at the same time, with (nearly 3000 views) and (11) answers out of which (10) are collapsed answers since they were so foolishly of the same type and standard of this response provided here by innocent Crank Dan.C.

In fact, not only Dan but so many of alike with that so naive understanding to what is the real meaning of a number

At Quora, I had invented so many sorts of Questions and through a long period with so many critiques to the common professional thinking, until finally, people started asking almost the same type of questions where the recent professional answers are also avoiding the gaps I used to point out,

And this is not the end, but so many Wiki pages had been (added, modified, ...etc), and apart from secret researchers topic that you might here bout it soon

However, the question content is so obvious and reveals the contradictions
in mathematics about very basic principle of definition of a number

For non mathematicians, a common answer as provided here by Dan would be convenient if it is required to approximate solution to a simple practical problem

But for a truly a math man, it is indeed a scandal, then HOW?

(e/Pi = (2.7182818284...)/(3.1415926535...) = (0.865255979433...)

Of course, you can remove the decimal notations in order to carry out the division operation since this does not alter the content answer

So, here it is for you again and again and again ... (until you get it), and urgently teach your teacher about it, wonder!

(e/Pi = (27182818284...)/(31415926535...) = (0.865255979433...)

BUT you know that ellipses dots means infinite (endless)

And hence, you are ultimately approximating the ratio of two integers where each of them consists of infinite sequence of integers

But mathematics in principles doesn't define that kind of infinite integers

Thus the ratio (being with endless digits) is also nonsense meaning, (undefined)
And thus, for any number with endless digits (with or without a decimal notations) is certainly a meaningless nonsense and fiction number for sure

Someone might think that if maths define that infinite integer with infinite sequences of digits (each as unique string of digits as a distinct infinity), but truly this would lead you to be more astray

It follows directly that those fiction integers can not exist because infinity itself is a nonexistence, otherwise, those integers would have been defined long ago

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
May 27, 2017

bassam king karzeddin

2017-05-27 09:22:31 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Big Hint: remove both decimals notations from (e & pi) to estimate (e/pi) to avoid any confusions

OMG! My calculator blew up when I tried to divide e/pi!!!
But seriously folks, I got 0.8652559794
Get a life Crank Boy.
Dan

Always clueless Troll Dan, for sure

https://www.quora.com/What-is-e-pi-in-mathematics

Post by bassam king karzeddin
The same naive question was asked at Quora at the same time, with (nearly 3000 views) and (11) answers out of which (10) are collapsed answers since they were so foolishly of the same type and standard of this response provided here by innocent Crank Dan.C.
In fact, not only Dan but so many of alike with that so naive understanding to what is the real meaning of a number
At Quora, I had invented so many sorts of Questions and through a long period with so many critiques to the common professional thinking, until finally, people started asking almost the same type of questions where the recent professional answers are also avoiding the gaps I used to point out,
And this is not the end, but so many Wiki pages had been (added, modified, ...etc), and apart from secret researchers topic that you might here bout it soon
However, the question content is so obvious and reveals the contradictions
in mathematics about very basic principle of definition of a number
For non mathematicians, a common answer as provided here by Dan would be convenient if it is required to approximate solution to a simple practical problem
But for a truly a math man, it is indeed a scandal, then HOW?
(e/Pi = (2.7182818284...)/(3.1415926535...) = (0.865255979433...)
Of course, you can remove the decimal notations in order to carry out the division operation since this does not alter the content answer
So, here it is for you again and again and again ... (until you get it), and urgently teach your teacher about it, wonder!
(e/Pi = (27182818284...)/(31415926535...) = (0.865255979433...)
BUT you know that ellipses dots means infinite (endless)
And hence, you are ultimately approximating the ratio of two integers where each of them consists of infinite sequence of integers
But mathematics in principles doesn't define that kind of infinite integers
Thus the ratio (being with endless digits) is also nonsense meaning, (undefined)
And thus, for any number with endless digits (with or without a decimal notations) is certainly a meaningless nonsense and fiction number for sure
Someone might think that if maths define that infinite integer with infinite sequences of digits (each as unique string of digits as a distinct infinity), but truly this would lead you to be more astray
It follows directly that those fiction integers can not exist because infinity itself is a nonexistence, otherwise, those integers would have been defined long ago
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
May 27, 2017

Markus Klyver

2017-05-27 09:43:03 UTC

Who cares about its decimal representation? Since we know division of real numbers are well defined (and closed), we know that e/pi is a real number. The decimal representation of a real number is only interesting if we want to approximate it with a rational number, which we might want to do in don't cases. But mathematicians are generally much more interested in the properties of real number than its "exact" value. For example, we can prove the number w has very interesting and useful properties despite not "knowing it's exact value". (The exact value is e)

bassam king karzeddin

2017-05-27 10:15:33 UTC

Post by Markus Klyver
Who cares about its decimal representation? Since we know division of real numbers are well defined (and closed), we know that e/pi is a real number. The decimal representation of a real number is only interesting if we want to approximate it with a rational number, which we might want to do in don't cases. But mathematicians are generally much more interested in the properties of real number than its "exact" value. For example, we can prove the number w has very interesting and useful properties despite not "knowing it's exact value". (The exact value is e)

Ii is not a matter of decimal representation, the whole issue is a matter of the existence of a number, that is the whole point, which is unclear to the vast majorities of the professional mathematicians sadly up to date, wonder! so you need not care also

However, so much of recent topics published (here at sci.math, and not necessarily by only me) about those numbers with endless terms as nonexisting numbers (with published rigorous proofs), and so contrary to what was commonly believed among mathematicians up to this moment

And the aim first was investigating their reality of existence just before swimming far into their endless properties

And finally, it is up to the individual to decide to wether the bitter truth is more worth than many sweet fallacies, for sure

BKK

Markus Klyver

2017-05-27 10:35:11 UTC

So the issue is about the existence of real numbers. If you are unhappy with Dedekind cuts and Cauchy sequences you can actually axiomatically declare the existence of real numbers as a complete ordered field and embed the rationals within that field. See for example Tarski's axiomatization of the reals.

bassam king karzeddin

2017-05-27 10:58:12 UTC

Post by Markus Klyver
So the issue is about the existence of real numbers. If you are unhappy with Dedekind cuts and Cauchy sequences you can actually axiomatically declare the existence of real numbers as a complete ordered field and embed the rationals within that field. See for example Tarski's axiomatization of the reals.

I am so sorry, those Dedekind cuts or Cauchy sequences can not create any real single existing number, but definitely, they can create infinitely many fiction non-existing numbers for sure

Most likely you are newcomer here, so you miss a lot for sure

but, in short, and very briefly, real existing numbers are like real existing objects, no one is capable of creating them except the unit number one (by definition), and nothing else can be created by something else except phobia numbers or ghost numbers or non-existing and fake numbers for sure

So, real existing numbers are only those constructible numbers

BKK

2017-05-27 11:19:29 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
real existing numbers are like real existing objects

Right. Did you find one in your garden (or elsewhere) already?

bassam king karzeddin

2017-05-27 11:39:37 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
real existing numbers are like real existing objects

Right. Did you find one in your garden (or elsewhere) already?

Certainly, there are so many, but not with fake identity, and they are so embarrassed to announce their names since they still need their jobs

And really speaking, masked characters with fake identities are mostly with fake contents (useless), for sure

BKK

Markus Klyver

2017-05-27 11:31:41 UTC

I am so sorry, those Dedekind cuts or Cauchy sequences can not create any real single existing number, but definitely, they can create infinitely many fiction non-existing numbers for sure
Most likely you are newcomer here, so you miss a lot for sure
but, in short, and very briefly, real existing numbers are like real existing objects, no one is capable of creating them except the unit number one (by definition), and nothing else can be created by something else except phobia numbers or ghost numbers or non-existing and fake numbers for sure
So, real existing numbers are only those constructible numbers
BKK

As I said, you can axiomatically declare the existence of ℝ as a complete ordered field. You don't need Dedekind cuts or Cauchy sequences.

bassam king karzeddin

2017-05-27 11:51:56 UTC

I am so sorry, those Dedekind cuts or Cauchy sequences can not create any real single existing number, but definitely, they can create infinitely many fiction non-existing numbers for sure
Most likely you are newcomer here, so you miss a lot for sure
but, in short, and very briefly, real existing numbers are like real existing objects, no one is capable of creating them except the unit number one (by definition), and nothing else can be created by something else except phobia numbers or ghost numbers or non-existing and fake numbers for sure
So, real existing numbers are only those constructible numbers
BKK

As I said, you can axiomatically declare the existence of ℝ as a complete ordered field. You don't need Dedekind cuts or Cauchy sequences.

but I have to prove such existence in the first step and not by comparison or naive conclusions but with rigorous proofs

Historical Example: the constructible number sqrt(2) was proved rigorously existing before considered any number

But, Historically also the arithmetical cube root of two denoted as 2^{1/3} was proved impossible number (nonexisting), but oddly they later adopt it as any real number (approximately), even with a counter-proof of its existence

So, mathematics was forged at some date in the history and up to date with more nonsense than ever

BKK

b***@gmail.com

2017-05-27 11:59:12 UTC

Queeny, they are not called unexisting numbers, they
are called Unicorn numbers. When will you learn?

Post by bassam king karzeddin
but I have to prove such existence in the first step and not by comparison or naive conclusions but with rigorous proofs
Historical Example: the constructible number sqrt(2) was proved rigorously existing before considered any number
But, Historically also the arithmetical cube root of two denoted as 2^{1/3} was proved impossible number (nonexisting), but oddly they later adopt it as any real number (approximately), even with a counter-proof of its existence
So, mathematics was forged at some date in the history and up to date with more nonsense than ever
BKK

Markus Klyver

2017-05-27 12:00:31 UTC

I am so sorry, those Dedekind cuts or Cauchy sequences can not create any real single existing number, but definitely, they can create infinitely many fiction non-existing numbers for sure
Most likely you are newcomer here, so you miss a lot for sure
but, in short, and very briefly, real existing numbers are like real existing objects, no one is capable of creating them except the unit number one (by definition), and nothing else can be created by something else except phobia numbers or ghost numbers or non-existing and fake numbers for sure
So, real existing numbers are only those constructible numbers
BKK

As I said, you can axiomatically declare the existence of ℝ as a complete ordered field. You don't need Dedekind cuts or Cauchy sequences.

but I have to prove such existence in the first step and not by comparison or naive conclusions but with rigorous proofs
Historical Example: the constructible number sqrt(2) was proved rigorously existing before considered any number
But, Historically also the arithmetical cube root of two denoted as 2^{1/3} was proved impossible number (nonexisting), but oddly they later adopt it as any real number (approximately), even with a counter-proof of its existence
So, mathematics was forged at some date in the history and up to date with more nonsense than ever
BKK

You can declare the existence of a mathematical object via axioms. This is how mathematics works.

z***@gmail.com

2017-09-18 08:44:44 UTC

I am so sorry, those Dedekind cuts or Cauchy sequences can not create any real single existing number, but definitely, they can create infinitely many fiction non-existing numbers for sure
Most likely you are newcomer here, so you miss a lot for sure
but, in short, and very briefly, real existing numbers are like real existing objects, no one is capable of creating them except the unit number one (by definition), and nothing else can be created by something else except phobia numbers or ghost numbers or non-existing and fake numbers for sure
So, real existing numbers are only those constructible numbers
BKK

All numbers are, as you call it "fiction", they are just logical constructs in our heads you moron. They are all equally fake and equally real.

z***@gmail.com

2017-09-18 08:43:42 UTC

Ii is not a matter of decimal representation, the whole issue is a matter of the existence of a number, that is the whole point, which is unclear to the vast majorities of the professional mathematicians sadly up to date, wonder! so you need not care also
However, so much of recent topics published (here at sci.math, and not necessarily by only me) about those numbers with endless terms as nonexisting numbers (with published rigorous proofs), and so contrary to what was commonly believed among mathematicians up to this moment
And the aim first was investigating their reality of existence just before swimming far into their endless properties
And finally, it is up to the individual to decide to wether the bitter truth is more worth than many sweet fallacies, for sure
BKK

No asswipe, It is not unclear, the construction of all numbers is well understood by many, it is only the more exotic ones, p-adic, hyperreals, surreals etc that may or may not be familiar to all. Even wheels are not too common but they are all good valdi constructions.

Dan Christensen

2017-05-27 14:47:42 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Big Hint: remove both decimals notations from (e & pi) to estimate (e/pi) to avoid any confusions

OMG! My calculator blew up when I tried to divide e/pi !!!
But seriously folks, I got 0.8652559794
Get a life Crank Boy.

In fact, not only Dan but so many of alike with that so naive understanding to what is the real meaning of a number

Are we to scrap our calculators and computers because some crank on the internet disagrees with this result? Will you be scraping YOUR computer, BKK? (I hope so.)

Much to the chagrin of math cranks like you everywhere, mathematics actually works. It is basis for all modern science and technology that also works. As they say, nothing succeeds like success.

Your goofy system, whatever you may call it, doesn't seem to be going anywhere, BKK. Sit in your cave in the wilderness, if you like, and count your fingers and toes until you can come grips with 40 degree angles, pi and root 2. Until you can come up with a workable alternative, you are wasting our time and yours with this obsessive trolling of the internet.

Dan

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

bassam king karzeddin

2017-05-28 07:37:51 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Big Hint: remove both decimals notations from (e & pi) to estimate (e/pi) to avoid any confusions

OMG! My calculator blew up when I tried to divide e/pi !!!
But seriously folks, I got 0.8652559794
Get a life Crank Boy.

In fact, not only Dan but so many of alike with that so naive understanding to what is the real meaning of a number

dAN adds more nonsense, wonder!

Post by Dan Christensen
Are we to scrap our calculators and computers because some crank on the internet disagrees with this result? Will you be scraping YOUR computer, BKK? (I hope so.)
Much to the chagrin of math cranks like you everywhere, mathematics actually works. It is basis for all modern science and technology that also works. As they say, nothing succeeds like success.
Your goofy system, whatever you may call it, doesn't seem to be going anywhere, BKK. Sit in your cave in the wilderness, if you like, and count your fingers and toes until you can come grips with 40 degree angles, pi and root 2. Until you can come up with a workable alternative, you are wasting our time and yours with this obsessive trolling of the internet.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Nobody is asking you to abandon your calculator or computer, those are blind machines manufactured mainly by brilliant Engineers who are also far better and normal mathematicians

And we know exactly how would you appear if you do abandon them

And my question was basically fundamental to the content concept that you can not grasp for sure

Nor your alike would be able to comprehend why an angle of 40 degrees is impossible to exist in any triangle with three constructible lengths sides

This is also absolutely applicable to any integer degree angle that is not divisible by (3)

And your attitude is already given here among 13 collapsed answer so far, where a number of views had become around 5000 so far, link below:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-e-pi-in-mathematics

So, don't come across my way of puzzling the mathematicians in order to educate and save them from so many fiction stories still living in OUR current mathematics, for sure

BKK

bassam king karzeddin

2017-06-05 13:06:55 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Big Hint: remove both decimals notations from (e & pi) to estimate (e/pi) to avoid any confusions

OMG! My calculator blew up when I tried to divide e/pi !!!
But seriously folks, I got 0.8652559794
Get a life Crank Boy.

In fact, not only Dan but so many of alike with that so naive understanding to what is the real meaning of a number

dAN adds more nonsense, wonder!

Nobody is asking you to abandon your calculator or computer, those are blind machines manufactured mainly by brilliant Engineers who are also far better and normal mathematicians
And we know exactly how would you appear if you do abandon them
And my question was basically fundamental to the content concept that you can not grasp for sure
Nor your alike would be able to comprehend why an angle of 40 degrees is impossible to exist in any triangle with three constructible lengths sides
This is also absolutely applicable to any integer degree angle that is not divisible by (3)
https://www.quora.com/What-is-e-pi-in-mathematics
So, don't come across my way of puzzling the mathematicians in order to educate and save them from so many fiction stories still living in OUR current mathematics, for sure
BKK

Actually, this type of such Question is the easiest way to start getting the fictions sciences in all mathematics branches especially for so many innocent school students

In the above link provided for the same question, (around 10000 views now), no wonder that one silly answer is still uncollapsed whereas (17) answers are collapsed

And make sure that all fiction mathematics would be exposed and vanished very soon for sure

BKK

Dan Christensen

2017-06-05 20:07:37 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Big Hint: remove both decimals notations from (e & pi) to estimate (e/pi) to avoid any confusions

OMG! My calculator blew up when I tried to divide e/pi !!!
But seriously folks, I got 0.8652559794
Get a life Crank Boy.

In fact, not only Dan but so many of alike with that so naive understanding to what is the real meaning of a number

dAN adds more nonsense, wonder!

Nobody is asking you to abandon your calculator or computer, those are blind machines manufactured mainly by brilliant Engineers who are also far better and normal mathematicians
And we know exactly how would you appear if you do abandon them
And my question was basically fundamental to the content concept that you can not grasp for sure
Nor your alike would be able to comprehend why an angle of 40 degrees is impossible to exist in any triangle with three constructible lengths sides
This is also absolutely applicable to any integer degree angle that is not divisible by (3)
https://www.quora.com/What-is-e-pi-in-mathematics
So, don't come across my way of puzzling the mathematicians in order to educate and save them from so many fiction stories still living in OUR current mathematics, for sure
BKK

Actually, this type of such Question is the easiest way to start getting the fictions sciences in all mathematics branches especially for so many innocent school students

Those "innocent school students" should rest assured that it is only crackpots like BKK here that would have them reject the notions of e, pi, e/pi, root 2 and 40 degree angles. I suspect they are simply trying to play a prank on these innocents for their own perverted amusement.

Students should take note that BKK has yet to put forward even the beginnings of an alternative form of mathematics to rival real mathematics in terms of power and effectiveness in applications. In this, he seems to be several centuries behind the times.

Dan

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

Post by bassam king karzeddin
In the above link provided for the same question, (around 10000 views now), no wonder that one silly answer is still uncollapsed whereas (17) answers are collapsed
And make sure that all fiction mathematics would be exposed and vanished very soon for sure
BKK

Markus Klyver

2017-08-01 18:50:56 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Big Hint: remove both decimals notations from (e & pi) to estimate (e/pi) to avoid any confusions
Have more fun with the new resultant number for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
May 25, 2017

So, what exactly is this genius mathematicians? wonder!
e/Pi = (2718281828...)/(3141592654...)
Forget about your APPROXIMATIONS, (we know it for sure)
Can't you think properly?
Or had you got addicted to fictions? wonder!
But I know that fictions are so sweet, but reality is much sweeter for sure
So, get out of your tiny hole and say a word of truth, now
Do something useful professional mathematicians for the societies that feed you, it is still not too late
But never feel shameful if you are so professional in mathematics since there is a lot that you had missed in the last few thousands of years, for sure
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
07/20/2017

I have already given you the definition, and proven e/pi is a real number. Just because we can't represent e/pi exactly using finite decimal expansions in base 10 doesn't mean e/pi doesn't exist.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.math/Vdv_R5p9Fh8

bassam king karzeddin

2017-08-01 19:06:37 UTC

I have already given you the definition, and proven e/pi is a real number. Just because we can't represent e/pi exactly using finite decimal expansions in base 10 doesn't mean e/pi doesn't exist.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.math/Vdv_R5p9Fh8

Reality isn't at concerned in our own definitions for sure, and working to satisfy the definition isn't any reality (exactly the case of mathematics after nearly the Pythagoreans)

To convey the simplest idea, the Pythagorean theorem is absolutely real even before our own definitions and much before our own existence, it is no one make but an absolute fact for sure
So, this is what a real maths we must seek that exist in mind and reality and please don't jump to more nonsense subjects that are of brain farts of genius mathematicians as non-Euclidean spaces that science confess that was never proven FOR SURE
BKK

b***@gmail.com

2017-08-01 19:15:45 UTC

You have no clue what math is, you can even not do precalculus,
like -3 * -5 = 15, still you are using words such as Pythagorean.

Pythagorean theorem works of course for any rectangular triangle,
where the sides are not neccessarily constructible.

Take for example a rectangular triangle:

c +
| b
+--------+
a

With a=pi, b=e, you will still have c=sqrt(pi^2+e^2). Why?
Because any proof of the theorem doesn't make use that a,b

need to be constructible. This is exactly your problem BKK,
everybody here told you already that Greeks had irrational

magnitudes, respectively ratios, but you never listen.

Post by bassam king karzeddin
Reality isn't at concerned in our own definitions for sure, and working to satisfy the definition isn't any reality (exactly the case of mathematics after nearly the Pythagoreans)
To convey the simplest idea, the Pythagorean theorem is absolutely real even before our own definitions and much before our own existence, it is no one make but an absolute fact for sure
So, this is what a real maths we must seek that exist in mind and reality and please don't jump to more nonsense subjects that are of brain farts of genius mathematicians as non-Euclidean spaces that science confess that was never proven FOR SURE
BKK

bassam king karzeddin

2017-08-01 19:25:29 UTC

Post by b***@gmail.com
You have no clue what math is, you can even not do precalculus,
like -3 * -5 = 15, still you are using words such as Pythagorean.
Pythagorean theorem works of course for any rectangular triangle,
where the sides are not neccessarily constructible.
c +
| b
+--------+
a
With a=pi, b=e, you will still have c=sqrt(pi^2+e^2). Why?
Because any proof of the theorem doesn't make use that a,b
need to be constructible. This is exactly your problem BKK,
everybody here told you already that Greeks had irrational
magnitudes, respectively ratios, but you never listen.

And once it is impossible for you to make such legs EXACTLY with (e & pi) lengths (in reality) of a right angle triangle, then where is your alleged hypotenuse? wonder

I know that theoretically, every thing in mind is working so smoothly and so perfectly that when you imagine that you have EXACTLY such lengths then fine

But the physical reality doesn't permit at all that kind of so mad imaginations, this is the whole issue

So keep it for playing and entertainment for sure since such a triangle is in mind only but never in any physical reality for sure

BKK

b***@gmail.com

2017-08-01 19:29:47 UTC

You don't make any legs, there are just there.
You don't need to make them.

You cannot force nature to give you only rational
legs or constructible legs,

first of all determining whether something is rational
or constructible, depends on the chosen unit,

and is not part of nature, nature doesn't care.

And once it is impossible for you to make such legs EXACTLY with (e & pi) lengths (in reality) of a right angle triangle, then where is your alleged hypotenuse? wonder
I know that theoretically, every thing in mind is working so smoothly and so perfectly that when you imagine that you have EXACTLY such lengths then fine
But the physical reality doesn't permit at all that kind of so mad imaginations, this is the whole issue
So keep it for playing and entertainment for sure since such a triangle is in mind only but never in any physical reality for sure
BKK

Markus Klyver

2017-08-01 19:29:12 UTC

I have already given you the definition, and proven e/pi is a real number. Just because we can't represent e/pi exactly using finite decimal expansions in base 10 doesn't mean e/pi doesn't exist.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.math/Vdv_R5p9Fh8

Reality isn't at concerned in our own definitions for sure, and working to satisfy the definition isn't any reality (exactly the case of mathematics after nearly the Pythagoreans)
To convey the simplest idea, the Pythagorean theorem is absolutely real even before our own definitions and much before our own existence, it is no one make but an absolute fact for sure
So, this is what a real maths we must seek that exist in mind and reality and please don't jump to more nonsense subjects that are of brain farts of genius mathematicians as non-Euclidean spaces that science confess that was never proven FOR SURE
BKK

The Pythagorean theorem is valid in vector spaces (that includes ℝ^n), yes. It is not valid in non-Euclidean geometry.

The proof is rather simple: for all vector spaces with an inner product, we have

<u + v, u + v> = <u, u + v> + <v, u + v> = <u, u> + <u, v> + <v, u> + <v, v> = <u, u> + <v, v> + 2 <u, v>

by definition of an inner product. Now, if <u, v> = 0, we have

<u + v, u + v> = <u, u> + <v, v>

which is true for all vector spaces. It's a very simple proof, and I just laid it out for you. In ℝ^n, this *is* Pythagorean theorem contrary to physical reality where you cannot find any right-angled triangle with the sides 3, 4 and 5 exactly.

b***@gmail.com

2017-08-01 19:33:55 UTC

Thats not a coordinate-less proof. The Greeks didn't
argue like that, and you run into a dilemma, you

assume existence of R(+, *), without appeal to geometry,
you just mechanically repeat some modern text book

stuff, without the intuition behind it.

Post by Markus Klyver
The Pythagorean theorem is valid in vector spaces (that includes ℝ^n), yes. It is not valid in non-Euclidean geometry.
The proof is rather simple: for all vector spaces with an inner product, we have
<u + v, u + v> = <u, u + v> + <v, u + v> = <u, u> + <u, v> + <v, u> + <v, v> = <u, u> + <v, v> + 2 <u, v>
by definition of an inner product. Now, if <u, v> = 0, we have
<u + v, u + v> = <u, u> + <v, v>
which is true for all vector spaces. It's a very simple proof, and I just laid it out for you. In ℝ^n, this *is* Pythagorean theorem contrary to physical reality where you cannot find any right-angled triangle with the sides 3, 4 and 5 exactly.

Markus Klyver

2017-08-02 13:07:54 UTC

Post by b***@gmail.com
Thats not a coordinate-less proof. The Greeks didn't
argue like that, and you run into a dilemma, you
assume existence of R(+, *), without appeal to geometry,
you just mechanically repeat some modern text book
stuff, without the intuition behind it.

Minor picky thing. You might mean (ℝ ; + ; · ; <).

bassam king karzeddin

2017-06-06 06:36:11 UTC

Post by Markus Klyver
So the issue is about the existence of real numbers.
If you are unhappy with Dedekind cuts and Cauchy
sequences you can actually axiomatically declare the
existence of real numbers as a complete ordered field
and embed the rationals within that field. See for
example Tarski's axiomatization of the reals.

Real existing numbers are not created by Dedekind cuts or Cauchy sequences or Tarski's axiomatization or anyone else method for sure,

All those above mentioned can certainly create fake non-existing and fiction numbers at their alleged Paradise called (infinity), as we have up to date for sure

Real existing numbers are created from a real chosen arbitrary existing unity and nothing else for sure

And those real existing numbers are simply constructible numbers and nothing else for sure

However, the general wider definition of constructible numbers had been published in my recent posts

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
June 6, 2016

b***@gmail.com

2017-06-06 21:07:43 UTC

Hey BKK, is 3/10/(1-1/10) a constructible number?

is 0.333... a constructible number?

is 3/10/(1-1/10)^2 a constructible number?

is 0.370370370... a constructible number?

What happens if we add:

3/10 + 6/100 + 9/1000 + 12/10000 + ... ?

Here is an Excel float test:

3 10 0.3 0.3
6 100 0.06 0.36
9 1000 0.009 0.369
12 10000 0.0012 0.3702
15 100000 0.00015 0.37035
18 1000000 0.000018 0.370368
21 10000000 0.0000021 0.3703701
24 100000000 0.00000024 0.37037034

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GabrielsStaircase.html

Post by bassam king karzeddin
However, the general wider definition of constructible numbers had been published in my recent posts
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
June 6, 2016

b***@gmail.com

2017-06-06 21:09:03 UTC

Homework:
Proof Gabriels Staircase from geometric series.

Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey BKK, is 3/10/(1-1/10) a constructible number?
is 0.333... a constructible number?
is 3/10/(1-1/10)^2 a constructible number?
is 0.370370370... a constructible number?
3/10 + 6/100 + 9/1000 + 12/10000 + ... ?
3 10 0.3 0.3
6 100 0.06 0.36
9 1000 0.009 0.369
12 10000 0.0012 0.3702
15 100000 0.00015 0.37035
18 1000000 0.000018 0.370368
21 10000000 0.0000021 0.3703701
24 100000000 0.00000024 0.37037034
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GabrielsStaircase.html

Post by bassam king karzeddin
However, the general wider definition of constructible numbers had been published in my recent posts
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
June 6, 2016

bassam king karzeddin

2017-06-07 06:53:08 UTC

Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey BKK, is 3/10/(1-1/10) a constructible number?

yES

Post by b***@gmail.com
is 0.333... a constructible number?

Post by b***@gmail.com
is 3/10/(1-1/10)^2 a constructible number?

yES

Post by b***@gmail.com
is 0.370370370... a constructible number?

Post by b***@gmail.com
3/10 + 6/100 + 9/1000 + 12/10000 + ... ?

The rules are the simplest common sense ever that everyone must have, even this was published hundreds of times by me, here and at Quora or else

1) In mathematics, infinity was defined as unreal number but so funnily larger than any number, thus any number associated with it must be unreal number too, for sure, including its inverse
as (1/Infinity),

(Direct Logic - OR a Proof by new missing tool called the Common Sense ),

However, there are much more rigorous published proofs in my posts, since generally the way to uncover the polluted mathematics must be so many for sure
There is nothing ever simpler than this obvious fact to understand immediately, but alas it is toooooo..... hard to be comprehended especially by those who call themselves as Top mathematicians, (generally for more business purposes)

Post by b***@gmail.com
3 10 0.3 0.3
6 100 0.06 0.36
9 1000 0.009 0.369
12 10000 0.0012 0.3702
15 100000 0.00015 0.37035
18 1000000 0.000018 0.370368
21 10000000 0.0000021 0.3703701
24 100000000 0.00000024 0.37037034
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GabrielsStaircase.html

Those old references must be deleted soon, if they really respect themselves for sure

BKK

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by bassam king karzeddin
However, the general wider definition of constructible numbers had been published in my recent posts
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
June 6, 2016

b***@gmail.com

2017-06-07 09:31:42 UTC

Post by b***@gmail.com
Hey BKK, is 3/10/(1-1/10) a constructible number?

yES

Post by b***@gmail.com
is 0.333... a constructible number?

But 0.333... = 3/10/(1-1/10), same value, what is this constructibility property then, not an essence of the number itself?

Post by b***@gmail.com
is 3/10/(1-1/10)^2 a constructible number?

yES

Post by b***@gmail.com
is 0.370370370... a constructible number?

But 0.370370370... = 3/10/(1-1/10)^2, same value, what is this constructibility property then, not an essence of the number itself?

Post by b***@gmail.com
3/10 + 6/100 + 9/1000 + 12/10000 + ... ?

The rules are the simplest common sense ever that everyone must have, even this was published hundreds of times by me, here and at Quora or else

Homework:
Proof Gabriels Staircase from geometric series.

Those old references must be deleted soon, if they really respect themselves for sure

The reference is relatively new (1994). Here is a visual
proof, do you understand it?

http://www.maa.org/programs/faculty-and-departments/classroom-capsules-and-notes/proof-without-words-gabriels-staircase

Markus Klyver

2017-06-06 22:26:29 UTC

So what's the problem in axiomatically declaring the existence of a complete ordered field?

2017-06-06 22:52:01 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
non-existing and fiction numbers

Are there any others? Did you find one in your garden recently?

Hint: Where do numbers "exist" (in space-time)?

2017-06-06 23:12:10 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
non-existing and fiction numbers

Are there any others? Did you find one in your garden recently?
Hint: Where do numbers "exist" (in space-time)?

Again:

"Numbers are free creations of the human mind; they serve as a means of apprehending more easily and more sharply the difference of things. It is only through the purely logical process of building up the science of numbers and by thus acquiring the continuous number-domain that we are prepared accurately to investigate our notions of space and time by bringing them into relation with this number-domain created in our mind."

(Richard Dedekind, Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen? 1888)

bassam king karzeddin

2017-06-07 09:46:12 UTC

Post by bassam king karzeddin
non-existing and fiction numbers

Are there any others? Did you find one in your garden recently?

We are talking about existence and consistency of true concepts that reflects the true properties of space-time reality

Post by Me
Hint: Where do numbers "exist" (in space-time)?

They do exist in the space - time of human minds exactly the way that Pythagorean facts exist, got it? wonder!
Again and Again, until you get it

Post by Me
"Numbers are free creations of the human mind;

"Numbers are natural subsequent creation of a chosen existing & constructible arbitrary unity called (ONE)

Post by Me
they serve as a means of apprehending more easily and more sharply the difference of things.
It is only through the purely logical process of building up the science of numbers and by thus acquiring the continuous number-domain that we are prepared accurately to investigate our notions of space and time by bringing them into relation with this number-domain created in our mind."
(Richard Dedekind, Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen? 1888)

Number concept had been completely poisoned once they started manufacturing them so easily as they like, and they would lead them to so many confusions in the future making them more astray than ever, for sure

And they would keep suffering in their short and so ridiculous understanding about the base stone of the whole mathematics for sure

BKK

b***@gmail.com

2017-06-07 13:17:19 UTC

Well in my space-time of human mind 2^(1/3) exists.

Maybe your space-time of your human mind is broken,

see a mechanic, get new tires, check the oil..

Post by bassam king karzeddin
They do exist in the space - time of human minds exactly the way that Pythagorean facts exist, got it? wonder!

bassam king karzeddin

2017-06-15 08:50:21 UTC

Post by b***@gmail.com
Well in my space-time of human mind 2^(1/3) exists.
Maybe your space-time of your human mind is broken,
see a mechanic, get new tires, check the oil..

Post by bassam king karzeddin
They do exist in the space - time of human minds exactly the way that Pythagorean facts exist, got it? wonder!

Again and Again, until the so fool would eventually get it completely!

When a human says 2^{1/2} is a real number, he actually means its true existence comparable to a chosen existing unity, all denoted by lengths

And that was the only true revolutionary story of discovering the real existence of irrational numbers PROVED RIGRIOUSLY from the Pythagorean lonely theorem in mathematics

But tell them frankly which other theorem supports and proves the real existence of your alleged real algebraic arithmetical number called 2^{1/3}?

Nothing for sure, except for very naive foolish or devilish conclusions for very dirty reasons of so much unnecessary business in maths

And I know that was not your fault, nor anyone living fault, but very old in the history, and it was the start of forged maths for sure

So to say, the conspiracy in mathematics had not stopped since then, wonder!

And you personally would never grasp why those MANY fiction numbers adopted illegally in maths, do indeed create those many fiction angles too, for sure

But, Real mathematics would not remain captured up to your wrong comprehension forever

BKK

b***@gmail.com

2017-06-15 08:54:48 UTC

Its not called fiction numbers, its Unicorn numbers.
When will you learn?

Post by b***@gmail.com
Well in my space-time of human mind 2^(1/3) exists.
Maybe your space-time of your human mind is broken,
see a mechanic, get new tires, check the oil..

Post by bassam king karzeddin
They do exist in the space - time of human minds exactly the way that Pythagorean facts exist, got it? wonder!

Again and Again, until the so fool would eventually get it completely!
When a human says 2^{1/2} is a real number, he actually means its true existence comparable to a chosen existing unity, all denoted by lengths
And that was the only true revolutionary story of discovering the real existence of irrational numbers PROVED RIGRIOUSLY from the Pythagorean lonely theorem in mathematics
But tell them frankly which other theorem supports and proves the real existence of your alleged real algebraic arithmetical number called 2^{1/3}?
Nothing for sure, except for very naive foolish or devilish conclusions for very dirty reasons of so much unnecessary business in maths
And I know that was not your fault, nor anyone living fault, but very old in the history, and it was the start of forged maths for sure
So to say, the conspiracy in mathematics had not stopped since then, wonder!
And you personally would never grasp why those MANY fiction numbers adopted illegally in maths, do indeed create those many fiction angles too, for sure
But, Real mathematics would not remain captured up to your wrong comprehension forever
BKK

2017-06-06 22:47:41 UTC

On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 8:20:06 PM UTC+2, bassam king karzeddin wrote:

What is e/pi?

Let e_n = e "reduced" to n digits (after the decimal point) in its decimal representation.
Let pi_n = pi "reduced" to n digit (after the decimal point) in its decimal representation.

For example: e_0 = 2, e_1 = 2.7, e_2 = 2.71, ... and pi_0 = 3, pi_1 = 3.1, pi_2 = 3.14, ...

Then e/pi = lim(n -> oo) e_n/pi_n .

Bill

2017-06-07 02:07:13 UTC

Post by Me
What is e/pi?
Let e_n = e "reduced" to n digits (after the decimal point) in its decimal representation.
Let pi_n = pi "reduced" to n digit (after the decimal point) in its decimal representation.
For example: e_0 = 2, e_1 = 2.7, e_2 = 2.71, ... and pi_0 = 3, pi_1 = 3.1, pi_2 = 3.14, ...
Then e/pi = lim(n -> oo) e_n/pi_n .

So what? Can you prove that the limit exists?

2017-06-07 02:48:54 UTC

Post by Bill

So what? Can you prove that the limit exists?

https://math.oregonstate.edu/home/programs/undergrad/CalculusQuestStudyGuides/SandS/lHopital/limit_laws.html

Markus Klyver

2017-06-07 09:14:23 UTC

Bill, the limit will quite certainly exist because that's how division is defined for real numbers. In terms of Dedekind cuts, you can define division of positive real numbers A and B as the set {x \in Q : (a \in A) \land (b \in B) \land (x = a/b)}. You just have to prove that this new Dedekind cut is indeed a valid Dedekind cut.

If you are using the construction with Cauchy sequences, you could simply define division of two real numbers A and B (here, A and B are equivalence classes) as the equivalence class in which you can find the Cauchy sequence c, where c is constructed by taking element-wise division of an arbitrary Cauchy sequence in A and an arbitrary Cauchy sequence in B. You will have to show that this new Cauchy sequence is a valid Cauchy sequence, and that you will end up with the same equivalence class regardless of what a and b you choose.

If you are axiomatically declaring the existence of real numbers as a complete ordered field, you could easily define division between two elements a and b as a * b^(-1) where b^(-1) is the multiplicative inverse of b (which will be unique).

bassam king karzeddin

2017-06-07 07:18:16 UTC

And people still believe that numbers are having limits at infinity, wonder

OR numbers converge at their Paradise (Infinity) wonder!

Yes, certainly they do converge to many divergent sequences of digits for sure

So, convergence is actually divergence but with that so tiny symbol magical tool called as dot or decimal notation that scale two, nonexisting (assumed distinct infinities),

And people are helplessly avoiding to confess the simplest contradictions in their lonely stupid understanding

So (e/pi) = (2.7182818284...) / (3.1415926535...)

same as without decimal notation

(e/pi) = (27182818284...) / (31415926535...)

Thus, we have a division or a ratio of two unreal integers (since each integer consists of an infinite sequence of digits where this is called nonsense in mathematics principles (CONTRADICTION)! for sure

And this would take few more centuries to be fully comprehended especially by those alleged Top professional mathematicians for sure

So (e/pi) is not well defined, so for both (e & Pi), since they are simply associated with that nonexistence Paradise called (Infinity)

BKK

bassam king karzeddin

2017-06-18 08:03:53 UTC

And one must be surprised why such a problem regarded as an unsolved problem in mathematics should be considered so, wonder!

The problem was basically if (Pi + e) or (Pi - e) are a rational number!

Of course, it is a nonsense problem that adds more shame upon the authority of the professional mathematician's publications FOR SURE

Let us consider the first case, by assuming that (e + Pi = n/m), a rational number, where (n, m) are two positive integers such that Gcd(n, m) = 1

But we have an approximation form (say in 10base number system for
(e + Pi = a/10^b)

Where (b) is positive integer and (a) is positive integer with (b + 1) digits, so for an APPROXIMATION result, it is always rational number such that (n = a), and (m = 10^b), but remember that this is always AN APPROXIMATION, and for absolute answer you would require both (n & m) to be integers with infinite sequence of digits, where this is not defined in mathematics, and impossible to obtain, thus no rational can represent an absolute sum of (e + Pi) for sure

Consider the second case (Pi - e = n/m), with same definitions above to conclude simply that no rational number can truly represent their difference

Let us consider the second case, by assuming that (Pi - e = n/m), a rational number, where (n, m) are two positive integers such that Gcd(n, m) = 1

But we have an approximation form (say in 10base number system for
(Pi - e = a/10^b)

Where (b) is positive integer and (a) is positive integer with (b) digits, so for an APPROXIMATION result, it is always rational number such that
(n = a), and (m = 10^b), but remember that this is always AN APPROXIMATION, and for absolute answer you would require both (n & m) to be integers with infinite sequence of digits, where this is not defined in mathematics, and certainly impossible to obtain, thus no rational can represent an absolute difference of (Pi - e) for sure

So, yes why should a silly problem of this kind was considered as an unsolved problem in mathematics, wonder!

Where were those (logicians, philosophers, thinkers, mathematicians, ...etc) sleeping all those elapsed centuries, wonder!

Bassam Kling Karzxeddin
June 18, 2017

Markus Klyver

2017-06-18 10:00:05 UTC

With the same logic, 1/3 is not rational either.

Vinicius Claudino Ferraz

2017-06-18 21:19:15 UTC

In my opinion, the number e/pi for all human beings and robots and e.t.s
is well defined as

exp(1) / [4 arctan(1)] = f(1)

By the Taylor series for g(x) = exp x and h(x) = arctan x
These Taylor series are divided one by the other. Don't you like?

Take the expansion for

f(x) = exp(x) / [4 arctan(x)]

You will perhaps contemplate series = series / series
and invent series division. Long division.

Therefore, f^(-1) (e/pi) = 1. This magic number is a good regular value.

Post by Markus Klyver
With the same logic, 1/3 is not rational either.

bassam king karzeddin

2017-06-19 07:26:36 UTC

Post by Vinicius Claudino Ferraz
In my opinion, the number e/pi for all human beings and robots and e.t.s
is well defined as
exp(1) / [4 arctan(1)] = f(1)
By the Taylor series for g(x) = exp x and h(x) = arctan x
These Taylor series are divided one by the other. Don't you like?
Take the expansion for
f(x) = exp(x) / [4 arctan(x)]
You will perhaps contemplate series = series / series
and invent series division. Long division.
Therefore, f^(-1) (e/pi) = 1. This magic number is a good regular value.

Post by Markus Klyver
With the same logic, 1/3 is not rational either.

We have explained that quite may times, that (e/Pi) is the ratio of two existing integers, thus very meaningless number for sure

But we still can use them as approximate constructible numbers only, since there isn't any other choice except as a wish in minds only, for sure

And the whole problem is mainly the wrong Worldwide and Global Education, sure

BKK

bassam king karzeddin

2017-06-19 07:19:13 UTC

Post by Markus Klyver
With the same logic, 1/3 is not rational either.

We have explained that quite many times and the same logic for sure

The real existing rational number (1/3) is unique in three aspects

1) It is unique representation in any number system

2) It is unique factorization in constructible numbers

3) It is unique in geometrical representation (related to a chosen unity)

But if you mean that (1/3 = 0.333... ), you are mistaken for sure, since the later with ENDLESS digits (0.333... ) is that nonexisting ghost number that tries always and forever to replace the original number (1/3), but always and forever unsuccessfully, thus not any number because it has no unique representation nor having unique factorization and no exact location on a real number line, thus it is a fake number exactly like any number with endless digits including your (Pi) or (e) and the endless decimal representation of any constructible number as Sqrt(2), FOR SURE

So many proofs in my posts about those famous fallacies, sure

BKK

Markus Klyver

2017-07-09 15:06:58 UTC

Post by Markus Klyver
With the same logic, 1/3 is not rational either.

We have explained that quite many times and the same logic for sure
The real existing rational number (1/3) is unique in three aspects
1) It is unique representation in any number system
2) It is unique factorization in constructible numbers
3) It is unique in geometrical representation (related to a chosen unity)
But if you mean that (1/3 = 0.333... ), you are mistaken for sure, since the later with ENDLESS digits (0.333... ) is that nonexisting ghost number that tries always and forever to replace the original number (1/3), but always and forever unsuccessfully, thus not any number because it has no unique representation nor having unique factorization and no exact location on a real number line, thus it is a fake number exactly like any number with endless digits including your (Pi) or (e) and the endless decimal representation of any constructible number as Sqrt(2), FOR SURE
So many proofs in my posts about those famous fallacies, sure
BKK

What do you mean by "representation", "factorization" and "geometrical representation" in this context? There's one real number 1/3 and one real number pi.

And obviously you either cannot read or comprehend simple definitions. I have repeatedly given you the formal definitions, but you refuse to listen, FOR SURE. We define decimal representations in terms of infinite sums. It doesn't try to "replace" anything, what that even is supposed to mean. No, decimal representations of real numbers are not unique, but that doesn't they don't exist. 1/3 is exact and have an unique place on the real number line. A rational number don't have an unique fractional representation p/q either, but that doesn't mean rationals don't exist, right?

bassam king karzeddin

2017-07-15 13:12:58 UTC

Post by Markus Klyver
With the same logic, 1/3 is not rational either.

We have explained that quite many times and the same logic for sure
The real existing rational number (1/3) is unique in three aspects
1) It is unique representation in any number system
2) It is unique factorization in constructible numbers
3) It is unique in geometrical representation (related to a chosen unity)
But if you mean that (1/3 = 0.333... ), you are mistaken for sure, since the later with ENDLESS digits (0.333... ) is that nonexisting ghost number that tries always and forever to replace the original number (1/3), but always and forever unsuccessfully, thus not any number because it has no unique representation nor having unique factorization and no exact location on a real number line, thus it is a fake number exactly like any number with endless digits including your (Pi) or (e) and the endless decimal representation of any constructible number as Sqrt(2), FOR SURE
So many proofs in my posts about those famous fallacies, sure
BKK

What do you mean by "representation", "factorization" and "geometrical representation" in this context? There's one real number 1/3 and one real number pi.
And obviously you either cannot read or comprehend simple definitions. I have repeatedly given you the formal definitions, but you refuse to listen, FOR SURE. We define decimal representations in terms of infinite sums. It doesn't try to "replace" anything, what that even is supposed to mean. No, decimal representations of real numbers are not unique, but that doesn't they don't exist. 1/3 is exact and have an unique place on the real number line. A rational number don't have an unique fractional representation p/q either, but that doesn't mean rationals don't exist, right?

Who said that nonsense except you? wonder!

For day and night, I keep saying real numbers are only those constructible numbers (where the rationales are simply included) because only those real numbers that can be shown consistency to the physical reality around your head

Where are other real numbers you and the MATHEMATICS claim are only in your mind as meaningless and irrelevant to any reality

Read more (I had written more about them in other heading topics)

And so frankly the real transcendental numbers (non-constructible) are good fun to play and entertain (especially for abnormals), sure

BKK

But

Markus Klyver

2017-07-15 15:17:03 UTC

Post by Markus Klyver
With the same logic, 1/3 is not rational either.

We have explained that quite many times and the same logic for sure
The real existing rational number (1/3) is unique in three aspects
1) It is unique representation in any number system
2) It is unique factorization in constructible numbers
3) It is unique in geometrical representation (related to a chosen unity)
But if you mean that (1/3 = 0.333... ), you are mistaken for sure, since the later with ENDLESS digits (0.333... ) is that nonexisting ghost number that tries always and forever to replace the original number (1/3), but always and forever unsuccessfully, thus not any number because it has no unique representation nor having unique factorization and no exact location on a real number line, thus it is a fake number exactly like any number with endless digits including your (Pi) or (e) and the endless decimal representation of any constructible number as Sqrt(2), FOR SURE
So many proofs in my posts about those famous fallacies, sure
BKK

What do you mean by "representation", "factorization" and "geometrical representation" in this context? There's one real number 1/3 and one real number pi.
And obviously you either cannot read or comprehend simple definitions. I have repeatedly given you the formal definitions, but you refuse to listen, FOR SURE. We define decimal representations in terms of infinite sums. It doesn't try to "replace" anything, what that even is supposed to mean. No, decimal representations of real numbers are not unique, but that doesn't they don't exist. 1/3 is exact and have an unique place on the real number line. A rational number don't have an unique fractional representation p/q either, but that doesn't mean rationals don't exist, right?

Who said that nonsense except you? wonder!
For day and night, I keep saying real numbers are only those constructible numbers (where the rationales are simply included) because only those real numbers that can be shown consistency to the physical reality around your head
Where are other real numbers you and the MATHEMATICS claim are only in your mind as meaningless and irrelevant to any reality
Read more (I had written more about them in other heading topics)
And so frankly the real transcendental numbers (non-constructible) are good fun to play and entertain (especially for abnormals), sure
BKK
But

"For day and night, I keep saying real numbers are only those constructible numbers (where the rationales are simply included) because only those real numbers that can be shown consistency to the physical reality around your head"

But mathematics isn't the same thing as physical reality.

bassam king karzeddin

2017-07-18 11:25:22 UTC

Post by Markus Klyver
With the same logic, 1/3 is not rational either.

We have explained that quite many times and the same logic for sure
The real existing rational number (1/3) is unique in three aspects
1) It is unique representation in any number system
2) It is unique factorization in constructible numbers
3) It is unique in geometrical representation (related to a chosen unity)
But if you mean that (1/3 = 0.333... ), you are mistaken for sure, since the later with ENDLESS digits (0.333... ) is that nonexisting ghost number that tries always and forever to replace the original number (1/3), but always and forever unsuccessfully, thus not any number because it has no unique representation nor having unique factorization and no exact location on a real number line, thus it is a fake number exactly like any number with endless digits including your (Pi) or (e) and the endless decimal representation of any constructible number as Sqrt(2), FOR SURE
So many proofs in my posts about those famous fallacies, sure
BKK

What do you mean by "representation", "factorization" and "geometrical representation" in this context? There's one real number 1/3 and one real number pi.
And obviously you either cannot read or comprehend simple definitions. I have repeatedly given you the formal definitions, but you refuse to listen, FOR SURE. We define decimal representations in terms of infinite sums. It doesn't try to "replace" anything, what that even is supposed to mean. No, decimal representations of real numbers are not unique, but that doesn't they don't exist. 1/3 is exact and have an unique place on the real number line. A rational number don't have an unique fractional representation p/q either, but that doesn't mean rationals don't exist, right?

Who said that nonsense except you? wonder!
For day and night, I keep saying real numbers are only those constructible numbers (where the rationales are simply included) because only those real numbers that can be shown consistency to the physical reality around your head
Where are other real numbers you and the MATHEMATICS claim are only in your mind as meaningless and irrelevant to any reality
Read more (I had written more about them in other heading topics)
And so frankly the real transcendental numbers (non-constructible) are good fun to play and entertain (especially for abnormals), sure
BKK
But

"For day and night, I keep saying real numbers are only those constructible numbers (where the rationales are simply included) because only those real numbers that can be shown consistency to the physical reality around your head"
But mathematics isn't the same thing as physical reality.

If mathematics isn't the same thing as physical reality, then it is not any mathematics at all, but only mind games that are less interesting than chess game, sure

BKK

2017-07-18 11:39:21 UTC

Post by Markus Klyver
But mathematics isn't the same thing as physical reality.

Obviouly.

Morover it's not concerned with physical objects.

If mathematics isn't the same thing as physical reality, then it is [...]
mind games

Exactly.

bassam king karzeddin

2017-07-18 12:50:59 UTC

Post by Markus Klyver
But mathematics isn't the same thing as physical reality.

Obviouly.
Morover it's not concerned with physical objects.

If mathematics isn't the same thing as physical reality, then it is [...]
mind games

Exactly.

And therefore it must be eliminated and not considered as any real science or must be stated clearly as an APPROXIMATION methods for our little practical Carpentry or engineering works

And everyone, for instance, can make his own cube with exactly two unit volume, the same or many similar ways that had been done thousands of years back, not any magic or even true mathematics for sure

But the exact cube root of two isn't anywhere in real numbers, sure

BKK

BKK

Markus Klyver

2017-07-18 15:06:00 UTC

Post by Markus Klyver
With the same logic, 1/3 is not rational either.

We have explained that quite many times and the same logic for sure
The real existing rational number (1/3) is unique in three aspects
1) It is unique representation in any number system
2) It is unique factorization in constructible numbers
3) It is unique in geometrical representation (related to a chosen unity)
But if you mean that (1/3 = 0.333... ), you are mistaken for sure, since the later with ENDLESS digits (0.333... ) is that nonexisting ghost number that tries always and forever to replace the original number (1/3), but always and forever unsuccessfully, thus not any number because it has no unique representation nor having unique factorization and no exact location on a real number line, thus it is a fake number exactly like any number with endless digits including your (Pi) or (e) and the endless decimal representation of any constructible number as Sqrt(2), FOR SURE
So many proofs in my posts about those famous fallacies, sure
BKK

What do you mean by "representation", "factorization" and "geometrical representation" in this context? There's one real number 1/3 and one real number pi.
And obviously you either cannot read or comprehend simple definitions. I have repeatedly given you the formal definitions, but you refuse to listen, FOR SURE. We define decimal representations in terms of infinite sums. It doesn't try to "replace" anything, what that even is supposed to mean. No, decimal representations of real numbers are not unique, but that doesn't they don't exist. 1/3 is exact and have an unique place on the real number line. A rational number don't have an unique fractional representation p/q either, but that doesn't mean rationals don't exist, right?

Who said that nonsense except you? wonder!
For day and night, I keep saying real numbers are only those constructible numbers (where the rationales are simply included) because only those real numbers that can be shown consistency to the physical reality around your head
Where are other real numbers you and the MATHEMATICS claim are only in your mind as meaningless and irrelevant to any reality
Read more (I had written more about them in other heading topics)
And so frankly the real transcendental numbers (non-constructible) are good fun to play and entertain (especially for abnormals), sure
BKK
But

"For day and night, I keep saying real numbers are only those constructible numbers (where the rationales are simply included) because only those real numbers that can be shown consistency to the physical reality around your head"
But mathematics isn't the same thing as physical reality.

If mathematics isn't the same thing as physical reality, then it is not any mathematics at all, but only mind games that are less interesting than chess game, sure
BKK

More or less, yes. But the thing about math is, WE CAN USE IT. We can use it to create accurate models of reality with predictive powers. That's the real usefulness of math. But if you want to be entirely formal, then yes: math is nothing but a mind game.

I don't really understand the problem. Math is its own universe: a product of logical definitions, theorems and proofs. We can then use this mathematical universe to idealize and approximate physical reality. I would argue that's why mathematics was invented in the first place: because we could model physical reality with it.

bassam king karzeddin

2017-07-18 16:05:05 UTC

Post by Markus Klyver
With the same logic, 1/3 is not rational either.

We have explained that quite many times and the same logic for sure
The real existing rational number (1/3) is unique in three aspects
1) It is unique representation in any number system
2) It is unique factorization in constructible numbers
3) It is unique in geometrical representation (related to a chosen unity)
But if you mean that (1/3 = 0.333... ), you are mistaken for sure, since the later with ENDLESS digits (0.333... ) is that nonexisting ghost number that tries always and forever to replace the original number (1/3), but always and forever unsuccessfully, thus not any number because it has no unique representation nor having unique factorization and no exact location on a real number line, thus it is a fake number exactly like any number with endless digits including your (Pi) or (e) and the endless decimal representation of any constructible number as Sqrt(2), FOR SURE
So many proofs in my posts about those famous fallacies, sure
BKK

What do you mean by "representation", "factorization" and "geometrical representation" in this context? There's one real number 1/3 and one real number pi.
And obviously you either cannot read or comprehend simple definitions. I have repeatedly given you the formal definitions, but you refuse to listen, FOR SURE. We define decimal representations in terms of infinite sums. It doesn't try to "replace" anything, what that even is supposed to mean. No, decimal representations of real numbers are not unique, but that doesn't they don't exist. 1/3 is exact and have an unique place on the real number line. A rational number don't have an unique fractional representation p/q either, but that doesn't mean rationals don't exist, right?

Who said that nonsense except you? wonder!
For day and night, I keep saying real numbers are only those constructible numbers (where the rationales are simply included) because only those real numbers that can be shown consistency to the physical reality around your head
Where are other real numbers you and the MATHEMATICS claim are only in your mind as meaningless and irrelevant to any reality
Read more (I had written more about them in other heading topics)
And so frankly the real transcendental numbers (non-constructible) are good fun to play and entertain (especially for abnormals), sure
BKK
But

"For day and night, I keep saying real numbers are only those constructible numbers (where the rationales are simply included) because only those real numbers that can be shown consistency to the physical reality around your head"
But mathematics isn't the same thing as physical reality.

If mathematics isn't the same thing as physical reality, then it is not any mathematics at all, but only mind games that are less interesting than chess game, sure
BKK

More or less, yes. But the thing about math is, WE CAN USE IT. We can use it to create accurate models of reality with predictive powers. That's the real usefulness of math. But if you want to be entirely formal, then yes: math is nothing but a mind game.
I don't really understand the problem. Math is its own universe: a product of logical definitions, theorems and proofs. We can then use this mathematical universe to idealize and approximate physical reality. I would argue that's why mathematics was invented in the first place: because we could model physical reality with it.

It was so in the early beginnings and then at later stage, it was completely forged for very narrow purposes of those who used to be trusted

And our definitions are not necessarily required to discover any new true theorem that obeys the reality rules, but they certainly have to obey the definitions themselves (which in most cases not any reality in mathematics)

Think here of the PT, where its absolute truthiness isn't a result of any intelligent definitions for sure

And the realistic maths are never considered as mind games, though we can make it deliberately as mind games for fun

And when we make approximate model, we only have to confess it so loudly from the beginning and never claim it as absolute facts as the Pythagorean theorem for instance (that is all, which makes the big differences in the way to the absolute truths)

BKK

Markus Klyver

2017-07-18 16:27:18 UTC