Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
A more stupid Italian mythmatician exists? Peano was a moron of galactic proportions.
Replies:
1
Last Post:
Oct 2, 2017 6:34 AM




Re: A more stupid Italian mythmatician exists? Peano was a moron of galactic proportions.
Posted:
Oct 2, 2017 6:34 AM


Den måndag 2 oktober 2017 kl. 08:56:33 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel: > On Monday, 2 October 2017 00:49:42 UTC5, Zelos Malum wrote: > > Den söndag 1 oktober 2017 kl. 21:34:54 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel: > > > On Sunday, 1 October 2017 10:38:26 UTC5, burs...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > I never read that Peano would have been schizophrenic. On the other > > > > hand it can be possibly said for John Gabriel. First calling Peano > > > > crapaxiom, then presenting by himself induction for a forall problem: > > > > > > Hello my little stupid. > > > > > > Peano's Crapaxiom 5 is the induction axiom: > > > > > > If a set S of numbers contains zero and also the successor of every number in S, then every number is in S. > > > > > > Did you even ever bother to study Peano's crapaxioms? Or did you just memorise them by heart? Stupid boy you are. > > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/bgU4JWvHbY/wAlbdrxPBAAJ > > > > > > > > How stupid is this? Well similarly stupid as his new calulus, > > > > where he claims not using infinite series, but his PDF is full > > > > of them, for example sin(x) from Newton. > > > > > > Nonsense. There is not a single PDF where I use "infinite" series because there is no such thing as an infinite "anything" object. I have explained very clearly to you what a + a_1 + a_2 + ... means. It has ZERO to do with infinity. > > > > > > Infinity is a junk concept. The sooner you learn, the sooner you will be able to do mathematics. > > > > > > > > > > > Do any of JGs post make any sense at all? > > > > Probably no, just an pyschotic ape, throwing mud. > > > > > > > > Am Samstag, 30. September 2017 14:28:13 UTC+2 schrieb John Gabriel: > > > > > He also thought of his ridiculous set theoretic construction of natural numbers. I can't think of anything more illogical and absurd given that his ordinals ASSUME the prior existence of natural numbers: > > > > > > > > > > 0 = {} > > > > > 1 = { {} } > > > > > 2 = { {}, { {} } } > > > > > 3 = { {}, { {} }, { {} , { {} } } } > > > > > > > > > > It didn't occur to Von Neumann that his ordinals assume the unit which already includes substantial machinery to construct starting from nothing. Essentially, all it does is count empty sets, but in order to count, one must already have natural numbers for which prior construction is required. > > > > > > > > > > This aside, several new rules have to be implemented to make the nonsense work. For example, if one tries to do arithmetic from inference, say add 0 and 1, there are two approaches: > > > > > > > > > > [A] 0 + 1 = {} + { {} } = { {}, { {} } } = 2 > > > > > > > > > > [B] Since [A] does not yield the correct result, the addition is redefined as a 'rule' in terms of Peano arithmetic which is the most laughable idea ever produced by an idiot Italian mythmatician called Giuseppe Peano. It is hard to think of anyone more stupid that Peano and his juvenile axioms. Ironically, much of mainstream theory is based on this illogical rubbish: > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lADpfSNdSs > > > > > > > > > > Comments are unwelcome and will be ignored. > > > > > > > > > > Posted on this newsgroup in the interests of public education and to eradicate ignorance and stupidity from mainstream mythmatics. > > > > > > > > > > gils...@gmail.com (MIT) > > > > > huiz...@psu.edu (HARVARD) > > > > > and...@mit.edu (MIT) > > > > > david....@math.okstate.edu (David Ullrich) > > > > > djo...@clarku.edu > > > > > mar...@gmail.com > > > > Gabriel, infinity w... > > Shut up moron.
You should follow your own advice.



