Date: Apr 4, 2017 1:10 PM
Author: bassam king karzeddin
Subject: Re: Unreal fiction numbers implies unreal fiction angles too

> On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 2:18:04 PM UTC+3, bassam
> king karzeddin wrote:

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

> >
> > If you do not believe it, just try to construct

> EXACTLY some of the integer degree angles from (1 to
> 89) provided in my list below as fiction (non
> existing angles) where (pi = 180 degrees)

> >
> > The below list of (fiction ? non existing angles),

> in integer degrees from (1 to 89) degrees
> >
> > Those angles are generally created from those

> fiction and non existing numbers (but regarded as
> real numbers up to our date) in our modern current
> mathematics

> > However, I had explained and proved them in my
> posts as unreal numbers, or fiction numbers or
> nonexistent numbers or illegal numbers, or unreal
> numbers (whatever you wish to name them)

> >
> > The fiction integer angles in degrees from [1 to

> 89]
> >
> Corrections:
>

> > (1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20,
> 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38,
> 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58,
> 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77,
> 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89)

> > Number of checked angles (60)
> > I hope I did not make a mistake in some angles,

> but I am verifying AGAIN all the integer degree
> angles from (1 to 89), and I shall update any more
> missing elements from my list, since I suspect more
> angles to be added to those fiction angles

> >
> > So, you can imagine that most of the angles we use

> are actually impossible existence for sure
> >
> > If you can simply understand my simple proofs of

> those unreal numbers, then easily you conclude that
> the vast majority of known angles are actually fake
> angles

> >
> > You would see how the professional mathematicians

> would tirelessly convince you the opposite, by using
> all types of cheating tools, such as eye marking or
> infinite approximations or so many hopeless tries at
> their fake heaven (infinity)

> > But remind them always why this is not the same
> case with many other real existing angles such as
> >
> > (0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36,

> 39, 42, 45, 48, 51, 54, 57, 60, 63, 66, 69, 72, 75,
> 78, 81, 84, 87, 90), (number of existing integer
> angles is 31)
> since that was their ill inadequate education, but be
> clever enough to get outside this fool box, and once
> you do realize them, try to save the mathematics
> from the professionals polluted and so infected or
> inherited wrong understanding, clever matures and
> students ought to help them also to get slowly and
> completely healed from this and many other fictions
> in their manufactured mad made and meaningless
> mathematics

> >
> > Regards
> > Bassam King Karzeddin
> > 2 end, April, 2017

> BK

And once it is so clear that the smallest positive integer angle that is of real existence and therefore constructible angle is actually (3) degree angle, where every real existing and constructible angle is of the form (3n), where (n) is integer number, and if we need a measurement unite in integer angle, thus (3) degree angle is the unit of our new adopted system,

And our (pi) is therefore becomes as (180/3 = 60 degrees), and the full round angle would be (120 degrees), where then every integer angle is simply real existing angle and also constructible angle, (from 0 to 120 )degree, and this later might extend easily to include those other rational or irrational angles but wit a bit more little clarifications

So, it is a very good idea to adopt the full angle as 120 degrees instead of 360 degrees, since then every integer angle is constructible, where degree one is the unity that can measure other constructible angles

Regards
Bassam Karzeddin
4th, April, 2017