Date: Oct 3, 2017 11:24 PM
Author: zelos.malum@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Zelos Malum can't even get the simplest logic correct.

Den måndag 2 oktober 2017 kl. 17:14:52 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel:
> On Monday, 2 October 2017 10:05:57 UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:
> > Den måndag 2 oktober 2017 kl. 14:31:36 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel:
> > > On Monday, 2 October 2017 05:05:16 UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:
> > > > Den måndag 2 oktober 2017 kl. 08:39:25 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel:
> > > > > On Monday, 2 October 2017 01:04:27 UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:
> > > > > > Den fredag 29 september 2017 kl. 15:10:20 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel:
> > > > > > > On Friday, 29 September 2017 07:21:16 UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:
> > > > > > > > Den fredag 29 september 2017 kl. 13:57:20 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, 29 September 2017 04:32:35 UTC-5, Python wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > John Gabriel, super moronic crank, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Does xy > xz imply that y > z?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The correct answer is YES.

> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Oh dear... Mr Gabriel your cognitive dissonance is going worse
> > > > > > > > > > every day..
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Consider x=-1, y=2, z=3
> > > > > > > > > > Then xy=-2 and xz=-3
> > > > > > > > > > xy > xz ( -2 > -3 ) is TRUE
> > > > > > > > > > y > z ( 2 > 3 ) is FALSE
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > so xy > xz does not imply (for any x) that y > z
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The implication is true of course if x > 0. This is usually
> > > > > > > > > > very well understood by children around the age of ten.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You have regressed under the intellectual level of an amoeba,
> > > > > > > > > > Mr Gabriel.

> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You fucking moron. If you lived on the streets for several months and were typing a comment at 3am in the morning under the influence of inexpressible tired in words, you too would have brain fog.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I was angry and posted the comment hastily. Hateful bastard that you are, you constantly monitor my posts trying to discredit me. Idiot, the fact that I deleted it only after a dirty spider like you was able to see it, is just coincidence.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You know what moron, even when I have brain fog, I usually think more clearly than all of you combined. I see what NONE of you will see in a thousand lifetimes.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I deleted the comment but you still replied - that speaks volumes of you dumb bastard. It is clear what is your agenda. Discredit the great John Gabriel.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have accomplished things that you will NEVER accomplish even if you could live many life times idiot.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Kill yourself Jean Pierre Messager because you are a disgraceful excuse of a human being.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As for Malum, I have nailed him a few times. I proved to him that there is no valid construction of real numbers and being the crank that he is, he still refused to change his thoughts.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have wasted enough time typing this comment but rest assured I am not doing it for your edification but for a historical record.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You will be remembered as just one of the many dumb bastards on sci.math.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Eat your heart out Froggie. The New Calculus was discovered by me and NONE of your stupid countrymen were able to produce a rigorous formulation.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > When I read your shitty soiled history, I laugh at your calamities. The Germans kicked your arses so bad. It took unarmed, tiny Greece to produce the first victory of WWII (against Italy and Bulgaria) which signaled the turning point of the war. Your shitty country was crying like weak homosexuals that you are. You are not only intellectually inferior to me stupid, you are also morally inferior and you suffer from serious psychological issues. But jealousy is the most stinky cologne.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Die you dead dog!! I am laughing at you. Even in my tired state I had realised my mistake a few minutes after posting it but it took you a good few hours after opining the thread to realise I had made a mistake. Chuckle.

> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Gabriel, you have enver nailed me, partially because I am not homosexual and even if I was, I'd never sleep with some moron like you. But you would definately be the bottom guy either way. Anyway, in the metaphorical way, you failed every turn because I could cite definitions and you could not.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You are the crank here, I can cite a definition and actually understand what they say, for fuck sake you cannot even keep the order of quantifiers straight! If you could do that, then maybe you could have a hope in showing a flaw in real numbers but you have not ever done that.

> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anyone denying that I used the correct definitions there is an imbecile. Chuckle.

> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyone thinking that is correct is indeed an imbecile. I have pointed out time and time again, none of those "cuts" are dedekinds cuts.

> > > > >
> > > > > You are an imbecile and no amount of logic or explanation can help you.

> > > >
> > > > Gabriel, the moron is you, I have shown you the definition, I have linked it many times and each time, I have shown which of the qualities it fails at and even demonstrated it to you. How much clearer does it have to be?

> > >
> > > [A] = (-oo, pi) U (pi, oo)
> > >
> > > is EXACTLY the same as
> > >
> > > [B] = (3, pi) U (pi, 4)
> > >

> > > > That's fascinating, since 5 e [A], but 5 !e [B].
> > >
> > > And it's quite irrelevant. Your point? I see. None.
> > > One doesn't lose the subset that defines the cut you baboon. Everything else is irrelevant.
> > >
> > > It means NOTHING that 5 e [A], but 5 !e [B] because it has ZERO effect on the subset.
> > >
> > > What matters is that L={x|3<pi},U={x|5>pi} APPLIES to BOTH you moron!!!!!
> > >
> > > [A] = (-oo, pi) U (pi, oo)
> > >
> > > [B] = (3, pi) U (pi, 4)
> > >
> > > They are EXACTLY the SAME D. Cuts.
> > >
> > > Klyver at least was able to see this. But you and Zelos are wankers.

> >
> > Gabriel, how can they be the same when A has -1, and B does not? By definition, they are not the same then.

>
> Did you even bother to read the explanation you dimwit?
>
> What matters is that L={x|-1<pi},U={x|5>pi} APPLIES to BOTH you moron!!!!!
>
> That is the Dedekind Completion you have been referring to you little twerp. As I told you in the past - you should never use concepts that you do not understand.


Again, you should follow your own advice. Because your "example" is not a cut, it clearly says that for p<q, with q in the cut, then p must be as well. or the more abstract one, you must have (S^u)^l=S, but yours fail on both accounts!