
Re: Unreal fiction numbers implies unreal fiction angles too
Posted:
Oct 7, 2017 5:17 AM


On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 11:55:15 AM UTC+3, Zelos Malum wrote: > Den lördag 7 oktober 2017 kl. 10:06:05 UTC+2 skrev bassam king karzeddin: > > On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 10:44:59 AM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote: > > > 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 see how are they so confused where they couldn't and wouldn't be able to produce only one counterexample to my many true claims at the biggest morons site that is usually run by thousands of TROLLS MODERATORS who can't even tolerate any challenging NEW mathematics at their link: > > https://mathoverflow.net/questions/282725/isitimpossibletoconstructexactlythoseintegerdegreesangles > > > > But strangely, Gerry Myerson claims shamelessly the opposite without being able to refute me by only a single counterexample, wonder! > > > > And the usual intrinsic tendency and very bad behaviours is to close the questions (by those unnamed TROLLS) since that doesn't fit with their standard poor education > > > > And I know in advance that your typo isn't at all different from those dwarfs typo, (all are big failures especially in mathematics), for sure > > > > BKK > > You are aware the link you provided is using the compass and straightedge rules, right? It has nothing to do with mathematics being unable to do it. WHICH THEY EVEN FUCKING POINT OUT TO YOU! > > You being too stupid to understand something doesn't make them trolls. Your question is shit and your understanding is shit.
OK, PROVIDE a counterexample without straight edge and a compass if you can
BKK

