The Math Forum



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

Topic: Zelos Malum can't even get the simplest logic correct.
Replies: 2   Last Post: Oct 6, 2017 10:11 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
zelos.malum@gmail.com

Posts: 1,098
Registered: 9/18/17
Re: Zelos Malum can't even get the simplest logic correct.
Posted: Oct 6, 2017 2:56 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Den torsdag 5 oktober 2017 kl. 19:25:55 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel:
> On Thursday, 5 October 2017 09:41:07 UTC-4, Markus Klyver 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.

> >
> > No, Gabriel. I said you could complete [3, 4] with that, and possibly ?. I didn't say your "cuts " are Dedekind cuts, because they aren't.

>
> Of course you did. You agreed. But what you think is not important nor is it necessary for you to agree. You are not on my level of intelligence. What you say is insignificant.
>
> I used the definition as I have explained. My article disproves Dedekind's ideas.


Gabriel, no one is at your level because most people are above an IQ of 50.

You used your definition, yes, and you showed that YOUR definition is shit and doens't work. you however did NOT show dedekinds cuts doesn't work because your definition is NOT dedekinds cuts.

You cannot claim you "improved" a definition, thereby altering it and making it different, prove shit with your weakarse definition, and then proclaim it is equivalent to the original, because you already admitted, YOU CHANGED IT!




Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.