On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 10:30:17 AM UTC+2, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 7:08:54 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > The question was tody published there, it was going well with hundreds of visibility for the benefits of young innocent students globally as usual, such that the stalked of those old rusted brains with it may one day may sense that was a very old inherited fiction as many others as well (that had been well-exposed mainly on sci. math and by myself and few rare members as well like (JG, WM, AP also, Khnong Dong, ... the list is opened widely for everyone) where then the brain cells of those academics might somehow start functioning naturally and normally as all other creatures on this earth, but so utterly and like the case with any old century but truly even worse than that, they simply can't tolerate to see any fact due to being so involved in its industry and were completely addicted with this kind of mind drugs beside being their business, where without it they would certainly beg and cry
> >
> > So, one said to himself, here they can't do anything as they do there and so cowardly behind the scene such that more of additional shame is added on their meaningless existence and useless performance
> >
> > Note that there are many thousands of researchers and book authors and Donkeypedia writers are trying to create huge piles of new sh*tty mythematics business from zero and alike
> >
> > So here its again the question with an answer that would the be documented as a wonderful piece of evidence about their unlimited stupidities that would shame them perpetually for sure
> >
> > Where I know also that the worst kinds of the academic mainstream sheeple are gathering here under many fake names and so like
> >
> > So, let me pour it again here over their very sounding empty heads so that they enjoy it once being alone before a mirror
> >
> > ********************************************
> >
> > Question: Isn't there a problem basically with zero or the problems are basically with those many like zeros ( 0^0,0/0,0!, +/- 0, 0∗n,n^0,n/0, 1/0, 1^n,(0+0),(0−0)...), etc?...?...?...............>>>0000.....>>oo
> >
> > The whole problem with zero is the following
> >
> > The problem isn’t at all with zero but the problem is the division by zero
> > The problem isn’t at all with zero but the problem is with zero to the power zero
> > The problem isn’t at all with zero but the problem is with factorial of zero
> > The problem isn’t at all with zero but the problem is with the division of zero by zero
> > The problem isn’t at all with zero but the problem is with one divided by zero
> > The problem isn’t at all with zero but the problem is with those three meaningless empty zero like digits (…) added after any number ….
> > …..
> > …..
> > ……………………………….
> >
> > Enough myth magic please, It is the time to know its absolute fact, and stop for a while to understand that zero isn’t, in fact, any real existing number nor any number to keep blundering about aimlessly and hopelessly for sure
> >
> > But zero was a primitive human mind invention like a number, despite all those many old stories that describe it as the most important and wonderful discovery and greatest human knowledge ever made by human mind beings history,
> >
> > Since real numbers are in fact already existing being (as perpetual mathematical existing objects) to be truly discovered and never to be invented or created illegally such that you get always stacked when subjecting them to valid mathematical operations where sometimes they pass and other times drastically fail
> >
> > See also the analogy with already exposed silliest fiction of infinity with zero no numbers
> >
> > Denote infinity by double o so infinity = oo,
> >
> > And recall back the paradisiacal operation rules with infinity and make a comparison with zero
> >
> > 1) (oo + oo = oo), and (0 + 0 = 0)
> >
> > 2) (n*(oo) = oo), and (n*0 = 0)
> >
> > 3) (oo^n = oo), and (0^n = 0)
> >
> > 4) ((oo)*(oo) = oo), and (0*0 = 0)
> >
> > …………………
> >
> > ………………….You can add alike ……
> >
> > But with infinity case, we admit that infinity is no number, where as in the zero case we deny it and claim that is a number, just because the common human mind illusion that we think it is here before our eyes between positive and negative numbers, where as the negative numbers were actually considered as real numbers only because we created zero, otherwise, an object of a location as a size less point on the real number line can go right or left from that chosen location but in positive senses (actually normal sense) in a both directions, same like up and down on the chosen artificial location (xyz - coordination’s) and things would run and be still sensible and normal without all those negatives signs with their invented intrinsic complexities that were shown meaningless as infinity and zero as well, and if one is worry about some mathematical expressions like saying randomly ( 10 – 7 – 3 = 0), I can tell him to rewrite in its original unreformed shape like this (3 + 7 = 10), similarly for any case, where nothing is lost by loosing zero and the negatives (together) since that was like an extra unnecessary mathematics
> >
> > So to say (0) is the last elder tooth to be uprooted from normal universal and valid mathematics in order to completely purify it from all kinds of other fictions that reflected on our spoiled (logic, philosophy and pure physics as well)
> >
> > Truly and mathematically speaking mathematics would not lose anything by losing zero,
> >
> > The same like the case when one day suddenly we added infinity (and most probably because of zero) then we easily threw infinity without losing anything meaningful as those human minds invented like numbers like the irrational (non-constructible numbers)
> >
> > And you might be afraid how our number systems would work anymore without zero?
> >
> > I would like to say don’t worry at all since it would work even better and faster and it might reveal more about the hidden patterns of number properties without zero’s
> >
> > The old primitive Roman number system shouldn’t be at all be considered as a reasonable excuse to add zero to our number systems because we can so easily make many number systems very efficient and without zero
> >
> > Isn’t it truly so strange that our 10-base number system (naturally originated from our hand's fingers) that consists of 10 digits where 9 fingers are given one-digit each but abnormally one finger is given two digits as (10)? Wonders!
> >
> > I know that people are generally in love with the symbol zero, so we shall keep it as it is but to be as a number 10, in 10-base number system where then no empty locations for any natural number or decimal number to be represented
> >
> > Then let me denote the last finger by (0) to actually equal to (10), such that all hand finger is denoted with only one digit, and all numbers wood run as normal as it should be (in the 10-base number system polynomial),
> >
> > So, from (1 to 9), our numbers would be the same, and furthermore any number without (0) digits symbol would be the same as we knew it before in our old 10-base number system
> >
> > (20) would become (10), and (90) would become (80), (100) would become (90), and (1000) would become (990), so whenever you see zero in our number system, then keep it but decrees the digit to its left by one
> >
> > Example 1): Convert this number (23061) to your new number system
> >
> > Solution: (22061), how easy the trick, but why?
> >
> > The hint is that whenever zero digit appears in the old number system then right the same number but by decreasing the digit to its left by one
> >
> > Whereas numbers without zero would be equivalent in both number systems
> >
> > For example, in our current number system, this number (4758123698) would be the same representations in the new zeroless number system, since we make (0 = 10) as a single digit
> >
> > Our original number is (1 + 6*10 + 0*100 + 3*1000 + 2*10000 = 23061), but in new number system it is like this
> >
> > (1 + 6*10 + 10*100 + 2*1000 + 2*10000 = 23061 (in old number system) = (22061) (in new number system)
> >
> > Example 2): Convert (1001) to a new number system
> >
> > Solution: (901), think about it
> >
> > Now, we see nothing is lost except expressing old extinct numbers like this (0.999…)
> >
> > Where this rational decimal would be represented like this with illustrations
> >
> > 1 = .90 = .990 = .9990 = …. = .999… (n)…9990, where this is valid for any natural number (n) and (n + 1), hence valid for any natural number
> >
> > But since there is always the last digit of (0) which means 10, then our number (n) can’t tend to infinity in any case, and not because there is truly no infinity to go to but because the rational decimal field is also endless field and the same when converting or approximating the real existing constructible numbers to endless decimal rational, that would never replace them exactly as long as it is endless representations
> >
> > This, of course, must be considered as an elementary proof number (11) for the no number with endless digits ever exists like our famous fake one (0.999…)
> >
> > However, l did publically publish earlier a zero less binary number system with (1, 2) digits, which was as effective as ours but usually with lesser digit
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Copyright ©, 2019
> >
> > Bassam Karzeddin
> >
> > 324 views · View Sharers
> > Adding comments disabled
> Another disliked answer by the true infidels of true mathematics was collapsed by the delusional academic mainstream
>
> So, it is very good to pour on their heads here again where the worst academic mainstream like those agents of Donkeypedia thieves, Book authors thieves, Secretive researchers thieves are hiding here with many fake names waiting for some bones to be thrown for them from their greatest masters in order to pickup immediately for their living
>
> Answer:
>
> The smoke of wars among mathematicians about so many fundamental issues in elementary mathematics are becoming very serious and visible conflicts and disputes that are going to explode globally mainly from sci. math unmoderated site to invade most of the well-controlled and moderated sites and official sources as well, as long as those responsible mathematicians in power pretending to hide in far galaxies and not at all willing to resolve those issues immediately
> However, one must note that the mainstream academic professional mathematicians attitudes on sci.math are generally not at all different but even much worse than here on Quora or elsewhere on MSE or any other official moderated site for mathematics since they usually hide under so many multiple fake characters names and act unitedly together to suppress any true hint to the facts that are generally spoiled with their constant same input to prevent others from picking any good idea about so many hot issues, where the nature of public mainstream tendency tends to defend their common knowledge which is legal where that is also quite natural in principles but becomes utterly odd when their defences become so vague and useless once defeated by elementary principles of mathematics itself
> So, they tend to destroy the image of other talented people by picturing them as being Cranks a Trolls and so and so until others react in the same disgusting way to them and apparently seem like true Cranks as a result
> So, like this, they succeed in spoiling a true place for free clean debates on many issues
> It was so strange to uncover many of them as being Wikipedia writers but hiding secretly under many fake names on sci. math
> And to summarise those conflict issues for serious future researchers in any field to investigate independently and honestly (without being biased even to their own beliefs) in order to uncover the absolute facts of those new arising problems for the benefits of all future generations of the global innocent students and the entire humanity benefits as well
> The dispute issues are so unfortunately so many about also so many well-established mathematics from older centuries, where there are some of them as following
> 1. The true definition of a real number in mathematics, that seems impossible to define by human definitions since the matter of real numbers is actually pure discovery where true existing numbers were already there much before any intelligent creatures would be able to define them correctly as they are since numbers are purely space properties as discovered being only an existing distinct exact distances relative to any arbitrary existing unity distance, were between any two numbers there are uncountable existing numbers and without a stop, (that is to say, space doesn’t end outwardly and similarly inwardly as well), were also real existing number means real constructible number in modern maths, (so if a number basically exists hence must be constructible number), otherwise, those fake non-existing numbers like (non-constructible algebraic and transcendental) numbers thus are impossible to construct and (by any means)
> 2. The true definition of some of the oldest known constant numbers and concept of a circle and ππ in mathematics
> 3. The true concept of what is the real irrational number in mathematics that is not real constructible numbers, as 2–√323 in mathematics and how it became a true real number since doubling the cube problem was never solved correctly nor have any existing historical proof like the case with 2–√2 for example
> 4. The concept of infinity and many others in mathematics, and how it blocked the human minds from thinking wisely and mathematically as well
> 5. The true concept of (non-discovered) but human-invented real numbers as zero, negative numbers and imaginary numbers beside those untrue irrational numbers that are impossible constructions by any means
> 6. The original form of the polynomial equations and their unsolvability by radicals or their approximate rational solutions and associations with those alleged imaginary numbers
> 7. The decimal notation symbol in mathematics and it's huge effects on mathematicians when misused in the infinite sums that actually never exists, where once dropped for a while a clever student can well-understand immediately the false many issues in mathematics
> 8. The true discovery of non-existing angles that constitute two-thirds of the well-known angles in both old and modern mathematics as well, for example, you can find an angle of (π/6=30)(π/6=30) Degrees in an uncountable number of triangles with EXACTLY known sides, where the same task is absolutely impossible for an angle like (π/9=20)(π/9=20) Degrees
> 9. The continuity of real numbers in mathematics that is commonly believed among mathematicians, which is proven absolutely as a false belief among global academic mathematicians in just a few minutes of coherent thought and a quarter of a page only, despite the fact that there are so much of huge volumes in mathematics about its truthiness, (note: proofs were published in my few public posts)
> 10. The technology true progress that is rarely related to academic mathematicians efforts, but solely due to many other’s practical talents with mainly scientists and engineers from all fields who are better successful mathematicians usually since early childhood where then being admitted in higher scientific branches based solely on their higher performance and IQ’s (strictly in the subject of mathematics), but there are few rare natural exceptions for every generalization of course
> 11. The true duties of the responsible professional historical mathematicians towards newly proved and announced facts that are contradicting they're own old inherited and wrong beliefs, must not be secretly stolen by so many means but should be taken seriously and honestly as was naturally happened first from public or official sources (that isn’t a big issue at the outcome)
> 12. Many other historical investigations of important issues about incomprehensible and hardly convincing stories regarding biggest theorems in mathematics produced by genius children who died at very early ages and later discovered as genius people (as always as usually happening in the history of mathematics)
> 13. Calculus with many flaws and holes on a large scale, by division by zero problems, identified by John G. with many claims and documentation where academic mainstream mathematicians seem helpless for the unbiased observer to defend their calculus
> 14. Set theory and its flaws identified by WM on sci. math where academic mainstream mathematicians try hopelessly to cover
> 15. Some big issues with the current flowed logic identified by AP, and the conic section and ellipses
> 16. The undecidabiltlity problem identified by Kong Dong on sci. math logic about ABC conjecture, where academic mainstream seem too helpless to cover those many holes in their logic
> However, those issues aren’t going to cease at all but would certainly become so much bigger than ever since many had already observed and absorbed them to a depth where many specialists are still pretending to ignore them deliberately
> So to say, one has to be so careful to trust the knowledge that he had learnt only and to deny blindly any other claims without any deep convenience and full comprehension that true mathematics require in principles
> Good luck for anyone that may be able to distinguish the facts mainly by himself
> 158 views
>
> BKK