On Wednesday, August 28, 2002 at 5:43:36 PM UTC-5, Garry Denke wrote:

"square root of *positive* minus one equals *positive* minus one"
square root of 0.000...1 equals 0.000...1
"positively true"

What on earth do you mean by "*positive* minus one"?

0.000...1 is positively and absolutely minus one, and minus one
squared positively and absolutely equals minus one, and the square
root of minus one is positively and absolutely equal to 0.000...1 is
what I mean. All of the Errors in your calculator and all of the
Errors in your computer are my proof that your number theory is in
Error. I am only trying to help you fix your Errors. Do you want to
fix these Errors or not?

Did it ever occur
to you that numbers with a minus sign in front of them aren't
positive???

Pure mathematics is neutral. It only takes one (1) Error to disprove a theory. Just one (1) mistake. Here's nine (9) Errors of your charged
number theory:

square root -0 = Zero,
square root -1 = Error,
square root -2 = Error,
square root -3 = Error,
square root -4 = Error,
square root -5 = Error,
square root -6 = Error,
square root -7 = Error,
square root -8 = Error,
square root -9 = Error,
etc.

The numerals 123456789 have no charge in pure mathematics. You're
confusing charge - + ampere-second with - + subtraction addition.
Positive minus one means 0.000...1 is positively minus one. Why do you
insist on corrupting pure mathematics with charge symbols? Are you a physicist? The pure numerals 123456789 have no charge, they're
neutral. I wish I was wrong about this, but I am not, and I wish you
were right about this, but you are not, because there are Errors in
your calculators and computers. It's not my fault they're there. I am
only a tax paying consumer who bought calculators and computers full
of Errors like yours. I am only trying to help you fix all of the
Errors in your calculator and computer, and it only takes one Error to disprove any theory. There are no Errors in my number theory. There
are many Errors in your number theory.

Oops. *blush* O.k., I withdraw my comment...

<Deleted>

My (wrong) answer to the previous question has nothing to do with why
this is "accordingly". How does minus one squared = minus one follow
from one squared = one, please?

I knew you misread the question. I knew you knew the answer.
Accordingly, any one squared equals one, Proof:

FIRST ONE: NOT ONE: LAST ONE:

1.000... 0.999... 0.000...1
x 1.000... x 0.999... x 0.000...1
---------- ---------- -----------
1.000... 0.999...8 0.000...1

If 0.999... was one, it's square would be one, which it is not. Nine
(9) times nine (9) rev's 18 on Sunday, and on every day of the week.
Multiply 9 x 9, rev's 18, everytime. Carry the ones, nines, but one
eight ball. See?

THE FIRST AND THE LAST (1.000... + 0.000...1 = 1.000...1)

1.000...1
x 1.000...1
-----------
1.000...1

^Texas Longhorns^

Therefore, the first one, the second one, the last one, are one,
Proof:

FIRST ONE: SECOND ONE: LAST ONE:

1.000... 1.000...1 0.000...1
x 1.000... x 1.000...1 x 0.000...1
---------- ---------- -----------
1.000... 1.000...1 0.000...1

Because: Accordingly; Any one squared is one.

0.999... is not one, because 0.999... squared has an eight ball at its
head. So it's been eight balled (black balled) and trashed as a one. I
am sorry. It's not my fault 0.999... squared does not equal 0.999...,
it's just a fact of life. We can pretend it does, but it does not.

Trinity of One:

1.000... First One
1.000...1 Second One
0.000...1 Last One

"Bjoern, why are you charging me *negative* here? We are discussing numbers here with no physics symbols attached.

Physics symbols??? Negative and positive numbers are a purely
mathematical concepts!

We already covered this. In the above sentence you corrupted the pure
word, numbers, by attaching the word negative, and the word positive, followed by your argument, which negated itself when you corrupted the
pure word, numbers, being the numerals on your keyboard. They're
neutral. Look down at them. 123456789, pure. Zero (0) is pure too,
purely a place holder. I am not trying to prove you wrong, I wish I
was wrong, but I'm not. If you were right there would not be any
Errors in your calculator and computer.

If you wish we can
delve into semantics and discuss charge symbols - +

Charge symbols???

Positive + 1.000...
Neutral + - 1.000...1
Negative - 0.000...1

instead of subtraction addition - +
and that would be fine with me.

Did you ever heard of the concept of "inverse element with respect to addition"?

Is that the concept which disproved your number theory as evidenced by
all of the Errors in my Texas Instruments Calculator and these
International Business Machines here? You know, the same Errors which disproved your number theory?

A hint: minus one is defined as the number which, added to one, gives
zero. Because adding numbers which are greater than zero gives always a larger result, and zero clearly isn't larger than one, minus one clearly isn't greater than zero. It isn't zero itself, too, therefore minus one
is less than zero. And numbers which are less than zero are called
negative numbers. What's your problem with that?

Yep. That's the one which disproved your number theory (review each
Error produced by the above concept in your calculator and computer).
These Errors disproved the above concept, not me. It was the
Babylonian mathematicians who invented the Errors, not you. Let us
review "A hint":

a) minus one is defined as the number which, added to one, gives zero:

minus one (0.000...1) + first one (1.000...) = second one (1.000...1)

Nothing gives zero. See how language proves my statements true. Do you
know why? Because they are true. Zero's a place holder. End of story.
The answer is 1.000...1 and the equation is balanced. The problem with
your equation is there is nothing on one side of it. You negated your equation from the beginning. All equations need something on both
sides. a + b = c, where c is something, not nothing. a + (and) b
better be something too.

b) Because adding numbers which are greater than zero gives always a
larger result, and zero clearly isn't larger than one, minus one
clearly isn't greater than zero.

Minus one (0.000...1) IS greater than nothing (0) the place holder.

c) It isn't zero itself, too, therefore minus one is less than zero.

Minus one (0.000...1) isn't zero itself, too. Your "therefore" is the problem. Zero's nothing, and you want to therefore yourself into less
than nothing? Tell me, Bjoern, you don't believe in imaginary
(delusional) things too, do you? We're being serious here. This is
pure logic, not imaginary land. Having an imagination is great, but
this is business Bjoern. Let's get right down to the business at hand: "Nothing's less than nothing, therefore, nothing's nothing." Do you
have a problem with that?

d) And numbers which are less than zero are called negative numbers.

Your second word in the above sentence is your problem, numbers, pure,
and the last word in the above sentence, pure, but there you go
attaching physics again, negative charge. Ever hear of subtraction
(-)?

What's your problem with that?

Bjoern, the numerals 123456789 have no charge in pure mathematics,
you're confusing charge - + ampere-second with - + subtraction
addition. Why do you insist on corrupting pure mathematics with charge symbols? The pure numerals 123456789 have no charge. I wish I was
wrong about this, but I am not, and I wish you were right about this,
but you are not. It's not my fault there are all of these Errors in calculators and computers. I am only trying to help you fix all of the
Errors in your calculator and computer, and it only takes one Error to disprove any theory. There are no Errors in my number theory. There
are many Errors in your number theory. That's the problem.

I thought we were discussing pure mathematics.

Err, yes, I am. I wonder what you are talking about?

All of the Errors in your calculator and computer, the Errors you and
others are ignoring, the Errors which disprove your number theory.
That's what I am talking about. Either you want to help fix these
Errors or you do not. Do you?
Or are you going to dwell in the delusional, the imaginary. Where I
went to school, when we saw an Error, we went back to where the Error
was created, and then we fixed the Error (or as in this case Errors),
then we moved forward. How do you do it? Do you just close your eyes
and pretend they're not there? Or do you face them like a man and fix
them? Maybe you're not up to the task.

But since you brought it up, the
root of your confusion preceeds Karl Weierstrass and Richard Dedekind
and Charles Meray and Georg Cantor, its root goes back to a
civilization of antiquity, namely Mesopotamia. Babylonian
mathematicians invented place holder (non-number) notation in the 3rd millennium BC and later the place holder non-numbers. You were
confused by the Babylonian mathematicians, not me. I am only here to help. So here is the answer to your question "A non-number times a non-number gives a non-number again?"

Huh? Do you claim that negative numbers don't exist?

It's not a claim. It's a fact. Just look at all of the Errors in your calculator and your computer. It only takes one Error to disprove any
theory. Your number theory has many Errors in it. Face it, it's a
goner. If a number is not equal to or greater than minus one,
0.000...1, it's not a number. Maybe you should go into physics because
you're not going to make it as a mathematician [unless you are a
Babylonian already or move to Mesopotamia (Iraq)] if you keep
attaching charges to the pure uncharged (neutral) numbers. That's what
is causing many of these Errors.

Yes, none of them are numbers.
Proof: place holder (0) x place holder (0) = place holder (0).

Right. And what is this supposed to prove???

Nothing's less than the place holder therefore this proves, along with
all of the Errors in your calculator and computer, that your number
theory is in Error and disproven, that is, if your a mathematician.
Are you? You seem more like a physicist insisting on charge positive
or charge negative attached to the neutral pure numbers.

The non-numbers which you believe to be less than nothing (zero)

*sigh*
Yes, you really claim that negative numbers don't exist.
Then what do you mean by "minus one"?

"minus one" is - one is minus 1 is - 1 is 0.000...1 is greater than
zero the place holder. Proof that one minus one is minus one:

1.000...1 (one)
- 1.000... (minus one)
----------- =
0.000...1 (minus one)

are notation for 10^-1, 10^-2, 10^-3, etc.

Huh???

Oops. *blush* O.k., I withdraw my comment...

What I meant was...

1^-0 = 1.
1^-1 = 0.1 place holder,
1^-2 = 0.01 place holders,
1^-3 = 0.001 place holders,
1^-4 = 0.0001 place holders,
1^-5 = 0.00001 place holders,
1^-6 = 0.000001 place holders,
1^-7 = 0.0000001 place holders,
1^-8 = 0.00000001 place holders,
1^-9 = 0.000000001 place holders,
etc.

Notation for the above is -1,-2,-3,-4,-5,-6,-7,-8,-9, etc.
Proof of the above being mearly notation is Logarithm Errors:

LOG -0 = Error,
LOG -2 = Error,
LOG -3 = Error,
LOG -4 = Error,
LOG -5 = Error,
LOG -6 = Error,
LOG -7 = Error,
LOG -8 = Error,
LOG -9 = Error,
etc.

And Bjoern, that's only the first ten (10) of jillions which disprove
your number theory. Notice how Logarithm Zero (0) is Error. See, it's
a place holder only. Here's some more Errors which disproved your
number theory...

0/0 = Error
1/0 = Error
2/0 = Error
3/0 = Error
4/0 = Error
5/0 = Error
6/0 = Error
7/0 = Error
8/0 = Error
9/0 = Error

Notice how the place holder (0) divided by the place holder (0) is
Error. Do you know why?

The knowledge of nothing [place
holders (non-numbers) notation] is everything." Socrates, Author

So what?

"So fix the fucking Errors or change professions." Socrates, Author

(I apologize for Socrates language - Garry)

Define pi in number exactly

Pi is the ratio of the area of a circle to its radius squared. That's an exact definition. It's four times the limit of the series sum_(n=0)^infinity (-1)^n 1/(2n+1), too. And there are a lot of other definitions possible...

Is pi a number Bjoern?. If yes, define pi *in number* exactly:

___________________________________________________________________
Answer Above

for 0.000...1 is already defined exactly,

How?

Down to the last digit:

0.000...1
_______________________
Answer Above

and proven to exist by and through the following proof:

How is 0.333... defined?

Down to the last digit:

0.333...3
_______________________
Answer Above

1/3 = 0.333... exact
1/3 = 0.333... exact
+1/3 = 0.333... exact
----------------------
3/3 = 0.999... exact

How is 0.999... defined? If you define it as the limit of the series sum_(n=1)^infinity 9 * 10^(-n), then it is equal to one.

We already covered this, 0.999... squared does not equal 1, and boy O
boy it better or it's a goner, which it is... Repeat Proof:

FIRST ONE: NOT ONE: LAST ONE:

1.000... 0.999... 0.000...1
x 1.000... x 0.999... x 0.000...1
---------- ---------- -----------
1.000... 0.999...8 0.000...1

If 0.999... was one, it's square would be one, which it is not. Nine
(9) times nine (9) rev's 18 on Sunday, and on every day of the week.
Multiply 9 x 9, rev's 18, everytime, carry the ones, nines, but one
eight ball. See?

+ = 0.000...1 exact

How is 0.000...1 defined? If you define it as the difference between 1
and 0.999..., and define 0.999... as above, then it is equal to zero.

Nothing equals zero, i.e., 0 = 0, zero's a place holder.

FIRST ONE: SECOND ONE: LAST ONE:

1.000... 1.000...1 0.000...1
x 1.000... x 1.000...1 x 0.000...1
---------- ---------- -----------
1.000... 1.000...1 0.000...1

Subtracting the first one from the second one defines the last one:

1.000...1 (one)
- 1.000... (minus one)
----------- =
0.000...1 (minus one)

Because 1.000... squared equals 1.000..., therefore, 0.000...1 squared equals 0.000...1 accordingly

How does the second follow from the first, please?

We covered this. Please fix the Errors in your calculator and
computer.

And how does it follow from that that 0.000...1 (however this is
defined) is equal to minus one?

We covered this. Please fix the Errors in your calculator and
computer.

"accordingly" implies that the second follows from the first. Could you please explain in detail how this conclusion follows?

We covered this. Please fix the Errors in your calculator and
computer.

To those who study the origin of Mesopotamia's (Babylonian mathematicians') invention of the place holders (non-numbers)
notation, the answer is yes. To those who study "corruption of the
young" - charge - against Socrates (who failed to right the Babylonian wrong), the answer is yes. To those who study Dan 8 and Rev 18, the answer is yes. But the question here is do you still believe the place holders (non-numbers) notation are numbers?

According to the standard meaning of the word "numbers" in mathematics, yes.

The Standard in mathematics has been disproven by all of the Errors in
your calculator and computer. Error means mistake. Fix the mistakes
Bjoern. Fix the Errors. Bjoern, the numerals 123456789 have no charge
in pure mathematics, you're confusing charge - + ampere-second with -
+ subtraction addition. Why do you insist on corrupting pure
mathematics with charge symbols? The pure numerals 123456789 have no
charge, they're neutral, pure. I wish I was wrong about this, but I am
not, and I wish you were right about this, but you are not. It's not
my fault these Errors exist, I am only trying to help you fix all of
the Errors in your calculator and computer, and it only takes one
Error to disprove any theory. There are no Errors in my number theory.
There are many Errors in your number theory. Your calculator and
computer Errors are my proof.

[snip]

Greetings,
Bjoern

Cheers,
Garry

New Mathematics Discovery disproves Theory of Capitalism

https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/251648423 https://i.4cdn.org/pol/1585867877231.jpg https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/251648423

So you do believe in those complex
Imaginary flying spaghetti monsters

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+square+root+of+minus+0.000...1+is+minus+0.000...1%22&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Square+root+of+minus+0.000...1+is+minus+0.000...1%22&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

American Atheists

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)