Re: NUMBERS Dillema for NUMBERS THEORY(Hello AMS)
- From: Bacle <bacle@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:16:22 EDT
Look this is an important FACT that your mathematics
should have noted.
You use these terms with meanings only you understand.
Important why?. How?.
19 acts much more perfectly than 7
Undefined term.
as no number is repeated. Does it tell you some
thing? .
No. State specifically what the big deal is, or
shut up and stop creating noise.
"Of course Riemann discovered it, Euler
seconded it and Einstein put his seal and it
What is the "it" that was discovered?
is upto
us idiots, Vinoo Cameron and Theo Denotter to
rediscover it IF THIS PERFECT division was known to
your mathematics , why was it not mentioned in
Wikpedia, after all Wikpedia mentions under 7 with a
weird explanation. Why!
Wikipedia is not a repository of all mathematics.
You may want to read some actual math books if you
want to be anything other than a laughing stock.
Here again
1/19=0.05263157894736842 no sequence repeated unlike
20/19=1.05263157894736842 no sequence repeated
unlike7
Undefined term. No one can guess what you mean,
and, even under the most generous interpretation,
this is false: the decimal representation of any
rational is periodic.
WHAT IS A MATHEMATICIAN?
Not sure, but until you define your terms clearly, you
certainly are not. Note that anyone who reviews your
theory is doing _you_ a favor, so it is _your_ burden
to make yourself clear, and not for a reviewer to go
out of their way to read your minds.
It is not what you know but what you understand . I
had to argue with your learned well known professor
of mathematics when I said to him "absolute speed is
linear because Speed takes the least dimension".
Meaningless, undefined terms. The statement cannot be
tested. As many would say: it is not even wrong.
Professor of mathematics replied that that is not
always so,but that is not proven(Riemann is proven we
will show it) .
Cry wolf. We have been reading this thread for months
now.
BUT then I told him that the only
linear was the median of 19 , because even light
cannot exceed its inverse because of the inverse
zero. He did not get it,
Maybe he is sane.
so it not education alone
that makes a mathematician but the understanding of
it . we will disprove your mathematics within 10 days
as a notice of Proof to the AMS, who will get a copy
of this
I am willing to bet good money that you will not.
.
Vinoo Cameron, Theo Denotter (and John Daniels, Tod
Kittel)
Message was edited by: Vinoo
Cameron(www.inverse19mathematics.com)
- References:
- Re: NUMBERS Dillema for NUMBERS THEORY(Hello AMS)
- From: hope9900@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: NUMBERS Dillema for NUMBERS THEORY(Hello AMS)
- Prev by Date: Re: proof that the Naturals cannot be the Finite Integers; #55; 2nd ed; Euc
- Next by Date: Re: proof that the Naturals cannot be the Finite Integers; #55; 2nd ed; Euc
- Previous by thread: Re: NUMBERS Dillema for NUMBERS THEORY(Hello AMS)
- Next by thread: Re: NUMBERS Dillema for NUMBERS THEORY(Hello AMS)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
