From: sophyan2003@gmail.com   
      
    On Monday, July 13, 2020 at 10:27:26 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:   
   > On Wednesday, July 8, 2020 at 9:45:36 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:   
   > > On Wednesday, July 8, 2020 at 2:22:57 AM UTC+3, Dan Christensen wrote:   
   > > > On Tuesday, July 7, 2020 at 3:28:09 PM UTC-4, bassam karzeddin wrote:   
   > > > > On Friday, June 12, 2020 at 1:15:13 AM UTC+3, Mitch Raemsch wrote:   
   > > > > > Zeno's paradox is solved by time continuing to   
   > > > > > a completion of an unlimited interval. You can   
   > > > > > cut finite by half forever but by time that comes to   
   > > > > > an end... and in space... it lands on the continuum   
   > > > > > hypothesis or where there is the size of infinity   
   > > > > > of the infinitely small. There is final space time   
   > > > > > for that order...   
   > > > > >    
   > > > > > Mitchell Raemsch   
   > > > >    
   > > > >  The funniest thing ever heard about completion of Zeno's Paradox is   
   involving the time concept with velocity or acceleration about a purely   
   mathematical issue that deals basically with space properties, where space "in   
   mathematics" means "   
   nothingness" itself    
   > > > >    
   > > > >  They were simply mixing physical issues with purely theoretical   
   issues in order to convince people of modest or poor minds about their fake   
   completion for sure   
   > > > >    
   > > > >  How can truly "nothingness" or the same as "space" in mathematics be   
   ever bounded by purely human mind fictions like infinity "outwardly" and   
   similarly pure mind fictions like zero "inwardly" as well? wonders!   
   > > > >    
   > > > >  Even physics had fallen victim in this deep human mind trap of   
   infinite and infinitism since they could never understand that both   
   mathematical terms are useless and almost the same    
   > > > >    
   > > > >  Otherwise, state, immediately "if you have the minimum courage"    
   > > > > What is your largest ***FINITE*** natural number?    
   > > > >    
   > > > > **NOTE** I'm not talking generally about the largest natural number   
   (that everyone knows it doesn't exist)   
   > > > >    
   > > > >  And you would immediately realize that there is no difference at all   
   between those two wrong and very meaningless concepts in mathematics FOR SURE   
   > > > >    
   > > > >      So to say, not only the pure mind fiction infinity but also Zero   
   is the last corrupted tooth that must be dismantled from the entire   
   mathematics FOR SURE   
   > > > >    
   > > > >  Why I do claim this, simply because numbers are pure properties of   
   **SPACE**, Where space is nothingness **in mathematics**   
   > > > >    
   > > > >  Since space is a place where the utterly existing physical world had   
   emerged inside it momentarily (as if not at all existing, except in minds)   
   > > > >    
   > > > >  And space can be visualized throw three perpendicular distances   
   extended indefinitely in all opposite directions of that nothingness   
   > > > >    
   > > > >  Where no pure mind fiction like infinity can ever bound **outwardly**   
   the space of nothingness, nor pure mind fiction like zero can bound   
   **inwardly** the space of nothingness   
   > > > >    
   > > > >  For illustrations, you came to know recently about very far galaxies   
   and much more worlds that we would never know, same like when you came to know   
   about an atom size and many smaller worlds that you would never come to know   
   > > > >    
   > > > >  That is human minds think in terms of big and small, where they think   
   wrongly that the smaller things get suddenly vanished just because it is out   
   of their ability of visibility   
   > > > >    
   > > > >  In short, space or nothingness can't ever be bounded in size where   
   the whole existence issue is never a matter of image size or volume   
   > > > >    
   > > > >  And once, one is an arbitrary existing distance in space, then one   
   only can creat the existing numbers, in double perpendicular moves in a plan   
   one can creat the irrational like sqrt(2) as the diagonal of a square with   
   that one as unity side    
   distance  and strictly by the Pythagorean theorem and nothing else for sure   
   > > > >    
   > > > >  And similarly in space and in triple perpendicular moves, *ONE* only   
   can create the sqrt(3), irrational as the longest diagonal of a cube with   
   unity side distance *ONE*, where the rationals were also a creatin of only   
   *ONE*   
   > > > >    
   > > > >  So, **ONE** is the whole existing number that only can create the   
   numbers   
   > > > >    
   > > > >  As were classified in your own mathematics as constructible numbers   
   > > > >    
   > > > >  But the human infidels like to imitate the true one by manufacturing   
   a fake one like this no one nor any existing number (0.999...)   
   > > > >    
   > > > >  Where then they have filled the universe with those many fake   
   numbers, such that the whole universe (if truly existing) is insufficient to   
   contain only a single number from their uncountable fake numbers and FOR   
   SURE             
   > > > >    
   > > > > Where then, everything becomes clearer more than ever and many   
   unsolved problems would be immediately well-understood not to be more than a   
   very silly mind cheat FOR SURE   
   > > > >    
   > > > >  Consider for example a polynomial P(x) of a known degree, if not   
   factorable in constructible numbers, then, it doesn't have any true   
   **EXISTING** roots   
   > > > >    
   > > > >  Where the origin of the solvable polynomials are equations in   
   constructible numbers variables generally or solvable Diaphontine Equations in   
   particular where also the number of truly existing roots may not be   
   necessarily up to the degrees of    
   those polynomials   
   > > > >    
   > > > >  However, the entire issue of solvable polynomials can be reproduced   
   in new forms that you most likely have not the slightest idea about this very   
   central issue in the whole mathematics FOR SURE   
   > > > >    
   > > > >  But, I truly don't have sufficient times for that and for the   
   academic and most specialized imbeciles as well   
   > > > >    
   > > > >  And since we have long ago refuted the general Cardano formula for   
   cubic equations, some academic thieves started recently in this new thrilling   
   directions searching or most likely fabricating older sources in order to   
   bring it slowly for you    
   such that your so sensitive feeling doesn't get heated about the simplest   
   fundamental issues that should be rediscovered by your own self as a   
   knowledgeable academics in this field   
   > > > >    
   > > > >  Observe carefully here, how some of the Stalk Exchange academic   
   imbeciles and moderators started clearly (but indirectly) talking openly about   
   false roots of Cardano formula   
   > > > >    
   > > > > https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/8068/when-were-p   
   lynomial-equations-first-factored/8070#8070   
   > > > >    
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)