The "FOOL's Gold" stands, currently at US$100m.
Let me earn it, don't you think?
So, yesterday I just SAID that for example, subtracting a negative number from a negative number and getting a positive number was nonsense, but maybe that did not ring any bells, because anyone can tell that if it has been tried and trusted all this time then it has to hold water somehow, right?
Press a calculator and it will give you the sum in black and... well, in ink, yes?
But, of course, the calculator is "pre-programmed" with the logic sequences that will enable it to give THOSE answers. If, for example, someone wanted to say, 1+7+6=10, then all one has to do is set the thing to the hexadecimal mode with base"14" as the root base and it all has meaning, irrefutable meaning.
So, the fact that a calculator or some processor can tell you something and have you believe that it is real is just f**king nonsense, and will be brushed aside, on the basis that one can set those things to say what one wants them to...which is what happened anyway.
So, to multiplication, division and some more complex things in Number Theory:
Some say that 6/3= 2.
That is a lie, because what "division" is is this: One wants to share things between three groups, and the things are six, all in all, right? So, how much does ONE group have. Two, yes?
So, what is my problem with that? This; there are 3 groups. The answer should be that each of the three groups gets two. So, when one just focuses on numbers, and nothing else, then one forgets that "6/3" is, technically, supposed to be "2 per each of the 3".
6/3=2 is therefore an incomplete and misleading statement. You use it anyway, and you use it in many ways, but, let me just show something else.
The numerator has to be representing a quantity, and the denominator has to represent a group or all this makes no sense.
just as it seems obvious that $6/$3 is un-do-able, then having merely 6/3 is ALSO un-do-able.
Yet we teach kids THAT, from an early age and that sticks in their minds and they cram it till it sounds so logical and acceptable that it is obvious that it can be done.
ONE does not divide numbers by numbers. That simply can not be done, ladies and gentlemen!
How about multiplication?
Well, some say that we can have the square of a number, like
(11)(11) =121.
Please, explain to a Martian like me what you are actually doing?
Let us say you have 11 things, or stones. What is it that you are "multi-" folding?
Ahh, you will reply, you have eleven sets of eleven stones in each set, and the total number of stones at the end will be '121' .
Brilliant! You just showed how much of a fool you are. If you have 11 sets, then the thing you are actually saying is that you have 11 presentations of the same thing, so that one '11' means the number of times, while the other means the quantity in the set.
It is not number-times-number, but number-times-amount.
Strictly speaking though, one only gets a square if one is using dimensions. Then, one is saying that one side of a given area is some units long, while the other side is some other units long, and then, relative to the square which is 1unit by 1unit [hence 'square' unit] it is such and such 'square' units in AREA.
So, actually having a number like 5 'to the power of' 6 is absolute nonsense because ALL you can get as the highest power in real life is 3.
Similarly, having the square-root of a number like 1 is absolute nonsense, and one can only have the square root of anything in terms of area, where one dimension is being measured for size.
Do you begin to see what this MAVERICK is telling you?
Now, how about I start on, say, trigonometry,
and all those quadratic equations and
'n-dimensional' space and
vectors and
physics, and
bla, bla, bla
Who, in their right minds, will want to go to school?
But, please, do not take my word for it. After all, I am just a misguided fool with delusions, and y'all know the truth, right?
like this other guy who challenged some other know-it-alls to appear in court to settle the dispute about how old the earth is, based on SOLID mathematics, where one actually gets to put "ln'e'" to powers of unheard of magnitude .
Well, I am only at US$100m. Shall we 'extrapolate' that to something like US$200m in, say, 24hrs from now? It is 1:32pm.
Give it till 1:32pm Thursday...before i go...OK, here is MORE info, straight in the street!!!
Let me earn it, don't you think?
So, yesterday I just SAID that for example, subtracting a negative number from a negative number and getting a positive number was nonsense, but maybe that did not ring any bells, because anyone can tell that if it has been tried and trusted all this time then it has to hold water somehow, right?
Press a calculator and it will give you the sum in black and... well, in ink, yes?
But, of course, the calculator is "pre-programmed" with the logic sequences that will enable it to give THOSE answers. If, for example, someone wanted to say, 1+7+6=10, then all one has to do is set the thing to the hexadecimal mode with base"14" as the root base and it all has meaning, irrefutable meaning.
So, the fact that a calculator or some processor can tell you something and have you believe that it is real is just f**king nonsense, and will be brushed aside, on the basis that one can set those things to say what one wants them to...which is what happened anyway.
So, to multiplication, division and some more complex things in Number Theory:
Some say that 6/3= 2.
That is a lie, because what "division" is is this: One wants to share things between three groups, and the things are six, all in all, right? So, how much does ONE group have. Two, yes?
So, what is my problem with that? This; there are 3 groups. The answer should be that each of the three groups gets two. So, when one just focuses on numbers, and nothing else, then one forgets that "6/3" is, technically, supposed to be "2 per each of the 3".
6/3=2 is therefore an incomplete and misleading statement. You use it anyway, and you use it in many ways, but, let me just show something else.
The numerator has to be representing a quantity, and the denominator has to represent a group or all this makes no sense.
just as it seems obvious that $6/$3 is un-do-able, then having merely 6/3 is ALSO un-do-able.
Yet we teach kids THAT, from an early age and that sticks in their minds and they cram it till it sounds so logical and acceptable that it is obvious that it can be done.
ONE does not divide numbers by numbers. That simply can not be done, ladies and gentlemen!
How about multiplication?
Well, some say that we can have the square of a number, like
(11)(11) =121.
Please, explain to a Martian like me what you are actually doing?
Let us say you have 11 things, or stones. What is it that you are "multi-" folding?
Ahh, you will reply, you have eleven sets of eleven stones in each set, and the total number of stones at the end will be '121' .
Brilliant! You just showed how much of a fool you are. If you have 11 sets, then the thing you are actually saying is that you have 11 presentations of the same thing, so that one '11' means the number of times, while the other means the quantity in the set.
It is not number-times-number, but number-times-amount.
Strictly speaking though, one only gets a square if one is using dimensions. Then, one is saying that one side of a given area is some units long, while the other side is some other units long, and then, relative to the square which is 1unit by 1unit [hence 'square' unit] it is such and such 'square' units in AREA.
So, actually having a number like 5 'to the power of' 6 is absolute nonsense because ALL you can get as the highest power in real life is 3.
Similarly, having the square-root of a number like 1 is absolute nonsense, and one can only have the square root of anything in terms of area, where one dimension is being measured for size.
Do you begin to see what this MAVERICK is telling you?
Now, how about I start on, say, trigonometry,
and all those quadratic equations and
'n-dimensional' space and
vectors and
physics, and
bla, bla, bla
Who, in their right minds, will want to go to school?
But, please, do not take my word for it. After all, I am just a misguided fool with delusions, and y'all know the truth, right?
like this other guy who challenged some other know-it-alls to appear in court to settle the dispute about how old the earth is, based on SOLID mathematics, where one actually gets to put "ln'e'" to powers of unheard of magnitude .
Well, I am only at US$100m. Shall we 'extrapolate' that to something like US$200m in, say, 24hrs from now? It is 1:32pm.
Give it till 1:32pm Thursday...before i go...OK, here is MORE info, straight in the street!!!
