You clearly have been fed false information. Nothing you say has any regard to reality. Everything I say adheres to sacred geometry, sacred secrets, sacred literature and sacred architecture. Notice how you use words, not formulas? It’s because you have no real numbers. All the numbers you’re using are fake, and only used as tools to support your blatant ignorance on the matter of mathematical realities.
Like I said, the radius of Earth is 3960 Miles. That is 360 x 11, which is 11 circles, since you’re a moron and I have to hold on tight to your membranes because they lack mental acuity.
And the moon’s radius is 1080 Miles. That is 360 x 3.
Last time I checked, they make more sense than you ever will.
Sorry for being mean, it is clear that you are just mentally impaired in some way.
Are’nt schizophrenics who write self-referential connections also, living in their head, because they are unable to explain themselves in any rational, conceivable way, without dumping piles of delusional sounding numbers?
Your proofs are litterally 3+8+4 = 6…And now I feel like I’m on the short bus again…
Just because you’re an ignorant mortal, doesn’t mean numbers cannot exceed your level of comprehension – they created you and your ignorance to be frank.
If you begin with 2 cups, you have (1/10)[1]2[/b]
With 3 cups, you have (1/10)[2]3[/b]
And with 10 cups, you have (1/10)[3]10[/b]
It is an ontological definition (“≡”), not an equation.
Well, I have been known to make mistakes, but you’ll have to show me exactly where.
Yes, and an infinite cube is infA^3
…unless you are using the real-number system so as to include decimals, then it is infA[4]6[/b].
That statement doesn’t appear to make any sense. If by “step-value” you mean one infinitesimal, such is a matter of choice and ontological definition/declaration. Any amount can be used as long as it is consistent throughout.
It has nothing to do with particles. And even if it did, what happens when you divide the smallest thing (an infinitesimal) into an infinite thing? You get infA^2.
I’m afraid with that, you got into a little too much nonsense for me. And the universe is NOT finite. What makes you think that it is?
What about the opposite one: logic as a subset of mathematics? There were and are people who liked and like that very much. They think that hiding something behind mathematics is easier than hiding something behind logic.
Well, logic is a more fundamental set of principles. Mathematics deals with particulars by using abstract logic, not the other way around. Logic doesn’t use math or numbers for its principles/“laws”, but math uses logic for its theorems.
Mathematics is an axiomatically deductive system of logic which means it is a subset of logic
There are also non mathematical axiomatically deductive systems of logic such as syllogisms
So therefore all mathematics is based on logic whereas not all logic is based on mathematics
Actually, they have quite a bit of evidence concerning how many people will yield to a math presentation while scoff at a logic presentation. They fear the math more, so they avoid it and bow.
