/sci/ - Science & Math

The no "permanent damage" theory is 100% out. It is definitively falsified and anyone who's shilling it is only trying to say, "Maybe the jews aren't so bad after all?"

>>12117535
>Euler's original argument is not used or accepted today
I don't even need to have you grant the validity of Euler's argument to prove my point. My point is proven simply by the fact that Euler used the number at all. What he argued with them is irrelevant since his arguing anything with them prove that they are allowed.

>despite being rejected by every single journal
What have you done to separate the cases in which I am rejected due to the quality of my work from the cases in which I am rejected due to the strong arm tactics of my enemy the United States of America?

>>12117562
>He didn't give rigorous proof to all of those things, but he did discover them.
He did give a rigorous proof for all them. Your notion, "He did not use the presently trendy language so his proofs were not rigorous," will necessarily lead to all of mathematics being redefined as non-rigorous every time the trend in the language evolves. That is stupid and you are stupid for suggesting the standard of "rigor" which brings it as a consequence. Literally, you cannot come up with any other definition of rigor than "the algebraic stuff which got thought up in the last 150 years or so." All the geometric stuff from Euclid also perfectly rigorous. There are problems in algebra that can only be proven with the algebraic definitions, but that takes away nothing from the perfect rigor of the geometric Euclidean axioms of R, shitcunt. Your idea, "X definition is not rigorous because it can't be used to solve Y problem," is 100% stupid.

>If Euler was also as retarded as you then instead
If Euler was like me, then he would always be rejected categorically without the opportunity to address anything an editor perceives as a gap.

>He did. But that was fine, because in his time he didn't have the concept of rigor we had.
Define what you mean by "the concept of rigor we had." To me, it seems like you are saying X is only rigorous if it can solve Y arbitrary problem in algebra.