/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10789408
let me have your children

>>10789408
If it doesn't matter why do you care?

>>10789408
>first argument is based on what image appears first in an arbitrary google search
Extremely cogent. Bravo, Tooker.
>>10789564
Lay off. He's mine, fag.

>>10789672
>calling the introductory segue an argument
>calling a segue an argument when it doesn't argue anything
>calling a google search about DNA arbitrary in a paper about DNA

>>10789672
>>first argument is based on what image appears first in an arbitrary google search
>Extremely cogent. Bravo, Tooker.
See... look here: Why do you belittle it? Why do you have more allegiance to the gay ettiquette rules of 4chan than to the laws I set before your ancestors?

You all, on the web and around me IRL, you should try to frame your own actions as if they were happening in the Torah. You all you would be utterly destroyed for your lack of reverence. You all would be killed for even seeing my face, and yet when you see me, you do not flee. One of these days, you half-assers are going to be sorely disappointed to find out that I lump you with those who were fully against me. Pic related, sometimes God makes exceptions, but I will almost certainly not make exceptions for you who deem yourselves my equals, as if my presence is a public place in which you are free to do as you will. My presence is not a public place. Wherever I go, you should make sure to stay out of it. If I want you in my presence, then I will have you brought before me.

>>10789672
wrong, he's mine
>>10791601
then why do u show ur face if you are going to kill ppl who know ur face

>>10789408
if you want to guess at truth based on your feelings go ahead. meanwhile people interested in making sure their arguments are logically correct will be doing math

>>10792224
Seeing an image of my face and seeing my face are two different things: one is my face and the other is an electric display.

>>10792239
>making sure their arguments are logically correct
You mean writing down some expressions and then checking them for flaws and revising as needed? Is that what people who do math do?

>>10789408
>Which of the axioms that will be held by mathematicians in the future are not yet considered by those currently fixated on the axioms of a complete ordered field?
There are none, because the axioms of a complete ordered field define a structure that is unique up to isomorphism. Adding any further axioms to it will either state a property that is already true of this set (making it redundant), or is false of this set (making it contradictory).

>Why I am the only one asking this question?
Because you don't understand axiomatic definitions at all.

>there is nothing for mathematicians to grasp onto beyond the self-consistency of a mathematician's imagination.
Yes, that is exactly the point of a construction of the reals -- it shows that the axiomatization of the reals is consistent. It also can serve as an intuition pump for students. But beyond that, constructions don't actually matter.

>This question is of so little importance than none of Euler, Gauss, Riemann, Cauchy, Bernoulli, the other Bernoulli, Legendre... literally no one ever even thought to mention it is as interesting problem.
You do realize what mathematician Cauchy sequences were named after, right? As I'm sure you know, Cauchy sequences form an alternative construction of the reals.

>>10789408
please dont put based pugh's book in your psychotic propoganda, schizo

>>10789408
YES TOOKER AMAZING THREAD. I AM GETTING A FEELING THIS WILL BE ONE FOR THE HISTORY BOOKS TOOKER.

What about the axiom of chode implants?

>>10789408
Tooker what do you think about this argument? >>10792729

>>10793085
Yeah, I'll second this. What a goddamn disgrace.

>>10792971
So basically your opinion is that because you think the algebraic definition of R is better than the geometric one, that means everyone will agree with you forever? Is that right, or am I not paraphrasing correctly?

>>10793085
>>10793216
If Pugh is based how come he calls the field axioms only a "current trend" and also points out that it is tantamount to fraud?

>>10793100
I think all of you using my name in posts I don't like, and all you referring to me as schizo, are going to suffer and that you will regret making such remarks. Also, I don't know what the principle "by inclusion" means nor do I see how the position of the particles follows from the position of the block of wood.

Furthermore, I believe "HUP" is known to be false, for example:
>Violation of Heisenberg's Measurement-Disturbance Relationship by Weak Measurements
>https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0034
It's been seven years and no one has shown an error in this measurement, to my knowledge.

>>10793532
>So basically your opinion is that because you think the algebraic definition of R is better than the geometric one, that means everyone will agree with you forever? Is that right, or am I not paraphrasing correctly?
No, that is not even slightly related to what I said.

>>10793532
>If Pugh is based how come he calls the field axioms only a "current trend" and also points out that it is tantamount to fraud?
I think you need to work on reading comprehension here. You basically twisted his words around to mean what you wanted them to mean. You know, kind of like what you've done with the math in your "disproof" of RH.

>>10789408
Tooker, I knew it was you at a glance, I saw someone sperging out about axioms and I just knew it had to be you.

>>10793552
I didn't understand you then. Could you rephrase? I'd like to understand your thinking as to how you can be sure that mathematicians in the future will never prefer a different definition of R than the one you prefer?

>>10793558
Thank you for flattering me by aping my "reading comprehension" meme. It is a good one, for sure! Which part of Pugh's blurb do you think I didn't comprehend?

My comprehension is that even though a system satisfying the axioms can be proven to exist, it is fraud-like to declare to that the reals satisfy the field axioms when we could take some other set of axioms, numbers being a cut in a line for instance, and also show that a set satisfying those axioms exist. The fraud is to say one set of axioms is preferred over another. The fraud would be exposed as a fraud plainly if no set satisfied the axioms, but the fraud remains when you say your axioms are somehow preferred over another set of axioms. Indeed, Pugh makes it clear that the field axioms are only the current fraud trend, and it is implied that the mathematicians of tomorrow might prefer a different fraud trend.

This was the book I used in my own real analysis class in college. This was the book assigned t us by the professor who opened the first day of class with the bold question, "WHAT IS A REAL NUMBER???," and then, when no one could tell him, he informed us to his great self-satisfaction, that, "A real number is a cut in the real number line! That's it! Nothing more!!!"

>>10793568
>sperging out about axioms
Actually, Pugh wrote that part. The part I wrote is on the top where I ask "What axioms will be held int he future which are not held today?"

>>10793558
>kind of like what you've done with the math in your "disproof" of RH.
Kind of like what Wiles did in his first draft "proof" of Fermat's theorem then?

Also, I notice you guys will harp on my attempt to find the specific zero very much, but you all always ignore my independent proof that such zeros do exist. I disproved RH in 2017, and you all pretend like I didn't, and you cite the petty fixable errors in my more recent disproof as if they were unfixable.

I disproved RH in 2017:
On The Riemann Zeta Function
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1703.0073

>>10793618
>What axioms will be held int he future which are not held today?
I meant this exactly. When I read this I knew it was you.

Took, serious question: You ever think to yourself that everybody has a point and that you might just be wasting your time? You're clearly a talented guy, you graduated magna cum laude, won a prestigious fellowship, if what I've read is accurate. If you restored your sanity and stopped making clearly whacky arguments you might actually make a serious contribution to Physics. You're clearly capable of it at the very least. John Nash fought off his delusions to return to serious work in Math, maybe you can do the same and do some real work in Physics.

I don't expect it to change your mind but it's kind of tragic that someone with ability is wasting their life on crackpot theories.

improved version, now with limits, answer comes out the same

Turns out there are zeros off the critical line in the neighborhood of infinity just I like I proved in 2017.

>>10793638
>You ever think to yourself that everybody has a point
Do you mean like the 10 different versions of all of my papers that I've uploaded after consistently acknowledging others' valid criticisms and then revising accordingly? Do you mean like where I have always acknowledged the valid points other people make (none of which have ever cited an unfixable error)? Do you mean like that?

Or do you mean like in your retarded fantasy land where I refuse to admit that I'm wrong and that my ego prevents me acknowledging other's valid opinions when they disagree with my own?

Tard, sarcastic question: Do you really think "By the axiom that you are wrong, you are wrong," is an argument that I should take seriously?

And how about this question, Tard: Do you really think that a set of axioms whose origins can be traced to 1872 are part of a problem which was defined in 1859?

>>10793675
See, this is why I didn't expect any change. Because you'll immediately get defensive.
>Or do you mean like in your retarded fantasy land
Took, when people eventually point out valid errors you've made you disappear from the thread and don't even acknowledge it and continue on as if the comment was never made, or you start threatening everyone.

Took, you were talented once, now your brain isn't worth its weight in piss. It's depressing.

>>10793638
>You ever think to yourself that everybody has a point
Do you ever think that I have a point that geometric definition of R is better than the algebraic definition of R because it is more general and contains everything in the algebraic definition as a case of some subset?

Are you just a complete ignoranus where you can't possibly entertain the notion that progress beyond the current trends might some day occur, and that such a thing could never occur if nobody ever dissents from the current trends?

You are like that fucking asshole who was on here last week saying, "No one will accept your zeros unless they are in the critical strip." You just subscribe to whatever notion you need to to make yourself feel superior, and you go with it despite any and all evidence to the contrary.

I have fixed my errors many, many, many times, but none of you ha ever admitted the obvious truth: the geometric definition of R is a perfectly valid alternative to the algebraic definition of R which did not even exist at the time Riemann published his hypothesis.

Do you ever think you're an egofag and you stuck in a big groupthink with a bunch of other retarded egofags?

SOMEONE ANSWER ME THIS: Why is the algebraic definition better than geometric one?

>>10793687
>point out valid errors
Whenever I ask people to cite these, they never can. They always go back to, "By the axiom that you are wrong, you are wrong." When they devolve into that inanity, and start talking about the electroshock equipment implanted in my anus, I am compelled to remind them that one day they will have much torture to deal with than merely irksome, only mildly convulsive electroshocks.

>>10793739
>They always go back to, "By the axiom that you are wrong, you are wrong."
More like they point out your fundamental misunderstanding of the subject matter and you then try to rationalise your misunderstanding as valid, when it's not.

Btw I'M ACTIVATING YOUR ANAL IMPLANTS AT THEIR MAXIMUM STRENGTH

>>10793739
Hey, Tooks. I think I'm going to make a video about everything I have a problem with in one of your papers, so if you could start a thread in the next week or so and post a vixra link in the first post so I can find you, that'd be cool.

>>10789408
Publish or perish propels people to persue pontification of preposterous postulates

>>10793768
Awesome alliteration ally

>>10793750
>More like they point out your fundamental misunderstanding of the subject matter
What is it that I don't understand? My point is that the field axioms can be traced to 1872 so they cannot be a part of RH. What is it you think I'm misunderstanding?

You all say, "We proved you wrong 500 times," but you never did and then when I ask you what error you showed that ignored, then you write, "If you ignored it the first time, then I'm not I'm not even going to write it again although I will keep saying that exists without ever repeating it or linking to it."

The maximum strength of these rape implants is only enough to cause the psychological sensation of being brutally raped. This pain is with me night and day, and it is excruciatingly painful. When I do it to you later, however, you will have the psychological rape problem from watching what I do to your family. The pain of knowing you're being raped is terrible, this pain is with me all the time. However, it will be much worse still when I put the psychological sensation in your mind by destroying the bodies of your loved ones, and then your own body. I am the Lord.

>>10793779
>What is it you think I'm misunderstanding?
Everything under the sun, Took.
>This pain is with me night and day, and it is excruciatingly painfu
Took, are you trying to get me hot and bothered?
I'M ACTIVATING THE RAPE APPARATUS ONCE AGAIN, I'M CRANKING UP THE SETTINGS TO SIMULATE A 12" BBC

>>10793766
I'm going to make a video about what happens to people who use my name in a way I don't like. You are so fucked, and you don't even know it.

>>10793786
>Everything under the sun, Took.
This just ruins your credibility. I think you just like to mess with this man.

>>10793790
lol wut

>>10793793
I'd like Tooker to return to his senses and start doing the Physics research that he's no doubt capable of, but he's been insane for nearly a decade, maybe longer. In the end sometimes all you can get out of a tragedy is comedy.

>>10793786
When I do it to you later, I'm going to let the rapists out of prison to put them on your family, and there will be nothing simulated about it. Not only that, but before you descend to far into the hell I will make for you, you're going to be dreaming about the good old days when your worst problems were the anger of your brother and sisters seeing their children get raped because you were irreverent before me.

In the future, people will know that if their family members are out to disrespect me, then they should kill those family members. It is better for you all to keep your own houses in order because if I feel like I have to set your houses in order, I will simply burn them to the ground for the houses to see.

>>10793802
>I'm going to let the rapists out of prison
Tooker I'll be the KING of the anal violators, they'll call me Lord BLACKED and we'll march like the gangs in Mad Max 2 to your hotel room and endlessly plug your chocolate factory. Pepper your angus!

>>10793798
>all you can get out of a tragedy is comedy.
All of you people choosing to see comedy or tragedy are going to get killed. History will record it as my glorious military victory.

>>10789408
any tl;dr in mr. tooker?

>>10793814
History will record the size of my enormous BBC penetrating your very soul, I will hold you aloft on my lance of Longinus for all to see!

>>10793811
See... either you have relatives who don't want centipedes eating their children from the inside out, or the team of coders who developed you has relatives like that, but that is exactly what they are going to get. Then after I give it to them, the other families will know to keep themselves in order lest I do the same to them. You guys should police yourselves because my answer will always be to kill you all, and you won't like the way I kill you. I want people to learn fear of the Lord, and I will make them afraid with the terrible things I put on you and your people.

>>10793793
>I think you just like to mess with this man.
The issue is that the people I called Mom and Dad as a child, who are more likely my sister and her ex-husband, are ~THE~ two most evil people in the USA deep state, pic related. She is a pathological sadist and he is a gay pedo with delusions of grandeur, and they both know that if I ever take my rightful place above them in the grand scheme things, the place due my 47 degree masonic rank, then I will kill them and all their friends, and I will hand victory to their enemies, and I will destroy them with the greatest amount of disrespect that i can muster. For this reason, they contract with their henchpeople to torment me wherever I go, and to mock me, be it online or IRL, in the hopes that their mockeries will somehow prevent my lordship over them.

>>10793910
I believe you. These people are unnecessarily aggressive.

>>10793919
>unnecessarily aggressive.

>>10793930
Not sure if YOU are trolling. Don’t bother me with this nonsense

>>10793910
how's it feel to know you'll never have power?

>>10793936
ok, no problem fren.

>>10793793
>I think you just like to mess with this man.
He's been posting the exact same stuff for multiple years now, man. The only people who think they have a snowball's chance in hell at getting anything through to him are newfags who don't know any better. Everyone else is just screwing around for fun.

>>10793739
Took, is the reason you are going through electroshock therapy that you finally want to cure your rampant homosexuality? I’ve never seen you with a girl... hmm...

>>10793965
Either he’s right or wrong. Either way, it isn’t right to make fun of him. Do something better with your time

>>10793974
Wrong, definitely wrong.

>>10793779
Jon I don’t deserve to be this happy and laugh so much. You’ve made my days these past few days. If I get the job I am aiming for I promise to buy your book just out of cheer respect as I feel I need to pay you for this daily comedy. I unironically love you.

>>10793815
There is no tldr because he posts every day. Lore already has more chapters than One Piece.

>>10793766
I'm going to make a video about what happens to people who use my name in a way I don't like. You are so fucked, and you don't even know it.

>>10794231
I guess I don't, cuz I feel pretty safe tooky boi

>>10794231
Took it’s not cool to delete your posts. Own it man! You are a unique butterfly. You are the LORD.

>>10794231
Tooker, here's a changeup: You claim that you're going to time travel. Well, if you are, how will you overcome the problems associated with time travel to the distant past, that is, that you can only go back in time to the point where you first activated your time-machine?

>>10789408
There is only one axiom in all of math, and that is the law of the excluded middle.

>>10789408
Took I know we have fun here but honestly I think that what your shizophrenia perceives as electroshock implantations could instead be infections in your anus and penis. Please go to a doctor. I dread the day we lose you.

hello world