/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12390118
I dont know enough math to have a strong opinion but i support you

>>12390118
Tell us a bit more about this neighborhood of infinite. Infinities are always controversial, is this formally correct?

>>12390118
>infinity is a number

>>12390380

>>12390449
infinity is a concept not a quantitative value

>>12390526
On top of how wrong and stupid Wolfram shows you are, pic related, infinity is a symbol and algebra is called "the study of mathematical symbols and the rules for manipulating them." Your attempt to phrase "sideways eight" as something other than a completely mundane algebraic symbol on par with seventeen, pi, and the decimal point is absurd. You probably know how completely stupid and absurd it is to even suggest that sideways eight is something other than totally mundane but you do it anyways because you will be able to confuse know-nothings and know-littles who think sideways eight might be magical as opposed to mundane.

>>12390526

>>12390118
>neighborhood of infinity
into the trash it goes

>>12390449
1) assume inf is a number
2) inf is larger than any number
3) hurr durr inf>inf

>>12390449
>took still hasnt figured out how to take a field extension

>>12390632
You keep writing that as if you think I am the inventor of the neighborhood of infinity, but I am not. I got the phrase and the definition from these undergrad MIT course notes.
https://math.mit.edu/~jorloff/18.04/notes/topic2.pdf

>>12390639
The thing you are improperly paraphrasing says that inf is greater than every *real* number. The set inf belongs to which makes it an element of an ordered set is not the set of real numbers.

ArchiePu already did it
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/m8wbOBB-1KM/kv3hvoINLhAJ

>>12390576
>>12390594
>thinking himself as superior
>unable to understand the meaning of unbounded

>>12390722
Unbounded means that it's not a real number and that there is no upper bound on a set which contains infinity. You're suggesting that boundedness has some relevance for whether of not infinity is a number when it only means that infinity is not a real number. If you think "unbounded" has some meaning other than pic related, then say what it you think it means.

>>12391497
>unbounded means that it's
unbounded means you can't limit it, period

>>12391503
I agree that that is what unbounded means. Do you think it is a requirement of numbers that they can be limited? Do you think the unbounded property of infinity means infinity is not a number?

>>12391606
Is this in any way related to what you are talking about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number

>>12390118
The tookie monster has given up on his antarctica pendulum delusion

>>12392639
not really

>>12392639
Not really. Surreal numbers are a number field construction but I do not use number fields. I use numbers.

>>12390118
Bro.. infinity is not an algebraically manipulable object, even if it has a symbol.

It's just a convention to define the unbounded divergence of a limit. This is just basic analysis. How could you miss this?

>>12392724
>>12391606

Also, even if you extend the real line.. the extended [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] is not a field, so are usual operations defined on it?

>>12392733
>so are usual operations defined on it?
some of them yes

>>12392755
And if some are, is the Riemann zeta function defined at all points in the extended [math]\mathbb{R}[/math]?

>>12392724
Extended real intervals and the topological closure of extended real relations
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237130325_Extended_real_intervals_and_the_topological_closure_of_extended_real_relations

Here is a paper that disproves what you say about it being an ordinary algebraic object.

>>12392733
>so are usual operations defined on it?
I think by this, you mean, "Is it a number field?" The answer is no. If you read the paper
>Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237
then you will see that I have dedicated all of Section 5 to this question.

>>12392763
No. I think you're asking about extended C actually, and the answer is no. The infinite element which changes C to extended C is not in the domain of the RZF. The kernel of my analysis is a theorem that everything in extended C other than infinity is in ordinary C. You are an obvious troll because you write as if you have genuine interest but the fact that you refuse to read the paper which answers all of your questions is evidence that genuine interest is not the motivator for your posts.

>durr duur
>let me do everything except read the paper
>I really want to know
>that's why I don't read the paper
>durr

>>12392733
>so are usual operations defined on it?
I think by this, you mean, "Is it a number field?" The answer is no. If you read the paper
>Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237
then you will see that I have dedicated all of Section 5 to this question.

>>12392763
No. I think you're asking about extended C actually, and the answer is no. The infinite element which changes C to extended C is not in the domain of the RZF. The kernel of my analysis is a theorem that everything in extended C other than infinity is in ordinary C. You are an obvious troll because you write as if you have genuine interest but the fact that you refuse to read the paper which answers all of your questions is evidence that genuine interest is not the motivator for your posts.

>durr duur
>let me do everything except read the paper
>I really want to know
>that's why I don't read the paper
>durr

memes

>memes

>memes
>mfw

>mfw memes

>cool memes bro

Hey! Is this the religion of the 1 true hat?!

>>12393191
I solve for the circle! My name is Simon! Yaaaay! I win myself!

>What are names for anyway?

>>12395268
>>12395270
Your brazen lack of fear is going to have adverse consequences for the people around you. They will probably end up seeing you as an inconsiderate and selfish person.

>>12390652
yes it's a basic concept in complex analysis, but it's not well defined topologically.
The "neighbordhood" of inifnity is just defined in the sense of residues of a complex function.

>>12395589
>but it's not well defined topologically.
This is profoundly stupid. For any X in [0,inf), the interval (X,inf) is a neighborhood of infinity in the usual topology. If I set K=(X,inf), and I write down its open sets in the usual topology as M, then (K,M) is topological space in the most textbook possible sense. You are completely wrong and stupid.

>>12395643
ye but that's not the same as the neighborhood to infinity in complex analysis you retarded.

>>12395692
The plane in the usual topology is a trivial extension of the line in the usual topology. The topological space of the neighborhood of infinity on the complex plane is just the usual topology on the complex plane with a neighborhood of the origin deleted.

What is meant here by "diverges"? Also here you say they're both equal to "diverges" but in the next paragraph you say that one is equal to +- infinity while the other is equal to infinity. By transitivity of equality, that would imply infinity = +- infinity. Was this intended? You say that infinity and -infinity are TWO affinely extended real numbers.

Why would you include this as an axiom? If these expressions are undefined, that just means they're not defined so there seems no reason to include this as an axiom. It's enough to mention that you will not define these expressions. Is the axiom here used in any proof?

Here is a good example of vagueness of the word "diverges". This definition seems to imply that the only sequences that are divergent are those that go to infinity. While in standard mathematics, the sequence -1, +1, -1, +1, ... (alternating signs) is a divergent sequence which doesn't explode. So is the sequence -1, -2, -3, .... which should probably converge to -infinity. is this not a divergent sequence according to you? What is a divergent sequence?

You seem to be presupposing arithmetic here on these line segments. How do you define the expression AB/CD? What is its meaning?

I like the leaf :)

>>12395712
The word diverges to the right of the equals sign indicates that the expression on the left is not equal to any element of R.

>>12395716
>Why would you include this as an axiom?
Mainly for contrast with Axiom 4.4.13.

>It's enough to mention that you will not define these expressions.
I mention that in Axiom 2.2.3.

>Is the axiom here used in any proof?
Maybe.

>>12390118
your infinity hat can't be defined or at least as you defined makes no sense. It's easy by just using your theorem 1.10, take some n, then x = infinity hat - b is a real number.
Split the two possibile cases:
1. inifinity-hat is a real number, than it can't have the same norm as infinity, contraddiction.
2. infinity-hat is a non real number, then it must be +infinity or -infinity (since we are working in R union with infinity), either case we know (you stated it) that infinity-b= infinity that is not a real number, contraddition.

I don't fucking want to write in latex for your retarded ego, your proof sucks and is not even well written.

>>12395727
>only sequences that are divergent are those that go to infinity.
Maybe after you finish contemplating what "diverges" means, you should have a look at the rest of the words too. There's a word in there that starts with M that you seem not to have properly appreciated. Maybe if you take the time to look all three dozen words and symbols in the image you posted, then you will see when {-1,+1,-1,+1,...} is not an admissible x_n.

>>12395738
AB/CD is the Euclidean ratio of AB to CD. The meaning bestowed by the axiom is that is the ratio is equal to one then the numerator and denominator are equal.

>>12395766
In your item 2, you have an unfixable error. You say that INF_HAT is a non real number and must be equal to infinity or minus infinity. This is wrong. Consider the imaginary number: it is non-real but it is not equal to infinity. Likewise the square of the imaginary number is a real number just like the difference of INF_HAT with a natural number is.

>(since we are working in R union with infinity)
You have missed an important but detail in Proposition 1.8. There's another symbol I'm working with besides R and INF. Do you see which one I mean?

>>12395816
Ye but you basically stated that we ARE working in the set of real numbers with infinity.
Proposition 1.8:
1. Didn't proof the existance of that infinity hat.
2. Also, if infinity hat is not in R then it must be + infinity o - infinity (see Proposition 1.6).

>>12395836
>Didn't proof the existance of that infinity hat.
>Under the terms of the proposition, we show that the Riemann zeta function has infinitely many non-trivial zeros on the complex plane and off the critical line.
I don't think you understand the point of the point of the paper your citing.

>Didn't proof the existance of that infinity hat.
>Under the terms of the proposition

>>12395836
>Also, if infinity hat is not in R then it must be + infinity o - infinity (see Proposition 1.6).
First you would need to prove that INF_HAT is in R_BAR before you could apply *Theorem 1.6.*

>>12395907
man you stated "it exists" not given any proof lol. At this point you could write "RH is false by hypotesis, gg ez"

Second you didn't answer to why infinity hat is not infinity given your proposition 1.6.

>>12395916
... well you defined R bar as equald to [-infinity hat, infinity hat]...

>>12395923
In my opinion, my Proposition 1.8 is of more interest than hypothesis gg ez. Also, you have not showed how your hypothesis leads to the negation of RH. Furthermore, your fixation on the picture and not the paper which the thread is about makes me think you don't have any genuine interest in criticizing my work.

>>12395927
If you define it that way, then *Theorem* 1.6 is revised accordingly.

>>12396017
not that anon
He doesnt have to prove the negation of RH. RH may be independent of your axioms. He simply has to show where your proof goes wrong.

>>12396182
To say, "You did not prove to proposition," does not show where my proof goes wrong because I proved that RH is false if the proposition is true. It's like if someone says they'll give you call if they decide to go out later and then you call them a liar for not calling you even though they decided not to go out.

Why don't you use a proof assistant such as Coq to write your ideas in a way that can be formally verified by a computer?

>>12390118
I believe there is some merit here. However, you cannot submit a paper like this.

You have to write a BIG introduction where you review all the most important RH attempts.
Then you have to lay down a big chapter about the mathematics you are going to use.
Then finally you can lay out the brief argument.

Total should be around 50 pages.

If you follow these guidelines people will review your work seriously.

>>12396852
>Then you have to lay down a big chapter about the mathematics you are going to use.
this gonna be a fun reading for sure

>>12396852
>If you follow these guidelines people will review your work seriously.
Nice claim you have there. Try proving it.

>>12396823
I don't do that for a number of reasons, one of which is that if a computer verified it I wouldn't truth the computer and I would want to do everything by hand. It's the same reason I don't use mathematica.

>>12396874
I will just claim that no one will review your work if you don't write a serious paper then

>>12396888
Nigger, the paper is 140 fucking pages what the fuck are you talking about?

>>12396874
>one of which is that if a computer verified it I wouldn't truth the computer and I would want to do everything by hand
You can just print the proof terms and check them yourself.

>>12390526
Cantor?

>>12396897
There is zero scholarly review of previous literature on RH, so your work is shoddy. It's not serious. Also the author cites himself way too much and it's an abysmal practice. Your work is not taken seriously because you're not following usual guidelines and formats and come off as schizo/narcissist.

>>12396899
The other reasons remain.

>>12396909
> Your work is not taken seriously
This is wrong. Golf rumors is the true story of how very poisonously deadly seriously my work is taken.

>so your work is shoddy.
Non sequitur. My work has nothing to do with any of that and I would just be pointlessly padding the bibliography with the same 20-30 citations as 500 other people who all wrote that same review section which you say is an integral part of what constitutes *original* scholarly content.

>It's not serious.
Even though I think you do know that it is serious, you still do not understand how serious it is. It is much more serious than you deny. If you ever find out how serious it is, it's probably going to make you sick to your stomach.

>author cites himself way too much and it's an abysmal practice.
Citing relevant previous work is abysmal, and just build on my previous work without telling the reader where it comes from, and also I should have a whole section citing irrelevant bullshit that led absolutely nowhere and has nothing to do with my research? OK

>>12396899
The other reasons remain.

>>12396909
> Your work is not taken seriously
This is wrong. Golf rumors is the true story of how very poisonously deadly seriously my work is taken.

>so your work is shoddy.
Non sequitur. My work has nothing to do with any of that and I would just be pointlessly padding the bibliography with the same 20-30 citations as 500 other people who all wrote that same review section which you say is an integral part of what constitutes *original* scholarly content.

>It's not serious.
Even though I think you do know that it is serious, you still do not understand how serious it is. It is much more serious than you deny. If you ever find out how serious it is, it's probably going to make you sick to your stomach.

>author cites himself way too much and it's an abysmal practice.
Citing relevant previous work is abysmal, and I should just build on my previous work without telling the reader where it comes from, and also I should have a whole section citing irrelevant bullshit that led absolutely nowhere and has nothing to do with my research? OK

>>12396933
What are the other reasons?
If your reasoning is truly rigorous, you should be able to do it.

>>12396933
lmao what a pretentious brat, you still don't understand. I said there probably is merit. What you have to do is to write one proper paper, not a masturbatory treaty where you self-cite unpublished papers (the fuck). Write a single one on the RH where you review literature and you do a self contained math section. Can't be hard.

Also, I have never read anyone else's attempt to try to solve RH, not even one, and I don't know anything about what has been done or what any of the named approaches are. Not only I am I completely ignorant of that entire area, that area has jack shit to do with my research. My research was the topic of my paper whose title you'll notice is not "Survey of attempts to try to solve RH by fucking around with dead ends that didn't work out for 150 years."

>>12396934
>What are the other reasons?
The syntax I've seen in screenshots of the coq GUI is unaesthetic compared to my handwriting.

>>12396961
>Survey of attempts to try to solve RH by fucking around with dead ends that didn't work out for 150 years.
You have to do this though. No more than 20 pages.

>>12396970
You can extend the syntax:
https://coq.inria.fr/refman/user-extensions/syntax-extensions.html

>>12396979
>You have to do this though.
PLEASE TELL ME MORE ABOUT YOUR OPINION.

>>12397027

>>12396979
I think the reason you insist I write about something I know nothing about is so that when I do it and it is riddled with errors, you can cite those errors as problems in the thing the paper is about.

>>12397042
schizo confirmed. Even if you make mistakes in the literature part, it is completely ininfluent on the peer review of your argument (which is independent from previous arguments), and you'll just be advised to correct them.

>>12396961
>boasting about your arrogance
incredible.

Tooker is based as fuck
https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed/status/1278592559061757953?s=19

>>12398360
Vid is of him calling a black woman a nigger in a Publix shortly after his release from jail for burglary

>>12398369
That was a white man holding the camera in the sandwich video.

>>12398666
i fully endorse your crusade against uppity negroes and mask cucks. did you really go to jail?

>>12398677
Yes. The SWAT team came to my legal residence and destroyed it after I did not open the door for the cops who knocked on it, and who did not have a warrant. I got charged with burglarizing my own legal residence where I had every right to be, and where the few sparse things inside the property which I was supposedly burglarizing were all my own belongings. When they took me to jail, where I stayed for about 45 days, they gave Helene a disguise so I had to be locked in my tiny slave hole jail cell with the very person I had become homeless to avoid. (I quit on the day I realized Helene was disguised as my coworker.) I was raped while I was in jail as well and I had blood in my stool due to the anal trauma. It was probably Helene who did it but they were letting the apparent entire cast of my enemies pretend to be my cellmate so it's hard to say which one sedated me and went up my asshole. My guess is that it was Helene.

>>12398722
Jesus that's terrifying. Could you fill me in on who Helene is? I haven't seen you post about here before

>>12398728
*about her

Before I quit that job in January 2017, I earned about $10k. My tax withholding was such that I was going to to make $100k that year but since I only made $10k, my tax bracket was ~10% instead of ~35%. This got me a large tax return in 2018. I used most of it to rent a room so I could get off the street.

After I was wrongfully expelled from college, which was an effective but not formal expulsion, I worked at several different companies as a generic wage cuck. Helene was stalking me in the office at Elavon 2014-2015, and when I realized that several jobs later she was still doing the same thing at Exide 2016-2017, I quit and decided it was better not to be a wage cuck if that nigger Helene is going to be in the office with me. I tried to move to Israel but they did not let me in and then I became homeless. The end result of my homelessness was that I got locked in a tiny slave hole with the exact person I quit my job and became homeless to get the fuck away from. When I became homeless, it was better for me to be homeless that to interact with Helene long enough to tell her to give me some money. I want nothing to do with her. However, when even homelessness failed to provide an avenue by which I could get the fuck away from her, I did call her and tell her to give me some money. I am still homeless but now I can sleep in hotels instead of in the gutter behind the library.

>>12398728
Helene is my relative. Among other things, I am he King of Babylon and Helene is called the Whore of Babylon.

Pic is the TLDR on what my problem is.

>>12398750
I see so correct me if I'm wrong but this is what I understand from reading the /sci/ archive:
>Helene is possibly your mother or your half-sister
>She used to be a psychiatric nurse that you were a patient of
>She's now director of the CIA and uses her position to gangstalk you
>She has some sort of omnipotent power allowing her to possess/disguse as people
When did you first encounter her and what do you think her motivations are for stalking you?

>>12398747
>After I was wrongfully expelled from college,
Why did you get expelled? What did they allege you did that would warrant expulsion?

>>12398761
She may be my sister with both parents the same as the mine. I am not aware of ever being her patient. I am pretty sure 'Gina Haspel's fake initials come from Helene's real initials HG. She is far from omnipotent but she does have the apparent full weight of the powers of the United States of America facilitating her intention to constantly rape and torment me. I first met her in the early 1980s. Her motivations are that she hates me and se a malicious psycho, and it gratifies her sexual fetish to know that she can always overpower any efforts I make to get the fuck away from her.

>>12398771
I detail the entire thing in pic related here: >>12398747
A woman said that I raped her and I denied it. Helene disguised herself as the student justice administrator to find that he-said/she-said, in the absence of any further evidence, is "preponderance" of the evidence supporting she-said. I got suspended for two semesters. A couple of weeks later, some other woman said I raped her. This time I didn't say anything and the student justice administrator found that denying and not denying it, both in the absence of any further evidence, were both preponderances of the evidence supporting she-said. I got suspended for two more semesters but anything more than three semesters is an effective expulsion. I lost my job too. Helene did that to me. She watched me work on that PhD for nine years and then she fucked me because that's what's in her heart. To this day, she has not stopped fucking me with how bad she fucked me at Georgia Tech. Even that, however, was only an extension of how bad she was already fucking me from when she raped when I was small child entrusted to her care. Child rape is what's in her heart, and she does it to me as an adult now too to the best of her ability.

>log

>>12398787
So yeah what I'm getting from this is that you were expelled because you sexually assaulted two women and generally act like a creep. And your issue is with the procedure that led to the expulsion. But the fact remains that you sexually assaulted two women, and should get the appropriate treatment to ensure you're no longer a danger to the people around you.

>>12398819
Helene, look at Bubbie making it out of Russia with her life only to see you make war on her grandchild, the future of her house, in America. You are the worst piece of shit that ever lived. You can go into any prison and find the most vile child abuser in there, and that person's heart is far cleaner than yours.

>>12398837
You filthy baboon. You hated it that your sister Carol hocked some of the jewels that Bubbie brought with her, but what you to Bubbie's own blood is infinitely worse. Look at your demented mind, you filth. Carol selling those worthless rocks was some horrible crime in your mind, but then you raping and torturing and sabotaging me at every turn is something good that you're doing. I with there was a worse word than nigger because I seethe at my inability to express the hatred I feel for you.

>woman goes to college
>guy comes onto her in a way she doesn't like
>leaves her alone after that
>worst crime in history
It's not a crime at all. I did nothing wrong. To the contrary, I myself personally witnessed you anally raping a small child, and surely that is among the least of your crimes.

>>12398848
The reason that I don't buy you saying that you did nothing wrong is the fact that you have a history of straight up lying when you did something wrong. Like that time you were caught on video calling a woman in a sandwich shop a nigger. And then you ranted on 4chan how this woman wasn't actually black but was really a whit person in blackface. So besides the fact that you literally admitted here to sexually assaulting someone (ass pinching), it's pretty reasonable to assume that reality is a lot worse than that.

> the fact remains that you sexually assaulted two women, and should get the appropriate treatment to ensure you're no longer a danger to the people around you.
Take note that this is a child rapist and serial murderer writing here. One day, I will expose your nakedness, you unclean person.

>>12398859
t. Helene

>>12398862
>literal no u ;_;
fuck off schizo, I'm not the homeless sexual predator here

>>12398859
>pinching
That's not sexual assault. It's ok to be affectionate on a date. This was a woman who agreed to go on a date with me, let me pay for her meal confirming her understanding of the situation, and agreed to come home with me.

With regards to my expulsion, it does not matter if I pinched her ass or not because I told the student justice administrator that I didn't do it. Then that person, who I believe was Helene, hate-raped my entire life into oblivion, completely fucking me to death just to satisfy the wickedness in her heart. Later, that same person found that denying it and not denying it were both preponderances of evidence supporting what the woman said. This person bore false witness against me when she said that there was a preponderance of evidence, and that actually is a real and natural crime completely divorced from the fictitious, statutory crime of "being scary." Note that I didn't get expelled for anything having to do with pinching her ass. I got expelled for an item in the student code which says you can't make other people feel afraid to be on campus.

Literally, Helene found that the word of woman outweighs the word of man in all circumstances when the truth is that if a woman goes to be alone with a man, as both of these women did, the only proper understanding is that they were inviting sexual contact.

Then right after that, the President of GT got a 50% raise from $700k to $1.1M. So pic related: look at how Helene weighs me touching this woman's ass against the the greatest scientific achievements of all time. Helene think

>>12398872
>t. the person who anally raped you and ripped up your guts with her anal rape tool acting like you did something horrible touching now even her ass but just her jeans on top of her ass.

>>12398874
You're the sexual predator who profits from their predation, and you're a murderer and a sodomite as well.

This is the main thing. What happened to me when the administrator lied to say that there was a preponderance of evidence was worse than rape. It fucked my entire life and I still suffer from the injury which has not been remediated. Helene says, "Oh, you grabbed her ass so you deserve to have electrodes on your testicles shocking you into submission for the rest of your life," but that is irrelevant if I did or didn't do it for the purposes of my student status at GT. The student justice administrator is supposed to evaluate the case based on the evidence. Helene lied to say that there was a preponderance of the evidence, and with her lie she ruined my whole life. Claire probably gets her ass grabbed five times a night when she goes to the club on the weekend. If it bothered her at all, she wouldn't go there.

>>12398892
>That's not sexual assault.
It literally is, unless you have her explicit consent, which you did not. Ergo, you got expelled. The procedural reason is irrelevant to me, because you should have been expelled so the outcome is satisfactory.

Also, Helen's suggestion that I am some sexually aggressive creep is preposterous. You cannot find any woman on Earth who will say that I am that, honestly, and you can probably find dozens who will say that they didn't put out for me because I wasn't aggressive with them which is what they prefer.

Helene is just some nigger. The USA has her as their lead agent because that is their favorite thing for someone to be.

>>12398913
tooker saw a an fine female behind he wanted and grabbed it, nothing wrong with that. maybe you are too beta to understand

>>12398913
No it isn't. Explicit consent is not required. When she agreed to go out with me and agreed to let me pay for her meal and agreed to come home with me, that was consent enough. When a woman goes to be alone with a man, that is always unambiguous sexual consent, always, no exceptions. The first woman agreed to come home with me, and I touched her after that. The second woman invited me not only into her home, alone, but also into her bedroom, and I touched her after that.

You're still ignoring the main issue that the administrator lied when she said there was a preponderance of evidence. There was no one. If you think I deserve to have my life ruined for touching her butt, something go to clubs to have done to them over and over and over because literally none of them give a shit about that or are caused any injury by it, then what fate should befall the person who told that lie about the evidence?

>>12398931
>You cannot find any woman on Earth who will say that I am that
Wrong. The twitter thread that blew up the video of you calling that woman in the sandwich shop a nigger was full of comments by people, including women saying they knew you from their time at Georgia Tech and that you were a massive creep.

For example:
https://mobile.twitter.com/davenewworld_2/status/1278429197959155721

No it isn't. Explicit consent is not required. When she agreed to go out with me and agreed to let me pay for her meal and agreed to come home with me, that was consent enough. When a woman goes to be alone with a man, that is always unambiguous sexual consent, always, no exceptions. The first woman agreed to come home with me, and I touched her after that. The second woman invited me not only into her home, alone, but also into her bedroom, and I touched her after that.

You're still ignoring the main issue that the administrator lied when she said there was a preponderance of evidence. There was none. If you think I deserve to have my life ruined for touching her butt, something women go to clubs to have done to them over and over and over because literally none of them give a shit about that or are caused any injury by it, then what fate should befall the person who told that lie about the evidence?

And furthermore, you're ignoring the issue that touching her ass isn't even something I got kicked out of school for. The administrator lied to say that there was a preponderance of evidence that Claire felt scared, and the same for Jennifer whose ass I did not grab.

>>12398942
i don't believe arcon is telling the full truth here but come on twitter users are faggots, the nigger video is hilarious

I'm about to go to the gym. You'll be able to tell which person in there is Helene because it will be the one standing behind me to peer with one eye into the mirror from behind my ear, or else it will be the one exuding false machismo to commiserate with that one.

I wish there was a worse word than nigger. Seethe is exactly what I do when confronted by inability not only to act against Helene, but to even express my regard for her.

>>12398942
>they knew you from their time at Georgia Tech and that you were a massive creep.
I looked through that whole thread and didn't see what you described at all. In fact, I think Claire and Jennifer might have been the only two students I tried to fuck during the five years I spent at GT.

Also, when I was Exide years later, my coworker Tim said that one or the other of Clair and Jennifer recanted on their lies. Since Claire is probably "FBI Attorney Lisa Paige," or someone, I presume it was Jennifer who recanted. Even though she recanted, I didn't get expelled. It goes on and on with everyone hearing the child rapist serial killer shouting, "You grabbed her ass, you vile monster! You deserve it," and them all sayin, "He touched he ass over the top of her jeans when they were heading back to campus after she agreed to go home with him at the end of their date?!?! He does deserve it! Put more electroshock on his testicles!"

You can kind of see in this picture of Clair one of those familiar agents under there. Is it that one in the Michelle disguise? At first my mind said it was the same one, but maybe it's a different one. Whoever it is, you can see the likeness under the Clair disguise there. It's well possible that the person I called Clair was also the person I called a nigger at Publix. There's not that many of these stalkers.

>>12399159
AND... either I was paying too much attention to her tits when I was talking to her or else they made her face much worse looking in these photos. Clair here does not look like the kind of person I would approach. I might have fucked her if she responded to me on OKStupid, but I don't think I would have approached her like that. Maybe it was the tits though so I can't say.

And what of the person who bore false witness against me to say they say a preponderance of the evidence? Where does their impunity come from? In truth, they have no impunity and it is only that I have not yet acted against them?

Also, the person who lent Helene their identity to Helene for her to fuck up my life, unfixably forever, one Brandi Williams, got immediately promoted from clerk in the office of student integrity at GT to be the dean of student justice at some piece of shit college in north Georgia. And the President of GT got a 50% raise from $700k to $1.1M.

And it tells the story of you all's one-sided thinking that you say you think I'm lying about it, when "Brandi" had no evidence other than an accusation and a denial, and who then said an accusation and a denial adds up to a preponderance. That is plainly false and that wrongdoing remains unremediated. Not only was it false, it was my own childhood rapist that was the one telling that lie.

And underneath all of that, Helene's servant her husband is the facilitator of all of these things when he joins her in her denials that I am who I am.

In my other thread, Helene or someone was saying that they will never allow me to take my vengeance on them. However, their protocols for disallowal revolve around the protocols of corporate etiquette. While I have many paths forward, if Russia restores the Tsar, which is my rightful title, then I will my nuclear weapons against them and the protocols of corporate etiquette will be sidelined. This is the scenario outlined by John Titor, more or less, whose logo is my solution to RH. Femism can't survive in the nuclear wasteland and I doubt their mobile disguise changer vans are hardened against EMP. Even if they were, where would they charge the electronic prostheses that allow them to pretend to be something other than pic related, which is probably a lot more human looking than most of them really are by now?

>>12399241
Tooker you schizo nigger

Tell me who I am?
What is my name?
What country am I in?
What city am I in?

you can't tell me, because youre just a delusional ugly GOOFY balding faggot with delusions of grandeur

>>12399254
I am not any of those things and "balding" is the last thing that I am.

>>12399272
So you shave only part of your head?
You are ugly tooker. Go up to any woman and ask her if she thinks youre ugly. She will either be scared of you because you give of a schizo vibe, or she will tell you that you are ugly

>>12399277
post face

>be took
>get kicked out of college for sexual assault
>lose job
>stop paying rent
>threaten landlord when he complains about not getting rent
>get swatted for it
>become homeless
>go off medz
>devolve further into paranoid delusions
>contact academics with schizo ideas
>get told they're schizo ideas
>rage
>call a woman a nigger when buying a sandwich
>try to publish schizo ideas
>get told they're schizo ideas
>relentlessly shitpost on the 4chins
>get told they're s schizo ideas
>threaten people calling out my schizo ideas and accuse them of running a global conspiracy to analy rape me
why won't anyone take me seriously?

>>12399305
That's an ugly photo tooker. You look like a caricature from a movie

I'm not going to doxx myself you retard. It also doesn't matter what I look like. Me being attractive or unattractive does not affect that you are unattractive

>>12399317
You're forgetting that he thinks he is the true king of jerusalem and the true tsar of russia, and some other retarded religion-related schizoshit

>>12399341
What I really look like though is someone that every woman will say no to. You're looking at at maybe there person with the worst strikeout rate in the United States of America.

>>12399350
Yes and all of that is true too, so even if you want to make a point about ass grabbing being crime or not, the Lord owns the whole world and everything and everyone in it, and that ass belongs to me. It is mine to do with as I please. This is a fact that certain jealous parties work to hide.

>>12399371

You're not God, Tooker.
If God exists, he is all-knowing, and can tell me my name.
You can't tell me my name. You dont know it. You are not all knowing. You are not God.

You are YET ANOTHER schizophrenic who thinks he is god

>>12399350
Oh right yeah, and I think he said his dad was Hitler at some point

>>12399385
>Thinks he is king of jerusalem
>Thinks his father is hitler
lmao

>>12399195
>accusation and a denial
That is literally what you are doing here.

>>12399383
The holy spirit is all knowing. I am a human man: the living God.

Tooker, I challenge you to write even a single definition from your paper in Coq or a proof assistant of your choice.

>>12399761
Ok. I challenge you to put five watermelons in a plastic container. It can't be any container though it has to be one from Home Depot.

>oh you put it cock and it says it's ok
>i've been telling you all along it's fine if you want to invent your own magic number system
>just don't call it the real numbers
How does cock respond?

>>12399609
Meaning what exactly?
That you have no proof of any divinity, but you just believe it anyways because you have brain problems

>>12399984
If you look in the Bible, God says at least a dozen times that the unbelievers will believe he is the Lord when he takes his vengeance on them, not when he posts a picture on 4chan for the 500000th time.

What is the multiplicative inverse of [math]\hat{\infty} - 1[/math]?

>>12399958
induction should be in lowercase.
At least we would know what your number system is if you defined it formally.

If [math]2 \hat{\infty} = \hat{\infty}[/math], why doesn't it follow that [math]\hat{\infty} + \hat{\infty} = 0 + \hat{\infty}[/math] and therefore [math]\hat{\infty} = 0[/math]?

>>12400016
When are you going to take vengeance on the unbelievers?

If multiple in Euclid book V doesn't mean natural multiple, how do you make sense of the proof in proposition 1 which depends on breaking up AB, said to be a multiple of E, into pieces equal to E? Or any of the other proofs, for that matter?

>>12400030
What is your understanding of the highlighted words in pic related?

>>12400062
I did define if formally.

>>12400080
>If 2∞=∞
It doesn't equal that.

>>12400093
ASAP

>>12400163
You said in >>12390118 that "All non-zero real numbers have a multiplicative inverse." Are you telling me that [math]\hat{\infty} - 1 = 0[/math]?

By formal, I mean stated in a formal language.

Why does [math]z \hat{\infty} = \hat{\infty}[/math] in your proof of Theorem 1.11 in >>12390118? You said "The hat on [math]\hat{\infty}[/math] only suppresses additive absorption."

Meaning it's not possible yet? What is stopping you, if you're God?

>>12400154
I have reviewed that proposition, and it appears to me not depend on the multiple being an integer. Mainly, Fitzpatrick's footnote suggests that M definitely does not need to be an integer. If I have missed your point, then please clarify by citing words from pic related.

>>12400016
>If you look in the Bible,
So you have proof that the bible is true?

>>12400188
>Let AB have been divided into magnitudes AG, GB, equal to E

>>12400185
I see that you are looking at the picture I posted but not the paper I made the thread about:
>Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237
You should clarify whether you're looking at the picture or the paper because they rely on different iterations of the framework. Furthermore, I have already removed the problematic language "All non-zero real numbers have a multiplicative inverse" from the current version quick paper, pic related, which you can find here:
>Quick Disproof of the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0236
It should have said "All non-zero real numbers in the neighborhood of the origin have a multiplicative inverse" but I changed the whole proof and didn't even include that.

If you look in the paper which is a non-quick 140 pages, then I think you will find the formal language which is neglected in support of quickness in the "quick" paper. I advise you that the "quick" paper is not the correct paper to nitpick since all I have proved there is that RH is false if the proposition is true. However, the resolution to your question about 0=INF following from the multiplicative absorption of INF_HAT was that the algebra of INF_HAT has to be such that INF_HAT+0 is an undefined operation along with INF*0. This disallows an intermediate step in your derivation of a contradiction. However, in the more formal, non-quick treatment which doesn't revolve around an unproven proposition, INF_HAT does not have the property of multiplicative absorption. I think your main issue is that you are focusing on looking at the picture of an earlier draft of the quick paper but you're not reading the long formal paper which does not depend on an unproven proposition and reflects the current iteration of my framework.

>>12400210
I don't see what you're getting at.

>>12400193
I have proof the Bible exists.

>>12400247
His proof explicitly depends on dividing the magnitude AB up into a number of equal magnitudes equal to E. Did you even read the proof?

>>12400264
I don't see where it has to be an integer number of such magnitudes. Pic related, do you see how this is true for integer and non-integer "m?" However, aside from Fitzpatrick's helpful footnote, I grant that the language is archaic and I might not have fully comprehended Euclid's point. If you see something that suggests the number has to be an integer, please cite those words and tell me what you think they mean.

>>12400283
>I don't see where it has to be an integer number of such magnitudes.
Did you read the proof?

>Pic related, do you see how this is true for integer and non-integer "m?"
Explain how his *proof* makes sense for non-integer m.

>>12400289
Yes, I read the entire article I posted here: >>12400245

It makes sense for any "m" by what is called the distributive property of multiplication over addition. For instance
[eqn] \pi\big(1.7+0.2+0.1)=1.7\pi+0.2\pi+0.1\pi [/eqn]

>>12400302
oops, I meant the one I posted here: >>12400188

>>12400302
>It makes sense for any "m" by what is called the distributive property of multiplication over addition.
What does that have to do with Euclid's proof of the proposition?

>>12400318
I have asked you to identify something in the proposition which suggests the multiple has to be an integer, and I have asked you to say what you think those words mean so that I can better respond to your point. You have not done so, and I take your failure to cite any such words as evidence that the point you raise has no merit. Since you are responding to my request for information form you with a request for more information from me, without fulfilling my request, I am not compelled to entertain your continued inquiry. As it is, I don't see anything in Euclid's proposition which suggests the multiple has to be an integer.

>>12400343
>I have asked you to identify something in the proposition which suggests the multiple has to be an integer

I said this a long time ago: "Let AB have been divided into magnitudes AG, GB, equal to E"

>and I have asked you to say what you think those words mean

I think the words have their plain meaning. Euclid is proving the proposition for the case of the integer 2. He expects you to be able to extend the method shown to arbitrary integers. Because AB is twice E, it can be divided into two magnitudes AG, GB, each equal to E. If AB was three times E, it can be divided into three magnitudes AG, GI, IB, each equal to E. The proof given does not make sense if AB is an arbitrary real number times E.

>>12400368
>arbitrary integers
correction: arbitrary natural numbers

>>12400368
>I said this a long time ago: "Let AB have been divided into magnitudes AG, GB, equal to E"
Yes and after you said that I said that I don't see that as implying that the multiple is an integer. If you have a point, I am not seeing ad your refusal to explain yourself, instead just repeating what I already told you I don't understand makes me think you have no point at all.

>I think the words have their plain meaning.
A condition about integers is not encoded on the plain meaning of any of those words, shitcunt. For the rest of what you wrote, I asked you to cite Euclid and you're making your own paraphrasal. Please use Euclid's own words. You can copy and paste them more easily than you can paraphrase them.

>>12400423
>I don't see that as implying that the multiple is an integer.
Okay, open mouth, plane coming in.
>Let AB have been divided into magnitudes AG, GB, equal to E
AG is equal to E
GB is equal to E
AB is made of two parts which are equal to E
that means AB is twice E
two is an integer

>Please use Euclid's own words.
Euclid's own words are "Let AB have been divided into magnitudes AG, GB, equal to E"
You complained that I didn't explain to babby Tooker what I think Euclid meant.
Then when I did you complained about me paraphrasing.

Do you understand that the stuff written under the propositions isn't just arbitrary nonsense but is supposed to be a proof of the proposition? If we're going to be super picky, Euclid has only proved the proposition for n = 2. He was probably not aware of inductive proofs. But it's obvious how to extend the proof to arbitrary natural numbers.

>>12400495
I'm not tooker but I think it'd be a good idea to be as pedantic as him, and cite euclids literal words, meaning write a bunch of stuff in greek.

>>12400495
I agree that two is an integer but I am not following you when you claim that E, the multiplier, is an integer. For instance, if
E = 1.5
AG = E = 1.5
GB = E = 1.5
then it follows that AB is an integer multiple of E (I agree that an integer number of halves make one whole) but I do not see why the proof fails if the multiplier E is not an integer. I am certain that it does not fail, actually.

>>12400513
I like Fitzpatrick's side by side translation:
>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/Books/Euclid/Elements.pdf
As long you know the Greek letters, you can sound out a lot of the English words in the Greek and make pretty good sense of it even without having Greek literacy.

>Meros esti megathos megathous
It's pretty easy to see what that means and if you want to do it Greek then I am certainly able to do so.

>>12400614
re malaka

>>12400561
I did not say that E must be an integer. It is not a real number, either. It is a magnitude, which might be a length, volume, time, or weight.

The proposition says "If there are any number of magnitudes whatsoever (which are) equal multiples, respectively, of some (other) magnitudes ..."
Multiples was defined as follows: "The greater is a multiple of the less when it is measured by the less." "Measured" in this context means that I can combine the lesser magnitude some natural number of times to equal the greater multitude, the way one might measure a distance with a rod or a volume with a measuring cup. So a "multiple" as it is being used means a magnitude multiplied by a natural number.

If a "multiple" meant multiplying the magnitude by a real number, then none of the proofs in Book V would make sense.

In fact, the whole point of Book V is to report on the work of Eudoxus, who had come up with the first theory of proportions that worked for incommensurable ratios, so it would make no sense to assume at the outset that the reader understood what multiplying a magnitude by a real number meant.

>>12400647
You are probably deliberately confusing the language. The point you have made is that it is only possible to split up a line segment into an integer number of shorter line segments of equal length. I agree that this is true.

>If a "multiple" meant multiplying the magnitude by a real number, then none of the proofs in Book V would make sense.
Pic theorem proves the opposite.

>>12400701
Why do you even bother posting this stuff here if you can't take criticism of your math without accusing the other person of being Helene or whatever?

>>12400701
You are the one who is confused. In definition 1 Euclid is clearly defining "part" ("Μέρος") for the purposes of Book V to mean 1/n part, n being a natural number greater than or equal to 2. "A magnitude is a part of a(nother) magnitude, the lesser of the greater, when it measures the greater." I explained what "measures" means here: >>12400647 "Measured" in this context means that I can combine the lesser magnitude some natural number of times to equal the greater multitude, the way one might measure a distance with a rod or a volume with a measuring cup.

>>12400647
>Measured" in this context means that I can combine the lesser magnitude some natural number of times to equal the greater multitude,
correction: to equal the greater magnitude

>>12390118
all of this is telling me that you haven't been taking your meds, schizo

>>12400723
It's not criticisms that elicit accusations of being Helene, it's when they start saying, "Please tell me more about Helene." It's like whenever Helene approaches me in disguise, it's only going to take her about three to five minutes to set herself up to ask, "When's the last time you saw Helene?"

>>12400732
>You are the one who is confused.
I don't think your confused. I think you are pretending to be even stupider than you really are.

>>12400732
For a further examples demonstrating what is meant by "measure," one may look at other uses:

Book 7, def. 11:
>A prime number is one (which is) measured by a unit alone.
Book 10, def. 1:
>Those magnitudes measured by the same measure are said (to be) commensurable, but (those) of which no (magnitude) admits to be a common measure (are said to be) incommensurable.
Book 10, prop. 3:
>To find the greatest common measure of two given commensurable magnitudes.

Many other examples, but these are some of the ones that most obviously only make sense if we're talking about natural number multiples.

>>12400789
>Many other examples
Are there huge examples as well? Disgraceful ones maybe?

>>12390118
Do you have a counter example?

>>12400801
[math] z_0=0.52+i\big(\widehat\infty-\pi\big)\quad\implies\quad\zeta(z_0)=0 [/math]

MORE BANGING
TOE ZAPPER
rape dick

Would it be correct to say that [math]\mathbb{R}_{\rm Tooker}[/math] is isomorphic to the subset of [math]\mathbb{R}_{\rm standard}^2[/math] between [math]-\infty[/math] and [math]\infty[/math] non-inclusive, where [math]\infty = (1, 0)[/math], (a, b) < (c, d) iff a < c or a = c and b < d, (a, b) + (c, d) = (a + b, c + d), -(a, b) = (-a, -b), and (a, b) * (c, d) = (ad+bc, bd) when a = 0 or c = 0 with multiplication otherwise undefined?

>>12400948
I don't know what you mean by R_Tooker or R2_standard and your statement at the end is little brief for me. I'd say the answer is "probably not" because I assume R2_Standard doesn't have non-arithmatic numbers in it.

>>12401137
[math]\mathbb{R}_{\rm standard}^2[/math] means pairs of elements of [math]\mathbb{R}_{\rm standard}[/math].
[math]\mathbb{R}_{\rm standard}[/math] means what most mathematicians call [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] and [math]\mathbb{R}_{\rm Tooker}[/math] means what you call [math]\mathbb{R}[/math].

>>12400948
to add on to this:
additive identity = (0, 0)
multiplicative identity = (0, 1)

>>12401137
If by "non-arithmatic" you mean unbounded numbers, it does because the equivalent of the integers is [math]{(0, n) | n \in \mathbb{Z}}[/math] and (1, -1) is greater than any such number.

>>12400948
Another way to say this is the linear functions (functions [math]\mathbb{R}_{\rm standard} \to \mathbb{R}_{\rm standard}[/math]of the form f(x) = ax+b, with a and b in [math]\mathbb{R}_{\rm standard}[/math], with the usual addition, subtraction, and multiplication operations, with f > g iff there is some c such that f(x) > g(x) for all x > c, and where we only consider the functions between [math]x \mapsto -x[/math] and [math]x \mapsto x[/math]. We can call the latter function [math]\hat{\infty}[/math] so that we can write the function [math]x \mapsto ax + b[/math] as [math]a \hat{\infty} + b[/math].

>>12401226
If you don't know what a non-arithmatic number is then I think you did not read the paper that you appear to be attempting to analyze. I suggest you read the paper and then analyze what I wrote. Analyzing it without reading first has left you with some conceptual gaps.

>>12401251
Why not just answer the question?

>>12401251
Oh, I see, your thing is the completion of what I wrote and you declared you can't do normal arithmetic with the extra elements.

>>12401251
>Analyzing it without reading first has left you with some conceptual gaps.
you wrote it with conceptual gaps retard
why do you think every single person thats ever read it always tells you the exact same shit
the common denominator is your incompetent writing

>>12401851
I think the significant majority of people who read it never told me anything about it.

>>12390118
Take your meds


Please. For the children.

>>12402693
If your family gets killed because you wrote "take your meds," will you think it was worth the moment of satisfaction you got from writing it? When your relatives' children are getting killed because you wrote it and I don't want anyone alive to remind me of you, will your relatives think your moment of self-exaltation was worth their children's lives?

>>12399317
fucking kek

>>12402734
>empty skull, empty threats
not gonna be long before you end up in jail again took

>mfw a King of Babylon calls an Archimedean equivalence class a "neighborhood"

>>12399317
>why won't anyone take me seriously?
because your infiny tin hat is dented

Tooker, is it true that you studied engineering and not physics?

>>12402829
When I was doing my PhD I got fired from my job in the school of physics due to a woman who is going to get killed being a cunt. Then I switched my research assistantship to the school of materials science and engineering but I remained a student in the school of physics, most of my thesis committee would have been physics professors, and I would have gotten a PhD in physics in 2012 had I not been expelled for Helene being a cunt in 2011.

>>12402806
People do take me seriously. Who are quoting?

>>12402801
What is an Archimedean equivalence class? It can't be an Archimedean group because the neighborhood(s) of infinity are not closed under addition or multiplication.

>>12403004
>Helene
You mean Helene Leah Tooker, now remarried and known as Helene Gutfreund, from Tucson, AZ age 65, right? So your mother.

>>12395579
Excellent! I genuinely despite all known associates and relations from all perspectives and angles and look forward to my hyperbolic velocity I'll achieve from their collective and unified rejection of me!

>Sets self on spiritual fire!

>>12403086
You mean BOUNDED, not CLOSED.

Infinity is a rubber band whose areas must be measured in terms of observing an existing quantity, regardless of belief or measurement applied. The value of what is being observed is the only thing that matters as quantity can easily paint a very non-inferrable interpretation of infinity.

>>12403086
Like, c'mon Tooker. How the fuck would anyone CLOSE infinity anyway? The premise itself is fucking retarded. I could infinitely stomp your fucking head in with words as you read this fucking paragraph I'm shitting out, for example, but why would I hypnotize you into reading my shit if it wasn't to essentially rub your face in it?

>I ponder.

>>12403097
I don't know if she is remarried or not. Gutfreund is her maiden name and Tooker was the last name of a man that I do not believe is my father. I think she's 67 now. I don't think she is my mother. I think Elizabeth is my mother and Helene's mother as well. It is possible that Helene is my mother, however, and she did tell me that she was that.

>>12403097
>Helene Leah Tooker,
Also, since I see you are apparently doing something there, in Tim Rifat's book Remote Viewing, he calls her "Hartleigh Tucker," her husband "Joe McMoneagle," and I noticed Helene's friend Fern among the other "naturals" as well.

>>12403097
Also /hlg/ on /fit/ is the the Helene Leah Gutfreund general.

>>12403311
>I don't think she is my mother.
I am telling you she is. I can see more than you could possibly imagine. The sands of time are my playground.

>>12404233
Is the Riemann hypothesis false?

>>12404339
Yes. But more will be revealed when you show it is for infinity including the property of additive absorption.

>>12404462
Am I God?

Check my dubs

>>12404615
dont post in schizo threads

>>12404604
You are not.

>>12405078
You're wrong about that and you're probably wrong about Helene being my mother too.

>>12405283
El arconic.

When you state the RH is false there is no repetitive pattern to primes.


https://youtu.be/KV3Z6pE_HUo

>225 replies

The absolute state of /sci/

>>12398360
Wait a second, if Tooker is God, then doesn't that mean it is his fault?

>>12406548
You can blame me that the weeds are still there right now but I was not the one who planted the weeds.

>>12405283
I am never wrong.