/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10779128]

So Eric Weinstein went deep into how octonional numbers are a call to adventure from some higher being, can somebody explain to me what the hell he's going on about?

[Anonymous No.10779134]

>>10779128
>jre

[Anonymous No.10779161]

>>10779128
>intellectual dark web
Yikes.

[Anonymous No.10779168]

>>10779128
About octonional numbers or about psychosis or about poetic hyperbole?

[Anonymous No.10779170]

>>10779134
How did you know if you dont watch it

[Anonymous No.10779175]

>>10779168
I mostly want someone who understands math enough to tell me hes a pseud.

[Anonymous No.10779177]

Geometric Unity is my theory: the MCM. Eric (or whoever) came up with that name just after I solved the classical problem of electro-gravity in a paper called Geometric Cosmology. If you read all the Guardian articles and stuff about it, Weinstein never actually says he was the one who came up with the theory. I am 100% convinced that the Snowden thing happened to get Geometric Unity out of the news. One week, it was Geometric Unity this and that, and then the following week it was Snowden Snowden Snowden non-stop for like a year. I don't know if Weinstein was trying to steal it or if he was trying to help me by calling attention to it. The former, I expect.

>The Truth About Geometric Unity
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1307.0075

>Geometric Cosmology
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1301.0032

[Anonymous No.10779196]

>>10779128
The octonions are very unusual and have lots of connection to other areas of maths.

[Anonymous No.10779197]

>>10779128
Unfortunately there comes a time for a lot of scientists where the order and mathematical describability of the universe starts to appear vaguely mystical and intentional. Eventually they take the leap from mathematics to numerology without even realising they're doing it.

[Anonymous No.10779202]

>>10779175

I have a BS in mathematics but we never even looked at Octonions.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-octonion-math-that-could-underpin-physics-20180720

This was in quanta last year. I understand what it is and why it works, but not its applications.

I will say in my opinion you are not going to get something that underpins all of physics from an algebra because conservation laws in physics change depending on what you look at, and action principles don't allow loss.

Bell pretty much nailed that door shut.

I'm not so sure that conservation of energy won't be determined to be just a perspective....

[Anonymous No.10779235]

>>10779128
Eric Weinstein is a confirmed brainlet who always uses the same three-or-so mathematical objects to wow and mystify lesser brainlets

[Anonymous No.10779245]

>>10779197
>not liking mad scientists

[Anonymous No.10779246]

>>10779197
I dont want to go there, but one has to see the parallels with the kabbalistic numerology and Erics deep dive into this. If he happened to be born 300 years ago, he would have been a crazy kabbalistic rabbi like the Gaon of Vilna. Ashkenazi seem to be so wired for math that they go crazy trying to find meaning in it.

[Anonymous No.10779247]

>>10779202
>Bell pretty much nailed that door shut.
Actually, there is a big hole in the rigor of Bell's theorem when he treats two vectors which are not "absolutely" orthogonal as being absolutely orthogonal

>On Bell's Inequality
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1312.0173

[Anonymous No.10779255]

>>10779246
>he's only retarded because Jews are so smart and clever
Oh please.
>>10779235
>pic
Holy shit.

[Anonymous No.10779260]

>>10779246
I know it's sort of pleb-tier to talk about movies but the movie "Pi" sort of shows this process in action. A character even calls him out for becoming a numerologist.

[Anonymous No.10779261]

>>10779170
I do watch it, but only for the comedians and musicians. I fucking hate when Joe brings academics on.

[Anonymous No.10779265]

>>10779247
>Jonathan Tooker

[Anonymous No.10779295]

>>10779265
Regardless of who the author is, Bell treated two spin eigenvectors as if they were orthogonal but they are not orthogonal. When you do it how I did it in the paper, the theorem says that local hidden variables are always allowed.

[Anonymous No.10779306]

>>10779295
I'm gonna make a bet that you have made (another) elementary error resulting in a tragic misunderstanding of accepted science.
Every other poster on /sci/ is an out-and-out crank.

[Anonymous No.10779316]

>>10779261
y

[Anonymous No.10779337]

>>10779306
No one has ever shown that spin eigenfunctions are orthonormal but Bell requires them to be so for his inequality. I may have plenty more errors, but I am certain that no one has ever proven that spin eigenfunctions are orthonormal.

[Anonymous No.10779344]

>>10779337
I am 100% sure you've made an elementary error. You do realise the longer this thread goes on and the more you post the greater the odds get of someone actually bothering to refute your nonsense and upset your deluded worldview, right?

[Anonymous No.10779348]

>>10779255
I didnt say that at all. I was just talking about his very specific obsession that parallels those of kabbalistic numerological esoterism.

[Anonymous No.10779352]

>>10779316
Because it always devolves into quantum woo, ultra-fringe evolutionary psyhe bullshit, and talking about trans athletes for 3 hours.

[Anonymous No.10779389]

>>10779352
At least its better than when he has proper pseuds like Hancuck.

[Anonymous No.10779393]

>>10779389
Hancuck is just entry-tier bro. I burst into full ecstatic laughter when I hear the words Atlantis, Lemuria, and psychic in quick succession. If followed by a citation of Drunvalo Malchizedek I won't be able to stop for a week.

[Anonymous No.10779398]

>>10779128

because its HIGHER DIMENSIONAL BRO!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.10779403]

>>10779344
If you can show that I am wrong then I will freely admit it as I have many, many, many times. That doesn't uspet my worldview at all, if you can show that I'm wrong about something then that means someone with a brain is reading my posts and that's exactly what I want to happen. However, when you guys say, "By the axiom that you are wrong, you are wrong," that makes me want to kill you. It upsets my worldview when you are mostly a bunch of pathetic trolling retards.

I like it when you show me that I am wrong. That's how I can get back to the drawing board to fix things. It is much harder to find your own errors that to have a collaborator have a glance, and it is mostly some sorry set of collaborators that I have. In fact, I suspect one of the main reasons I have been so effectively segregated from the other intelligent, educated people, is because they know letting me collaborate in the usual way will yield fantastic results that they cannot shit on.

>I am 100% sure you've made an elementary error.
I am also 100% sure of this. I am 100% sure there are multiple elementary errors all throughout my 30 papers. My conjecture is that none of these errors are unfixable and all of my main results are exactly correct. For instance, I said the Euler product zeros disproved RH, but then I read Riemann's paper and I saw he was quite explicit about the requirement for absolute convergence. However, I fixed it and my result that zeta has zeros there is still the same.

[Anonymous No.10779414]

>>10779403
The thought of being wrong upsets you so little that you responded with a tl;dr post. Later schzio.

[Anonymous No.10779422]

>>10779414
And I see the thought of your family being killed and you being tortured to death bothers YOU so little that you used Helene's meme in your response.

You guys have me confused with someone else who doesn't like to admit when they are wrong. I have no problem with it. I am not an ego fag. Quite the opposite actually.

[Anonymous No.10779428]

>>10779422
Kookie Tookie you will do no such thing, you will continue to make sad trivial misunderstandings that your colleagues, if you had them, wouldn't even bother hiding their laughter at.

[Anonymous No.10779445]

>>10779177
>vixra
Discarded.

[Anonymous No.10779450]

>>10779235
>intelligence measured in octonions
What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.10779451]

>>10779428
> you will do no such thing
I can see why it would be psychologically painful for you to entertain any other possibility

[Anonymous No.10779454]

>>10779451
Okay Kookie Tookie. It's time to take your pills now.

[Anonymous No.10779457]

>Tooker will never have the balls to actually come and kill you like he always says he will

[Anonymous No.10779462]

>>10779235
>>10779450
>what did he mean by this?
[math]{\rm Spatial~intelligence} \times {\rm Musical~intelligence} = - {\rm Verbal intelligence}[/math]

[Anonymous No.10779810]

>>10779202
>Conservation laws
>being stuck in the Lagrangian/Hamiltonian trap of classical physics

[Anonymous No.10779837]

>>10779457
>Tooker will never have the balls
they must have not seen my nudes

[Anonymous No.10779847]

>>10779161
If he's on the intellectual dark web, why is he on youtube? Youtube is on the clear web.

[Anonymous No.10779858]

>>10779128
This guy is so annoying. When explaining advanced topics he chooses to make himself sound mystical and intelligent rather than simplifying and actually explaining. He can speak for 15 minutes and say nothing at all, all the time speaking with the demeanor of some old, seasoned sage. His atheism and Jewishness doesn’t help my opinion of him.

[Anonymous No.10779866]

>>10779858
this desu. His explanation of gauge theory is shit too, I have seen way more normie friendly explanations in ur regular paper that wasnt intending to be for laymen.

[Anonymous No.10779879]

>>10779175
https://motls.blogspot.com/2018/07/cohl-furey-understands-neither-field.html

https://motls.blogspot.com/2018/07/standard-model-has-no-octonions-in-it.html

Octonions are a meme.

[Anonymous No.10780131]

>>10779197
>>10779246
>>10779235
this thread is funny because when i first came across this idea it made me think of this

but at the time i felt like it was too much of a leap to purport the 7th & 8th points made the point in each triange

[Anonymous No.10780157]

>>10780131
i forgot the picture because it wasn't worth posting

[Anonymous No.10780216]

>>10779247
You know, this Anon >>10779344 is right, the longer the thread goes on, somebody sometimes has to refute your bullshit, might as well be me. Why do you think this matter is settled? It can be shown trivially, that quantum mechanics, indeed, does not satisfy Bell's inequalities. I won't bother to explain all the details, since I'm sure you've seen the inner works if you claim to refute them, but try to at least see the gist of it. Assume a wave function of the form

[math] |\psi \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(a^{+}_{1x}a^{+}_{2y} - a^{+}_{1y} a^{+}_{2x})|\emptyset \rangle[/math]

as I'm sure you know, this represents a simple bi-photon wave function of two photons travelling into opposite directions, with polarisations (or spin, if you wish) in the perpendicular directions, as given in the treatment of the quantization of the free electromagnetic field. A trival state arising from the annihilation of a electron and positron, for example.

Both spins in both directions have the same probability weights, as can be seen if you evaluate the average number of photons with a given polarisation on each side

[math] \overline{n_{1x}} = \langle \psi | a^{+}_{1x}a_{1x} | \psi \rangle = \frac{1}{2} = \overline{n_{1y}} [/math]

If we place a pair of linear polarizers, each being rotated to polarize in arbitrary angles [math] \vartheta _{1} , \vartheta _{2} [/math] then we can through the calculation of the intensity correlation functions derive the fhe following auxillary function (nowhere do we assume any orthogonality whatsoever)

[math] C(\vartheta _{1} , \vartheta _{2}) = \langle A_{1} A_{2} \rangle = P_{++} + P_{--} - P_{+-} - P_{-+} = -\cos(2\vartheta _{1} - 2\vartheta _{2}) [/math]

Where P functions represent the probabilty that detectors on both side will detect 1) 1 photon on each side, 2) 1 on left, zero on right, 3) zero on left, 1 on right and lastly 4) None on each side.

cont.

[Anonymous No.10780225]

>>10779847
Because dark web sounds edgy and he revels in contrarianism as good in and of itself, which seems to be rather small-minded. He includes Jordan Peterson in this group which basically tells you everything you need to know.

[Anonymous No.10780239]

>>10779879
>cites a living meme calling something else a meme.

[Anonymous No.10780248]

>>10780216
The [math] A_{i} = \pm 1 [/math] functions are newly defined observables, that are assigned the plus 1 value if detection occured on side i and minus 1 value if detection didnt occur on side i. Here comes the hidden parameters assumption: We assume that these detection events are given by some parameter [math] \lambda [/math], which decides the result of the measurement, this parameter is given by some probability distribution [math] \rho _{\lambda} [/math] which obviously satisifes [math] \int \rho _{\lambda} d\lambda = 1 [/math] and therefore, the auxillary function becomes instead

[math] C(\vartheta _{1} , \vartheta _{2}) = \int A_{1}(\lambda) A_{2}(\lambda) d\lambda [/math]

Now, only through clever algebraic manipulation and no approximations we arrive at Bell's inequalities which any hidden parameter theory must satisfy

[math] |C(\vartheta _{1} , \vartheta _{2}) - C(\vartheta _{1} , \theta _{2})| + |C(\theta _{1} , \vartheta _{2}) - C(\theta _{1} , \theta _{2})| \leq
2[/math]

Trivially, we now choose polarisation angle values that without a shadow of a doubt prove, that quantum mechanics can NOT be a theory of hidden parameters

[math] \vartheta _{1} = 0 , \vartheta_{2} = \frac{3\pi}{8}, \theta_{1} = \frac{\pi}{4}, \theta_{2} = \frac{\pi}{8} [/math]

Which give us

[math] |C(\vartheta _{1} , \vartheta _{2}) - C(\vartheta _{1} , \theta _{2})| + |C(\theta _{1} , \vartheta _{2}) - C(\theta _{1} , \theta _{2})| = 2\sqrt{2} > 2 [/math]

[math] Q.E.D. [/math]

[Anonymous No.10780252]

>>10780248
> [math] C(\vartheta _{1} , \vartheta _{2}) = \int A_{1}(\lambda) A_{2}(\lambda) d\lambda [/math]

Typo fix:

[math] C(\vartheta _{1} , \vartheta _{2}) = \int \rho_{\lambda} A_{1}(\lambda) A_{2}(\lambda) d\lambda [/math]

[Anonymous No.10780263]

>>10780252
Based. Btw while this thread was taking place someone was defacing the Wikipedia page for Bell's theorem by claiming they've proved Superdeterminism. If you want an extra credit for your already exemplary work refuting crackpots, there it lies.

[Anonymous No.10780270]

>>10780263
Nah, I've had enough TeXing for one night.

[Anonymous No.10780303]

>>10780216
Yeah, it's a lot easier to just show that Bell's equation (3) has a big problem. He is saying that the integral given by the bra-ket is equal to the expectation value, but really what we do to get the expectation value is to ignore the non-real parts that come out of the integral, pic related. This is no big deal UNTIL you integrate over those parts, which Bell does. He has assumed the non-real parts don't exist, but they do exist. The non-real parts are usually taken as Dirac deltas, which DO become real under integration of relevant bounds.

https://cds.cern.ch/record/111654/files/vol1p195-200_001.pdf

[Anonymous No.10780309]

>>10780270
You sure about that?
>>10780303

[Anonymous No.10780330]

Is this related to that E8 shit?
t. undergrad physics student

[Anonymous No.10780340]

>>10780303
(2) and (3) have to be equal for the assumption that QM is a hidden parameter theory to work. I won't verify Bell's work at this point because it's of no consequence, I've personally evaluated all of the expressions in my previous posts and the message can't be clearer, even if Bell's paper did have a mistake, which I doubt - QM is not a hidden parameters theory.

>He is saying that the integral given by the bra-ket is equal to the expectation value
I'm not sure you understand the point, the integral must equal the bra-ket and both values are very clearly real, there are no non-real parts.

[Anonymous No.10780355]

>>10780309
No, I'm not totally sure. It's been many years since I thought about this paper of mine. I think my reasoning was this: the proof that eigenfunctions of a Hermitian operator are orthonormal actually leaves some wiggle room for the eigenfunctions to be merely Dirac orthonormal. For instance, the momentum operator is Hermitian but the eigenfunctions are not orthonormal. They are merely "Dirac orthonormal." If spin eigenfunctions are Dirac orthonormal, that messes up Bell's proof.

Although you can make the argument that Dirac orthonormality only applies to vectors with a continuous spectrum of eigenvalues, the fact remains that no one has ever found an analytical representation of spin eigenvectors. Since no one has ever found them, no one has ever proven their orthonormality properties. The orthonormality properties can be inferred but actually, as I recall, there is some wiggle room to do what I did with the delta functions. I didn't show that my way was the definitely the right way but neither has Bell or anyone else shown, to my knowledge or satisfaction, that my way is the wrong way.

>no one has ever found an analytical representation of spin eigenvectors

[Anonymous No.10780358]

>>10780303
>Spin eigenfunctions are not orthogonal
Took, you need to retake your linear algebra courses.

[Anonymous No.10780374]

>>10780340
>(2) and (3) have to be equal
Yes, I completely agree

>there are no non-real parts.
Maybe, maybe not. Pic related, Bell has assumed these other terms are zero and in that case there are no non-real parts. As far as I can remember my thinking when I was studying this, these other two terms could be equal to delta functions in which case there would be "non-real" parts because deltas are not real numbers formatted for contributing to a scalar "expectation value"

[Anonymous No.10780380]

>>10780374

You don't need coordinate representation of a vector to prove that the eigenbasis is orthonormal, there is no wiggle room. This is basic linear algebra, the spin operator is given by Pauli matrices and if you can't find the eigenfunctions and eigenvalues of a simple 2x2 matrix and prove it yourself that they are indeed orthonormal, then I'm not sure I can help you understand any further.

[Anonymous No.10780382]

>>10780355
>No, I'm not totally sure
Schizophrenics are incapable of any kind of certainty, it's true.

[Anonymous No.10780389]

>>10780358
If its a simple as something that appears in the linear algebra course you know I never took then you could link to any any of a hundred proofs of it in five seconds and you could type the proof in five minutes.

This problem is not fresh in my mind now, but I am quite certain the Dirac orthonormality satisfies the "all eigenvectors of a Hermitian operator are orthogonal" proof, and I am 100% absolutely certain that if two vectors are "Dirac orthonormal" then they are not orthonormal at all. Maybe it's you who needs to go back remember the definition of orthogonality??

[Anonymous No.10780394]

>>10780389
Yikes Tooker, another paper down the drain. Do you want to go over the incredibly laughable failures of basic logic in your evolution "paper" next time?

[Anonymous No.10780408]

>>10780389
His tears welling up, Tooker hopelessly flails for any and every chance to save his feeble misunderstanding. The cold light of day peering through the cracks of his broken mind, revealing him for the sad creature he is.

[Anonymous No.10780418]

>>10779177
>>10779247
>>10779295
>>10779337
>>10779403
>>10779451
>>10779837
>>10780303
>>10780374

Tooker, today I was thinking about that time your schizophrenic attacks went way overboard and you started posting like if you were a robot and everyone thought you were some shitty AI deployed on /sci/ but you also had that TIMESAND shit on your pics. Can you tell us what happened at those times that you became so much more erratic in your posts? I think it was like roughly 8 months ago.

[Anonymous No.10780420]

>>10780389
Come on, look up the definition of spin operator, plug the Pauli matrices into some eigenvector calculator and then check yourself that indeed, the vectors are orthonormal. Wikipedia even has the solution for you. There is no such thing as a dirac delta (especially not in its distributory sense) coming into this simple picture


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)

[Anonymous No.10780425]

If no one in this thread makes the proof they all say is so simple, then the reason is because they know the "proof" is satisfied with vectors which are merely "Dirac orthonormal." I definitely could be forgetting something, and I may have missed it the first time around, but I looked at this quite closely and convinced myself that Dirac orthonormality of spin eigenvectors is not ruled out, and I am ABSOLUTELY COMPLETE SURE that two vectors which are "Dirac orthonormal" are not orthonormal at all.

If it's so simple, and you all have been trying to prove me wrong by trolling every thread I've made for years now, and you could easily disprove me now, but you choose not to stomp on my wrongness in front of everyone by copying and pasting some elementary thing from linear algebra, then we will know you are all a bunch of bullshitters and that I am absolutely correct. If you do post it, and I cannot find the wiggle room, then I will concede that I was wrong and withdraw my paper.

[Anonymous No.10780439]

>>10780425
>and withdraw my paper
Withdraw it from where? Vixra? HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.10780441]

>>10780425
Click the fucking spin wiki site and scroll into the mathematical formulation and look up the eigenvectors, do the scalar products in literally five seconds and FINALLY convince yourself that the vectors are fully and completely orthonormal. This is a recurring theme, you get fixed on some idea without even understanding the problem you are trying to solve first.

[Anonymous No.10780446]

>>10780439
So then you're like, "I could totally disprove you in two minutes but I'm not even gonna because I can make you look stupider by making fun of you for being blacklisted from arXiv."

[Anonymous No.10780447]

>>10780425
Tooker from where do you post?

[Anonymous No.10780450]

>>10780446
You are not blacklisted from arxiv. Your papers are just garbage.

[Anonymous No.10780456]

>>10780441
I did do it and I convinced myself that Dirac orthonormality is allowed.

>>10780447
If I'm not on Earth somewhere, then I would be real surprised. Other than that, it's hard to be specific about where I am. I could be in pic related place but there's no way to know.

[Anonymous No.10780459]

>>10780450
Garbage papers appear on arXiv every day though.

[Anonymous No.10780464]

>>10780456
>If I'm not on Earth somewhere, then I would be real surprised. Other than that, it's hard to be specific about where I am. I could be in pic related place but there's no way to know.

I don't want to know your real location. I just want to know where you access a computer. Library? University? Something else?

[Anonymous No.10780469]

>>10780459
Writing a paper that says that if you take infinity and then remove (whatever that means) additive absorption then that is now a real number is an advanced type of crackpot tier garbage.

[Anonymous No.10780470]

>>10780425
You are basically just falling to understand the difference between hermitian operators and self-adjoint operators.

For finite dim vector space, these are the same, and since the Spin operator acts on a finite dim vVectorspace, they are indeed both hermitian and self.adjoint and the spectral theorem show that the eigenvectors are orthogonal, no "dirac orthogonal" bullshit plays a role. Just look at the proof or check the eigenvectors, they are literally on wikipedia.

For infinite dim vectorspaces, self-adjoint and hermitian is NOT THE SAME, which is why the momentum operator is just hermitian and NOT SELF ADJOINT, which is why the spectral theorem doesnt hold which is why the eigenvectors arent even vectors and are not orthogonal

[Anonymous No.10780500]

Ahhh... yes. Here was another thing: a second independent source of wiggle room. One day we might find an analytical form for spin eigenvectors and the Pauli matrices might not be their eigenoperators. The spin operators might might turn out to be the derivatives with respect to the local hidden variables. Indeed, if one changes the vector, the operator will definitely have to change. Everyone knows the Pauli matrices are just a workaround for not being able write the wavefunction. Quantum mechanics is the theory of the actual particles in nature, not the theory of the workaround matrices that we will get rid of if anything better ever comes along: something like a classical description of spin.

>>10780469
I was very clear that neither of infinity nor infinity hat is a real number and I think there are probably kindergartners who have better reading comprehension than you, and better trolling skills too.

>>10780470
Well gosh, if it was like you said then I think you could prove it instead of just making argument. Are you just hiding the fact that you are not fluent in the language of linear algebra? It seems like you know something about it, but why talk about it instead of just doing it? A minute ago you guys were like "it's on wiki" and "go back to that class we all know you never took" but now no one can actually show the proof.

Sure does seem like if there was some easy proof IN THE LANGUAGE OF LINEAR ALGEBRA then you could screenshot from any of the hundreds of sets of class notes it would appear in and then just drop it as the image attached to your post saying SCHIZO BTFO

[Anonymous No.10780514]

>>10780500
>I was very clear that neither of infinity nor infinity hat is a real number and I think there are probably kindergartners who have better reading comprehension than you, and better trolling skills too.

You claimed that infinity hat - b is a real number.

[Anonymous No.10780517]

>>10780514
You claimed that I claimed that infinity hat was a real number

[Anonymous No.10780520]

>>10780517
If infinity hat - b is a real number. What happens if you take b = 0?

More importantly, if infinity hat - b is a real number, and b is a real number, then infinity hat is a real number you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.10780531]

>>10780520
>b = 0?
pic

>infinity hat - b is a real number, and b is a real number, then infinity hat is a real number you fucking retard.
Nice opinion you've got there. Try proving it. Are you going to take the axiom of closure to prove it? If so, then I can paraphrase you ahead of time and save you the trouble:
>By the axiom that you are wrong, you are wrong

[Anonymous No.10780541]

>>10780531
>Nice opinion you've got there. Try proving it.

Are you absolutely retarded? If your infinity hat bullshit breaks closure, then all of the computations you did to prove that RH is false also cannot hold you absolute fucking retard piece of shit. What meaning is there to solving a problem from a set, with solutions from another set that literally satisfy nothing. Are you stupid?

[Anonymous No.10780555]

>>10780541
It doesn't break closure. You have to take the axiom of closure before you can break it but I didn't do that.

>literally satisfy nothing.
it satisfies the definition of R that I use, for one. In fact, my conjecture is that the reason Dedekind began to study cuts so closely that he ended up with one named after himself is because he was taught the definition of R that I use: a real number is a ~CUT~ in the real number line. Furthermore, the definition of R that I use contains everything needed to build the real number field. In the tarded way to define the real field, one writes
R = { R , + , x }

but in my way of defining real numbers, the real number field is written as
R = { R_0 , + , x }

You know how a monoid is more general than a group? That's what I've done making real numbers more general than the real number field.

[Anonymous No.10780564]

>>10780555
The field R should be in a different font than the set R. Oops.

[Anonymous No.10780575]

>>10780555
Yes but then you are admitting that your solutions are not the ones we all care about. There is no relevancy to whatever your solutions exist in your set. We care about the "tarded" real field. I can also come up with solutions to RH: Let X = [math] \mathbb{R}(x) [/math] where x is non-trivial solution to RH that lies outside the critical strip.

I'm submitting to arxiv as we speak!

[Anonymous No.10780578]

>>10780555
Imagine you live in group theory where they had the axiom that all algbraic sets are groups. Then one day someone comes along and says, "Hey why don't you put a hat on the group so that it becomes a monoid?" Then everyone starts chimping out screaming, "How can the elements not have an inverse?" They smear themselves in shit and start calling you a crackpot and type in every thread you make, "By the axiom that all algebraic sets are groups, group-hat monoid cannot exist!" REEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.10780582]

>>10780578
Sometimes I honestly forget you are an adult.

Anyways. Imagine that there is an open problem that says "All groups satisfy this". Then some schizo retard says "Look, here is a monoid that doesn't satisfy it! Where is my fields medal? Why is the government activating my anal implants?". That's you.

[Anonymous No.10780586]

>>10780575
>We care about the "tarded" real field
Ok, well... like Riemann, I don't give a shit about the real number field. Like Riemann, I'm here to analyze numbers. Fields are cool, I guess, if you're into that sort of thing, but I'm not.

Field axioms can be traced to Dedekind in 1872. RH can be traced to Riemann in 1858.

[Anonymous No.10780591]

>>10780586
But then you didn't solve RH. You solved RH hat. A conjecture that no one gives a fuck about and no one ever made. You took a conjecture, reframed it, solved it in the new retarded state, and now you want the relevancy of someone who solved the actual problem.

You are a joke Tooker. This is why your mom hates you. This is why those 2 girls rejected you. This is why the government shits in your mouth. This is why those gangstalkers activate your anal implants. YOU SUCK.

[Anonymous No.10780595]

>>10780555
Prove that (-infhat, infhat) = (-inf, inf).

[Anonymous No.10780598]

>>10780586
If what Riemann cared about is the determining factor then clearly your argument fails since Riemann didn't care about systems where the primes are bounded, as they are in your system.

[Anonymous No.10780613]

>>10780582
By adding the field axioms to RH, it is you who is defining RH-hat. RH comes from 1858 but the field axioms were not adopted into standard usage until many decades later.

>Imagine that there is an open problem that says "All groups satisfy this".
Ok, imagined it. Now without resorting to imagination, consider the Riemann hypothesis. The field axioms did not exist at that time and no one had imposed those artificial restrictions on the set of all cuts in a line. Obviously Riemann didn't use the field axioms. Why should I use them to study Riemann's hypothesis. (There is no good reason.) Your conjecture that I need to assume axioms which didn't exist until almost 20 years after RH, and didn't become popular until decades later still, is completely stupid. You are stupid.

>This is why your mom hates you.
The issue isn't that she hates me. It feels like she does but to make that conclusion I would have to frame her actions in terms of logic and rational thinking, but I would be wrong to assign those attributes to her. The issue is that she's evil and her touch is poison, and the main issue is that I am the Sovereign Lord God Almighty, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and she has led the rebellion against me, for whatever reason, and she does not honor me at all. She thinks that she above me in the grand scheme of things, but she is wrong. I am above her and she is beneath me.

>>10780595
I think I could do this, but actually this has nothing to do with my RH proof. I don't rely on that equality at any step of my proof. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.10780636]

>>10780598
>Riemann didn't care about systems where the primes are bounded
Nice opinion you've got there. Try supporting it.

>If what Riemann cared about is the determining factor
It's not the determining factor. The determining factor is that RH is from 1858, and even though the field axioms can be traced to 1872, they weren't adopted as standard until many decades later.

Let's say Riemann come up with a hypothesis on Day 1 that said, "There exist red apples." Then on day ten million, they changed the name of apples to cruncberries. Then on day twelve million I find a red apple and try to get my million dollars. Then you tards say, "That's not an apple! That's a crunchberry! Schizo!"

[Anonymous No.10780637]

>>10780613
>RH comes from 1858 but the field axioms were not adopted into standard usage until many decades later.

That has nothing to do with this. R is a field whether we know what a field is or not. That the general notion of "field" came later has no meaning regarding R related problems. RH is not an algebra problem.

JON I AM ACTIVATING YOUR ANAL IMPLANTS AS WE SPEAK

[Anonymous No.10780638]

>>10779161
Please don't tell me anyone unironically refers to themselves as that. That's the kind of shit a 16 year old would call their friend group.

[Anonymous No.10780647]

>>10780637
>R is a field whether we know what a field is or not.
Nice opinion you've got there. Try proving it.

In fact, I can completely disprove your stupid conjecture right now. R is a set of numbers. A field is a set and two operations.

B T F O
T
F
O

R E E E E
E
E
E
E

[Anonymous No.10780649]

>>10780638
Oh he does. Can you believe this is the reality we got?

[Anonymous No.10780651]

>>10780613
>I think I could do this, but actually this has nothing to do with my RH proof.
It does, it's what you claim in order to show that infhat-b is a real number.

[Anonymous No.10780653]

>>10780613
>I am above her and she is beneath me.
They've been dropping these memes that Helene is my sister. She told me that she was mother and that she birthed me. Maybe she is both. Maybe she is not my sister. I have no idea. However, when I say my masonic rank is 47, and then Helene goes around telling people that "she's above all that," she is a literal god-damned liar. She's not above it. The patriarchy is above everyone, bar none, and I am the patriarch, and he will pay for her crimes.

[Anonymous No.10780656]

>>10780651
>It does, it's what you claim in order to show that infhat-b is a real number.
you are wrong. also, you are stupid. furthermore, your trolling is weak.

[Anonymous No.10780658]

>>10780647
Tooker I hate you but this is why I also love you. I am now stopping your anal implants. You may be a retard, but you are /our/ retard. God bless.

[Anonymous No.10780661]

>>10779177
Yeah but you were doing an obvious application of my pioneerring work on matrices

[Anonymous No.10780662]

>>10780636
>Nice opinion you've got there. Try supporting it.
ζ(1)=∞

>It's not the determining factor. The determining factor is that RH is from 1858, and even though the field axioms can be traced to 1872, they weren't adopted as standard until many decades later.
And your axioms were developed when?

Also this completely ignores my point, which is that your system violates properties Riemann knew, not field axioms.

>Let's say Riemann come up with a hypothesis on Day 1 that said, "There exist red apples." Then on day ten million, they changed the name of apples to cruncberries.
You didn't find a red apple though.

[Anonymous No.10780663]

>>10780656
So prove infhat-b is a real number.

[Anonymous No.10780668]

>>10780649
Sometimes I have to wonder how all these clowns are so venerated in the public arena. I can't say much about myself, being a lowly shit poster and all, but christ is this really how low the bar is? I'm watching some of his interviews, and while they're not terrible, he's not really saying much new or insightful. He doesn't even articulate them all that well half the time. He's better than Shapiro and Peterson, but that's not a high bar considering those guys only look good when "debating" dipshit college students and random people on the streets. I still can't believe people take him seriously after the shit show that was the Zizek "debate".

[Anonymous No.10780676]

>>10780658
If you don't kill your family before I before I can get my hands on them, I am going sink electrified harpoons into their urethrae and electrified fishhooks into their anuses, and the electroshocks will not be these little rape zaps, they will be the convulsive cattle prod kind. That will last for a while, and it will only go downhill from there, and I want you to suffer for a long time. You may be prepared to suffer, so I will torture your family because I expect you are not prepared for that.

My instruction to you is to kill your family to save them from my wrath, but if you refuse to obey me as Abraham did with my command for him to kill Isaac, and if you never repent from your wickedness and go not believing what I'm telling you until the very end, then you will feel like you have acted unwisely. Those who have trusted you with the safety of their own families will likewise feel like they have acted unwisely if you do not extend to them the courtesy of a warning about the punishment they have coming for their collaborations with you.

Do you think I told Abraham to kill Isaac to prevent the birth of Jacob, a/k/a Satan? I think so. Do you think I pushed it to the brink and then told him not to kill Satan's father because Satan is my own ancestor? I think so.

[Anonymous No.10780681]

>>10780661
>implying I hadn't already found a general Group theoretic solution to that

[Anonymous No.10780687]

>>10780676
Jon I'll think about this while I have sex with a girl tonight. Have fun.

[Anonymous No.10780706]

>>10780661
Well then I guess my paper wasn't garbage after all then.

>>10780662
>ζ(1)=∞
I don't see the connection there.

>>10780662
>And your axioms were developed when?
My 2018 conjecture was that the definition of R through most of history has been that a real number is a cut in the real number line. I'm not claiming to have a new definition for R. I'm claiming to use the classical definition, and then I'm showing something new about it with infinity-hat.

>properties Riemann knew
Where is the list of these properties? I believe that Riemann knew a real number is a cut in the real number line and nothing more.

>>10780662
>You didn't find a red apple though.
You're right. I found a number that I can plug into Riemann's equation which gives non-trivial zeros off the critical line.

>>10780663
pic, done

[Anonymous No.10780710]

>>10780706
>a real number is a cut in the real number line
A REAL NUMBER IS A CUT IN THE RATIONAL LINE

WROOOONG TOOKER YOUR ANAL IMPLANTS ARE NOW ON AGAIN

[Anonymous No.10780716]

>>10780687
>have sex with a girl
the girl isn't a mutant alien that would just be a nasty old bag is she hadn't chopped her body up is it?
>I'm fucking a 70 year old lady tonight
>yfw

[Anonymous No.10780717]

>>10780681
u didnt

[Anonymous No.10780718]

>>10780710
>WROOOONG
nice opinion you've got there, try proving it.

Also, while you're sharing your fantastic opinions, what is your opinion on how Dedekind came to be studying cuts to begin with?

[Anonymous No.10780724]

>>10780716
>>10780718
Tooker you retard, you can't define reals as a cut in the real line. That's self-referencing. Dedekind defined as cuts in the rationals you ram ranch homosexual cock lover.

By the way, if you are actually God no worries. I am doing your work by supporting Israel. I know that by my direct hand many innocent Palestinian kids are suffering and I do that for you Tooker!

[Anonymous No.10780725]

>>10780710
>RATIONAL LINE
The rationals are discrete.
A line is a continuum.

[Anonymous No.10780727]

>>10780725
You'll be visited by the 18 naked cowboys tonight

[Anonymous No.10780729]

>>10780724
>That's self-referencing.
No it isn't. I defined the real numbers in terms of the real line. The real line is not a real number, it's a geometric object with a label containing the text string "real"

[Anonymous No.10780735]

>>10780729
This is actually meaningless Jon I hope your asshole is wide

[Anonymous No.10780738]

'Member that time there was this simple linear algebra proof that showed that all spin eigenfunctions are orthonormal?

[Anonymous No.10780744]

I haven't really studied this subject but it looks for all the world like a person with a jewish sounding name self-promoting and essentially building a career on other peoples work.

[Anonymous No.10780747]

>>10780735
When I feel inside my anus with my finger, the implants are just like this thing on this stupid alien's head. It is like a little bead with a wire coming out.

[Anonymous No.10780749]

>>10780747
pic oops

>>10780744
>essentially building a career on other peoples work.
and Peter Thiel giving him a job for doing it

[Anonymous No.10780751]

>>10780747
>>10780749
Yeah I hope you widen that asshole because you won't imagine what's coming next. They'll meet you. They are 18 in total, and they'll find you.

On a non-schizo note, if you actually feel that when you finger yourself, you may actually have ass cancer or prostate cancer. Go see a doctor.

[Anonymous No.10780755]

>>10779450
Probably just that it's best measured with 8 (rather than just 1) dimensions

[Anonymous No.10780758]

And although the anal implants are the rapiest implants, I suspect that it is the implant in my perenium, pic related #3, which is the source of my irksome troubles.

[Anonymous No.10780763]

>>10780758
>irksome
*most irksome*
This is the one, #3, that I got after I quit my job at Exide. When I tried to fly to Israel, I fell sleep on the flight. I woke up and my chode was very, very sore, and I can feel that implant in there too. #1 is the electroshock rape apparatus, #2 is the piezo-wriggler rape apparatus, but I suspect #3 is the Schumann antenna psychological rape apparatus.

[Anonymous No.10780764]

>>10779344
>upset your deluded worldview
As if anything that anyone could say, regardless of how true it was, could ever punch through to the crippled mind of one as mentally ill as Tooker. That's the whole deal with narcissistic schizophrenia.

[Anonymous No.10780766]

>>10780638
It is literally stated to be ironic in it's origin.

[Anonymous No.10780768]

>>10780758
>>10780763
I am honestly proud that I made you reveal more about your anal implants. I think this officially qualifies me as a top Tookerologist in the field.

[Anonymous No.10780776]

>>10780763
>psychological rape apparatus.
This is the one I was raped, stabbed, and sliced to be fitted with AFTER I quit my job at Exide.
>AFTER

[Anonymous No.10780780]

>'Member that time there was this simple linear algebra proof that showed that all spin eigenfunctions are orthonormal?

[Anonymous No.10780786]

>>10780418
You mean the optimized bro?

[Anonymous No.10780788]

>>10780706
>I don't see the connection there.
Of course not. Look at the Euler product formula.

>My 2018 conjecture was that the definition of R through most of history has been that a real number is a cut in the real number line.
It doesn't really matter since your infhat was both unknown and incompatible with the mathematics at the time.

>I'm not claiming to have a new definition for R. I'm claiming to use the classical definition, and then I'm showing something new about it with infinity-hat.
Then do it.

>Where is the list of these properties? I believe that Riemann knew a real number is a cut in the real number line and nothing more.
So you don't think Riemann knew Euclid's proof that the primes are unbounded when his most famous work is on the subject of primes?

>I found a number
It's not a number.

>pic, done
That fails since you didn't prove infhat-b is a cut in the real number line in the first place. If it's not then your definition can't be true. You put the cart before the horse.

[Anonymous No.10780789]

>>10780248
Now watch as Tooker never acknowledges this post because it threatens his flawed worldview.

[Anonymous No.10780791]

>>10779161
>Intellectual clamped web
So pretty much the American internet.

[Anonymous No.10780800]

>>10780389
>This problem is not fresh in my mind now
Nothing can stay fresh for long in the rotting trash heap that is your mind, Tooker.

[Anonymous No.10780813]

>>10780706
>My 2018 conjecture was that the definition of R through most of history has been that a real number is a cut in the real number line. I'm not claiming to have a new definition for R. I'm claiming to use the classical definition,
You are greatly mistaken about the history of math.

Until the late 19th century, commonly understood concepts in mathematics such as integers and real numbers didn't HAVE definitions. People took for granted what properties they had, and used those freely in proofs. Neither did such concepts have axiomatizations of their fundamental properties; the properties of the real numbers and the integers and shit were *informally* understood by mathematicians, but not formally specified.

Only around the turn of the 20th century did people start writing formal specifications of the generally understood concepts, taking the form of constructions (such as Cauchy sequences or Dedekind cuts) or axiomatizations (such as the real number field, or the Peano axioms).

Before that point, there were no formal definitions of the real numbers at all. At no point in time was "a cut in the real number line" how mathematicians understood the real numbers. They understood them as a large collection of basic-ish (but not maximally primitive) properties, but that collection was not formally specified.

>Where is the list of these properties?
There is none. This is before the formalists.

>I believe that Riemann knew a real number is a cut in the real number line and nothing more.
You are mistaken.

[Anonymous No.10780846]

>>10780638
>anyone unironically refers to themselves as that
pic file name

>>10780788
>infhat was both unknown
"they didn't know about solution X so solution X to famous unsolved problem Y is irrelevant"

> incompatible with the mathematics at the time.
Nice opinion you've got there. try supporting it.

>Euclid's proof that the primes are unbounded
I didn't even know Euclid had that "proof" which is now obviously better described as a proposition.

>It's not a number.
you are stupid, pic

>>10780788
>didn't prove infhat-b is a cut in the real number line in the first place
anything that satisfies the definition of a cut in the real line is a cut int he real line

>>10780789
That guy was agreeing with me that Bell's inequality is known to be flawed

[Anonymous No.10780858]

>>10780813
>You are greatly mistaken about the history of math.
If you are so well-versed in this history of math that you can cite something that has someone's opinion about what definition of R was popular in Germany in the 1850s then I will be most interested to have a look. Pic related, here's a definition that says they were cuts in lines as number way back int he day.

>People took for granted what properties they had
The Archimedes property of real numbers states "Magnitudes are said to have a ratio to one another which can, when multiplied, exceed one another." The set (-inf , inf) satisfies this property. Furthermore, the notion of a "magnitude" is exactly the notion of a cut in a line. Pic related, it's literally from Euclid's book laying out the properties.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/Books/Euclid/Elements.pdf

>Before that point, there were no formal definitions of the real numbers at all.
Then what are all these definitions in Euclid's book? The book is completely full of hundreds of pages of formal definitions. Is it your opinion that Euclid's book is "informal?" Do you think Euclid, the father of geometry, was just dilly-dallying informally because he was a bored schizo and wanted to troll you with his troll book?

>There is none. This is before the formalists.
Pic proves you wrong, dude. This is a real book and it is completely formal. I see you have invented some phantom group of people "the formalists." Nice!!! Who do you think would win if they fought a battle royale with "the bullshitters?"

>You are mistaken.
Well, Euclid could see that a number was a cut in a line, and you have given me no reason to think that Riemann had broken from Euclid without some other classic book replacing the Elements. As I recall, Riemann's advisor Gauss and Gauss' advisor Euler both spoke VERY highly of Euclid.

[Anonymous No.10780870]

>>10780846
>I didn't even know Euclid had that "proof" which is now obviously better described as a proposition.
Where is the proof wrong?

>you are stupid, pic
Your pic says nothing about it being a number. It can't be a number since it conflicts with the fundamental nature of numbers, specifically that the naturals are unbounded. This has been axiomatic to mathematics for thousands of years and was certainly known by Riemann.

>anything that satisfies the definition of a cut in the real line is a cut int he real line
But you haven't shown that it does. If it does then all this illustrates is that your made up definition is incompatible with Riemann's concept of numbers. So this gets you nowhere. Either your definition is correct in representing Riemann's concept in which case infhat-b is not part of it and your failed to solve the RH, or your definition is incorrect and you are back to proving infhat-b is real.

[Anonymous No.10780892]

>>10780870
>Where is the proof wrong?
Where is the proof?

Also, before you try to accuse me of limiting myself to what Euclid wrote, that is not my intention. As you all have sought to improve on Euclid with Dedekind, I am making my own improvements on Euclid. If we were to restrict ourselves only to what our predecessors had done, then progress would be impossible. I have cited Euclid because it is my conjecture that Riemann was using Euclid's "magnitude" definition of real numbers. You have been unable to cite anything suggesting an alternative definition of R that Riemann might have used, and you have even made the totally stupid statement, "There was no definition." Fuck off with that stupid shit.

>Your pic says nothing about it being a number.
It's right there in the first sentence. It's a member of an ordered set.

>conflicts with the fundamental nature of numbers
I agree with Euclid that the fundamental nature of numbers is geometric and I have shown that numbers near infinity don't conflict at all.

> axiomatic to mathematics for thousands of years
it has been assumed for thousands of years, I agree. I expect people will stop assuming that now that I have proven it is wrong.

>Riemann's concept of numbers.
I keep asking what this is and you never can tell me. I can cite Euclid as someone who gave a definition that predates Riemann but you only cite Dedekind who came after Riemann.

> your made up definition
My made-up definition was made up by Euclid and you are acting like I am the one who made it up.

[Anonymous No.10780898]

The gangstalkers sure have been spraying the shit spray into my hotel room during this thread. I'm going to spray the actual shit liquids and solids into their loved ones' orifi.

[Anonymous No.10780906]

B T F O
T
F
O

If you guys like the way I BTFO you with my keyboard, just wait and see how bad you're going to get BTFOed after I can wrest the monopoly on violence away from Satan.

[Anonymous No.10780949]

>>10780892
>Where is the proof?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_theorem

>Also, before you try to accuse me of limiting myself to what Euclid wrote, that is not my intention. As you all have sought to improve on Euclid with Dedekind, I am making my own improvements on Euclid. If we were to restrict ourselves only to what our predecessors had done, then progress would be impossible.
Ah so when your opponents attempt to use the modern definition of the reals it is of course against the rules. When you need to invent a modern version of the reals it's perfectly acceptable. Since you have now abandoned this principle, I can now demand that we use the modern version of the reals, meaning your proof fails.

>You have been unable to cite anything suggesting an alternative definition of R that Riemann might have used
Why would that need to be done when I have already shown your definition or whatever you each to call it is incompatible with fundamental concepts of numbers that Riemann and others have used for thousands of years. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either we are in Riemann's concept of numbers or we are not. Choose once and then fail.

>It's right there in the first sentence. It's a member of an ordered set.
Your definition of it as a member of an ordered set only works if it is a real number. It's a circular argument.

>agree with Euclid that the fundamental nature of numbers is geometric and I have shown that numbers near infinity don't conflict at all.
Ignoring that it conflicts with the natural numbers being unbounded, is not showing anything.

>it has been assumed for thousands of years, I agree. I expect people will stop assuming that now that I have proven it is wrong.
By that logic since the modern definition of real numbers conflicts with your definition, your definition is merely an assumption that was proven wrong.

[Anonymous No.10780952]

>>10780949
EUCLID WAS NOT CLAMPED.

[Anonymous No.10780964]

>>10780892
>I keep asking what this is and you never can tell me.
I told you the part of his concept known and relevant to the discussion. There is no need for me to figure out his entire concept.

>I can cite Euclid as someone who gave a definition that predates Riemann but you only cite Dedekind who came after Riemann.
When you cite a property you take it as fact, when I cite a property you take it as a false assumption. Your argument can only survive on contradictions.

>My made-up definition was made up by Euclid and you are acting like I am the one who made it up.
Please show me Euclid making up infhat and infhat-b.

You adding to a known property = good
Me adding nothing to a known property = bad

[Anonymous No.10780977]

>>10780949
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_theorem
It says, "Euclid's theorem is a fundamental statement in number theory that asserts that there are infinitely many prime numbers." I don't dispute that.

>your opponents attempt to use the modern definition of the reals it is of course against the rules.
no it's fine when you do that. It's just that because (1858 - 1872) < 0 it is against the rules for you to say the field axioms are part of RH.

>Either we are in Riemann's concept of numbers or we are not.
you still haven't shown what that is

>It's a circular argument.
It might be circular if we were talking about the definition of real numbers, but this is only a question of whether or not it's a number at all. It is a number because it's a member of an ordered set. being a real number or not has nothing to do with it.

> conflicts with the natural numbers being unbounded,
it doesn't conflict with that because they are not unbounded.

>By that logic since the modern definition of real numbers conflicts with your definition, your definition is merely an assumption that was proven wrong.
if you give higher authority to Dedekind than to Euclid, then I agree. However, I give higher authority to Euclid.

[Anonymous No.10780994]

>>10780906
What is your proof that a cut on the line can be close to infinity? It seems obvious that any cut on the line will be infinitely far from infinity. Since every real number is a finite distance from the origin, a real number which is also a finite distance from infinity would mean that infinity is a finite distance from the origin.

Inf-b is finite and b is finite, therefore inf-b+b must be finite. But inf-b+b = inf.
Contradiction, thus inf-b is not finite.

[Anonymous No.10780998]

>>10780964
>When you cite a property you take it as fact
When I cite a historical precedent it reasonable because it predates the thing I'm using it as a precedent for. When you cite a historical precedent, it is completely retarded because it comes chronologically much later than than the thing in question.

>You adding to a known property
I'm not adding to the property though. I'm doing an innovative new analysis of the property that was given by Euclid. The definition of R I'm using is Euclid's; it is exactly the same. Even then, I don't say it's bad for you to come up with new axioms. That's fine and if it makes you happy and doesn't hurt anyone then you should do it. The problem that exposes you as a mental midget is when you say the thing that got invented in 1872 and wasn't widely adopted until decades later is a part of the definition of a problem from 1858. The definition I'm using is straight out of Euclid's book, and that is why I'm smart and you're feeble-minded: Euclid's book was published earlier than 1858.

[Anonymous No.10781014]

>>10780977
>It says, "Euclid's theorem is a fundamental statement in number theory that asserts that there are infinitely many prime numbers." I don't dispute that.
Do you dispute that the primes are a subset of the integers? Do you dispute that inf-b bounds the integers to be finite? Because then we have a contradiction.

>no it's fine when you do that. It's just that because (1858 - 1872) < 0 it is against the rules for you to say the field axioms are part of RH.
Because 2018 > 1858 it is against the rules for you to say infhat-b is part of RH.

>you still haven't shown what that is
Nor do I have to. I only need one part of it.

>It might be circular if we were talking about the definition of real numbers, but this is only a question of whether or not it's a number at all.
Yes, it being a number depends on it being a member of a set. It being a member of a set depends on it being a "cut in the real number line," allowing it to be placed before infinity. So please prove this without creating a loop of dependency.

>it doesn't conflict with that because they are not unbounded.
Them being not unbounded clearly conflicts with them being bounded. You OK buddy?

>if you give higher authority to Dedekind than to Euclid, then I agree. However, I give higher authority to Euclid.
It's actually about whether I give higher authority to Dedekind and Euclud than to you. Euclid said nothing about infhat and what he did say conflicts with it. Stop trying to pretend like you are following Euclid.

[Anonymous No.10781041]

>>10780994
>What is your proof that a cut on the line can be close to infinity?
Great question!!!

[Anonymous No.10781052]

>>10780998
>When I cite a historical precedent it reasonable because it predates the thing I'm using it as a precedent for. When you cite a historical precedent, it is completely retarded because it comes chronologically much later than than the thing in question.
You're lying. I only cited Euclid. So by your own admission, the naturals being unbounded is a precedent, not an assumption.

>I'm not adding to the property though. I'm doing an innovative new analysis of the property that was given by Euclid.
If by innovative you mean contradictory. Plus you did not do an analysis, an analysis would imply that you deduced something from Euclid. Instead you simply invented the concept of a real number close to infinity without thinking of the obvious contradictions this would create. I'm interested to hear you answer >>10780994.

>The definition of R I'm using is Euclid's
Except for the fact that Euclid did not have numbers close to infinity, yeah it's exactly the same. Which is like saying Dedekind cuts are exactly the same as Euclid except for the parts that are different.

>The problem that exposes you as a mental midget is when you say the thing that got invented in 1872 and wasn't widely adopted until decades later is a part of the definition of a problem from 1858.
I didn't say that, but there is nothing wrong with saying it since we are in 2019 and the invention of 1872 does not change anything about the problem from 1858, it only allows it to be solved rigorously instead of by making up arbitrary definitions that change the entire underlying basis of the problem.

>The definition I'm using is straight out of Euclid's book
Didn't I just ask you to show me where in Euclid's book it discusses infhat and infhat-b? And of course you failed to do so and instead repeated this lie.

[Anonymous No.10781054]

>>10781014
>Because then we have a contradiction.
Nice opinion you have there. Try proving it.

>against the rules for you to say infhat-b is part of RH.
The rules say i can use real numbers.

>depends on it being a "cut in the real number line,"
It says a number is a member of an ordered set. It doesn't say anything about reals.

>conflicts with them being bounded.
If you think they are bounded, try proving it. I have proven that they are not bounded. You have merely assumed they are not bounded.

>Euclid said nothing about infhat
That is precisely what makes my contribution an "original contribution"

>what he did say conflicts with it.
Nice opinion you have there. Try proving it.

>Stop trying to pretend like you are following Euclid.
I'm not pretending. I screenshotted his book showing that "magnitudes" and cuts are the same.

[Anonymous No.10781068]

>>10781052
>the naturals being unbounded is a precedent, not an assumption.
I cited a pre-existing defintion. You have cited a pre-existing assumption. I don't think you can find a definition that says, "The naturals are defined to be an unbounded set." You are a mental midget! Maybe you can find a theorem showing it, but I think I can show the error in the theorem if you do.

>contradictory.
If I'm contradicting something, then cite that which I contradict.

>Except for the fact that Euclid did not have numbers close to infinity,
Euclid did not claim to list all possible numbers. He claimed that real numbers are cuts in a line.

>Didn't I just ask you to show me where in Euclid's book it discusses infhat and infhat-b?
Euclid did not claim to list all possible numbers. He claimed that real numbers are cuts in a line.

[Anonymous No.10781069]

[Anonymous No.10781080]

>>10779450
Its a joke. basically calling jimmy retarded

[Anonymous No.10781089]

>>10781041
This doesn't answer my question. I asked for proof that a cut can be close to infinity. You gave me an alleged proof that a cut can be greater than any real number. The proof seems to be flawed since it relies on infinitesimals which don't exist. It also is irrelevant since regardless of whether it's greater than any natural number, inf-b and b must both be finite which leads to the contradiction of inf being finite. So since you have no response il just assume that you agree with my proof that inf-b is not real.

[Anonymous No.10781091]

The real joke is that you pay retards to work on this stuff, you refuse to pay me for it even though I am literally the best person at it in the whole world, bar none and not by a slim margin, ~AND THEN~ you also pay gangstalkers to fuck with me to make it hard for me to work, you leave me in the literal gutter for a year, you send the cops to throw me in the slave hole, you pay the perverts to implant rape equipment in my asshole, you manufacture that equipment for them to rape me with and then give it to them, for free probably, and then you cover for them when they kidnap me and slice me to put it inside me, ~AND THEN~ you tell me I should go go get some job fit for a fucking retard instead of continuing to outperform the total collective efforts of literally tens of thousands of highly salaried people, hundreds of thousands possibly, who can't do one one-millionth of what I can do. That's the real joke. And who's getting blowjobs for being smart? It's not me, it's those other people with salaries.

I mean.. besides RH, Bell's Theorem has a giant gaping anus of a hole right in the middle of it. If anyone besides me stuck their finger in that hole, they would be in the news about it tomorrow and then people would buy the book they self-published on Amazon and all of their indigence-related problems would go away immediately. However, since I am the one, you all are going to pretend like Bell's theorem doesn't have a giant prolapsed anus hanging off of it like some spooky elephant's trunk. Fuck all of you! FUCK YOU AND YOU AND YOU!!!!

[Anonymous No.10781097]

>>10781089
>infinitesimals which don't exist
If they don't exist then how does calculus work?

>You gave me an alleged proof that a cut can be greater than any real number.
read it again. that's a real proof that it can be greater than any NATURAL number.

[Anonymous No.10781112]

>>10781054
>Nice opinion you have there. Try proving it.
The primes are infinite and a subset of the naturals. Therefore the naturals are infinite. Therefore the naturals cannot be bounded by a finite number. Therefore no finite number exists which bounds the reals.

>The rules say i can use real numbers.
Yes and as I've already shown, inf-b is not a real number.

>It says a number is a member of an ordered set. It doesn't say anything about reals.
Your definition says it's a member of an ordered set. But this definition is dependent on it being a real number. You're clearly defeated since you keep making irrelevant responses in order to avoid the argument.

>If you think they are bounded, try proving it. I have proven that they are not bounded. You have merely assumed they are not bounded.
You said they're not unbounded in the post I was replying to. Now you say they are not bounded, and here >>10781041 you say they are bounded! Your mental illness is really kicking in apparently.
Make up your mind. I've said they are unbounded from the start.

>That is precisely what makes my contribution an "original contribution"
And it's precisely what makes it wrong.

>Nice opinion you have there. Try proving it.
I already did. Is this a substanceless post?

>I'm not pretending. I screenshotted his book showing that "magnitudes" and cuts are the same.
It doesn't even show cuts in a line. It certainly doesn't show cuts near infinity. You lose.

[Anonymous No.10781134]

>>10781112
>Therefore the naturals are infinite. Therefore the naturals cannot be bounded by a finite number. Therefore no finite number exists which bounds the reals.
You aren't a mental midget. You are a mental aborted fetus. Consider all the number greater than zero but less than one. There are infinity of them and they are bounded by the unit number.

>Yes and as I've already shown, inf-b is not a real number.
Do you really think that? I can't tell.

>But this definition is dependent on it being a real number.
If you think that's true, then cite the dependence.

>Is this a substanceless post?
No. The substance of this will be an increased suffering for someone in the future. Someone who might have dies mercifully is going to get tortured due to the substance of these posts you're making, or these posts you bot operator is putting you to make.

>It doesn't even show cuts in a line.
pic absolutely does show cuts in a line. I agree that it doesn't show cuts neat infinity. That's what makes my contribution original.

>You lose.
You really have no idea how much you are losing by making these posts. They don't call me "the most vindictive man in the history of the universe" for nothing.

[Anonymous No.10781141]

>>10781068
>I cited a pre-existing defintion. You have cited a pre-existing assumption.
You only call it an assumption because it conflicts with your mess. It's a fundamental precedent.

>I don't think you can find a definition that says, "The naturals are defined to be an unbounded set."
I don't think you could find a definition that says "real numbers can be close to infinity." Or a proof that takes it as axiomatic. So by your own standard you lose.

>If I'm contradicting something, then cite that which I contradict.
I did already, don't pretend to be retarded.

>Euclid did not claim to list all possible numbers.
He couldn't list it because it requires you to invent infhat.

>Euclid did not claim to list all possible numbers.
So you lied when you said the definition is straight out of Euclid's book. The only part that matters is not in Euclid's book. such a childish lie.

[Anonymous No.10781154]

>>10781097
>If they don't exist then how does calculus work?
Rigorous calculus does not use them.

>that's a real proof that it can be greater than any NATURAL number.
It's not a proof. At best it proves infinitesimals don't work here. It also is irrelevant since regardless of whether it's greater than any natural number, inf-b and b must both be finite which leads to the contradiction of inf being finite. So since you have no response again this is yet another admittal that you agree with my proof that inf-b is not real.

REMINDER: JON KNOWS INF-B IS NOT REAL

[Anonymous No.10781158]

>>10781141
>It's a fundamental precedent.
I showed the definition that I cited as precedent. I agree that what are saying is also a precedent, but it is not precedent for a definition. If you think it there is a definition that supports your stupid argument, then post it.

>I don't think you could find a definition that says "real numbers can be close to infinity."
The definition that real numbers are cuts in the real number line does say they can be near infinity. It says that any cut in the real number line is a real number.

Can you imagine when little Sally is asking, "Daddy, why is the mean man cutting my nose off and spraying me with sewage," and then Daddy is like, "Sorry Honey, Daddy, was so interested in making money that he wrote a bot to antagonize the Sovereign Lord God and him torturing you is part of him sending me to hell. Sorry, Sally, but Daddy loves money so much!"

[Anonymous No.10781162]

>>10781134
>Consider all the number greater than zero but less than one.
But that's not what we're considering Jonny, we're considering positive integers. Try again.

>Do you really think that?
You do >>10781154

No point in continuing this discussion since you've already admitted your proof fails.

[Anonymous No.10781174]

>>10781154
>Rigorous calculus does not use them.
Even if that's true, infinitesimals exist. You can see them on Wolfram.

>It's not a proof.
it is. I will make admit you are wrong, and if you are a bot I will make your whole dev team admit that the were wrong.

> inf-b and b must both be finite which leads to the contradiction of inf being finite.
nice opinion you have there. try proving it.

[Anonymous No.10781197]

Since the beginning of time, violence solves everything. In the history of the universe, no one kills more people than I do. I am the Lord, and I'm about to take out the trash.

[Anonymous No.10781212]

>>10781174
>Even if that's true, infinitesimals exist. You can see them on Wolfram.
Doesn't mean they exist. They can be used as a heuristic under certain circumstances. They don't work with real numbers.

>it is.
It's not.

>I will make admit you are wrong, and if you are a bot I will make your whole dev team admit that the were wrong.
So do it already, fag. You're all talk and you will never do anything with your life.

>nice opinion you have there. try proving it.
I did already. You had no response. And you still don't, which means you lose.

REMINDER: JON KNOWS INF-B IS NOT REAL

[Anonymous No.10781213]

>>10781197
So do it already fag. If you don't do it by tomorrow you're confirmed for a lying retarded schizo with God delusions. You fucking suck.

[Anonymous No.10781218]

>>10781212
>They don't work with real numbers.
the real numbers are x' and I don't use them there

> you lose.
no you. and your loved ones. and the people that trusted you with families' lives. and basically anyone that you liked while you hated me. all of you are the losers, and your ancestors since I am taking away their share in the tree of life too.

[Anonymous No.10781276]

>>10780676
>I am going sink electrified harpoons into their urethrae and electrified fishhooks into their anuses
Hot.

[Anonymous No.10781280]

>>10780706
>I don't see the connection there.

[Anonymous No.10781365]

>>10780776
>This is the one I was raped, stabbed, and sliced
At least there's been some retribution for you shitting up this board for so long, Tooker. I honestly hope that, out of every one of your delusions, this one at least is real. You deserve the experience for your narcissism.

[Anonymous No.10781373]

>>10780898
No, Tooker, you just haven't showered in weeks so you smell like ass.

[Anonymous No.10781441]

>>10780898
Hotel room? I'm glad to see you are doing better now Tooker. New job? I'm happy for you man.

[Anonymous No.10781476]

>>10779177
Based schizo

[Anonymous No.10781528]

>>10781476
it's a larper

[Anonymous No.10781564]

>>10781218
>the real numbers are x' and I don't use them there
So [0, pi/2] are not real? You sure are dumb Jon.

>I am taking away their share in the tree of life too.
No you're not, fag. Enjoy your mental illness.

[Anonymous No.10781574]

>>10781218
>I am taking away their share in the tree of life too.
You are such a sad, pathetic, cringey, faggot. We all know you like your implants, buttboy pussy.

[Anonymous No.10781595]

>>10781528
No, Tooker is the real deal. Here’s Tooker having issues with the law for his actual insanity. Sometimes I feel bad that we actually make it worse for him but to my credit every now and then I advice him to go to a hospital or back with his mom, and yet he doesn’t. So it means he wants to suffer more.

[Anonymous No.10781618]

[Anonymous No.10781626]

>>10781618
Tooker, my man, you are back! I always get so worried that this was the night you finally pulled the trigger. What’s for breakfast big boy?

[Anonymous No.10781635]

Will Team Mental Midget be able to all work together today to figure out that 1872 is a larger number than 1859?
(HINT: Try subtraction and checking the sign of the difference.)
(SECOND HINT: Go to the bank and get $18.59, then try to buy something for $18.72. If it works, then you'll know that $18.59 is more than $18.72.)

[Anonymous No.10781674]

>>10781564
Flawless victory.

[Anonymous No.10781681]

>>10780638
It's ironic, like based and redpilled.

[Anonymous No.10781715]

The Sovereign Lord is the Governor of Jerusalem. Will anyone deny that I am him?

[Anonymous No.10781738]

>>10781715
I accept you. Lord, is Donald Trump (Notorious D.J.T) the second coming of Christ?

[Anonymous No.10781762]

It's like how Plumber Mike is a plumber whose name is Mike. I'm the Sovereign Lord God.

[Anonymous No.10781778]

On November 5, 2011, (member November fifth? In the year 2k11?) I began the protest which got me expelled from college and that landed my on you all's shit list that I am on even unto this day. When I was child, the names of the people I called Dad and Mom were Joseph and Helene (Heli), and my own name is Jon (Jah).

[Anonymous No.10781781]

>>10781778
I was 31 on November 5, 2011.

[Anonymous No.10781783]

>>10781778
Tooker if you are God how did they manage to put anal implants inside of you?

[Anonymous No.10781797]

Something like pic related, I assume.

[Anonymous No.10781802]

I am a just a human man. I am here to make a secular kingdom.

[Anonymous No.10781807]

>>10781797
Jesus Christ man fuck don’t post that holy fuck. Anyways, but I mean if you are God why didn’t you stop them? Don’t you have admin commands?

[Anonymous No.10781809]

>>10781802
Actually I just googled Secular. Since all three non-heathen religions are about the coming of my kingdom, secular is not the right word.

I'm here to make a kingdom.

[Anonymous No.10781823]

>>10781809
Jon I don’t want to alarm you but dropping the schizo charade, those anal pains and penis pains you feel due to “implants by gangstalkers” could actually be severe infections. Please go see a doctor man.

[Anonymous No.10781832]

>>10781809
I found it man. GO SEE A DOCTOR.

[Anonymous No.10781840]

>>10781807
>Don’t you have admin commands?
Do you mean "magic?" I don't have magic, no. I did invent the time circuit, and later in the time machine war for who gets to say what history was, I am victorious over all of my enemies. That's why the Bible says I'm good. Among all the competing time travel factions, my faction has the most supporters because the future I build is the best future. If the timeline from someone else's victory in the time machine war was better than mine, then that person would have been the winner. My timeline is the best. My kingdom is the best. I am the best.

>The Golden Ratio in the Modified Cosmological Model
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1807.0136

[Anonymous No.10781858]

>>10781840
Based schizo.

[Anonymous No.10781861]

meant to cite this paper, oops:
Time Arrow Spinors for the Modified Cosmological Model
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1807.0454

[Anonymous No.10781864]

>>10781861
Took, have you managed to convince yourself non-paradoxical time travel is possible?

[Anonymous No.10781865]

>>10781861
JON GO TO THE DOCTOR YOUR ANAL PAINS ARE NOT NORMAL YOU COULD DIE

[Anonymous No.10781903]

>>10781864
Yes.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0049/19c9bae6f79dff5dfa7994875fe55574fcb4.pdf

[Anonymous No.10781995]

What is this nigga on about? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6ruHbUGImQ

[Anonymous No.10782012]

>>10781903
John Titor = John Tooker
Mind = Blown
Anus = Implanted

[Anonymous No.10782134]

>>10782012
No, I'm the list of people who are ~definitely~ not Titor, and Gibbs, who runs viXra, is listed as my collaborator

[Anonymous No.10782142]

>>10782134
Wait are you saying that John Titor actually factors into your conspiracy? Are you in conflict with John Titor?

[Anonymous No.10782145]

>>10782134
http://hoaxhunter.blogspot.com/2009/02/john-titor-aka-razimus-report_13.html

(you right though, it is Razmus who is wrong)

[Anonymous No.10782149]

>>10782142
>Wait are you saying that John Titor actually factors into your conspiracy?
John Titor, the Montauk Project, the e-Cat and Geometric Unity
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread966329/pg1

[Anonymous No.10782195]

>>10782149
So, given that you believe that you are a time-traveller and that it is possible, and that you've given a work which cites Deutsch's ideas to validate this (if only in your own mind) can I assume you believe in the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics?

[Anonymous No.10782263]

>>10782012
'Member the subplot on the X-files about Betsy Hagopian and her implants? My implants are like that except in my anus and chode instead of my neck (an also in my feet for sure and maybe in my back too), and instead of being put there by aliens, they were put there by faggots.

[Anonymous No.10782285]

>>10782195
>you believe that you are a time-traveller
This requires clarification. I know for a fact that I invented the time circuit. Additionally, the evidence I've seen suggests that one day time machines will be built and they will be used to support my intentions. I also think it's likely that I am the leader of those who support my intentions: the angels. I also know that there is a John Titor time travel myth, a famous John Connor time travel story, a John Tooker that supposedly invented a hyper-dimensional resonator which sounds like a fancy name for a time circuit, there is another John Tooker besides the HDR John Tooker who is an alleged time traveller on the internet, and there is another John Tooker from the Montauk Project, and all of these people's names are surprising like my own name Jon Tooker. Also, I know that when I looked at the John Titor foundation's list of dates, I immediately recognized almost all of the dates as momentous occasions in my own life.

[Anonymous No.10782295]

>>10782285
>I know for a fact
You could be in a Boltzmann brain that's hallucinating the world and indeed distorting your own logic to deceive you.

And you didn't answer my question, is MWI valid? John Titor claimed it was.

[Anonymous No.10782315]

So what is the deal with Jesus being his own father? Jesus is the story of God as a younger man and he calls himself God's only son because he is God's only self as a younger man. Although God has the final say over what history was, he put himself as a younger man through all these hard times because he loved the world so much that he wanted to see it saved, and it was worth it to him to put himself as younger man through all that garbage because there was no other way. If I didn't go through all this negative stuff, then how would I know that I'm supposed to make war on the infidels and kill them and kill them and kill them until they are gone forever?

When i worked at Lexis Nexis, I think it was James Clapper who told me that even though I am alive and well, they misused my name to create a row in their SQL table of deceased individuals, and they and they have been selling insurance to people based on the false premise that I am dead and I will never be able to kill them. One day, people will know that Lexis Nexis is merely a front for Satan's pathetic wimpy army, and I will be "risen" from the dead when they acknowledge that Lexis Nexis is nothing but a bunch of lying sacks of shit whose entire global workforce is going to have their whole family crucified.

[Anonymous No.10782325]

>>10779197
>starts to appear vaguely mystical and intentional.

reccurence fallacy. It appears mystical and intentional from the human perspective. We can't say it's objectively mystical and intentional. That's so common mistake among even the smartest people it's embarrasing.

[Anonymous No.10782343]

>>10782295
Is the interpretation valid? Obviously yes, if it was invalid then it would have no serious subscribers? Is it correct? Maybe, I don't know. Even if there are many worlds, there could be superposition effects among them attenuating the "infinite possibilities" properties of the MWI.

I prefer to thing of "many worlds" in terms of a mathematical potential:
F = - ∇Φ

In electromagnetism, nobody says, "This math says there is a real physical universe somewhere where the gradient of the landscape is the opposite of our electric field." That would be retarded, but actually it is a perfectly valid interpretation. Same thing with the math that suggests many worlds: it's better just to think of it as a potential. There could be many worlds, and I don't doubt it, but I am prone to the opinion that superposition effects would generate a preferred timeline. Everything quantum has superposition effects. However, there could be fibers and wisps and little loops, and even big loops, and all of that kind of stuff. For me, I am content to interpret the math which suggests such things as a mathematical potential.

[Anonymous No.10782408]

Sure is samefag in here.

[Anonymous No.10782442]

>>10779337
>No one has ever shown that spin eigenfunctions are orthonormal
Eigenfunctions with different eigenvalues are always orthogonal.

[Anonymous No.10782463]

>>10779810
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward%E2%80%93Takahashi_identity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavnov%E2%80%93Taylor_identities

[Anonymous No.10782472]

>>10782442
Eigenfunctions of the momentum operator having different eigenvalues aren't orthogonal.

[Anonymous No.10782488]

Did anyone else notice in the latest jre that he was being really shifty and talking in a roundabout way when Joe brought up the IDW?
>pretending its some bastion of free speech
>one member made some controversial statement so he immediately has to disavow the entire project
fuckin jews man lmao they're so transparent.

[Anonymous No.10782521]

>>10780747
>When I feel inside my anus with my finger
Totally normal behaviour.
For a porn star.

[Anonymous No.10782531]

>>10782488
>”I drew a 4-legged chicken and the teacher sent me home”
>”wait, she sent you home?”
>”...yeah, something like that...”
All he does is deceive

[Anonymous No.10782544]

>>10781041
That's a very long winded way of saying 1/epsilon is greater than all natural numbers. And surely it is, in systems that include infinitesimals, but the reals don't.

[Anonymous No.10782562]

>>10781212
>Doesn't mean they exist. They can be used as a heuristic under certain circumstances
They can be formulated in an entirely rigorous fashion, see nonstandard analysis, surreal numbers, synthetic differential geometry, etc.
That said, the Riemann hypothesis as it's understood today is about the complex numbers, which don't include infinitesimals.

[Anonymous No.10782603]

>>10780239
Who else would know a meme better than a meme?

[Anonymous No.10782625]

>>10782544
>the reals don't
nor did I claim that they do. nice straw man.

>Riemann hypothesis as it's understood today is about the complex numbers, which don't include infinitesimals.
I totally agree

[Anonymous No.10782702]

ok are u don sperging out about the other hack, lets go back to dissecting what the fuck weinstein's endgame is please?

[Anonymous No.10782712]

>>10782472
Yes they are.

[Anonymous No.10782725]

>>10782712
you are wrong

[Anonymous No.10782726]

[Anonymous No.10782733]

>>10782725
>>10782726
fuck off attention whoring faggot, go make your own thread, this shit has nothing to do with weinstein's theory. no one cares about ur store brand timecube drivel

[Anonymous No.10782743]

>>10782725
that's a delta function retard, if p isn't p' it's zero.

[Anonymous No.10782769]

>>10782725
That IS zero if p =/= p' i.e if they have different eigenvalues, as I claimed.

[Anonymous No.10782801]

>>10782733
"Wienstein's" is my MCM theory that he tried to pass off as his own much in the same fashion that Mochizuki is attempting to pass off my MCM unit cell as his own Hodge theater.

>>10782743
>>10782769
To be clear, is it your opinion that the Dirac Delta function is equal to zero? I ask because it's not equal to zero. If it was equal to zero thy would write "zero" instead of "delta."

[Anonymous No.10782838]

>>10782149
WAIT WHAT? Tooker I thought you were Geometric unity. What did I miss in Tooker lore?

[Anonymous No.10782880]

>>10782726
Jon you retard, the limit of 1/x as x goes to 0 does not exist.

>inb4 nice opinion prove it
Approach from the left and the right. You get -inf and inf.

[Anonymous No.10782888]

>>10782838
Yes, I used that name a while. I used it after Weinstein rebranded my MCM as his own theory called geometric unity. Although Eric never produced the paper he promised, he had no trouble getting in the news with my idea. Also, Nikodem Poplawski had no problem getting people to accept my idea when he said it was his own. Also, Mochizukis "Hodge theater" is just my MCM unit cell.

Fuck me, basically, is the point that the USA government is trying to get across.

[Anonymous No.10782892]

>>10782880
>the limit of 1/x as x goes to 0 does not exist.
please tell me more about your hot opinions

[Anonymous No.10782897]

>>10782888
Ok good. I am the leading Tookerologist so I better have these facts straight. Jon, when you finally commit your mass shooting, do I have your blessing and legal permission to write a book about you?

[Anonymous No.10782901]

>>10782892
DON’T YOU KNOW WHAT 0+ MEANS YOU RETARD? DIDN’t YOU PASS CALCULUS? FUCK YOU YOU RAM RANCH HOMOSEXUAL I AM ACTIVATING YOUR ANAL AND CHODE IMPLANTS TO MAX LEVEL AND CALLING THE 18 COWBOYS TO YOUR HOTEL ROOM

[Anonymous No.10782902]

>>10782897
My nuclear blitzkrieg attack is going to be a lot different than a shooting. You go ahead and write whatever you want and I'll decide whether or not to kill you based on whether or not I like what you wrote.

[Anonymous No.10782909]

>>10782902
Thank you Jon I am screenshotting this for legal reasons and will have a lawyer go over it.

Anyways, I’ll write about how basically arxiv created a mass shooter by not publishing his papers. It will be amazing.

[Anonymous No.10782913]

>>10782909
You're not hearing me. I'm not doing a shooting. I'm making war.

[Anonymous No.10782917]

>>10782913
No, trust me Tooker, I know how this ends. You’ll do a shooting. Anyways, God bless man.

[Anonymous No.10782922]

>>10782917
Don't use my name like that.

[Anonymous No.10782925]

>>10782922
I am blessing you with your own name. What else do you want? Anyways, I have another request. Do you crown me as the leading Tookerologist?

[Anonymous No.10782930]

>>10782925
I don't.

[Anonymous No.10782936]

>>10782930
SAD. Who is the leading Tookerologist if not me?

[Anonymous No.10782941]

>>10782936
Me, licenced Tookerologists are forbidden from directly interacting with the subject in order to preserve the organic general downward trajectory.

[Anonymous No.10782948]

>>10782941
Then I am the leading Experimental Tookerologist (ET).

[Anonymous No.10782952]

>>10782948
You have my blessing. Tooker has interacted with many ET's before.

[Anonymous No.10782958]

>>10782941
>forbidden from directly interacting with the subject
Forbidden by whom?

[Anonymous No.10782982]

>>10782958
Helene and the order of 18 cowboys.

[Anonymous No.10782990]

>>10782982
Experimental Tookerologists are permitted to activate his anal and chode implants and direct our elite team of 18 cowboys to his location. Pure Tookerologists are purely there to chroncile Tooker, some of the latter believe that the former are a bastardization of the form as they don't allow his insanity to be maximised by isolation.

[Anonymous No.10782998]

>>10782982
If that's true, I will kill your whole family.

[Anonymous No.10783001]

>>10782990
Pure Tookerologists also attempt to predict the trajectory of his insanity and there's a general belief that Experimental Tookerologists contaminate the subject as it were. However because limited interaction is recognised as an inevitability, licenced and "field promoted" ET's are allowed in order to control for that interaction as best as possible.

It's a very detailed and exciting field, only in its infancy with lots of exciting results.

[Anonymous No.10783003]

>>10782990
ETs are necessary though. I (ET) pushed Tooker to reveal the details of his arrest by continuously pushing the rumour that he was arrested for jerking off at a gas station. I also got him to reveal his chode implants by always talking about his anal implants in his threads the past few days. I have observed Tooker and it seems he is mostly healthy but then at random points has schizophrenic attacks. These are unpredictable but by talking to him you can actually infect his mind and then in his next attack, he’ll be thinking about what you suggested. It’s great.

[Anonymous No.10783008]

>>10783001
You will all suffer before you die, and I will elicit the lamentation from you: you or the developers and operators of your software. You will watch your children be raped to death before I sell you to the barbarians.

[Anonymous No.10783014]

>>10783003
It's generally agreed in the field of Tookerology that ET's are necessary. I would say that the Pure Tookerologists that reject ET's entirely are a fringe group, see:
>>10783001
As an experimental Tookerologist, you also have the privilege of being able to activate the anal implants, and of course direct our elite team of 18 cowboys. Use them wisely!

[Anonymous No.10783015]

>>10783003
It's going to be great when I round up the sons and daughters of your clan, or the clan of your developers and operators, and brutally defile them with malice before you.

[Anonymous No.10783017]

>>10782998
I’m not a PT. I’m an independent ET. I have no official affiliation. Not even Helene, who has wronged me. I am personally acquainted to some of the cowboys, but that’s unrelated.

[Anonymous No.10783027]

I know you think you are ready for it, and you might be, but somewhere behind you there are people who are not reedy to see their children defiled, and their punishment for abiding your rebellion will be exactly that. If those people had a brain, they would kill you stop you from putting them in that position,but they do not have a brain, and they are probably even dumber than you all.

[Anonymous No.10783028]

>>10783017
I'm afraid that as this is a precise field, that we must field-promote you out of necessity as you've gone above and beyond the average commenter making exciting inroads into Tookerology. We commend your initiative and your licence is already in the mail, along with your LICENCED anal implant activation mechanism, we request you dispose of any unlicenced third party technology, they're very buggy and known to produce anomalous results that upset PT predictions.

[Anonymous No.10783036]

>>10783015
Don’t get mad, Tooker. I actually care about you and have begged you countless times to go to your mother or to a mental hospital so you can be cared for. But you never listen! My goal is that maybe if I bully you, you’ll snap and finally go home or to a doctor. I’m being honest btw. I hate seeing an innocent man suffer.

[Anonymous No.10783043]

>>10783028
I accept the honor.

[Anonymous No.10783045]

>>10783028
>they're very buggy and known to produce anomalous results that upset PT predictions.
If you're not predicting that I am going to hurt you so bad, and that I will attack your seed with so much malice, and the seed of your collaborators who could kill you but choose not to, that you regret what was written here, then your predictions are not worth much.

Pic related, I know a lot of you guys probably envision me sending someone to shoot you or something, but that is not my intention. you all making these disrespectful posts are going to get tortured, and with modern medical equipment I can make that last as long as I want. I can make your torture last as long I want, I can make that torture into you watching your loved ones get tortured for as long as I want. Even if you were just the secretary in the office where the programmers wrote these bots, it is you that I'm talking about. If you don't kill yourself and your loved ones, then you are going to lose a lot of money.

[Anonymous No.10783051]

>>10783036
I will enjoy knowing that your suffering lasts and lasts, and then I give my other enemies the mercy of rest, I will withhold it from you until the end. You might kill yourself and save yourself from it, but they say it's impossible for cowards to kill themselves. I assume that you and/or your operator.

[Anonymous No.10783061]

>>10783051
I will enjoy activating your anal implants with my LICENSED equipment. No more tiny rape shocks anymore, I am going industrial tier rape shocks. You better start fingering your asshole because the 18 cowboys and 28 US marines are coming for you.

[Anonymous No.10783066]

>>10783061
On that day, I'm going to make you read this transcript. You or your operators and developers.

[Anonymous No.10783076]

>>10783066
Are you fingering yourself already? 28 US marines are pulling up in black FORD raptor trucks, helicopters landing. Your hotel room is under siege. Under lockdown.

[Anonymous No.10783081]

>>10782801
>If it was equal to zero thy would write "zero" instead of "delta."
It is a function, its value is zero whenever p =/= p', so yes, we can just write it as zero when that's the case.

[Anonymous No.10783089]

>>10779403
Gotta agree with you.
Most people don't want to read or understand other people's thoughts at edges of understanding, for multiple reasons, the primary ones being they lack understanding completely and if they understand at all they don't want to consume time going over the details.

Most of the people responding to you probably fall into the first category as they aren't hinting at why you might be wrong, and they are resorting to ad hominem.

I also fall into that category, but I have no skin in the game and I can't refute or agree with the premises you've stated.
It's really irritating not being able to have a conversation on that level with people though. Expect argumentation from people toward anything you state; ignore people whose arguments break down to uselessness and keep learning, writing.
It's a lonely walk toward understanding and knowing, keep the passion for it as long as you can.

[Anonymous No.10783095]

>>10783089
You do know you are talking to someone who’s brain is completely fried at this point, right?

[Anonymous No.10783133]

>>10783081
>we can just write it as zero when that's the case.
You can do it, I agree. However, you do so then what you wrote is wrong.

>>10783089
>It's really irritating not being able to have a conversation on that level with people though.
yes, it has been the story of my last ten years that the are forcing me into the retard group and then shouting, "Look! He's a retard." You may go in peace. Stay away from the cities if you want to live.

[Anonymous No.10783145]

>>10783095
He's open to talking. I'd rather encourage such people over indoctrination without sufficient explanation.

Even if he's wrong, which I find likely he'd be willing to admit if it was pointed out to him in a way he could understand, he's thinking about things for himself, which gives him an advantage in learning. Rote memorization isn't the zenith of knowing.

[Anonymous No.10783164]

>>10783145
Yeah, he’s open to talking. About how he’ll torture people, fingering his own asshole and his anal implants that is.

[Anonymous No.10783231]

Probably won't be talking for a few days.

[Anonymous No.10783266]

>>10783231
Your anus hurting too much? Sorry.

[Anonymous No.10783739]

>>10781762
No, you're literally just retarded and insane. Your germ line is corrupt based on your pathetic family history.

[Anonymous No.10783742]

>>10781778
You dumbass. Heli is Joseph's mother, so you are literally claiming that you are the product of incest. Congratulations.

[Anonymous No.10783821]

>>10783231
Probably because you got destroyed yet again:
>>10783438
>>10783471

[Anonymous No.10783842]

>>10779175
>Weinstein

He's a pseud.

[Anonymous No.10783897]

>>10783231
Jon my family is safe and sound even though you said you would kill them all yesterday. This means you admit you are a delusional pussy fag schizo bitch.

[Anonymous No.10783946]

>>10782888
>he had no trouble getting in the news with my idea
That makes it all the more sad that you can't bolster any form of publicity at all, other than your mugshot.
>Fuck me, basically, is the point that the USA government is trying to get across.
You aren't even a blip on your own mother's radar, let alone the government's. Nobody cares about you.

[Anonymous No.10784026]

>>10782902
>I'll decide whether or not to kill you
>>10782913
>I'm making war.
>>10782998
>I will kill your whole family.
>>10783008
>You will all suffer before you die
>>10783051
>I will enjoy knowing that your suffering lasts and lasts
>>10783133
>Stay away from the cities if you want to live.
Typical, limp-dick Tooker-posts. You'll never commit to any of these actions because you're weak. You talk too much.

>>10783045
>you guys probably envision me sending someone to shoot you
No, we envision you sitting at home stroking your pathetic ego and doing nothing of worth or note at all.
>with modern medical equipment
As if you could afford any of that even if you were capable of getting up off your ass.

>>10783133
>forcing me into the retard group
You seem more than happy to jump into the shitpile and roll around with all of the other retards on your own. None of us need to force you.

>>10783045
>I will attack your seed
Just when I think you've lost as much of your mind as possible by proudly claiming that you're a bonafide cumpuncher.

>>10783008
>You will watch your children be raped to death
>>10783015
>brutally defile them
>>10783027
>see their children defiled
You freely admit your desire to rape children. Absolute scum. I'm not surprised that you enjoy fingering your asshole, kiddy-diddler.

[Anonymous No.10784229]

>>10779202
Octonions DON'T have practical applications and (of course) string theorists love them deeply. It's like the holy Grail of meme math that's currently helping to keep the string theory fantasy alive for a few more years.

[Anonymous No.10784233]

>>10779235
/thread

[Anonymous No.10784626]

>>10783742
I think Heli was his father, and I was just pointing out the confluence of

>>10784026
>desire to rape children
I have a desire to give you to your enemies who will do that, and much worse, I hope

[Anonymous No.10784661]

>>10780786
No he's not talking about Gary you fuck.

[Anonymous No.10784666]

>>10779235
>that fucking word salad

[Anonymous No.10784761]

>>10784626
I am happy you are back, Tooker.

[Anonymous No.10784912]

I am much too lazy to quote all of the homeless schizo's posts, mainly because I have all his TIMESAND shit filtered, so hopefully he will just see this post:
infinity hat
Thank you ladies and gentlemen, that will be all for tonight. Remember folks, if you ever see the schizo in your thread, just say those 2 magical words!

[Anonymous No.10784927]

>>10784912
>filtering Tooker
If you do this, why even come here? This piece of shit place is just going downhill but ever since Took came back I’ve had moments where I actually laughed irl like a retard.

[Anonymous No.10784928]

>>10779235
>IQ valued in the octonions
Isn't their only real distinguishing feature the multiplication operation? What would that possibly represent?

[Anonymous No.10784946]

>>10784927
Sorry, I don't derive pleasure from the insane ramblings of a mental institution escapee. It's just sad and embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.10784957]

>>10784946
tooker could kick your ass if he wanted to

[Anonymous No.10784985]

>>10784946
It’s sad and embarassing for him. For me, as a malicious observer, it’s based and redpilled. I also get good goy points because I honestly try to make Jon come back and help himself. I’ve adviced him to go to his mom, a hospital, a doctor. It’s my charity work.

[Anonymous No.10784990]

>>10784661
>No he's not talking about Gary you fuck.
neither is the anon you're replying to, newfag.

[Anonymous No.10784992]

>>10784990
Alright, I accept that.

[Anonymous No.10785227]

>>10782488
java runtime environment?

[anon who hasn't posted yet(...) No.10786302]

>>10781174
>wolfram

[anon who hasn't posted yet(...) No.10786305]

>>10782892
>Infinity, [...], is an unbounded quantity

[Anonymous No.10786322]

>>10779128
Did he publish any paper yet?

[Anonymous No.10786465]

>>10782901
COWBOYS GON" COW

[Anonymous No.10786532]

>>10784626
>I think Heli was his father
Then you're incorrect, but I'm sure that isn't new to you.
>I have a desire to give you to your enemies who will do that, and much worse, I hope
Don't backpedal now, Tooks. You might as well just be open about your pedophilic tendencies. You've already admitted it; the hard part is over.

[Anonymous No.10786535]

>>10784661
Oh fuck, I had almost forgotten about the GAN that was Gary the Automaster. I wonder what he's up to at this point.

[Anonymous No.10786542]

>>10784957
Even if that were the case he never would because he's an all-talk pussyboi. He'd just stand in front of you and scream about how he's going to kill you and torture your family until he got bored and then it's back to the motel for some more ass-fingering.

[Anonymous No.10786553]

>>10786542
Jon is a retard but if he has actually been homeless and survived we have to assume he is infinity hat times tougher than any of us. Jon could probably take out 5 of us at the same time, 20 if you factor tard strength. This is probably the only bit of respect I have for him since he claimed to finger his own asshole. A man that has survived on the streets is at least strong as fuck.

[Anonymous No.10787273]

>>10786535
He tried shilling on r/christianity saying he had a dream in which God talked to him about his theory. Then he got ip banned from reddit. He still posts using his phone to ban evade, but less often. Recently he's been more active here.
>>10786111
>>10786401
>>10775452