• Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth

    From Nathanial Walentowicz@nlaaa@iacaa.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Tue Sep 9 15:55:14 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Python wrote:

    Le 09/09/2025 |a 16:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    Poincare has been predicting that something like that should happen.

    Poincar|- didn't predict anything like that.

    Yes, he did. You never cared to read him, did you?

    I've read almost everything he wrote, and reread it, did you?

    you stupid it-supporter, read?? how about write. What and idiot
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Normand Bobienski@on@brooondm.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Wed Sep 10 17:52:06 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    On 9/10/2025 2:54 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 09.09.2025 16:28, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
    According to basic [euclidean] math - for any right triangle
    a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides, c - the longest one).
    According to the teachings of the idiot such statement is a) true, no
    right triangle without the property exists b) false, there are right
    triangles without the property ?

    One question: Do you think Einstein knew the Pythagorean Theorem?
    Yes or no, please.

    Yes, sure, he was an idiot but not THAT idiot.
    After 100 years of absurd brainwashing most of his worshippers doesn't
    (it's empirical) but he knew for sure.
    Now yours - a or b, please.

    that's not valid in curved space, say earth surface / sphere, a right
    angle triangle may have 90-# + 90-# + 90-# = 270-#. Your displayed formula is only valid in 100% flat plane.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Wed Sep 10 21:21:56 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/10/2025 7:52 PM, Normand Bobienski wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    On 9/10/2025 2:54 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 09.09.2025 16:28, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
    According to basic [euclidean] math - for any right triangle
    a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides, c - the longest one).
    According to the teachings of the idiot such statement is a) true, no
    right triangle without the property exists b) false, there are right
    triangles without the property ?

    One question: Do you think Einstein knew the Pythagorean Theorem?
    > Yes or no, please.

    Yes, sure, he was an idiot but not THAT idiot.
    After 100 years of absurd brainwashing most of his worshippers doesn't
    (it's empirical) but he knew for sure.
    Now yours - a or b, please.

    that's not valid in curved space, say earth surface / sphere

    That's b.

    Basic math says "no such triangles exist".
    We may read Poincare, he didn't fool himself
    with giving Earth surface as a counterexample.
    Didn't he know that Earth is round, maybe?
    Unlikely.
    Something has triggered this example after
    Poincare.
    What could that be...
    That's simple.
    After some idiot announced that basic math is
    false his obedient doggies soon found proofs
    that it was always obvious.

    Well, a triangle has three straight sides.
    Are big circles of a sphere straight lines?
    Sure, no problem, if a just cause needs it
    they may be straight, and what cause could
    be more just than spreading the word of
    our Giant Guru and proving he was right.


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Cecilio Dubanowski@lo@oi.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Wed Sep 10 20:45:36 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    that's not valid in curved space, say earth surface / sphere

    That's b.

    Basic math says "no such triangles exist".
    We may read Poincare, he didn't fool himself with giving Earth surface
    as a counterexample.
    Didn't he know that Earth is round, maybe? Unlikely.
    Something has triggered this example after Poincare.

    go reread, that's only valid inside a plane, aka an 100% flat surface. Not inside a curved surface. Don't be such a pain in my ass. I don't give
    quotes to you right now, since i'm too lazy.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 07:17:27 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/10/2025 10:45 PM, Cecilio Dubanowski wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    that's not valid in curved space, say earth surface / sphere

    That's b.

    Basic math says "no such triangles exist".
    We may read Poincare, he didn't fool himself with giving Earth surface
    as a counterexample.
    Didn't he know that Earth is round, maybe? Unlikely.
    Something has triggered this example after Poincare.

    go reread, that's only valid inside a plane, aka an 100% flat surface. Not inside a curved surface. Don't be such a pain in my ass. I don't give
    quotes to you right now, since i'm too lazy.


    Well, a triangle is always inside a plane.
    As there is no triangle on a curved surface,
    there is also no right triangle without the P
    property on a curved surface, so, PT is absolutely
    valid also for a curved surface.

    But since some idiot announced basic math false,
    his obedient doggies soon found proofs that it
    was always obvious.



    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 15:25:45 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 11/09/2025 |a 07:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/10/2025 10:45 PM, Cecilio Dubanowski wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    that's not valid in curved space, say earth surface / sphere

    That's b.

    Basic math says "no such triangles exist".
    We may read Poincare, he didn't fool himself with giving Earth surface
    as a counterexample.
    Didn't he know that Earth is round, maybe? Unlikely.
    Something has triggered this example after Poincare.

    go reread, that's only valid inside a plane, aka an 100% flat surface. Not >> inside a curved surface. Don't be such a pain in my ass. I don't give
    quotes to you right now, since i'm too lazy.


    Well, a triangle is always inside a plane.
    As there is no triangle on a curved surface,
    there is also no right triangle without the P
    property on a curved surface, so, PT is absolutely
    valid also for a curved surface.

    But since some idiot announced basic math false,
    his obedient doggies soon found proofs that it
    was always obvious.

    Maciej at math : https://ibb.co/RpydWks6

    Einstein at math : https://ibb.co/kgTKQdzq

    (source : https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Zurich_Notebook/)
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 17:32:45 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/11/2025 5:25 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 07:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/10/2025 10:45 PM, Cecilio Dubanowski wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    that's not valid in curved space, say earth surface / sphere

    That's b.

    Basic math says "no such triangles exist".
    We may read Poincare, he didn't fool himself with giving Earth surface >>>> as a counterexample.
    Didn't he know that Earth is round, maybe? Unlikely.
    Something has triggered this example after Poincare.

    go reread, that's only valid inside a plane, aka an 100% flat
    surface. Not
    inside a curved surface. Don't be such a pain in my ass. I don't give
    quotes to you right now, since i'm too lazy.


    Well, a triangle is always inside a plane.
    As there is no triangle on a curved surface,
    there is also no right triangle without the P
    property on a curved surface, so, PT is absolutely
    valid also for a curved surface.

    But since some idiot announced basic math false,
    his-a obedient doggies soon found proofs that it
    was always obvious.

    Maciej at math : https://ibb.co/RpydWks6

    Einstein at math : https://ibb.co/kgTKQdzq


    Python at math: lies, slanders
    and sqrt(7)={4,5}

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 15:41:45 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 11/09/2025 |a 17:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 5:25 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 07:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/10/2025 10:45 PM, Cecilio Dubanowski wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    that's not valid in curved space, say earth surface / sphere

    That's b.

    Basic math says "no such triangles exist".
    We may read Poincare, he didn't fool himself with giving Earth surface >>>>> as a counterexample.
    Didn't he know that Earth is round, maybe? Unlikely.
    Something has triggered this example after Poincare.

    go reread, that's only valid inside a plane, aka an 100% flat
    surface. Not
    inside a curved surface. Don't be such a pain in my ass. I don't give
    quotes to you right now, since i'm too lazy.


    Well, a triangle is always inside a plane.
    As there is no triangle on a curved surface,
    there is also no right triangle without the P
    property on a curved surface, so, PT is absolutely
    valid also for a curved surface.

    But since some idiot announced basic math false,
    his-a obedient doggies soon found proofs that it
    was always obvious.

    Maciej at math : https://ibb.co/RpydWks6

    Einstein at math : https://ibb.co/kgTKQdzq


    Python at math: lies, slanders
    and sqrt(7)={4,5}

    In a given finite ring it is true. Do you remember which one?

    Moreover : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivalued_function

    BTW, if you can understand French : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5seeY7ST9Ro

    |etienne Ghys - Et si le th|-or|?me de Pythagore n'|-tait pas vrai ? "Les Ernest"

    (Ghys is an expert in GR and cosmology)
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 15:48:59 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 11/09/2025 |a 17:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    ..
    Python at math: lies, slanders

    No lies, no slanders, they are all yours Maciej.

    and sqrt(7)={4,5}

    True in Z/9Z and Z/3Z

    You still don't get it? Sad.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 18:05:09 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/11/2025 5:41 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 17:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 5:25 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 07:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/10/2025 10:45 PM, Cecilio Dubanowski wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    that's not valid in curved space, say earth surface / sphere

    That's b.

    Basic math says "no such triangles exist".
    We may read Poincare, he didn't fool himself with giving Earth
    surface
    as a counterexample.
    Didn't he know that Earth is round, maybe? Unlikely.
    Something has triggered this example after Poincare.

    go reread, that's only valid inside a plane, aka an 100% flat
    surface. Not
    inside a curved surface. Don't be such a pain in my ass. I don't give >>>>> quotes to you right now, since i'm too lazy.


    Well, a triangle is always inside a plane.
    As there is no triangle on a curved surface,
    there is also no right triangle without the P
    property on a curved surface, so, PT is absolutely
    valid also for a curved surface.

    But since some idiot announced basic math false,
    his-a obedient doggies soon found proofs that it
    was always obvious.

    Maciej at math : https://ibb.co/RpydWks6

    Einstein at math : https://ibb.co/kgTKQdzq


    Python at math: lies, slanders
    and sqrt(7)={4,5}

    In a given finite ring it is true.

    In a given finite ring sqrt(7)=5=4={4,5}, sure.
    Python at math.

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 16:17:02 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 11/09/2025 |a 18:05, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 5:41 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 17:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 5:25 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 07:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/10/2025 10:45 PM, Cecilio Dubanowski wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    that's not valid in curved space, say earth surface / sphere

    That's b.

    Basic math says "no such triangles exist".
    We may read Poincare, he didn't fool himself with giving Earth
    surface
    as a counterexample.
    Didn't he know that Earth is round, maybe? Unlikely.
    Something has triggered this example after Poincare.

    go reread, that's only valid inside a plane, aka an 100% flat
    surface. Not
    inside a curved surface. Don't be such a pain in my ass. I don't give >>>>>> quotes to you right now, since i'm too lazy.


    Well, a triangle is always inside a plane.
    As there is no triangle on a curved surface,
    there is also no right triangle without the P
    property on a curved surface, so, PT is absolutely
    valid also for a curved surface.

    But since some idiot announced basic math false,
    his-a obedient doggies soon found proofs that it
    was always obvious.

    Maciej at math : https://ibb.co/RpydWks6

    Einstein at math : https://ibb.co/kgTKQdzq


    Python at math: lies, slanders
    and sqrt(7)={4,5}

    In a given finite ring it is true.

    In a given finite ring sqrt(7)=5=4={4,5}, sure.
    Python at math.

    Fighting with multivaluate functions and finite rings? How cute :-)


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 18:24:12 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/11/2025 6:17 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 18:05, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 5:41 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 17:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 5:25 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 07:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/10/2025 10:45 PM, Cecilio Dubanowski wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    that's not valid in curved space, say earth surface / sphere

    That's b.

    Basic math says "no such triangles exist".
    We may read Poincare, he didn't fool himself with giving Earth >>>>>>>> surface
    as a counterexample.
    Didn't he know that Earth is round, maybe? Unlikely.
    Something has triggered this example after Poincare.

    go reread, that's only valid inside a plane, aka an 100% flat
    surface. Not
    inside a curved surface. Don't be such a pain in my ass. I don't >>>>>>> give
    quotes to you right now, since i'm too lazy.


    Well, a triangle is always inside a plane.
    As there is no triangle on a curved surface,
    there is also no right triangle without the P
    property on a curved surface, so, PT is absolutely
    valid also for a curved surface.

    But since some idiot announced basic math false,
    his-a obedient doggies soon found proofs that it
    was always obvious.

    Maciej at math : https://ibb.co/RpydWks6

    Einstein at math : https://ibb.co/kgTKQdzq


    Python at math: lies, slanders
    and sqrt(7)={4,5}

    In a given finite ring it is true.

    In a given finite ring sqrt(7)=5=4={4,5}, sure.
    Python at math.

    Fighting with multivaluate functions and finite rings?

    No, poor stinker. Just admiring Python
    at math.

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 16:26:11 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 11/09/2025 |a 18:24, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 6:17 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 18:05, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 5:41 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 17:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 5:25 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 07:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/10/2025 10:45 PM, Cecilio Dubanowski wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    that's not valid in curved space, say earth surface / sphere >>>>>>>>>
    That's b.

    Basic math says "no such triangles exist".
    We may read Poincare, he didn't fool himself with giving Earth >>>>>>>>> surface
    as a counterexample.
    Didn't he know that Earth is round, maybe? Unlikely.
    Something has triggered this example after Poincare.

    go reread, that's only valid inside a plane, aka an 100% flat >>>>>>>> surface. Not
    inside a curved surface. Don't be such a pain in my ass. I don't >>>>>>>> give
    quotes to you right now, since i'm too lazy.


    Well, a triangle is always inside a plane.
    As there is no triangle on a curved surface,
    there is also no right triangle without the P
    property on a curved surface, so, PT is absolutely
    valid also for a curved surface.

    But since some idiot announced basic math false,
    his-a obedient doggies soon found proofs that it
    was always obvious.

    Maciej at math : https://ibb.co/RpydWks6

    Einstein at math : https://ibb.co/kgTKQdzq


    Python at math: lies, slanders
    and sqrt(7)={4,5}

    In a given finite ring it is true.

    In a given finite ring sqrt(7)=5=4={4,5}, sure.
    Python at math.

    Fighting with multivaluate functions and finite rings?

    No, [snip slander] Just admiring Python
    at math.

    I may be better at math that you, but this is not very difficult :-))))




    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 18:41:31 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/11/2025 6:26 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 18:24, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 6:17 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 18:05, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 5:41 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 17:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 5:25 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 07:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/10/2025 10:45 PM, Cecilio Dubanowski wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    that's not valid in curved space, say earth surface / sphere >>>>>>>>>>
    That's b.

    Basic math says "no such triangles exist".
    We may read Poincare, he didn't fool himself with giving Earth >>>>>>>>>> surface
    as a counterexample.
    Didn't he know that Earth is round, maybe? Unlikely.
    Something has triggered this example after Poincare.

    go reread, that's only valid inside a plane, aka an 100% flat >>>>>>>>> surface. Not
    inside a curved surface. Don't be such a pain in my ass. I
    don't give
    quotes to you right now, since i'm too lazy.


    Well, a triangle is always inside a plane.
    As there is no triangle on a curved surface,
    there is also no right triangle without the P
    property on a curved surface, so, PT is absolutely
    valid also for a curved surface.

    But since some idiot announced basic math false,
    his-a obedient doggies soon found proofs that it
    was always obvious.

    Maciej at math : https://ibb.co/RpydWks6

    Einstein at math : https://ibb.co/kgTKQdzq


    Python at math: lies, slanders
    and sqrt(7)={4,5}

    In a given finite ring it is true.

    In a given finite ring sqrt(7)=5=4={4,5}, sure.
    Python at math.

    Fighting with multivaluate functions and finite rings?

    No, [snip slander] Just admiring Python
    at math.

    I may be better at math that you,


    Sure, sure, and in a given finite ring
    sqrt(7)=5=4={4,5}, sure.

    But anyway since some idiot announced
    basic math false, his obedient doggies
    soon found proofs that it was always
    obvious, and what the nymshifter
    presented is one of them.


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 16:45:20 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 11/09/2025 |a 18:41, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 6:26 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 18:24, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 6:17 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 18:05, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 5:41 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 17:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 5:25 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 07:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/10/2025 10:45 PM, Cecilio Dubanowski wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    that's not valid in curved space, say earth surface / sphere >>>>>>>>>>>
    That's b.

    Basic math says "no such triangles exist".
    We may read Poincare, he didn't fool himself with giving Earth >>>>>>>>>>> surface
    as a counterexample.
    Didn't he know that Earth is round, maybe? Unlikely.
    Something has triggered this example after Poincare.

    go reread, that's only valid inside a plane, aka an 100% flat >>>>>>>>>> surface. Not
    inside a curved surface. Don't be such a pain in my ass. I >>>>>>>>>> don't give
    quotes to you right now, since i'm too lazy.


    Well, a triangle is always inside a plane.
    As there is no triangle on a curved surface,
    there is also no right triangle without the P
    property on a curved surface, so, PT is absolutely
    valid also for a curved surface.

    But since some idiot announced basic math false,
    his-a obedient doggies soon found proofs that it
    was always obvious.

    Maciej at math : https://ibb.co/RpydWks6

    Einstein at math : https://ibb.co/kgTKQdzq


    Python at math: lies, slanders
    and sqrt(7)={4,5}

    In a given finite ring it is true.

    In a given finite ring sqrt(7)=5=4={4,5}, sure.
    Python at math.

    Fighting with multivaluate functions and finite rings?

    No, [snip slander] Just admiring Python
    at math.

    I may be better at math that you,


    Sure, sure, and in a given finite ring
    sqrt(7)=5=4={4,5}, sure.

    Almost, as a multivaluated function there exists rings (even fields) where sqrt(7) = {4,5}

    Quite basic math stuff btw.

    But anyway since [A.E.] announced basic math false

    He didn't.



    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 18:58:25 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/11/2025 6:45 PM, Python wrote:


    But anyway since [A.E.] announced basic math false

    He didn't.


    According to basic [euclidean] math - for any
    right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides,
    c - the longest one). According to the teachings of
    the idiot such statement is
    a) true, no right triangle without the property exists
    b) false, there are right triangles without the property
    ?

    Still no answer, poor stinker? Of course.



    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 17:07:19 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 11/09/2025 |a 18:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 6:45 PM, Python wrote:


    But anyway since [A.E.] announced basic math false

    He didn't.


    According to basic [euclidean] math - for any
    right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides,
    c - the longest one). According to the teachings of
    [A.E.] such statement is
    a) true, no right triangle without the property exists
    b) false, there are right triangles without the property
    ?

    Still no answer, [profanity] ? Of course.

    I've read most of Einstein's articles. There is no mention of right
    triangles there as far as I can tell.

    Maybe you can provide a reference?



    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 19:51:57 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/11/2025 7:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 18:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 6:45 PM, Python wrote:


    But anyway since [A.E.] announced basic math false

    He didn't.


    According to basic [euclidean] math - for any
    right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides,
    c - the longest one).-a According to the teachings of
    [A.E.] such statement is
    a) true, no right triangle without the property exists
    b) false, there are right triangles without the property
    ?

    Still no answer, [profanity] ? Of course.

    I've read most of Einstein's articles. There is no mention of right

    Sure you did, but what you wrote is neither
    a, nor b. So, still no answer. Of course.

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 18:47:04 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 11/09/2025 |a 19:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 7:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 18:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 6:45 PM, Python wrote:


    But anyway since [A.E.] announced basic math false

    He didn't.


    According to basic [euclidean] math - for any
    right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides,
    c - the longest one).-a According to the teachings of
    [A.E.] such statement is
    a) true, no right triangle without the property exists
    b) false, there are right triangles without the property
    ?

    Still no answer, [profanity] ? Of course.

    I've read most of Einstein's articles. There is no mention of right

    If I want to know what Einstein's claim is about right triangles I would
    look for a statement of him on the subject. Do you consider this as
    unfair?



    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 20:59:45 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/11/2025 8:47 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 19:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 7:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 18:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 6:45 PM, Python wrote:


    But anyway since [A.E.] announced basic math false

    He didn't.


    According to basic [euclidean] math - for any
    right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides,
    c - the longest one).-a According to the teachings of
    [A.E.] such statement is
    a) true, no right triangle without the property exists
    b) false, there are right triangles without the property
    ?

    Still no answer, [profanity] ? Of course.

    I've read most of Einstein's articles. There is no mention of right

    If I want to know what Einstein's claim is about right triangles I would

    I don't want to know since I do know already.
    Still no answer, poor stinker. Of course.

    BTW: do you share the opinion of your fellow
    idiot Paul that according to the teachings
    of the idiot "Euclidean axioms are true by
    definition?
    No answer? Of course.



    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 19:07:25 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 11/09/2025 |a 20:59, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 8:47 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 19:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 7:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 18:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 6:45 PM, Python wrote:


    But anyway since [A.E.] announced basic math false

    He didn't.


    According to basic [euclidean] math - for any
    right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides,
    c - the longest one).-a According to the teachings of
    [A.E.] such statement is
    a) true, no right triangle without the property exists
    b) false, there are right triangles without the property
    ?

    Still no answer, [profanity] ? Of course.

    I've read most of Einstein's articles. There is no mention of right

    If I want to know what Einstein's claim is about right triangles I would

    I don't want to know since I do know already.

    What do you pretend to know?


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Moebius@invalid@example.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 21:12:01 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Am 11.09.2025 um 20:47 schrieb Python:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 19:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 7:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 18:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 6:45 PM, Python wrote:


    But anyway since [A.E.] announced basic math false

    He didn't.


    According to basic [euclidean] math - for any
    right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides,
    c - the longest one).-a According to the teachings of
    [A.E.] such statement is
    a) true, no right triangle without the property exists
    b) false, there are right triangles without the property
    ?

    Still no answer, [profanity] ? Of course.

    I've read most of Einstein's articles. There is no mention of right

    If I want to know what Einstein's claim is about right triangles I would look for a statement of him on the subject. Do you consider this as unfair?

    Asking for a source? Yeah, VERY unfair! You're not playing by the rules!




    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Moebius@invalid@example.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 21:13:57 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Am 11.09.2025 um 21:07 schrieb Python:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 20:59, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 8:47 PM, Python wrote:

    If I want to know what Einstein's claim is about right triangles I would >>
    I don't want to know [...]

    Nuff said. :-)

    .
    .
    .

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 21:20:39 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/11/2025 9:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 20:59, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 8:47 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 19:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 7:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 18:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 6:45 PM, Python wrote:


    But anyway since [A.E.] announced basic math false

    He didn't.


    According to basic [euclidean] math - for any
    right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides,
    c - the longest one).-a According to the teachings of
    [A.E.] such statement is
    a) true, no right triangle without the property exists
    b) false, there are right triangles without the property
    ?

    Still no answer, [profanity] ? Of course.

    I've read most of Einstein's articles. There is no mention of right

    If I want to know what Einstein's claim is about right triangles I would >>
    I don't want to know since I do know already.

    What do you pretend to know?


    The answer to the question you pretend
    you don't know the answer.


    So, do you share the opinion of your fellow
    idiot Paul that according to the teachings
    of the idiot "Euclidean axioms are true by
    definition?
    Still no answer? Of course.




    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 19:23:07 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 11/09/2025 |a 21:20, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 9:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 20:59, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 8:47 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 19:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 7:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 18:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 6:45 PM, Python wrote:


    But anyway since [A.E.] announced basic math false

    He didn't.


    According to basic [euclidean] math - for any
    right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides,
    c - the longest one).-a According to the teachings of
    [A.E.] such statement is
    a) true, no right triangle without the property exists
    b) false, there are right triangles without the property
    ?

    Still no answer, [profanity] ? Of course.

    I've read most of Einstein's articles. There is no mention of right >>>>
    If I want to know what Einstein's claim is about right triangles I would >>>
    I don't want to know since I do know already.

    What do you pretend to know?


    The answer to the question you pretend
    you don't know the answer.


    So, do you share the opinion of your fellow
    idiot Paul that according to the teachings
    of the idiot "Euclidean axioms are true by
    definition?
    Still no answer? Of course.

    The definition of "axiom" is "true by definition".

    Go to bed, Maciej.


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 21:50:31 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/11/2025 9:23 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 21:20, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 9:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 20:59, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 8:47 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 19:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 7:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 18:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 6:45 PM, Python wrote:


    But anyway since [A.E.] announced basic math false

    He didn't.


    According to basic [euclidean] math - for any
    right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides,
    c - the longest one).-a According to the teachings of
    [A.E.] such statement is
    a) true, no right triangle without the property exists
    b) false, there are right triangles without the property
    ?

    Still no answer, [profanity] ? Of course.

    I've read most of Einstein's articles. There is no mention of right >>>>>
    If I want to know what Einstein's claim is about right triangles I
    would

    I don't want to know since I do know already.

    What do you pretend to know?


    The answer to the question you pretend
    you don't know the answer.


    So, do you share the opinion of your fellow
    idiot Paul that according to the teachings
    of the idiot "Euclidean axioms are true by
    definition?
    Still no answer? Of course.

    The definition of "axiom" is "true by definition".


    Sure, but that was not what I asked.
    Do you share the opinion of your fellow
    idiot Paul that according to the teachings
    of the idiot "Euclidean axioms are true by
    definition"? Were Euclidean axioms your idiot
    guru's axioms?

    Still no answer? Of course, poor stinker.

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 19:59:48 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 11/09/2025 |a 21:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 9:23 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 21:20, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 9:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 20:59, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 8:47 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 19:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 7:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 18:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 6:45 PM, Python wrote:


    But anyway since [A.E.] announced basic math false

    He didn't.


    According to basic [euclidean] math - for any
    right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides,
    c - the longest one).-a According to the teachings of
    [A.E.] such statement is
    a) true, no right triangle without the property exists
    b) false, there are right triangles without the property
    ?

    Still no answer, [profanity] ? Of course.

    I've read most of Einstein's articles. There is no mention of right >>>>>>
    If I want to know what Einstein's claim is about right triangles I >>>>>> would

    I don't want to know since I do know already.

    What do you pretend to know?


    The answer to the question you pretend
    you don't know the answer.


    So, do you share the opinion of your fellow
    idiot Paul that according to the teachings
    of the idiot "Euclidean axioms are true by
    definition?
    Still no answer? Of course.

    The definition of "axiom" is "true by definition".


    Sure, but that was not what I asked.
    Do you share the opinion of [...] Paul that according
    to the teachings [of A.E.] "Euclidean axioms are true by
    definition"?

    Einstein's papers are not about stating the obvious... sigh.

    Were Euclidean axioms [A.E.]'s axioms?

    I've read no paper from Einstein where he would have proposed or picked
    some specific axioms in math. Can you provide any reference? I would like
    to read it.



    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 22:20:33 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/11/2025 9:59 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 21:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 9:23 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 21:20, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 9:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 20:59, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 8:47 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 19:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 7:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 18:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 6:45 PM, Python wrote:


    But anyway since [A.E.] announced basic math false

    He didn't.


    According to basic [euclidean] math - for any
    right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides,
    c - the longest one).-a According to the teachings of
    [A.E.] such statement is
    a) true, no right triangle without the property exists
    b) false, there are right triangles without the property
    ?

    Still no answer, [profanity] ? Of course.

    I've read most of Einstein's articles. There is no mention of >>>>>>>>> right

    If I want to know what Einstein's claim is about right triangles >>>>>>> I would

    I don't want to know since I do know already.

    What do you pretend to know?


    The answer to the question you pretend
    you don't know the answer.


    So, do you share the opinion of your fellow
    idiot Paul that according to the teachings
    of the idiot "Euclidean axioms are true by
    definition?
    Still no answer? Of course.

    The definition of "axiom" is "true by definition".


    Sure, but that was not what I asked.
    Do you share the opinion of [...] Paul that according
    to the teachings [of A.E.] "Euclidean axioms are true by
    definition"?

    Einstein's papers are not about stating the obvious... sigh.

    Sure, they are about mumbling nonsenses.
    But are Euclidean axioms "true by
    definition" in them?




    Were Euclidean axioms [A.E.]'s axioms?

    I've read no paper from Einstein where he would have proposed or picked
    some specific axioms in math.

    Still no answer - of course. But an
    interesting statement anyway. So his
    pseudomath didn't even pick axioms?
    Are you sure, poor stinker?


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Moebius@invalid@example.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 22:21:58 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Am 11.09.2025 um 21:50 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:

    Sure, but <bla>
    For the record: Man, you are a fucking asshole full of shit.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 20:25:32 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 11/09/2025 |a 22:20, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 9:59 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 21:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 9:23 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 21:20, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 9:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 20:59, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 8:47 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 19:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 7:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 18:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 6:45 PM, Python wrote:


    But anyway since [A.E.] announced basic math false

    He didn't.


    According to basic [euclidean] math - for any
    right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides,
    c - the longest one).-a According to the teachings of
    [A.E.] such statement is
    a) true, no right triangle without the property exists
    b) false, there are right triangles without the property >>>>>>>>>>> ?

    Still no answer, [profanity] ? Of course.

    I've read most of Einstein's articles. There is no mention of >>>>>>>>>> right

    If I want to know what Einstein's claim is about right triangles >>>>>>>> I would

    I don't want to know since I do know already.

    What do you pretend to know?


    The answer to the question you pretend
    you don't know the answer.


    So, do you share the opinion of your fellow
    idiot Paul that according to the teachings
    of the idiot "Euclidean axioms are true by
    definition?
    Still no answer? Of course.

    The definition of "axiom" is "true by definition".


    Sure, but that was not what I asked.
    Do you share the opinion of [...] Paul that according
    to the teachings [of A.E.] "Euclidean axioms are true by
    definition"?

    Einstein's papers are not about stating the obvious... sigh.

    Sure, they are about mumbling nonsenses.

    No.

    But are Euclidean axioms "true by
    definition" in them?

    There is nothing in them denying this AFAIK.

    Were Euclidean axioms [A.E.]'s axioms?

    I've read no paper from Einstein where he would have proposed or picked
    some specific axioms in math.

    Still no answer - of course. But an
    interesting statement anyway. So his
    pseudomath didn't even pick axioms?
    Are you sure?

    I am.

    And there is 0% of "pseudomath" in A.E.'s papers :-) not as in your
    posts.100% of Einstein's papers conforms with proper math.

    poor stinker

    Nice signature.


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Ben Pakulski@neie@ekiuknssk.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 20:29:06 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    that's not valid in curved space, say earth surface / sphere
    Basic math says "no such triangles exist".
    We may read Poincare, he didn't fool himself with giving Earth surface
    as a counterexample.
    Didn't he know that Earth is round, maybe? Unlikely.
    Something has triggered this example after Poincare.

    go reread, that's only valid inside a plane, aka an 100% flat surface.
    Not inside a curved surface. Don't be such a pain in my ass. I don't
    give quotes to you right now, since i'm too lazy.

    Well, a triangle is always inside a plane.
    As there is no triangle on a curved surface,

    nonsense, inside a curved surface, for instance, two intersecting straight lines makes an angle. Three of such lines intersecting makes a triangle.
    Go reread.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 22:37:01 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/11/2025 10:25 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 22:20, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 9:59 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 21:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 9:23 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 21:20, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 9:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 20:59, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 8:47 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 19:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 7:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 18:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 6:45 PM, Python wrote:


    But anyway since [A.E.] announced basic math false

    He didn't.


    According to basic [euclidean] math - for any
    right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides, >>>>>>>>>>>> c - the longest one).-a According to the teachings of
    [A.E.] such statement is
    a) true, no right triangle without the property exists >>>>>>>>>>>> b) false, there are right triangles without the property >>>>>>>>>>>> ?

    Still no answer, [profanity] ? Of course.

    I've read most of Einstein's articles. There is no mention of >>>>>>>>>>> right

    If I want to know what Einstein's claim is about right
    triangles I would

    I don't want to know since I do know already.

    What do you pretend to know?


    The answer to the question you pretend
    you don't know the answer.


    So, do you share the opinion of your fellow
    idiot Paul that according to the teachings
    of the idiot "Euclidean axioms are true by
    definition?
    Still no answer? Of course.

    The definition of "axiom" is "true by definition".


    Sure, but that was not what I asked.
    Do you share the opinion of [...] Paul that according
    to the teachings [of A.E.] "Euclidean axioms are true by
    definition"?

    Einstein's papers are not about stating the obvious... sigh.

    Sure, they are about mumbling nonsenses.

    No.

    But are Euclidean axioms "true by
    definition" in them?

    There is nothing in them denying this AFAIK.

    :)
    So, no non-euclidean space?

    Well, it was well known that you're
    an impudent piece of lying shit even
    before.




    Were Euclidean axioms [A.E.]'s axioms?

    I've read no paper from Einstein where he would have proposed or
    picked some specific axioms in math.

    Still no answer - of course. But an
    interesting statement anyway. So his
    pseudomath didn't even pick axioms?
    Are you sure?

    I am.

    And there is 0% of "pseudomath" in A.E.'s papers


    Sorry, poor stinker, "math" without clearly declared
    axioms can only be considered as math by an idiot
    like yourself.


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 22:43:40 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/11/2025 10:29 PM, Ben Pakulski wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    that's not valid in curved space, say earth surface / sphere
    Basic math says "no such triangles exist".
    We may read Poincare, he didn't fool himself with giving Earth surface >>>> as a counterexample.
    Didn't he know that Earth is round, maybe? Unlikely.
    Something has triggered this example after Poincare.

    go reread, that's only valid inside a plane, aka an 100% flat surface.
    Not inside a curved surface. Don't be such a pain in my ass. I don't
    give quotes to you right now, since i'm too lazy.

    Well, a triangle is always inside a plane.
    As there is no triangle on a curved surface,

    nonsense, inside a curved surface, for instance, two intersecting straight lines makes an angle. Three of such lines intersecting makes a triangle.

    Too bad there are [generally, exceptions
    happen] no straight lines on a curved
    surface. And if an exception happens - 3
    intersecting straight lines are also
    inside a plane.
    Is the example you presented in the
    previous post "3 intersecting straight
    lines", BTW?


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 20:55:49 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 11/09/2025 |a 22:37, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 10:25 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 22:20, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 9:59 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 21:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 9:23 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 21:20, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 9:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 20:59, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 8:47 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 19:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 7:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 18:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 6:45 PM, Python wrote:


    But anyway since [A.E.] announced basic math false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    He didn't.


    According to basic [euclidean] math - for any
    right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides, >>>>>>>>>>>>> c - the longest one).-a According to the teachings of >>>>>>>>>>>>> [A.E.] such statement is
    a) true, no right triangle without the property exists >>>>>>>>>>>>> b) false, there are right triangles without the property >>>>>>>>>>>>> ?

    Still no answer, [profanity] ? Of course.

    I've read most of Einstein's articles. There is no mention of >>>>>>>>>>>> right

    If I want to know what Einstein's claim is about right
    triangles I would

    I don't want to know since I do know already.

    What do you pretend to know?


    The answer to the question you pretend
    you don't know the answer.


    So, do you share the opinion of your fellow
    idiot Paul that according to the teachings
    of the idiot "Euclidean axioms are true by
    definition?
    Still no answer? Of course.

    The definition of "axiom" is "true by definition".


    Sure, but that was not what I asked.
    Do you share the opinion of [...] Paul that according
    to the teachings [of A.E.] "Euclidean axioms are true by
    definition"?

    Einstein's papers are not about stating the obvious... sigh.

    Sure, they are about mumbling nonsenses.

    No.

    But are Euclidean axioms "true by
    definition" in them?

    There is nothing in them denying this AFAIK.

    :)
    So, no non-euclidean space?

    Well, [...]

    Well, what ? If if write a math problem starting with "let's consider a
    non enumerable space E" I am not denying the existence of numerable sets.

    Were Euclidean axioms [A.E.]'s axioms?

    I've read no paper from Einstein where he would have proposed or
    picked some specific axioms in math.

    Still no answer - of course. But an
    interesting statement anyway. So his
    pseudomath didn't even pick axioms?
    Are you sure?

    I am.

    And there is 0% of "pseudomath" in A.E.'s papers


    Sorry, "math" without clearly declared
    axioms can only be considered as math [by you]

    I cannot find a single line in A.E.'s paper contradicting ZFC. Can you?

    Bringing here down your signatures Maciej:

    impudent piece of lying shit, poor stinker, idiot


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 23:06:05 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/11/2025 10:55 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 22:37, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 10:25 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 22:20, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 9:59 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 21:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 9:23 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 21:20, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 9:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 20:59, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 8:47 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 19:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 7:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 18:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 6:45 PM, Python wrote:


    But anyway since [A.E.] announced basic math false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    He didn't.


    According to basic [euclidean] math - for any
    right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> c - the longest one).-a According to the teachings of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [A.E.] such statement is
    a) true, no right triangle without the property exists >>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) false, there are right triangles without the property >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?

    Still no answer, [profanity] ? Of course.

    I've read most of Einstein's articles. There is no mention >>>>>>>>>>>>> of right

    If I want to know what Einstein's claim is about right
    triangles I would

    I don't want to know since I do know already.

    What do you pretend to know?


    The answer to the question you pretend
    you don't know the answer.


    So, do you share the opinion of your fellow
    idiot Paul that according to the teachings
    of the idiot "Euclidean axioms are true by
    definition?
    Still no answer? Of course.

    The definition of "axiom" is "true by definition".


    Sure, but that was not what I asked.
    Do you share the opinion of [...] Paul that according
    to the teachings [of A.E.] "Euclidean axioms are true by
    definition"?

    Einstein's papers are not about stating the obvious... sigh.

    Sure, they are about mumbling nonsenses.

    No.

    But are Euclidean axioms "true by
    definition" in them?

    There is nothing in them denying this AFAIK.

    :)
    So, no non-euclidean space?

    Well, [...]

    Well, what ? If if write a math problem starting with "let's consider a
    non enumerable space E" I am not denying the existence of numerable sets.

    You're not. But if you state that
    [real] space is non-euclidean
    you are denying it is euclidean.


    Sorry, "math" without clearly declared
    axioms can only be considered as math [by you]

    I cannot find a single line in A.E.'s paper contradicting ZFC. Can you?

    And I can't find a single line contradicting
    ZFC in "Hamlet". Can you? Is "Hamlet" math,
    poor stinker?


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 21:12:16 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 11/09/2025 |a 23:06, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 10:55 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 22:37, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 10:25 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 22:20, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 9:59 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 21:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 9:23 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 21:20, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 9:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 20:59, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 8:47 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 19:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 7:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 18:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/2025 6:45 PM, Python wrote:


    But anyway since [A.E.] announced basic math false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    He didn't.


    According to basic [euclidean] math - for any
    right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> c - the longest one).-a According to the teachings of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [A.E.] such statement is
    a) true, no right triangle without the property exists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) false, there are right triangles without the property >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?

    Still no answer, [profanity] ? Of course.

    I've read most of Einstein's articles. There is no mention >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of right

    If I want to know what Einstein's claim is about right >>>>>>>>>>>> triangles I would

    I don't want to know since I do know already.

    What do you pretend to know?


    The answer to the question you pretend
    you don't know the answer.


    So, do you share the opinion of your fellow
    idiot Paul that according to the teachings
    of the idiot "Euclidean axioms are true by
    definition?
    Still no answer? Of course.

    The definition of "axiom" is "true by definition".


    Sure, but that was not what I asked.
    Do you share the opinion of [...] Paul that according
    to the teachings [of A.E.] "Euclidean axioms are true by
    definition"?

    Einstein's papers are not about stating the obvious... sigh.

    Sure, they are about mumbling nonsenses.

    No.

    But are Euclidean axioms "true by
    definition" in them?

    There is nothing in them denying this AFAIK.

    :)
    So, no non-euclidean space?

    Well, [...]

    Well, what ? If if write a math problem starting with "let's consider a
    non enumerable space E" I am not denying the existence of numerable sets.

    You're not. But if you state that
    [real] space is non-euclidean
    you are denying it is euclidean.

    Sure. So what?

    Sorry, "math" without clearly declared
    axioms can only be considered as math [by you]

    I cannot find a single line in A.E.'s paper contradicting ZFC. Can you?

    And I can't find a single line contradicting
    ZFC in "Hamlet". Can you? Is "Hamlet" math,

    There is not much math in "Hamlet" :-) There is in A.E.'s papers.

    poor stinker?

    Nice signature.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Irvin Warszawski@nwkw@iaw.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 21:38:09 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    nonsense, inside a curved surface, for instance, two intersecting
    straight lines makes an angle. Three of such lines intersecting makes a
    triangle.

    Too bad there are [generally, exceptions happen] no straight lines on a
    curved surface. And if an exception happens - 3 intersecting straight
    lines are also inside a plane.
    Is the example you presented in the previous post "3 intersecting
    straight lines", BTW?

    this is the same mistake PBA is doing

    for the domain of curved surfaces, lines are straight, whereas triangles
    with angles larger than 180-# are the proof of curvature.

    inside a curved spacetime, that formula is just an EYu<EYu+EYu+EYu+EYu+EYyaEYu|EYu|EYu<EYyUEYu|EYu+EYu+ to flat
    surface, as there are no 100% flat surface EYu|EYu+EYyCEYu|EYu#EYu# the EYyCEYu+EYu<EYu#EYu#EYyUEYu|EYu|EYu#_EYu#EYyeEYu+EYyaEYu<EYyUEYyeEYu+EYu#.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Sep 11 21:42:37 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 11/09/2025 |a 23:38, Irvin Warszawski a |-crit :
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    nonsense, inside a curved surface, for instance, two intersecting
    straight lines makes an angle. Three of such lines intersecting makes a
    triangle.

    Too bad there are [generally, exceptions happen] no straight lines on a
    curved surface. And if an exception happens - 3 intersecting straight
    lines are also inside a plane.
    Is the example you presented in the previous post "3 intersecting
    straight lines", BTW?

    this is the same mistake PBA is doing

    for the domain of curved surfaces, lines are straight, whereas triangles with angles larger than 180-# are the proof of curvature.

    inside a curved spacetime, that formula is just an EYu<EYu+EYu+EYu+EYu+EYyaEYu|EYu|EYu<EYyUEYu|EYu+EYu+ to flat
    surface, as there are no 100% flat surface EYu|EYu+EYyCEYu|EYu#EYu# the EYyCEYu+EYu<EYu#EYu#EYyUEYu|EYu|EYu#_EYu#EYyeEYu+EYyaEYu<EYyUEYyeEYu+EYu#.

    "Another framework we impose upon the world is space. But where do the
    first principles of geometry come from? Are they dictated to us by logic? Lobachevsky has shown they are not, by inventing non-Euclidean geometries.
    Is space revealed to us by our senses? Again no, for the space perceived
    by our senses differs entirely from that of the geometer. Does geometry
    derive from experience? Careful reflection will show that it does not. We
    are thus led to conclude that its principles are merely conventionsrCoyet
    not arbitrary ones. Transported into another world (which I call the non-Euclidean world and strive to imagine), we would have been compelled
    to adopt different conventions."


















    Henri Poincar|-
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Fri Sep 12 06:50:03 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/11/2025 11:12 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 23:06, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 10:55 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 22:37, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 10:25 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 22:20, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 9:59 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 21:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 9:23 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 21:20, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 9:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 20:59, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 8:47 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 19:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/11/2025 7:07 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 11/09/2025 |a 18:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/2025 6:45 PM, Python wrote:


    But anyway since [A.E.] announced basic math false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    He didn't.


    According to basic [euclidean] math - for any
    right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> c - the longest one).-a According to the teachings of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [A.E.] such statement is
    a) true, no right triangle without the property exists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) false, there are right triangles without the property >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?

    Still no answer, [profanity] ? Of course.

    I've read most of Einstein's articles. There is no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mention of right

    If I want to know what Einstein's claim is about right >>>>>>>>>>>>> triangles I would

    I don't want to know since I do know already.

    What do you pretend to know?


    The answer to the question you pretend
    you don't know the answer.


    So, do you share the opinion of your fellow
    idiot Paul that according to the teachings
    of the idiot "Euclidean axioms are true by
    definition?
    Still no answer? Of course.

    The definition of "axiom" is "true by definition".


    Sure, but that was not what I asked.
    Do you share the opinion of [...] Paul that according
    to the teachings [of A.E.] "Euclidean axioms are true by
    definition"?

    Einstein's papers are not about stating the obvious... sigh.

    Sure, they are about mumbling nonsenses.

    No.

    But are Euclidean axioms "true by
    definition" in them?

    There is nothing in them denying this AFAIK.

    :)
    So, no non-euclidean space?

    Well, [...]

    Well, what ? If if write a math problem starting with "let's consider
    a non enumerable space E" I am not denying the existence of numerable
    sets.

    You're not. But if you state that
    [real] space is non-euclidean
    you are denying it is euclidean.

    Sure. So what?

    So you're denying that Euclidean space exists.

    And if you write "let's consider a non-euclidean
    space, where nothing is denying that Euclidean
    axioms are true by definition" - it's just
    another example of Python at math.

    Anyway, when the idiot announced basic
    math false, his obedient doggies soon found
    proofs that it was always obvious and
    what nymshifter presented is one of these
    proofs.



    There is not much math in "Hamlet" :-) There is in A.E.'s papers.




    Sorry, "math" without clearly declared
    axioms can only be considered as math
    by such an idiot as you are, poor stinker.


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Fri Sep 12 06:57:12 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/11/2025 11:38 PM, Irvin Warszawski wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    nonsense, inside a curved surface, for instance, two intersecting
    straight lines makes an angle. Three of such lines intersecting makes a
    triangle.

    Too bad there are [generally, exceptions happen] no straight lines on a
    curved surface. And if an exception happens - 3 intersecting straight
    lines are also inside a plane.
    Is the example you presented in the previous post "3 intersecting
    straight lines", BTW?

    this is the same mistake PBA is doing

    for the domain of curved surfaces, lines are straight

    And for the domain of marxism-leninism
    communism is the best; the "proof" of that
    is very similar to "let's take some circles
    and pretend with insisting they're straight
    lines" you're presenting here.



    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Fri Sep 12 05:41:24 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 12/09/2025 |a 06:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    ..
    Well, what ? If if write a math problem starting with "let's consider >>>> a non enumerable space E" I am not denying the existence of numerable >>>> sets.

    You're not. But if you state that
    [real] space is non-euclidean
    you are denying it is euclidean.

    Sure. So what?

    So you're denying that Euclidean space exists.

    No.

    Natural numbers exists. They are useful to count, say, sheeps. Right?

    They are not so good at designin a triangular flower bed forming a right angle, for that I would use rational or real numbers.

    Does this means that natural numbers does not exist?

    Euclidean space is fine if you are dealing with flower beds in your
    garden.

    It happens that is not when you are dealing with cosmology.

    It doesn't mean that it does not exist.

    And if you write "let's consider a non-euclidean
    space, where nothing is denying that Euclidean
    axioms are true by definition" - it's just
    another example of Python at math.

    It is another example of you failing at math.

    Anyway, when [A.E.] announced basic
    math false [...]

    He didn't do that.

    There is not much math in "Hamlet" :-) There is in A.E.'s papers.


    Sorry, "math" without clearly declared
    axioms can only be considered as math
    by such an idiot as you are

    As most physics papers Einstein's ones did not rely on any alternative mathematical axioms system, but on the usual one. You may have heard about ZFC. No need to recall such a triviality.

    Bringing here your signature, Maciej:

    the idiot, poor stinker.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Fri Sep 12 08:10:15 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/12/2025 7:41 AM, Python wrote:
    Le 12/09/2025 |a 06:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    ..
    Well, what ? If if write a math problem starting with "let's
    consider a non enumerable space E" I am not denying the existence
    of numerable sets.

    You're not. But if you state that
    [real] space is non-euclidean
    you are denying it is euclidean.

    Sure. So what?

    So you're denying that Euclidean space exists.

    No.

    Can you provide an example of anything
    that really exists but is not real?




    They are not so good at designin a triangular flower bed forming a right angle, for that I would use rational or real numbers.

    Does this means that natural numbers does not exist?

    :)
    Do you know any natural number which is not
    a rational number or is not a real number?
    Python at math.




    And if you write "let's consider a non-euclidean
    space, where nothing is denying that Euclidean
    axioms are true by definition" - it's just
    another example of Python at math.

    It is another example of you failing at math.
    Anyway, when [A.E.] announced basic
    math false [...]

    He didn't do that.

    Yes, he did.

    Sorry, "math" without clearly declared
    axioms can only be considered as math
    by such an idiot as you are

    As most physics papers Einstein's ones did not rely on any alternative mathematical axioms system, but on the usual one.

    At most or at all, poor stinker?
    How about GR shit?

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Fri Sep 12 06:54:27 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 12/09/2025 |a 08:10, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/12/2025 7:41 AM, Python wrote:
    Le 12/09/2025 |a 06:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    ..
    Well, what ? If if write a math problem starting with "let's
    consider a non enumerable space E" I am not denying the existence >>>>>> of numerable sets.

    You're not. But if you state that
    [real] space is non-euclidean
    you are denying it is euclidean.

    Sure. So what?

    So you're denying that Euclidean space exists.

    No.

    Can you provide an example of anything
    that really exists but is not real?

    Tell me what does it means for mathematical objects to "exist" in math and being real or not.

    They are not so good at designin a triangular flower bed forming a right
    angle, for that I would use rational or real numbers.

    Does this means that natural numbers does not exist?

    :)
    Do you know any natural number which is not
    a rational number or is not a real number?

    Euclidean geometry is one of many geometries. Do you know a property of Euclidean geometry that does not match the properties of all g|-ometries
    ;-)

    Python at math.

    Thanks.

    And if you write "let's consider a non-euclidean
    space, where nothing is denying that Euclidean
    axioms are true by definition" - it's just
    another example of Python at math.

    It is another example of you failing at math.
    Anyway, when [A.E.] announced basic
    math false [...]

    He didn't do that.

    Yes, he did.

    No he didn't.

    Sorry, "math" without clearly declared
    axioms can only be considered as math
    by such an idiot as you are

    As most physics papers Einstein's ones did not rely on any alternative
    mathematical axioms system, but on the usual one.

    At most or at all,
    How about GR ?

    What in GR is contradicting any usual math axiom?

    poor stinker, shit

    Nice signature!


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Moebius@invalid@example.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Fri Sep 12 09:16:28 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Am 12.09.2025 um 08:54 schrieb Python:

    Euclidean geometry is one of many geometries. Do you know a property of Euclidean geometry that does not match the properties of all g|-ometries ;-)

    The parallel postulate?
    ... when [A.E.] announced basic math false [...]

    He didn't do that.

    Yes, he did.

    No he didn't.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLlv_aZjHXc&t=80s


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Fri Sep 12 07:48:24 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 12/09/2025 |a 09:16, Moebius a |-crit :
    Am 12.09.2025 um 08:54 schrieb Python:

    Euclidean geometry is one of many geometries. Do you know a property of
    Euclidean geometry that does not match the properties of all g|-ometries ;-)

    The parallel postulate?

    All geometries does not share this.

    ... when [A.E.] announced basic math false [...]

    He didn't do that.

    Yes, he did.

    No he didn't.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLlv_aZjHXc&t=80s

    You've read my mind :-)


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Fri Sep 12 09:56:11 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/12/2025 8:54 AM, Python wrote:
    Le 12/09/2025 |a 08:10, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/12/2025 7:41 AM, Python wrote:
    Le 12/09/2025 |a 06:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    ..
    Well, what ? If if write a math problem starting with "let's
    consider a non enumerable space E" I am not denying the existence >>>>>>> of numerable sets.

    You're not. But if you state that
    [real] space is non-euclidean
    you are denying it is euclidean.

    Sure. So what?

    So you're denying that Euclidean space exists.

    No.

    Can you provide an example of anything
    that really exists but is not real?

    Tell me what does it means for mathematical objects to "exist" in math
    and being real or not.

    Why won't you tell me that? You're
    the one allegedly understanding it.


    They are not so good at designin a triangular flower bed forming a
    right angle, for that I would use rational or real numbers.

    Does this means that natural numbers does not exist?

    :)
    Do you know any natural number which is not
    a rational number or is not a real number?

    Euclidean geometry is one of many geometries.

    So, do you know any natural number which is not
    a rational number or is not a real number?

    Do you know a property of
    Euclidean geometry that does not match the properties of all g|-ometries ;-)

    PT is true in Euclidean geometry and is announced
    false by most (not all) of other geometries.


    He didn't do that.

    Yes, he did.

    No he didn't.

    he did, and his obedient doggies soon found
    proofs that it was always obvious. What
    nymshifter presented is one of these
    proofs.


    At most or at all,
    How about GR ?

    What in GR is contradicting any usual math axiom?

    A non euclidean geometry is contradicting
    at least one (usually more) of usual
    math axioms. Is there a non-euclidean
    geometry in GR shit, poor stinker?


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Fri Sep 12 08:22:00 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 12/09/2025 |a 09:56, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/12/2025 8:54 AM, Python wrote:
    Le 12/09/2025 |a 08:10, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/12/2025 7:41 AM, Python wrote:
    Le 12/09/2025 |a 06:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    ..
    Well, what ? If if write a math problem starting with "let's
    consider a non enumerable space E" I am not denying the existence >>>>>>>> of numerable sets.

    You're not. But if you state that
    [real] space is non-euclidean
    you are denying it is euclidean.

    Sure. So what?

    So you're denying that Euclidean space exists.

    No.

    Can you provide an example of anything
    that really exists but is not real?

    Tell me what does it means for mathematical objects to "exist" in math
    and being real or not.

    Why won't you tell me that? You're
    the one allegedly understanding it.

    I don't really think that is that important. I asked you because you are
    the one insisting on the difference between mathematical existence and
    being "real".

    They are not so good at designin a triangular flower bed forming a
    right angle, for that I would use rational or real numbers.

    Does this means that natural numbers does not exist?

    :)
    Do you know any natural number which is not
    a rational number or is not a real number?

    Euclidean geometry is one of many geometries.

    So, do you know any natural number which is not
    a rational number or is not a real number?

    No. This is not the point.

    If you need math course to get the point feel free to follow a math
    courses. Poland is quite a great nation when it comes to mathematics.

    Do you know a property of
    Euclidean geometry that does not match the properties of all geometries ;-)

    PT is true in Euclidean geometry and is announced
    false by most (not all) of other geometries.

    Oh my god! Some properties are not true in all systems! Math is
    contradicting itself! :-)

    He didn't do that.

    Yes, he did.

    No he didn't.

    he did

    He didn't.

    At most or at all,
    How about GR ?

    What in GR is contradicting any usual math axiom?

    A non euclidean geometry is contradicting
    at least one (usually more) of usual
    math axioms

    No it is not.

    Is there a non-euclidean
    geometry in GR

    Yes there is.

    shit, poor stinker

    Nice signature.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Fri Sep 12 10:56:36 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/12/2025 10:22 AM, Python wrote:
    Le 12/09/2025 |a 09:56, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/12/2025 8:54 AM, Python wrote:
    Le 12/09/2025 |a 08:10, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/12/2025 7:41 AM, Python wrote:
    Le 12/09/2025 |a 06:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    ..
    Well, what ? If if write a math problem starting with "let's >>>>>>>>> consider a non enumerable space E" I am not denying the
    existence of numerable sets.

    You're not. But if you state that
    [real] space is non-euclidean
    you are denying it is euclidean.

    Sure. So what?

    So you're denying that Euclidean space exists.

    No.

    Can you provide an example of anything
    that really exists but is not real?

    Tell me what does it means for mathematical objects to "exist" in
    math and being real or not.

    Why won't you tell me that? You're
    the one allegedly understanding it.

    I don't really think that is that important.


    Sure you don't, you're such an idiot.

    I asked you because you are
    the one insisting on the difference between mathematical existence and
    being "real".

    Well, it's sometimes (not always) quite similar
    to the difference between the reality and
    some imagined delusions. Some axioms lead to
    the first, other to the former.





    They are not so good at designin a triangular flower bed forming a
    right angle, for that I would use rational or real numbers.

    Does this means that natural numbers does not exist?

    :)
    Do you know any natural number which is not
    a rational number or is not a real number?

    Euclidean geometry is one of many geometries.

    So, do you know any natural number which is not
    a rational number or is not a real number?

    No. This is not the point.

    Good.


    If you need math course to get the point feel free to follow a math
    courses. Poland is quite a great nation when it comes to mathematics.

    Sure, i was taught well before I left
    the mainstream; and my teachers would
    never promote an idiot like you.




    -a Do you know a property of
    Euclidean geometry that does not match the properties of all
    geometries ;-)

    PT is true in Euclidean geometry and is announced
    false by-a most (not all) of other geometries.

    Oh my god! Some properties are not true in all systems! Math is contradicting itself! :-)

    You've asked, you've got the answer, you've drawn
    some conclusions.


    He didn't do that.

    Yes, he did.

    No he didn't.

    he did

    He didn't.

    At most or at all,
    How about GR ?

    What in GR is contradicting any usual math axiom?

    A non euclidean geometry-a is contradicting
    at least one (usually more) of usual
    math axioms

    No it is not.

    So, once again, are Euclidean axioms (all of
    them) "true by definition" in a non euclidean
    geometry? and in GR shit of your idiot guru?
    Really?
    You know, poor stinker, your insane lies are
    really funny sometimes.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Theron =?iso-8859-1?q?Wojew=F3dzki?=@wrzeo@weze.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Fri Sep 12 09:46:41 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    this is the same mistake PBA is doing

    for the domain of curved surfaces, lines are straight

    And for the domain of marxism-leninism communism is the best; the
    "proof" of that is very similar to "let's take some circles and pretend
    with insisting they're straight lines" you're presenting here.

    earth is a circle, fucking stoopid, where you have straight lines. Use
    your fucking brain, idiot.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Fri Sep 12 12:48:13 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/12/2025 11:46 AM, Theron Wojew||dzki wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    this is the same mistake PBA is doing

    for the domain of curved surfaces, lines are straight

    And for the domain of marxism-leninism communism is the best; the
    "proof" of that is very similar to "let's take some circles and pretend
    with insisting they're straight lines" you're presenting here.

    earth is a circle, fucking stoopid, where you have straight lines.

    Earth is not a circle, it can be considered
    as a sphere, no straight lines on a sphere,
    sorry.
    We may always take circles (big circles of
    a sphere) and pretend they are straight
    lines, samely as we can take a sheep and
    pretend it's a shark which eats grass and
    confirms our theory that sharks eat grass.


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Howard Szczepanski@nopei@aa.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Fri Sep 12 19:32:24 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    On 9/12/2025 11:46 AM, Theron Wojew||dzki wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    this is the same mistake PBA is doing

    for the domain of curved surfaces, lines are straight

    And for the domain of marxism-leninism communism is the best; the
    "proof" of that is very similar to "let's take some circles and
    pretend with insisting they're straight lines" you're presenting
    here.

    earth is a circle, fucking stoopid, where you have straight lines.

    Earth is not a circle, it can be considered as a sphere, no straight
    lines on a sphere, sorry.

    it's more than that, the earth is an infinitely many circles. Please
    recap.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Fri Sep 12 21:52:36 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/12/2025 9:32 PM, Howard Szczepanski wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    On 9/12/2025 11:46 AM, Theron Wojew||dzki wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    this is the same mistake PBA is doing

    for the domain of curved surfaces, lines are straight

    And for the domain of marxism-leninism communism is the best; the
    "proof" of that is very similar to "let's take some circles and
    pretend with insisting they're straight lines" you're presenting
    here.

    earth is a circle, fucking stoopid, where you have straight lines.

    Earth is not a circle, it can be considered as a sphere, no straight
    lines on a sphere, sorry.

    it's more than that

    I may agree it's more than a circle, I'm not
    going to agree it's a circle.


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Jamie Zdunowski@na@woo.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Fri Sep 12 21:37:46 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    earth is a circle, fucking stoopid, where you have straight lines.

    Earth is not a circle, it can be considered as a sphere, no straight
    lines on a sphere, sorry.

    it's more than that

    I may agree it's more than a circle, I'm not going to agree it's a
    circle.

    a sphere is made up by infinitely many circles, read the context, but
    that's not the point. The point is that you dismiss lines on circles,
    which makes you an idiot.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Chris M. Thomasson@chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Fri Sep 12 16:27:44 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/12/2025 12:16 AM, Moebius wrote:
    Am 12.09.2025 um 08:54 schrieb Python:

    Euclidean geometry is one of many geometries. Do you know a property
    of Euclidean geometry that does not match the properties of all
    g|-ometries ;-)

    The parallel postulate?
    ... when [A.E.] announced basic math false [...]

    He didn't do that.

    Yes, he did.

    No he didn't.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLlv_aZjHXc&t=80s



    lol!
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Thomas Heger@ttt_heg@web.de to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 08:27:50 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Am Freitag000012, 12.09.2025 um 07:41 schrieb Python:
    Le 12/09/2025 |a 06:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    ..
    Well, what ? If if write a math problem starting with "let's
    consider a non enumerable space E" I am not denying the existence
    of numerable sets.

    You're not. But if you state that
    [real] space is non-euclidean
    you are denying it is euclidean.

    Sure. So what?

    So you're denying that Euclidean space exists.

    No.

    Natural numbers exists. They are useful to count, say, sheeps. Right?

    Wrong:

    counting sheep depends on a herd and a shepherd.

    But nature doesn't 'think' in terms of herds, while humans like
    shepherds do.

    The collection called 'herd' is a human artifact and not supported by
    nature itself.

    So, nature does not need to count sheep.

    Possibly other items are counted, but sheep aren't.

    TH

    ...
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Thomas Heger@ttt_heg@web.de to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 09:17:07 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Am Freitag000012, 12.09.2025 um 23:37 schrieb Jamie Zdunowski:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    earth is a circle, fucking stoopid, where you have straight lines.

    Earth is not a circle, it can be considered as a sphere, no straight
    lines on a sphere, sorry.

    it's more than that

    I may agree it's more than a circle, I'm not going to agree it's a
    circle.

    a sphere is made up by infinitely many circles, read the context, but
    that's not the point. The point is that you dismiss lines on circles,
    which makes you an idiot.


    I don't know, what you're trying to say.

    But the Earth isn't neither a sphere nor a circle.

    Earth is is more like a massive ball, that is bugled outwards at the
    equator.

    It's not a sphere, because a sphere is the two-dimensional surface of a
    ball, while the Earth is (at least) three-dimensional.

    Straight lines are not that often in nature and most likely do not occur
    in nature at all.


    TH
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 08:46:22 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 13/09/2025 |a 09:12, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
    Am Freitag000012, 12.09.2025 um 23:37 schrieb Jamie Zdunowski:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    earth is a circle, fucking stoopid, where you have straight lines.

    Earth is not a circle, it can be considered as a sphere, no straight >>>>> lines on a sphere, sorry.

    it's more than that

    I may agree it's more than a circle, I'm not going to agree it's a
    circle.

    a sphere is made up by infinitely many circles, read the context, but
    that's not the point. The point is that you dismiss lines on circles,
    which makes you an idiot.


    I don't know, what you're trying to say.

    But the Earth isn't neither a sphere nor a circle.

    Earth is is more like a massive ball, that is bugled outwards at the equator.

    It's not a sphere, because a sphere is the two-dimensional surface of a ball, while the Earth is (at least) three-dimensional.

    Straight lines are not that often in nature and most likely do not occur
    in nature at all.


    TH

    At least you are not a flat earther :-)


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Moebius@invalid@example.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 10:51:22 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Am 13.09.2025 um 10:46 schrieb Python:

    At least you are not a flat earther :-)

    Actually, the earth has a hole!

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth

    .
    .
    .

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 09:45:54 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 13/09/2025 |a 10:51, Moebius a |-crit :
    Am 13.09.2025 um 10:46 schrieb Python:

    At least you are not a flat earther :-)

    Actually, the earth has a hole!

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth

    .
    .
    .

    Well Thomas is a Eartch growther btw, Is this hole growing :-D ?


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 11:56:05 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/13/2025 11:45 AM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 10:51, Moebius a |-crit :
    Am 13.09.2025 um 10:46 schrieb Python:

    At least you are not a flat earther :-)

    Actually, the earth has a hole!

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth

    .
    .
    .

    Well Thomas is a Eartch growther btw, Is this hole growing :-D ?

    At least he's not denying basic math,
    like your idiot guru and your bunch of
    idiots.

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 10:08:41 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 13/09/2025 |a 11:56, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 11:45 AM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 10:51, Moebius a |-crit :
    Am 13.09.2025 um 10:46 schrieb Python:

    At least you are not a flat earther :-)

    Actually, the earth has a hole!

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth

    .
    .
    .

    Well Thomas is a Eartch growther btw, Is this hole growing :-D ?

    At least he's not denying basic math,

    Well I guess that he could likely do so;

    like [A.E.] and [you]

    He didn't, we don't :-)




    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 12:21:47 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/13/2025 12:08 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 11:56, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 11:45 AM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 10:51, Moebius a |-crit :
    Am 13.09.2025 um 10:46 schrieb Python:

    At least you are not a flat earther :-)

    Actually, the earth has a hole!

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth

    .
    .
    .

    Well Thomas is a Eartch growther btw, Is this hole growing :-D ?

    At least he's not denying basic math,

    Well I guess that he could likely do so;

    like [A.E.] and [you]

    He didn't, we don't :-)



    According to basic [euclidean] math - for any
    right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides,
    c - the longest one).
    Notice that it's not "any triangle in my garden" here.
    It's ANY triangle.
    According to the teachings of the idiot (and yours)
    such statement is
    a) true, no right triangle without the property exists
    b) false, there are right triangles without the property
    ?

    Still no answer, poor stinker? Of course.

    But at least you're ashamed. That's good.



    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 10:26:39 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 13/09/2025 |a 12:21, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 12:08 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 11:56, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 11:45 AM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 10:51, Moebius a |-crit :
    Am 13.09.2025 um 10:46 schrieb Python:

    At least you are not a flat earther :-)

    Actually, the earth has a hole!

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth

    .
    .
    .

    Well Thomas is a Eartch growther btw, Is this hole growing :-D ?

    At least he's not denying basic math,

    Well I guess that he could likely do so;

    like [A.E.] and [you]

    He didn't, we don't :-)



    According to basic [euclidean] math - for any
    right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides,
    c - the longest one).
    Notice that it's not "any triangle in my garden" here.
    It's ANY triangle.

    No it's any triangle in an euclidean space.

    Not ALL spaces are Euclidean.

    Something "one of the best logicians Humanity ever had" cannot grasp.
    Weird.


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 12:47:14 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/13/2025 12:26 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 12:21, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 12:08 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 11:56, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 11:45 AM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 10:51, Moebius a |-crit :
    Am 13.09.2025 um 10:46 schrieb Python:

    At least you are not a flat earther :-)

    Actually, the earth has a hole!

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth

    .
    .
    .

    Well Thomas is a Eartch growther btw, Is this hole growing :-D ?

    At least he's not denying basic math,

    Well I guess that he could likely do so;

    like [A.E.] and [you]

    He didn't, we don't :-)



    According to basic [euclidean] math - for any
    right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides,
    c - the longest one).
    Notice that it's not "any triangle in my garden" here.
    It's ANY triangle.

    No it's any triangle in an euclidean space.


    Well, an idiot like you can't even lie
    with sense, no surprise. How could Pythagoras
    know about any "euclidean space"? He lived
    300 years before Euclid.
    Not even mentioning that Tarski (or maybe Godel)
    has proven that any theory invoking itself must
    be inconsistent, because how could you know that,
    "mathematician".






    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 10:51:32 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 13/09/2025 |a 12:47, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 12:26 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 12:21, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 12:08 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 11:56, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 11:45 AM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 10:51, Moebius a |-crit :
    Am 13.09.2025 um 10:46 schrieb Python:

    At least you are not a flat earther :-)

    Actually, the earth has a hole!

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth

    .
    .
    .

    Well Thomas is a Eartch growther btw, Is this hole growing :-D ?

    At least he's not denying basic math,

    Well I guess that he could likely do so;

    like [A.E.] and [you]

    He didn't, we don't :-)



    According to basic [euclidean] math - for any
    right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides,
    c - the longest one).
    Notice that it's not "any triangle in my garden" here.
    It's ANY triangle.

    No it's any triangle in an euclidean space.


    Well, an idiot like you can't even lie
    with sense, no surprise. How could Pythagoras
    know about any "euclidean space"? He lived
    300 years before Euclid.

    You didn't notice that mathematics made some progress in between? One of
    this progress is driven by a very difficult concept called
    "generalization".

    Not even mentioning that Tarski (or maybe Godel)
    has proven that any theory invoking itself must
    be inconsistent, because how could you know that,
    "mathematician".

    There is nothing of this kind in my answer. I just attribute a name to a
    given property of some (not all) spaces. Like a natural number can be even
    or odd.

    BTW your description of Tarsky/G||del theorems is utterly wrong.


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 13:09:03 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/13/2025 12:51 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 12:47, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 12:26 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 12:21, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 12:08 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 11:56, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 11:45 AM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 10:51, Moebius a |-crit :
    Am 13.09.2025 um 10:46 schrieb Python:

    At least you are not a flat earther :-)

    Actually, the earth has a hole!

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth

    .
    .
    .

    Well Thomas is a Eartch growther btw, Is this hole growing :-D ?

    At least he's not denying basic math,

    Well I guess that he could likely do so;

    like [A.E.] and [you]

    He didn't, we don't :-)



    According to basic [euclidean] math - for any
    right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides,
    c - the longest one).
    Notice that it's not "any triangle in my garden" here.
    It's ANY triangle.

    No it's any triangle in an euclidean space.


    Well, an idiot like you can't even lie
    with sense, no surprise. How could Pythagoras
    know about any "euclidean space"? He lived
    300 years before Euclid.

    You didn't notice that mathematics made some progress in between?


    Good, good, poor stinker. Wave arms! Attack!
    That will for sure draw the attenttion
    and maybe the question how P could make
    and prove a claim about Euclid's space
    will get forgotten.


    Not even mentioning that Tarski (or maybe Godel)
    has proven that-a any theory invoking itself must
    be inconsistent,-a because how could you know that,
    "mathematician".

    There is nothing of this kind in my answer.


    Wrong, poor stinker. There is definitely
    "something of this kind" in your answer.
    You're, of course, too dumb to understand
    that, but that's no surprise.



    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 11:12:37 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 13/09/2025 |a 13:09, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 12:51 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 12:47, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 12:26 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 12:21, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 12:08 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 11:56, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 11:45 AM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 10:51, Moebius a |-crit :
    Am 13.09.2025 um 10:46 schrieb Python:

    At least you are not a flat earther :-)

    Actually, the earth has a hole!

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth

    .
    .
    .

    Well Thomas is a Eartch growther btw, Is this hole growing :-D ? >>>>>>>
    At least he's not denying basic math,

    Well I guess that he could likely do so;

    like [A.E.] and [you]

    He didn't, we don't :-)



    According to basic [euclidean] math - for any
    right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides,
    c - the longest one).
    Notice that it's not "any triangle in my garden" here.
    It's ANY triangle.

    No it's any triangle in an euclidean space.


    Well, an idiot like you can't even lie
    with sense, no surprise. How could Pythagoras
    know about any "euclidean space"? He lived
    300 years before Euclid.

    You didn't notice that mathematics made some progress in between?


    Good, good, poor stinker. Wave arms! Attack!
    That will for sure draw the attenttion
    and maybe the question how P could make
    and prove a claim about Euclid's space
    will get forgotten.


    Not even mentioning that Tarski (or maybe Godel)
    has proven that-a any theory invoking itself must
    be inconsistent,-a because how could you know that,
    "mathematician".

    There is nothing of this kind in my answer.


    Wrong, poor stinker. There is definitely
    "something of this kind" in your answer.
    You're, of course, too dumb to understand
    that, but that's no surprise.

    It is quite clear here that the one here who is waving arms, attacking
    without arguments and slandering is Maciej Wozniak.

    Don't expect people to answer to your misconceptions with this kind of attitude.




    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 11:17:22 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 13/09/2025 |a 13:09, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    ..
    Well, an idiot like you can't even lie
    with sense, no surprise. How could Pythagoras
    know about any "euclidean space"? He lived
    300 years before Euclid.

    The point is not the name we associate *now* with the properties of such spaces. The point is about what these properties *are*.

    Pythagoras was assuming properties that are *now* called "Euclidean",
    whatever we name them is irrelevant. What is relevant is what they *are*.

    Something that "one the best logicians Humanity ever had" cannot grasp.
    Weird.


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 13:32:51 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/13/2025 1:17 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 13:09, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    ..
    Well, an idiot like you can't even lie
    with sense, no surprise. How could Pythagoras
    know about any "euclidean space"? He lived
    300 years before Euclid.

    The point is not the name we associate *now*

    The point is that basic math is what
    Pythagoras, Euclid and others have written,
    not what a brainwashed idiot imagines they
    should have written.

    with the properties of such
    spaces. The point is about what these properties *are*.

    Ok, let's continue and force you to run
    once again.



    Pythagoras was assuming properties that are *now* called "Euclidean",

    And what are this properties? Are they
    "where euclidean axioms and theorems
    hold?"
    You're insist5ing they hold in
    any space, aren't you? Poor, poor
    stinker.

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 11:39:10 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 13/09/2025 |a 13:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 1:17 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 13:09, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    ..
    Well, an idiot like you can't even lie
    with sense, no surprise. How could Pythagoras
    know about any "euclidean space"? He lived
    300 years before Euclid.

    The point is not the name we associate *now*

    The point is that basic math is what
    Pythagoras, Euclid and others have written,
    not what [stupid babbling]

    What is "basic math" meaning? There is math. Period. And it evolved in History.

    The point is that what Pythagoras assumed is what we now called
    "Euclidean" and that this label is not the point : the point is what it
    MEANS.

    with the properties of such
    spaces. The point is about what these properties *are*.

    Ok, let's continue and force you to run

    So far the only one "running" is you Maciej.

    And what are this properties? Are they
    "where euclidean axioms and theorems
    hold?"
    You're insist5ing they hold in
    any space, aren't you?

    Hmmm, not quite. Quite the opposite actually.

    Poor, poor stinker.

    Nice signature.


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 14:02:50 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/13/2025 1:39 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 13:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 1:17 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 13:09, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    ..
    Well, an idiot like you can't even lie
    with sense, no surprise. How could Pythagoras
    know about any "euclidean space"? He lived
    300 years before Euclid.

    The point is not the name we associate *now*

    The point is that basic math is what
    Pythagoras, Euclid and others have written,
    not what [stupid babbling]

    What is "basic math" meaning?

    Oh, poor stinker doesn't know... what a
    surprise.... I wonder how he knows
    that his idiot guru hasn't announce it
    false then?




    The point is that what Pythagoras assumed is what we now called
    "Euclidean" and that this label is not the point : the point is what it MEANS.

    with the properties of such
    spaces. The point is about what these properties *are*.

    Ok, let's continue and force you to run

    So far the only one "running" is you Maciej.

    And what are this properties? Are they
    "where euclidean axioms and theorems
    hold?"
    You're insist5ing they hold in
    any space, aren't you?

    Hmmm, not quite. Quite the opposite actually.

    How so? Pythonian version of Pythagorean theorem is
    "any right triangle in euclidean space has
    a^2+b^2=c^2" In what space it doesn't hold,
    poor stinker?
    [wave arms! Mumble about the progresss of
    mathematics! Do something!]


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 12:08:53 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 13/09/2025 |a 13:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 1:17 PM, Python wrote:
    ..
    Pythagoras was assuming properties that are *now* called "Euclidean",

    And what are this properties?

    Let:

    Points = set of all points
    Lines = set of all lines
    I(p,l) = "point p lies on line l"

    For all A,B in Points:
    if A != B then there exists exactly one line l in Lines
    such that I(A,l) and I(B,l).

    For all A,B in Points:
    if A != B then there exists a point C on the same line as A,B
    such that B is between A and C.

    For all O in Points and for all R > 0:
    there exists a circle with center O and radius R.

    For all angles alpha, beta:
    if alpha is a right angle and beta is a right angle
    then alpha = beta.

    For all lines l and all points P not on l:
    there exists exactly one line m such that
    P lies on m and m is parallel to l.

    This is also assuming more fundamental axioms:

    Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other.
    For all a,b,c: if a = c and b = c then a = b.

    If equals are added to equals, the wholes are equal.
    For all a,b,c,d: if a = c and b = d then (a + b) = (c + d).

    If equals are subtracted from equals, the remainders are equal.
    For all a,b,c,d: if a = c and b = d then (a - b) = (c - d).

    Things that coincide with one another are equal to one another.
    For all a,b: if a coincides with b then a = b.

    The whole is greater than the part.
    For all a,b: if b is a proper part of a then a > b.

    Note that some of these axioms has been questioned in the history of mathematics.

    But you are not a big fan of "questioning", you are only slandering,
    aren't you Maciej?


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 12:11:34 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 13/09/2025 |a 14:02, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 1:39 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 13:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 1:17 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 13:09, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    ..
    Well, an idiot like you can't even lie
    with sense, no surprise. How could Pythagoras
    know about any "euclidean space"? He lived
    300 years before Euclid.

    The point is not the name we associate *now*

    The point is that basic math is what
    Pythagoras, Euclid and others have written,
    not what [stupid babbling]

    What is "basic math" meaning?

    Oh

    No answer?

    Let's take a specific example:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandelin_spheres

    Is it "basic math" or not even if it was stated quite recently but could
    have been thousands years ago?


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 14:34:13 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/13/2025 2:08 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 13:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 1:17 PM, Python wrote:
    ..
    Pythagoras was assuming properties that are *now* called "Euclidean",

    And what are this properties?




    Let:

    How are you sure that he didn't assume that instead? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_axioms

    Anyway, unless he had assumed at the very end
    "and all the above only in Euclidean space"
    your idiot guru announced it false
    together with his theorem.

    So, what is your "Euclidean space"?
    Is it "a space where Euclid's axioms
    and theorems hold", i.e. according to
    you - any space?
    Or maybe it's just "a space where
    REAL Euclid's axioms and theorems
    [the ones annlounced false by your
    idiot guru] hold"?



    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 12:38:21 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 13/09/2025 |a 14:34, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 2:08 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 13:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 1:17 PM, Python wrote:
    ..
    Pythagoras was assuming properties that are *now* called "Euclidean",

    And what are this properties?




    Let:

    How are you sure that he didn't assume that instead? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_axioms

    I'm not. I may check if it is in order to educate you, but I have very few incentives to educate you (I tried and gave up long ago :-)))).

    Anyway, unless he had assumed at the very end
    "and all the above only in Euclidean space"
    your idiot guru announced it false
    together with his theorem.

    So, what is your "Euclidean space"?
    Is it "a space where Euclid's axioms
    and theorems hold", i.e. according to
    you - any space?
    Or maybe it's just "a space where
    REAL Euclid's axioms and theorems
    [the ones annlounced false by your
    idiot guru] hold"?

    Above is only a bunch of lies and confusions and typos.

    And slanders :-)


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 12:43:54 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 13/09/2025 |a 14:34, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    ..
    So, what is your "Euclidean space"?
    Is it "a space where Euclid's axioms
    and theorems hold", i.e. according to
    you - any space?

    "according to me" ? ? ? ? Definitely not.

    Your a stinking liar Maciej.




    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 12:49:10 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 13/09/2025 |a 14:43, Python a |-crit :
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 14:34, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    ...
    So, what is your "Euclidean space"?
    Is it "a space where Euclid's axioms
    and theorems hold", i.e. according to
    you - any space?

    "according to me" ? ? ? ? Definitely not.

    Your a stinking liar Maciej.

    You're a stinking liar Maciej.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 15:00:28 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/13/2025 2:43 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 14:34, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    ..
    So, what is your "Euclidean space"?
    Is it "a space where Euclid's axioms
    and theorems hold", i.e. according to
    you - any space?

    "according to me" ? ? ? ?-a Definitely not.

    Sorry, poor stinker, if PT is not "for
    any triangle... " but "for any triangle
    in Euclidean space..." as you asserted -
    it holds in any space. Or maybe PT is
    the only theorem prepared this way in
    pythonian Euclidean geometry, poor
    stinker?
    See - Tarski (or maybe Godel) has proven:
    if you do it that way you're going to be
    in trouble...



    Your a stinking liar Maciej.

    Nope, a stinking liar is you.






    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 13:06:39 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 13/09/2025 |a 15:00, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 2:43 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 14:34, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    ..
    So, what is your "Euclidean space"?
    Is it "a space where Euclid's axioms
    and theorems hold", i.e. according to
    you - any space?

    "according to me" ? ? ? ?-a Definitely not.

    Sorry, [...] if PT is not "for
    any triangle... " but "for any triangle
    in Euclidean space..." as you asserted -
    it holds in any space.

    No because not all spaces are Euclidean. You are definitely retarded.

    So no it does not hold in any space, and don't pretend I sais so. Stinking liar !

    See - Tarski (or maybe Godel) has proven:
    if you do it that way you're going to be
    in trouble...

    No quite. You have no ideas of what Tarsky/G||del theorems are. This is pathetic.

    You're a stinking liar Maciej, and a kook.




    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 15:16:15 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/13/2025 3:06 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 15:00, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 2:43 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 14:34, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    ..
    So, what is your "Euclidean space"?
    Is it "a space where Euclid's axioms
    and theorems hold", i.e. according to
    you - any space?

    "according to me" ? ? ? ?-a Definitely not.

    Sorry, [...] if PT is not "for
    any triangle... " but-a "for any triangle
    in Euclidean space..." as you asserted -
    it holds in any space.

    No because not all spaces are Euclidean.

    So, in a non Euclidean space PT doesn't hold?
    Even in its pythonian version "for any right
    triangle in Euclidean space..."?
    So, according to the teachings of the idiot -
    we're in a noneuclidean space and PT doesn't
    hold. Is false. QED, poor stinker, it's as
    I said, the idiot announced basic math false,
    your insane lies didn't help. Lies have short
    legs, poor stinker.



    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 15:26:41 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/13/2025 3:06 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 15:00, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 2:43 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 14:34, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    ..
    So, what is your "Euclidean space"?
    Is it "a space where Euclid's axioms
    and theorems hold", i.e. according to
    you - any space?

    "according to me" ? ? ? ?-a Definitely not.

    Sorry, [...] if PT is not "for
    any triangle... " but-a "for any triangle
    in Euclidean space..." as you asserted -
    it holds in any space.

    No because not all spaces are Euclidean. You are definitely retarded.

    So no it does not hold in any space, and don't pretend I sais so.
    Stinking liar !

    See - Tarski (or maybe Godel)-a has proven:
    if you do it that way you're going to be
    in trouble...

    No quite. You have no ideas of what Tarsky/G||del

    And - Tarski. Not Tarsky. You don't even know the name,
    "mathematician".


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@jp@python.invalid to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 15:36:58 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Le 13/09/2025 |a 15:16, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 3:06 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 15:00, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    On 9/13/2025 2:43 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/09/2025 |a 14:34, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
    ..
    So, what is your "Euclidean space"?
    Is it "a space where Euclid's axioms
    and theorems hold", i.e. according to
    you - any space?

    "according to me" ? ? ? ?-a Definitely not.

    Sorry, [...] if PT is not "for
    any triangle... " but-a "for any triangle
    in Euclidean space..." as you asserted -
    it holds in any space.

    No because not all spaces are Euclidean.

    So, in a non Euclidean space PT doesn't hold?
    Even in its pythonian version "for any right
    triangle in Euclidean space..."?
    So, according to the teachings of the idiot -
    we're in a noneuclidean space and PT doesn't
    hold. Is false. QED, poor stinker, it's as
    I said, the idiot announced basic math false,
    your insane lies didn't help. Lies have short
    legs, poor stinker.

    This does not even parse. Get help.


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Jabari Kalbfleisch@eljkhk@bs.de to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 19:03:12 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    a sphere is made up by infinitely many circles, read the context, but
    that's not the point. The point is that you dismiss lines on circles,
    which makes you an idiot.

    I don't know, what you're trying to say.

    But the Earth isn't neither a sphere nor a circle.

    Earth is is more like a massive ball, that is bugled outwards at the
    equator.

    it's all about curved surfaces where lines exists, as there are in curved spacetime, right now as we speak. Read the context, freimaurer.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 21:19:03 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/13/2025 9:03 PM, Jabari Kalbfleisch wrote:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    a sphere is made up by infinitely many circles, read the context, but
    that's not the point. The point is that you dismiss lines on circles,
    which makes you an idiot.

    I don't know, what you're trying to say.

    But the Earth isn't neither a sphere nor a circle.

    Earth is is more like a massive ball, that is bugled outwards at the
    equator.

    it's all about curved surfaces where lines exists

    Lines exist, straight lines - usually don't.
    Of course, we can always take a circle (a
    big circle of a sphere, for instance) and
    pretend it's a straight line.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Yahse Sokolowski@zke@srle.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sat Sep 13 20:29:39 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    a sphere is made up by infinitely many circles, read the context, but
    that's not the point. The point is that you dismiss lines on circles,
    which makes you an idiot.

    I don't know, what you're trying to say.

    But the Earth isn't neither a sphere nor a circle.

    Earth is is more like a massive ball, that is bugled outwards at the
    equator.

    it's all about curved surfaces where lines exists

    Lines exist, straight lines - usually don't.
    Of course, we can always take a circle (a big circle of a sphere, for instance) and pretend it's a straight line.

    so you admit that your Pythagoras relationship is false, hence an approximation, or you don't know what you do. Keep focus, polak.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sun Sep 14 06:36:55 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    On 9/13/2025 10:29 PM, Yahse Sokolowski wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    a sphere is made up by infinitely many circles, read the context, but >>>>> that's not the point. The point is that you dismiss lines on circles, >>>>> which makes you an idiot.

    I don't know, what you're trying to say.

    But the Earth isn't neither a sphere nor a circle.

    Earth is is more like a massive ball, that is bugled outwards at the
    equator.

    it's all about curved surfaces where lines exists

    Lines exist, straight lines - usually don't.
    Of course, we can always take a circle (a big circle of a sphere, for
    instance) and pretend it's a straight line.

    so you admit that your Pythagoras relationship is false

    Of course I don't, but I admit that when
    some insane crazie has announced it false
    (together with a very important part of basic
    math) - his obedient doggies soon found
    some "proofs" that it was always obvious.
    And your idiocy is one of them.

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From FromTheRafters@FTR@nomail.afraid.org to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sun Sep 14 07:37:54 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Thomas Heger brought next idea :
    Am Freitag000012, 12.09.2025 um 23:37 schrieb Jamie Zdunowski:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    earth is a circle, fucking stoopid, where you have straight lines.

    Earth is not a circle, it can be considered as a sphere, no straight >>>>> lines on a sphere, sorry.

    it's more than that

    I may agree it's more than a circle, I'm not going to agree it's a
    circle.

    a sphere is made up by infinitely many circles, read the context, but
    that's not the point. The point is that you dismiss lines on circles,
    which makes you an idiot.


    I don't know, what you're trying to say.

    But the Earth isn't neither a sphere nor a circle.

    Earth is is more like a massive ball, that is bugled outwards at the equator.

    Yes, very close to an oblate spheroid.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Henry =?iso-8859-1?q?Schulthei=DF?=@wt@icumuhl.de to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sun Sep 14 16:01:52 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

    so you admit that your Pythagoras relationship is false

    Of course I don't, but I admit that when some insane crazie has
    announced it false (together with a very important part of basic math) -
    his obedient doggies soon found some "proofs" that it was always
    obvious. And your idiocy is one of them.

    why are so cutting away the answer, you stupid polak. You are so fucking deranged in your thinking, hard to believe.

    if relativity is wrong, it's because my theory of

    EYOeEYOu_EYO-EYOYEYOU_EYy+EYOREYO2EYOUEYOoEYOLEYOUEYOuEYO-_EYOeEYOuEYO-EYO-EYOUEYOo_EYOnEYOc_EYO-EYOYEYOU_EYOeEYOnEYO2EYOREYOuEYOL_EYOaEYOnEYOUEYOoEYONEYOUEYOoEYO?_EYOeEYOnEYOOEYOUEYOi

    is real and net superior. The gypsy Einstine lacked the brain to go
    further and undrestand. See you in Glucksburg. I am a freimaurer.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Thomas Heger@ttt_heg@web.de to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Mon Sep 15 08:21:45 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Am Sonntag000014, 14.09.2025 um 13:37 schrieb FromTheRafters:
    ...
    Earth is not a circle, it can be considered as a sphere, no straight >>>>>> lines on a sphere, sorry.

    it's more than that

    I may agree it's more than a circle, I'm not going to agree it's a
    circle.

    a sphere is made up by infinitely many circles, read the context, but
    that's not the point. The point is that you dismiss lines on circles,
    which makes you an idiot.


    I don't know, what you're trying to say.

    But the Earth isn't neither a sphere nor a circle.

    Earth is is more like a massive ball, that is bugled outwards at the
    equator.

    Yes, very close to an oblate spheroid.

    The term 'sphere' and 'spheroid' belong to the surface of a ball and a rotation ellipsoid.


    It's not recommended to call a ball 'sphere', because a sphere has no thickness.

    TH
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From FromTheRafters@FTR@nomail.afraid.org to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Mon Sep 15 08:22:38 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    on 9/15/2025, Thomas Heger supposed :
    Am Sonntag000014, 14.09.2025 um 13:37 schrieb FromTheRafters:
    ...
    Earth is not a circle, it can be considered as a sphere, no straight >>>>>>> lines on a sphere, sorry.

    it's more than that

    I may agree it's more than a circle, I'm not going to agree it's a
    circle.

    a sphere is made up by infinitely many circles, read the context, but
    that's not the point. The point is that you dismiss lines on circles,
    which makes you an idiot.


    I don't know, what you're trying to say.

    But the Earth isn't neither a sphere nor a circle.

    Earth is is more like a massive ball, that is bugled outwards at the
    equator.

    Yes, very close to an oblate spheroid.

    The term 'sphere' and 'spheroid' belong to the surface of a ball and a rotation ellipsoid.


    It's not recommended to call a ball 'sphere', because a sphere has no thickness.

    TH

    Yes, the surface of a ball determines its shape.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Thomas Heger@ttt_heg@web.de to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Tue Sep 16 08:47:15 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.math

    Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 14:22 schrieb FromTheRafters:
    on 9/15/2025, Thomas Heger supposed :
    Am Sonntag000014, 14.09.2025 um 13:37 schrieb FromTheRafters:
    ...
    Earth is not a circle, it can be considered as a sphere, no
    straight
    lines on a sphere, sorry.

    it's more than that

    I may agree it's more than a circle, I'm not going to agree it's a >>>>>> circle.

    a sphere is made up by infinitely many circles, read the context, but >>>>> that's not the point. The point is that you dismiss lines on circles, >>>>> which makes you an idiot.


    I don't know, what you're trying to say.

    But the Earth isn't neither a sphere nor a circle.

    Earth is is more like a massive ball, that is bugled outwards at the
    equator.

    Yes, very close to an oblate spheroid.

    The term 'sphere' and 'spheroid' belong to the surface of a ball and a
    rotation ellipsoid.


    It's not recommended to call a ball 'sphere', because a sphere has no
    thickness.

    TH

    Yes, the surface of a ball determines its shape.

    Other way round would make more sense:

    the shape of the ball determines its surface.


    TH

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2