| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 26 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 49:43:26 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (10,716K bytes) |
| Messages: | 177,471 |
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?
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.
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:> Yes or no, please.
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, 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 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.
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.
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.
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
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}
Python at math: lies, slanders
and sqrt(7)={4,5}
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.
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.
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?
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.
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,
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 [A.E.] announced basic math false
But anyway since [A.E.] announced basic math false
He didn't.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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?
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 [...]
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 :I don't want to know since I do know already.
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 >>
What do you pretend to know?
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 :I don't want to know since I do know already.
On 9/11/2025 7:07 PM, Python wrote:If I want to know what Einstein's claim is about right triangles I would >>>
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 >>>>
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.
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:If I want to know what Einstein's claim is about right triangles I
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 >>>>>
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".
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:If I want to know what Einstein's claim is about right triangles I >>>>>> would
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 >>>>>>
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"?
Were Euclidean axioms [A.E.]'s axioms?
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.
Sure, but <bla>For the record: Man, you are a fucking asshole full of shit.
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
that's not valid in curved space, say earth surface / sphereBasic 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,
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
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
that's not valid in curved space, say earth surface / sphereBasic 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.
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, [...]
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]
impudent piece of lying shit, poor stinker, idiot
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.
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?
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?
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?
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#.
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?
There is not much math in "Hamlet" :-) There is in A.E.'s papers.
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
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 [A.E.] announced basic
math false [...]
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
the idiot, poor stinker.--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
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.
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?
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.
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.
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,
How about GR ?
poor stinker, shit
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 ;-)
... when [A.E.] announced basic math false [...]
He didn't do that.
Yes, he did.
No he didn't.
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
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.
Euclidean geometry that does not match the properties of all g|-ometries ;-)
He didn't do that.
Yes, he did.
No he didn't.
At most or at all,
How about GR ?
What in GR is contradicting any usual math axiom?
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 geometries ;-)
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
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
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.
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.
-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! :-)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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 :-)
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
.
.
.
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 ?
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 [A.E.] and [you]
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 :-)
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.
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.
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".
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?
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.
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 :At least he's not denying basic 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
.
.
.
Well Thomas is a Eartch growther btw, Is this hole growing :-D ? >>>>>>>
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.
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.
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*
spaces. The point is about what these properties *are*.
Pythagoras was assuming properties that are *now* called "Euclidean",
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]
with the properties of such
spaces. The point is about what these properties *are*.
Ok, let's continue and force you to run
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.
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?
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.
On 9/13/2025 1:17 PM, Python wrote:..
Pythagoras was assuming properties that are *now* called "Euclidean",
And what are this properties?
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
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:
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"?
So, what is your "Euclidean space"?
Is it "a space where Euclid's axioms
and theorems hold", i.e. according to
you - any space?
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.
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.
Your a stinking liar Maciej.
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.
See - Tarski (or maybe Godel) has proven:
if you do it that way you're going to be
in trouble...
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.