From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

In light of the Cambridge Prof plagiarism perfuffle, how I wish I was
studying Maths at University now rather than failing back in 1965.

My thesis would have been rCLCritical Number Theory- the inherent discrimination of 10.

A summary:
11 is bad enough - why these two ones don't make 2 is hard to
understand; one is worth more than the other one, but at least they are
in a very real sense equal and reflective of each other.
With 10, one is elevated above the other - it becomes ten times bigger
on the back of that extra digit which is literally nothing, often called
a big fat zero, bringing in sizeism as well.
11 is prime - both digits reinforcing each other in their uniqueness. 10
is not prime, it is divisible by other digits, showing that 0 reduces
the whole in transfiguring its' [sic] very substance. Zero does that to
every number that it ends, ensuring that the number is divisible and
hence zero is shown to be less than nothing.
Anything multiplied by zero becomes zero too, yet when we divide by 0 we
see the infinite, showing that the intervention of the underdog is vital
for human progress and once more proving the ineffable value of imports
from Islamic scholars.
1 is erect, reflecting the patriarchy and at right angles to the
horizontal rCo rCLnormalrCY in the language of geometry as well as being straight.
0 is a literal hole, woman reduced to nothing, especially on a
chalkboard and even worse when written with black ink.
Thus 10 demonstrates the intersectional violence of the straight, white, sizeist normal dominating the feminine of no value while free riding on
its back.

Guaranteed a First and an academic post with tenure.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 17:07:10 +0100, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com>
wrote:

In light of the Cambridge Prof plagiarism perfuffle, how I wish I was >studying Maths at University now rather than failing back in 1965.

My thesis would have been oCritical Number Theory- the inherent >discrimination of 10.

A summary:
11 is bad enough - why these two ones don't make 2 is hard to
understand; one is worth more than the other one, but at least they are
in a very real sense equal and reflective of each other.
With 10, one is elevated above the other - it becomes ten times bigger
on the back of that extra digit which is literally nothing, often called
a big fat zero, bringing in sizeism as well.
11 is prime - both digits reinforcing each other in their uniqueness. 10
is not prime, it is divisible by other digits, showing that 0 reduces
the whole in transfiguring its' [sic] very substance. Zero does that to >every number that it ends, ensuring that the number is divisible and
hence zero is shown to be less than nothing.
Anything multiplied by zero becomes zero too, yet when we divide by 0 we
see the infinite, showing that the intervention of the underdog is vital
for human progress and once more proving the ineffable value of imports
from Islamic scholars.
1 is erect, reflecting the patriarchy and at right angles to the
horizontal u onormalo in the language of geometry as well as being
straight.
0 is a literal hole, woman reduced to nothing, especially on a
chalkboard and even worse when written with black ink.
Thus 10 demonstrates the intersectional violence of the straight, white, >sizeist normal dominating the feminine of no value while free riding on
its back.

Guaranteed a First and an academic post with tenure.

I've obviously not been keeping up with the right kind of news stories
because, several re-readings later, I still have no idea what you are referencing here.

I'm reluctant to comment further because, if I don't know what you are referencing here, I could be laying myself open, Zak Polansky-style,
to unwittingly liking a paragraph which, it later turns out,
originated in 1979 as an XTC lyric.

Nick
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On 31/07/2026 18:33, Nick Odell wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 17:07:10 +0100, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com>
wrote:

In light of the Cambridge Prof plagiarism perfuffle...

<snip>

I've obviously not been keeping up with the right kind of news stories because, several re-readings later, I still have no idea what you are referencing here.

Google Jason Arday
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2