Imgflip Logo Icon

SOCIAL ENGINEERING COJECTURE: spirit designs mathematicians to regard humbuggery as treasurable

SOCIAL ENGINEERING COJECTURE: spirit designs mathematicians to regard humbuggery as treasurable | AWESOME A LENGTHY TEMPLATE FOR THE TEXT THAT ANOTHER POPULAR MATH STREAM CALLS A 'RAFT OF WORDS'. IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION THEY SEEM TO BE TOO PROUD TO GET IN A JET BOAT WHEN OFFERED A RIDE. ANYWAY. SINCE APPARENTLY WE'VE BEEN RELEGATED TO THE JUST FOR FUN STREAM, WHY NOT HAVE FUN. I DO NOT MEAN EITHER ROASTING MORE CONDUITS FOR MATH. ————————————————— I MEAN INSTEAD -THE CLOCK IS TICKING ON THESE LARGE INSPIRED TEXT BLOCKS AS MY WRISTS TIGHTEN UP- WHY NOT SHARE WHAT'S GOING ON. SURE THERE HAVE BEEN A HUNDRED FEATURES WITH A FEW REJECTS. THERE HAVE BEEN MANY HUNDREDS OF UN-DOCUMENTED PROOFS THIS YEAR. WE KNOW WE ARE IN THE RIGHT AND THE KNOWN POPULAR OVER REACHING IDEAS ON MATHS ARE WRONG. ————————————————— NO JUDGEMENT. I MEAN LOOK AT DYSON. OR ROWLINGS. OR ME. WHAT IS TOUGHER TO SELL. MUSH? THE MOON ITSELF. SO I CANNOT GET UPSET ANYMORE. THOUGH IT IS PROBABLY THE CASE THE FOUNTAIN WILL BECOME UNUSABLE FROM DISUSE. GOD THAT OTHER MOD WAS COMPARING PRODUCTIVE EFFORT TO PUPPIES AND SMILING CHILDREN. WHAT CAN YOU DO. ————————————————— ANYWAY I REALIZED OUR LATEST CATCH EARLIER THIS HOUR. IT WAS REVISITING A PREVIOUS RARELY RE-USED APPROACH. WHO AM I KIDDING. NO ONE IS LISTENING. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHEN I COMPARE A FOUNDATIONAL LOGIC/ALGEBRA TO A INFINITE STRING OF ADVERBIAL MODIFIED PRIMITIVE 'NO-INGS' PUN INNAPLICABLE. ME WAITING FOR COLLEAGUES TO BE AWARE WE ARE NOT INEPT; ALL THE WHILE WE HOLD FAST TO OUR PREFERENCE FOR INEPTITUDE; THIS STREAM IS CREDITED ELSEWHERE, IN THAT OTHER STREAM, WITH ACCEPTING LOGICAL TREATISE. YET CAN FEEDBACK BE GIVEN. CAN CHANGE BE CONCEIVED. WE HOPE. SO IF ZERO IS EXCLUSIVELY ZERO-ISH THEN BEING SO PLAIN SPOKEN WE ARE SURE RO BE ACCUSED OF BLASPHEMY IN 'MATHS'? ————————————————— WELL IT'S NOT BECAUSE ZERO IS AN ACT OF ESTABLISHING THAT IS JUST AS MUCH AT A CONTRAY DISADVANTAGE AS ADJECTIVIALLY CHARATERIZING ZERO ITSELF AS 'IS-EMPTY' OR 'IS-NOT-EMPTY'. WHY THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ADVERBIAL AND ADJECTIVIAL MODIFICATION? WELL BECAUSE THE LATER DOES PRESUME AXIOMATIC ZERO. THIS THEN DENIES A DECONSTRUCTION OF A PARADOXICAL FOUNDING. ————————————————— THAT IS AN INFINITE TREE OF (IS)(IS-NOT) MODIFIERS TO (NOT__FULL_STOP) ITSELF HAS NO INTRIGUING DIAGONALIZATION. ON THE OTHER HAND AN INFINITE TREE OF (ISLY)(IS-NOTLY) MODIFIES TO (ISING,ISN'TING) IS INTRIGUING. THERE CAN BE AN UNLOGICALLY ENUMERATED ABSOLUTELY REPETIOUSLY EVALUATED EMPTINESS OR NON-EMPTINESS. ————————————————— THAT'S THE SPANNER IN THE WORKS -'ROD'- WE MUST REMOVE. SO OF COURSE WE IN OUR NATIVE TONGUE OF A FEW YEARS, WAILING IN THE WINDS OF CHRIST'S, PUN INTENDED AFTERMATH, DE- AXIOMATIZE NON-EMPTINESS. THEN AS NECESSARY WE DID SOME HEAVY LIFTING TO EXPUNGE THOSE MINUS ZERO'S FROM OUR INSTANTIATED MATH REAL, AKA REDO PARADIGM! | image tagged in memes,waiting skeleton,uncle,just uncle,literally uncle,so tragically objectively uncle | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Waiting Skeleton memeCaption this Meme
5 Comments
Lyoll M
1 up, 1d,
2 replies
Ring galaxy | BUT STILL SEEK CLARITY | image tagged in ring galaxy | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Approved, despite "contray" and "zero's" as a plural.
TheseSharesAreAboutNotSharing
0 ups, 24h,
1 reply
Are you daft. In the words of Seth Rogen who I know through an acquaintance of a business partner of a family member, in his movie shtick for 'Knocked Up': 'Who gives a rat's ass?!' If I generously choose to poorly draft/sketch over and over iNvAlUaBlE theorems on some deflated website that is dust, why make it worse with trollish apologetics. Why throw it all back in my face what is giving. That is not going to help drive the project. Why not share my junk and maybe someone else besides yourself will comprehend. Can you learn to read what the symbols and words I am using are stating. That might help to change ANYTHING, otherwise, nicely I ask again, hyt [hold your tongue].
Lyoll M
0 ups, 23h,
1 reply
I'm not daft, I just care a lot about how math is communicated. It is, among other things, what I get paid to do.

Again, I suggest to you that your problem in communicating is not that the infinity symbol or any of the other math symbols you are using are difficult: it is that you are not communicating your ideas well.
TheseSharesAreAboutNotSharing
0 ups, 22h
You Guys are Getting Paid | THIS PAYS | image tagged in you guys are getting paid | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
I am at fault. I'm joking with a vey terse meme at your expense. The balls of the balling of the ballers are in your balling court. And just there trying to get through your walls of the Waller's making you are unaware surround your temple of dissembling, with a rhyme.

I sense you do not wish to disappoints Cantor's legacy. All I can say is it is essential you do so. For months, mostly in the mathematics stream, I have typed and proved nothing more essential than ■∞=1■. That is Cantor's own premise found in historical quotes!

Everything I claim derives in the useful purpose that Cantor was unable to achieve. If I had all the money in the world in this moment and the devil asked if I would trade to the most loathsome human being alive in return for your generally acquiescing to the sense that the block bracket above can be used axiomatically, more or less easily, to derive equations like ■e^0={(1-∞)/∞}=$ & {(√2)^0}={(∞-1)/∞}=¥■ where $ and ¥ are our symbols to represent the ratios, of respectively, transcendentals and irrational to themselves, I possibly would.

That is if you could make a single logical inference from the inspired submission about non-emptiness logics to the algebra's typed in this comment. I know, big sentences; life is terrible. Or you could search the goodness of your own nature to try verify that ■∞⁕{ϕ-(1/ϕ)}=∞⁕∞=(∞-1)⁕∞+1■ gives ■{ϕ-(1/ϕ)}={(∞-1)/∞}+1/∞}■ then substituting in our understood-by-us 'Yen ratio' that could become understood-by-you-all ■{ϕ-(ϕ/ϕ)}={(1/∞)+(1/∞)}■ and taking the golden ratio esoterically -a word that obtuse humans use to mean rarely- to be the inverse infinite constant -less gobbledygook than we [~scholarly 'I/You'~] might imagine- ■{(ϕ^2-ϕ)/ϕ}={(1/∞)+(1/∞)}■ then eventually -forgive my eyes closing on themselves- we come to ■1={(∞-1)/∞}+{(∞-1)/∞}■.

There is always is some of our 'trick algebra' that we use hopefully because we are NOT a mean human AND genuinely believe will help humanity. Those sums of Yens -a 'some one' has to learn the terms some time & place---may as well be now & here a Lyoll- are essentially without magnitude; think of zero plus minus zero.
TheseSharesAreAboutNotSharing
0 ups, 22h
Red Forman Dumbass | EVERYONE IS ALREADY WRONG IN THEIR SILENCE SO WHATEVER YOU SAY IS RELATIVELY RIGHT | image tagged in red forman dumbass | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
[continues-because of text overflow limit was reached below] Therefore when you all are verifying do this: imagine that the second constant is spectacular ■[0.00000.....11111.....■ while the first constant is ordinary ■0.11111.....■. The addition of the later to the former involves an infinite bijective of operations -just stop and think- such that the carry for all the one's digits plus one's digits in the sum of both infinitesimal expanses never 'reaches' the lone one's digits of the finite expanse. As a result their is an infinite compounding of carries that 'skips to the front' of the sum. It's plain English and does not bite. The last consequence is that we get ■1=1+{(∞-1)/∞}■ which means to anyone following our dribble until life is given to it we arrive finally at this ■1-1=0-0={(∞-1)/∞}■ which is just minus zero aka Yen.

The reason the ratio of an irrational over itself equals a magnitudeless

......F FOR NEW THOUGHTS..........

minus zero is because from above easily understood. If ■[0.00000.....11111.....+0.11111.....■ is extended to ■[0.00000.....11111.....+11111.....11111.11111.....11111....■ then our phantom one carry 'to the front' does nothing more than add [concatenate for clever folks like u 'n' i] another one in front of an endless integer/decimal ones string. so all you need believe despite SO MANY UNVOICED MISGIVINGS ON YOUR PART AND A LOT OF SNARKY TALK THAT INSPIRES ME TO KEEP TYPING is ■{(ϕ/ϕ) + (ϕ/ϕ)}=(ϕ/ϕ)■ and so magically TYPING is ■(ϕ/ϕ) = {(ϕ/ϕ)}-(ϕ/ϕ)}={-0}■ -HOW MUCH MORE PERSONAL CAN I GET- https:/i-view/9tc52y.jpg NOW I HAVE TO USE MORE ALL CAPS TO BE CONSISTENTLY UNIGNORED. LOL. THANKS FOR TOLLERATING MY COMMENT-FIT. I enjoyed listening to tech music so rest assured it was pleasant.

As Bill Murry said prophetically in LIT...
'Mean's OK.'

Oh but you asked as the truth of what i wrote dawns and your responsibility to partake??? What of the ratio of transcendentals to themselves. Is the Dollar Sign constant negatively magnitudeless and what would that mean? How should we talk of the jargon of $ that we are making up to talk on it???? Give it a go. Say whatever strikes your fancy about what makes ¥ non-numerical while negative Yen as Dollar Sign. I grade on a scale of one to infinity...
Waiting Skeleton memeCaption this Meme
Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
AWESOME A LENGTHY TEMPLATE FOR THE TEXT THAT ANOTHER POPULAR MATH STREAM CALLS A 'RAFT OF WORDS'. IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION THEY SEEM TO BE TOO PROUD TO GET IN A JET BOAT WHEN OFFERED A RIDE. ANYWAY. SINCE APPARENTLY WE'VE BEEN RELEGATED TO THE JUST FOR FUN STREAM, WHY NOT HAVE FUN. I DO NOT MEAN EITHER ROASTING MORE CONDUITS FOR MATH. ————————————————— I MEAN INSTEAD -THE CLOCK IS TICKING ON THESE LARGE INSPIRED TEXT BLOCKS AS MY WRISTS TIGHTEN UP- WHY NOT SHARE WHAT'S GOING ON. SURE THERE HAVE BEEN A HUNDRED FEATURES WITH A FEW REJECTS. THERE HAVE BEEN MANY HUNDREDS OF UN-DOCUMENTED PROOFS THIS YEAR. WE KNOW WE ARE IN THE RIGHT AND THE KNOWN POPULAR OVER REACHING IDEAS ON MATHS ARE WRONG. ————————————————— NO JUDGEMENT. I MEAN LOOK AT DYSON. OR ROWLINGS. OR ME. WHAT IS TOUGHER TO SELL. MUSH? THE MOON ITSELF. SO I CANNOT GET UPSET ANYMORE. THOUGH IT IS PROBABLY THE CASE THE FOUNTAIN WILL BECOME UNUSABLE FROM DISUSE. GOD THAT OTHER MOD WAS COMPARING PRODUCTIVE EFFORT TO PUPPIES AND SMILING CHILDREN. WHAT CAN YOU DO. ————————————————— ANYWAY I REALIZED OUR LATEST CATCH EARLIER THIS HOUR. IT WAS REVISITING A PREVIOUS RARELY RE-USED APPROACH. WHO AM I KIDDING. NO ONE IS LISTENING. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHEN I COMPARE A FOUNDATIONAL LOGIC/ALGEBRA TO A INFINITE STRING OF ADVERBIAL MODIFIED PRIMITIVE 'NO-INGS' PUN INNAPLICABLE. ME WAITING FOR COLLEAGUES TO BE AWARE WE ARE NOT INEPT; ALL THE WHILE WE HOLD FAST TO OUR PREFERENCE FOR INEPTITUDE; THIS STREAM IS CREDITED ELSEWHERE, IN THAT OTHER STREAM, WITH ACCEPTING LOGICAL TREATISE. YET CAN FEEDBACK BE GIVEN. CAN CHANGE BE CONCEIVED. WE HOPE. SO IF ZERO IS EXCLUSIVELY ZERO-ISH THEN BEING SO PLAIN SPOKEN WE ARE SURE RO BE ACCUSED OF BLASPHEMY IN 'MATHS'? ————————————————— WELL IT'S NOT BECAUSE ZERO IS AN ACT OF ESTABLISHING THAT IS JUST AS MUCH AT A CONTRAY DISADVANTAGE AS ADJECTIVIALLY CHARATERIZING ZERO ITSELF AS 'IS-EMPTY' OR 'IS-NOT-EMPTY'. WHY THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ADVERBIAL AND ADJECTIVIAL MODIFICATION? WELL BECAUSE THE LATER DOES PRESUME AXIOMATIC ZERO. THIS THEN DENIES A DECONSTRUCTION OF A PARADOXICAL FOUNDING. ————————————————— THAT IS AN INFINITE TREE OF (IS)(IS-NOT) MODIFIERS TO (NOT__FULL_STOP) ITSELF HAS NO INTRIGUING DIAGONALIZATION. ON THE OTHER HAND AN INFINITE TREE OF (ISLY)(IS-NOTLY) MODIFIES TO (ISING,ISN'TING) IS INTRIGUING. THERE CAN BE AN UNLOGICALLY ENUMERATED ABSOLUTELY REPETIOUSLY EVALUATED EMPTINESS OR NON-EMPTINESS. ————————————————— THAT'S THE SPANNER IN THE WORKS -'ROD'- WE MUST REMOVE. SO OF COURSE WE IN OUR NATIVE TONGUE OF A FEW YEARS, WAILING IN THE WINDS OF CHRIST'S, PUN INTENDED AFTERMATH, DE- AXIOMATIZE NON-EMPTINESS. THEN AS NECESSARY WE DID SOME HEAVY LIFTING TO EXPUNGE THOSE MINUS ZERO'S FROM OUR INSTANTIATED MATH REAL, AKA REDO PARADIGM!