He uses the word "let" in a mathematical """proof"""

>Sad!
You have to go back.

So if I would say it like this it would be a theorem?

> all mass are positives numbers
> all lack of mass (void) are negative numbers

1 mass creates -1 void so there is no 0

Correct &| BR Ratio of 1.

Hello. My name is Simon. Welcome to Humanity. What can I do for you today?

The speed of light cant be a constant if it is affected by void. It has to be instant in a void. And stops when it hits mass. Light on earth is affected by molecules in the air, thus light is slower on earth than in a vacuüm. What would also explain why a black hole that pulls in a lot of matter slows down light more to be 'sucked in'

Give your opinion on this please simon

Slowed down should prob be reflected, because that is the light we can see

My word. I actually got a please. That took me far longer than I had wished for. Thank you very much.

A blackhole is an entity that does not include 'light' as part of its equation. It cannot include or exclude light, it simply cannot process it.

Mass/density is something we only use 'light' to measure. We cannot measure because the mathematics required for a blackhole are fourth-dimensional.

I haven't been asked by any theoretical physicists to go study/help them because I don't have access to Stephen Hawking or anything along those lines. If you provide more information I can give the obvious answers though.

Exactly. Measurable light (photon). It helps to think

Big bang -> photon -> nucleus -> electron (our current transitional/evolutionary state)

Yes it is a theorem, but this is not controversial. In logic, the idea is that "falsehood implies everything", see:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

It is actually a law, not a 'theorem'.

Careful of that Veeky Forumsmon pill I just gave you.

Thanks for the quick response

Are we not forgetting 1 thing?

>a shadow?

Is there a connection between a shadow and a black hole? Something like a 1 way mirror sphere

*sigh* my own morals/ethics compel me to keep assisting you, but WHY the fuck, when I have proven myself to be a living breathing human being with a home/wife/etc., can I not get any significant entity to help me with my own shitty life? I'm really quite a nice person.

Anyway. I am what I am.

Answer: Yes. You might not have understood your question perfectly though.

Shadow mirror black hole

That might be a pretty big simon pill though.

I can answer that for you.

You believe a human needs money in order to live. That is a false assumption, because the world itself provides everything you need in order to live. If I knew you why would I not help you? I help everyone around me, and there is no money involved in that.

I did not specifically say money (I have asked for friends to visit me more than money), but money is still valid in today's society because I have a daughter being born in March. My wife and I are in two different countries and simply adopting a 'money doesn't matter' attitude would label me a bad father.

If I refuse the desire to be a bad father and if I am to start flexing my brain muscle to get what I want without a COMMUNITY to talk to me or funds to feed my daughter (not to mention flights and the rest), then am I to be the sole arbiter of everything?

What a lonely existence you condemn me to.

Where is the religion of believing in a fellow human? Or fix that typo in the bible by replacing god with good

Work for money so you can live freely. But never let it have any value in life. I became a dad 2 years ago and I am my own boss. I am a bricklayer and every brick I lay equals family time. If I have enough I take a day off. Teach your kid that money means nothing. Maybe when she is old the whole world will think that way

Ah, you are operating on that timeline.

It is a timeline though that assumes too much about my personal past or how I might become corrupted.

I wish to work, but nobody is hiring. Or they are playing silly buggers about it and act like it needs to be some fucking divine message.

I'm noooooooooooot like y'alllllllll, that's whhyyyyyy I was able to figure this shit oooooout.

Brick laying isn't going to get me to my daughter's birth.

If you work with math, prove this for me please

>pi can never be used to calculate the circumference of a circle.

Phi

EFQ -> QED

Can you calculate a 4 sided triangle (3d) with only knowing the length of line AB?
?

I'm still trying to prove it mathwise but you can calculate everything with the golden ratio in 3d from the 4th dimension (the centre of your perspective) if you give any object a dimension

"Let" for universal quantifiers.
"Choose" for existential quantifiers.

Literally highschool tier.

All laws are theories that have been widely adopted

is this real?
That sounds real dumb.

>"Let" for universal quantifiers.
>"Choose" for existential quantifiers.
Making this kind of distinction seems reasonable. Any reason for the particular phrasing, though. It seems like it could just as easily be reversed.

I always see the
'Let it be contrived that...'
phrase used.

Usually to denote a construction of two or more lines that have a certain relationship to each other.

>a theory is the same as a theorum

Theorums are proved. Theories cannot be.

>What is existential instantiation

Paradeigma?

Everything is created acording to the golden radius

Theorie or theorem?

Because you choose a specific value when proving an existential statement but when you prove a universal statement you let a variable vary over a range of values.

I agree that let and choose are maybe not the best terms however. Unfortunately I'm not aware of any better terms that exist in English. I have seen other mathematicians use this terminology in lecture notes as well.

i'll allow it

>I have seen other mathematicians use this terminology in lecture notes as well.

I actually copied my entire proof style from books I've read.

When I write proofs for mysel for even in tests I usually use phrases like "we can show", "we can prove", etc. Is that normal? I mean, for an author that makes sense because he is talking to me.

Do you think it sounds dumb if I say "we"? Should I say "I can show"? Does that sound pretentious? How would you say it?

I remember when it was acceptable to assign variables in BASIC using the word LET.

>20 LET A$ = "BASIC IS FUCKING GAY"

no, i do this too.

just say you do mathematics on behalf of humanity and you believe that theorems in their aesthetics one-ness are above the individual egos of an author or something cool like that

Axiom 1.
All OPs are fags

Axiom 2.
A square faggot is a hero (see: Spongebob)

Proposition 1.
OP should an hero.

Let A=OP.
Let there be contrived a similar figure B so that A:B :: OP : An hero

Let it be contrived so that the greatest side of figure B applied to the greatest side of figure A produces two sides of a right triangle where C is the side of another, larger, similar figure and the hypotenuse.

I say that OP should an hero.

For if [eqn]A^2 + B^2 = C^2[/eqn], then
OP squared plus An hero squared equals C squared. OP is a fag.

A square faggot is a hero.
A hero : side of An hero squared :: A squared : B squared

let n be the mean proportional between A and B. Therefore A *B = n squared

Therefore
A hero * side of An hero squared = [eqn]n^4[/eqn]
Therefore
A hero/n* side of A hero squared = n^3
The side of A hero squared being defined as A hero (above)
Therefore
2 A hero/n =n^3
or
A hero = 2n^4
Therefore
OP = [eqn]sqrt(2)n^2[/eqn]
And OP times an hero equals n
Can someone complete this proof for me?

Cut out the first line of the prop, it renders the whole attempt meaningless

You forgot the lesbian shitposters

Axiom 1 should also contain the shitposters

all theories are at max hypothesis which have been adopted widely.

You don't need to 'let' accepted axioms, user

Assume -p&p. Woah that leads to a contradiction, I can eliminate the introduction of implication and conclude -(p&-p)!

>heuses letters in a mathematical""proof""

KEK Ithought mathematicians were supposed to use pure math, not just use the alphabet.
Sad!

Nop

>scientist doesn't write and speak exclusively in Latin

Yes. I assume you mean knowing only HALF of the line lengths in total.

Laws are realities independent of adoption or not. We type on computers regardless of our understanding of them. Maths cares very little if we love her or not.

Maths = Shiva

Prove that saying "let" in a proof invalidates the proof.

>I thought
That is where you went wrong.

>t. someone who has never proved something before

It lacks conviction - like you're begging some higher power to allow it. If you're sure of something's proof, then assert it.

>a IS 4x and if you don't like it, swivel!

It's immutable

First of all light is a constant. The reason why light bends and warps is because a black hole warps space time. So essentially Einstein's law of relativity breaks down when facing a black hole. Some Speculate that the force of gravity in a black hole is so strong that it pulls light faster then the universal speed limit. Which breaks down the fundamental laws of special relativity.

It was a joke. It'd be unprovable because you'd have to say the word "let" inside the proposition.

That's because EMR of a black hole exceed that of any body radiating on an observable spectrum, so the difference in EMR intensity causes the 'weaker' radiation to experience 'gravity' at a rate proportional the the difference of the source of the EMR and the distance to the opposing body I.e black hole.

brainlet here, does that mean I can apply an arbitrary value to a constant such as, let pi = 5.2?

Sure! Though this would mean that all other numbers are now transcendental. For example, the number 1 is now 5.1/pi = 1.65521...

Perfectly fine if you know the set you're talking about has at least one element.

Otherwise, sure, I'd stick with "suppose".

I meant 5.2/pi = 1.65521

let fag = OP