/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11065407
>Riemann hypothesis is false.
All you did was construct your own number system and extend the riemann function so that it has more zeroes. That doesn't answer Riemann Hypothesis either way. RH asks you if there are any COMPLEX nontrivial zeroes. Numbers in the neighborhood of infinity don't count.

>>11065422
Meant nontrivial zeroes outside the critical strip, of course. Point still holds.

>>11065422
>All you did was construct your own number system
No, you're wrong. I used Euclid's number system and examined a set of those numbers which everyone else failed to notice. It's like if there was a number X and zeta(X) = 0, and I was the first person to put X into the function. Me being the first person to put it into the function doesn't mean I invented the number. I invented infinity hat as a convenient notation for describing the number "X," but I certainly did not invent that number.

>RH asks you if there are any COMPLEX nontrivial zeroes.
You are so obviously wrong. Pic is from the first page of Clay's description of the problem. Did you even think to find out what the problem was asking before you said that I didn't find the answer?
https://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/official_problem_description.pdf

>Meant nontrivial zeroes outside the critical strip, of course. Point still holds.
The point holds in your imagination where RH is defined by your opinion. IRL, the problem is defined most famously by Clay and they make it obvious ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THE PAPER that you are completely wrong.
https://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/official_problem_description.pdf

>official_problem_description.pdf
>official_problem_description.pdf
>official_problem_description.pdf
>official_problem_description.pdf
>official_problem_description.pdf
Get it? Your opinion doesn't matter.

>another crankery "paper"
People learn about extended line and projective spaces in what, first year of uni? Maybe OP will get there at some point, lol.

>>11065407
When I was about 5 or 6, I would always ask my teacher what the number before infinity was. He would always say "infinity is not a number, it's a concept". I eventually got it. Apparently, an adult who has a solid grasp on university-level mathematics still doesn't understand.

I don't believe you are schizophenic. I think you simply cannot accept that you are wrong. You are convinced that you invented mathematics and solved one of the greatest problems. You simply cannot and will not accept that you actually have done nothing of value, considering that no professional mathematicians have taken your work seriously.

This is worse than someone saying "If sqrt -1 is i and the 2nd dimension, let's call 0/0 j and make it the third dimension". Because your joke isn't even funny, and it takes precious time out of our one life to understand it.

The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.

>>11066366
Cool. Where did your kindergarten teacher study math? Also, if you every see me getting close to anything good happening for myself, then you will have an opportunity to make a lot of money by killing your family and then killing yourself.

>>11066338
you too. big bucks.

>>11065448
Literally the first sentence:
>The Riemann zeta function is the function of the complex variable s
>the complex variable s
This implies we only consider the values of Zeta at a complex number.
At least learn to read basic statements.

>>11066498
Which number do you mean to imply isn't complex? Are you trying to say that there exist no complex numbers whose imaginary parts are zero? What I'm implying is that later on, if you're still alive by the time I can get you, then you're going to regret making these stupid statements.

you are a nigger tooker
dumb nigger

>>11066498
>Which number do you mean to imply isn't complex?
I'm not implying anything.
It's very simple.
>>11065422 said Riemann hypothesis only concerns complex numbers:
> RH asks you if there are any COMPLEX nontrivial zeroes.
Then you answer (here >>11065448):
>You are so obviously wrong.
So if anything you are more than implying than RH isn't only about zeros of the zeta function on the complex plane. Check your own posts and your own source and be less sloppy next time.

> Are you trying to say that there exist no complex numbers whose imaginary parts are zero?
Deducing that from my post would require quite a leap of imagination, but you're quite an artist in that domain I see.

>What I'm implying is that later on, if you're still alive by the time I can get you, then you're going to regret making these stupid statements.
That threat is pretty sad, it makes you sound like a dying hobo trying to get back at the world with empty insults. Cultivate better personal relationship with your relatives instead of lashing out at strangers.

>>11066614
Meant for >>11066589

I have a and b in the "neighbourhood of infinity". Give me one example in which a and b give a different result if a and b are different.

If you cannot find one, then a and b are the same. Your "neighbourhood of infinity" doesn't exist.

>>11066498
>This implies we only consider
>>11066614
>I'm not implying anything.
I see. Ok.

>>11066636
(inf - b) - (inf - c) = c - b
(inf - a) - (inf - c) = c - a
If you woudl have read the paper, you would have seen very many examples of this in the axioms.

>Your "neighbourhood of infinity" doesn't exist.
You are quite stupid if you think I am the discoverer of the neighborhood of infinity. Maybe if you contact the author of pic related MIT course notes, he can tell you who discovered it. My contribution was to design an efficient way to describes the numbers in that neighborhood.

>>11067165
"Neighbourhood of infinity" in the way you use it - funny numbers with hats - isn't the same as "neighbourhood of infinity in the way this author (and people like Alfhors) use it.

The neighbourhood of infinity here is just the complement of a domain in the complex plane. It has two kinds of points in it
>finite z, ie, there exists a real R so that |z| < R
>infinity itself

Your meme hats aren't included in it. You're misunderstanding a (relatively easy) concept. I'd suggest reading Alfhors.

>axioms
That's not a result, and it doesn't show compatibility of your system with the existing system of real numbers.

x + (inf - a) = (inf - (a - x)) =~ inf after the "delay"
x + (inf - b) = (inf - (b - x)) =~ inf likewise

I can do this with all usual operations of a real number x. (inf - a), (inf - b) and (inf) are exactly the same with respect to real numbers.

The bigger problem with this paper (and in fact, with all of your work in general) is that you don't use the words, axioms, and definitions that anyone else uses. You define a real number as a "cut in the real line".
What's a cut, what's a real line ? How do I deduce the group & topological properties of R with this definition (you never really define addition, multiplication, or open sets in your work) ?
Without those definitions, we have to assume you're going to use the 'standard' ones, but the standard definitions of limits aren't compatible with the rest of your paper.
Like for instance take this one bit. What does "diverging" means here, do you define it in terms of epsilons and delta ? But if so, how is that compatible with your "infinity + something" numbers ?
Why is this an axiom/definition, and not a property of a particular topology you are constructing ?
You have a very loose grasp on what limits and infinity mean and you're trying to change them.

>>11067596
It is the same and you are fucking retarded if you don't know the difference between the neighborhood and a number in the neighborhood.


>Your meme hats aren't included in it.
I agree. Hat is not a number. What is your point other than begging for the slow and long suffering of all of your people?

>exactly the same with respect to real numbers.
nice claim you have there. try proving it.

>>11067636
>What's a cut, what's a real line ?
I see you have chosen not to read Definition 2.2 or Remark 2.4. Maybe if you read the paper instead of shitting on it without reading it...

>How do I deduce the group & topological properties of R
You should do it in the way that seems best to you.

>Why is this an axiom/definition, and not a property of a particular topology you are constructing ?
So... you're asking me why I put the definition of "diverges" in a definition?

>you never really define addition, multiplication, or open sets in your work
I don't define addition and multiplication bcause I have axiomatized them. I don't define open sets because I use the standard definition about open balls.

>You have a very loose grasp on what limits and infinity mean
I use the Cauchy definition of the limit. Do you object? I define infinity. Do you deny it?

You're just an idiot who didn't even read the paper, and who will suffer for it later.

>>11067783
Jesse Ventura is eh pretty cool guy. Eh proved Rainmann Hyperthesis and doesn't afraid of anything.

This is another problem that I solved, a less famous one:
For a radius of the origin larger than any natural number, find a real number which lies outside that radius.

>>11066589
>What I'm implying is that later on, if you're still alive by the time I can get you, then you're going to regret making these stupid statements.
Why do you want to kill people who disagree with you?

>>11067872
DEATH TO DETRACTORS
He is a legit schizo and really doesn't understand what he's working with ; his last post proves it

>I use the Cauchy definition of the limit. Do you object? I define infinity. Do you deny it?
And yet he poses "lim 1/x = infinity" as a fucking axiom

What's lim 1/x2 big boy ? What's lim 1/sqrt(x) ? What's lim (5x + 3)/(x + sqrt(x)) ?

Are you going to define fucking axioms for them too

This just became sad a long time ago. Dude read half the Wikipedia article on the Riemann Hypothesis at best and has spent well over a year now furiously insisting that infinity is a complex number while living in a tent.

I went through the /sci/ Bar Mitzvah of trying to teach Tooker math like everyone does, but once you realize that he doesn't know even basic analysis (or did, but no longer does) and his mental illness is so severe he can't follow basic logical sequences or argue in any way other than playing weasely word games it stops being fun.

>>11066431
>if you every see me getting close to anything good happening for myself, then you will have an opportunity to make a lot of money by killing your family and then killing yourself.
>>11066589
>What I'm implying is that later on, if you're still alive by the time I can get you, then you're going to regret making these stupid statements.
>>11067783
>What is your point other than begging for the slow and long suffering of all of your people?
>You're just an idiot who didn't even read the paper, and who will suffer for it later.

Jonathan W. Tooker. Either you fucking behave or I'll post something I've prepared for you. Say you're sorry and pray that I never catch you doing this shit again.

>>11067901
I disagree, I had a good laugh at him just using an image from a basic, undergrad complex analysis course with the words "neighbourhood of infinity" in it, and ignoring that the concept illustrated by it is directly OPPOSITE to what he constructed

>>11067872
You're missing the point about how I want to torture you, not just kill you, and kill your whole family. The reason why I want to do that is to teach fear of the Lord to those who see you mock me with your stupid shit-flinging and then go on to live to tell the tale about it. As it is, you can say truthfully, "I can mock the Lord and the Holy Spirit, and put them to the test with my irreverence, and not suffer for it at all." My intention is to demonstrate that that's not true on long time scales.

>>11067951
Is this why you got expelled from uni ?

>>11067951
I wonder what he is hiding inside his infinitely tall hat ...

>>11067922
I think that if I am able to take control of the military forces and send them to round up your family for death by cruel sexual torture, then you will regret making this post when you could have offered some constructive criticism or chosen not to post at all. As it is, you or your bot operator have declared, "I don't have an ounce of the fear of the Lord in my body," and my intention is teach a masterclass in why the fear of the of the Lord is very important.

>>11067989
Oh, Tookieboy. That wasn't all of it. That was just the taste of it.

>>11067959
I got expelled because the government of the United States of America sent one of its helpers to impersonate a student justice administrator at my university and that person put Brandi Williams' signature on an expulsion form.

>>11067994
>tookieboy
kek

>>11067951
Meh, this turned from fun schizo baiting to actual cringe in no time.

>>11067989
>when you could have offered some constructive criticism or chosen not to post at all.
I didn't post earlier in this thread. I have kindly offered constructive criticism to you many times earlier in other threads. Yet all you do is to fling shit like this back. You should be very thankful that I have a conscience. You surely seem to do not.

As hard as you cringe now, you will cringe a lot more when your family gets tortured to death because you poo-pooed the Lord's justice.

>>11068027
Cringing so hard, almost broke my neck.

If you believe in God, Tooker, then you ought to start to ask to for forgiveness. Just as I ask for forgiveness from you right now.

>>11068025
If you are someone who offered constructive criticism was neither obviously wrong nor wrong, then you are one of the many people whose earlier criticisms stimulated that which makes version 7 of the paper different than version 1.

You shouldn't call my reminder about the covenant I made with your ancestors "shit flinging." If you want something other than another reminder about that, then don't post
>haha lol
>schizo is wrong but I don't say why
>schizo says infinity is a real number
>even though schizo prove these are real numbers I just keep saying you invented your own number system, and I never point to an error in the proof that proves I'm wrong
>i don't read the paper and then say it's wrong

See, most of you don't know the origin of that schizo meme you use, and you use it anyway, and my opinion is that history will record that you were very, very, very stupid to be so sure that I'm not who I am.

>>11068037
Later on, I bet a broken neck will seem to you like a dream about how things could have gone so much better for you.

>>11068046
What do you want me to forgive you for?

>>11067165
Implying in the 4chan sense of "not saying something explicitly, letting the reader guess for himself" =/= "stating that A implies B". The latter, being explicit, is actually incompatible with the former.

See here: let it be known! I made this thread about math. It was derailed, but I was not the one who derailed it, and now this is a thread about the Sovereign Lord's justice.

>>11068049
> your ancestors "shit flinging"
I have no ancestery with them. /sci/ is not a familiy.
>See, most of you don't know the origin of that schizo meme you use, and you use it anyway
I have never called you schizo. I am sorry that they do that.
>>11068051
>What do you want me to forgive you for?
For merely thinking of revenge. And you sure as hell believe I can get it if I please. But I choose not to. I think you should too.

>>11068065
I'm talking about the covenant in Deuteronomy pertaining to what to do if you want things to go well for your children.

>>11068058
>Claim to be the Lord
>Claim no responsibility

>>11068078
I will happily assume responsibility for every single thing in the universe besides what other people choose to do with their own free will.

I take responsibility for not killing these infidels' ancestors to prevent their ridicule from coming to me today, but I do not take responsibility for the words they choose to use.

Any who thinks I am not the Sovereign Lord, let him declare it.

>>11068069
Heh, what I want to you to remember from this thread is that I did the hard thing for you. Agression is simple. Mercy is hard. Are you up to do the hard thing? If you really are a God, shouldn't you be able to do the most difficult things of all?

>>11068101
So your opinion is that chilling out is hard but scouring the Earth to exterminate every last trace of the lineage of my enemies is easy? I have a different opinion than you.

>>11068108
>So your opinion is that scouring the Earth to exterminate every last trace of the lineage of my enemies is easy?
It would be.

>>11068101
>? If you really are a God,
It seems like you maybe are not very familiar with God or what godliness is. God has promised destruction, lament, and tribulations at the end times. So for your case, "If you are God...," you should consider, "If you are God, then will you keep your promise to reap so much destruction on the Earth that only a small remnant survives?"

Pic related, that's God the Psalmist is writing about. God is the one who is happy to dash his enemies' children against the rocks.

>>11068121
It would still be easy.

>>11068051
If you are the real Tooker, stop embarrassing yourself, please. You're talented. Don't let schizophrenia ruin your life.

>>11068049
Surely you understand that you threatening to sexually torture to death entire families is one of the reason people assume you have mental issues?
The discussion would be more civil and productive if you just refrained from issuing death threats in a thread about the Riemann Hypothesis.

>>11068130
And you think not scouring the Earth would be harder?

>>11068134
What ruined your life, and also the lives of your family members, is your certainty that I am not who I am. Why are you so sure?

Who knows a freemason? Go to them and ask them if Jonathan Warren Tooker has rank 47. Then ask them if that is the rank that only the Sovereign Lord God has. Even if they are only peons, I think they can get an answer to that question for you.

I am not embarrassed at all by these threads. I look forward to using the transcripts to mock my enemies later, "You see why this is happening to you? It's because your Dad is just a piece of shit who wanted to shit up the Lord's thread about what used to be the most important unsolved problem in mathematics." At that time, I think you are the ones who will be embarrassed. I think you will think, "The price that is being extracted from me now is not worth that moment of satisfaction I got from calling him a schizo in that thread that one time."

>>11068147
I do have mental issues. I don't deny it. Psychological disease is the thing I deny. I am quite healthy.

The discussion stopped being civil and/or productive when you all started mocking me with your criticisms which are not even well-defined, and would be plainly exposed as based on fallacious reasoning if not outright lies if these mockers' criticisms were levied in a scholarly way. Do you have something scholarly to say or do you just want to whine about how you don't like the Lord, his rhetoric, or his justice?


It seems to be your opinion that the thread stopped being civil or productive when I started making the reminders about my promises, but my opinion is that it stopped being civil or productive when these mockers' started throwing around fallacious criticisms and claiming that I have some disease which I do not have.

>>11068182
This is a science board.
Religion goes in >>>/x/

>>11068200
Anon, disagreement with someone over the content of their points is never uncivil on its own, no matter how stupid or poorly conceived the disagreements are. This discussion stopped being civil when you started threatening people who disagree with you.

>>11068182
>And you think not scouring the Earth would be harder?
For you, yes. For a God, all is easy.

>>11068216
Disagreement is not uncivil but obvious, deliberate, malicious lies and mockery are uncivil. Also, civility is not really something I give a fuck about. Scholarliness is thing I'm going for.

>>11068231
Is God a scholar?

>>11068231
>Also, civility is not really something I give a fuck about. Scholarliness is thing I'm going for.
But scholarliness relies on a certain degree of civility. You can only have a scholarly discussion or cooperation on a topic if those with something to contribute can focus on the topic at hand instead of dealing with death threats. If you shout down all opposition, what you are left with is the opposite of scholarship. And your opinion on whether that opposition is worthwhile does not change that.

>>11068235
I am, among many other things.

>>11068244
>among many other things.
You mean like a Joker? I mean, a Toker.

>>11067848
kay, why should I care.

>>11068243
And for that reason, I have not responded to any scholarly comment with death threats. If it is your opinion that obvious fallacies are scholarly, and that unsupported claims are scholarly, and that mockery is scholarly.

Fallacy isn't based on opinions. The truth is the truth, and fallacy is fallacy.

You fucking retards are so fucking stupid you make want to kill even more people than I already did with your, "Shouting down all opposition," memes. Every comment in this thread even remotely related to RH is completely fucking retarded, and it is so fucking retarded that is neither civil nor scholarly.

And now you with your, "He can't stand to be wrong," lies are shitting the thread up even more. I love it when people prove me wrong. The reason I am pretty much always right about everything today is because of all the people who kind enough to prove me wrong yesterday, thus affording me the opportunity to unfuck myself. Do you not understand that I make these threads specifically to reap scholarly criticisms? Are you so fucking retarded that you can conflate these mockers' words with earnest criticism?

You are so fucking stupid with your, "He can't stand opposition," memes. You try to frame it like because I want to kill everyone who mocks me, it means I want to kill everyone who disagrees with me, and that does not follow at all, and it is such a blatantly obvious fallacy that your comment is neither civil nor scholarly, and you should be killed for it.

>>11068273
If you had half a brain in your head, then you could discern the relevance from the context.

>>11068248
>Virgin The Toker vs. Chad God

Civility measure politeness, and fallacies are not polite at all. They as far from polite as my reminders, which is to say that they are completely impolite, and uncivil. Not only that, I don't give a fuck about politeness or civility, and none of these posts contain any statements which can formulated mathematically without being immediately demonstrably false.

Not only that, there is FUCKING ZERO civility required to make written statements which can be reformulated as mathematical principle.

Every comment in this thread is either a mockery of scholarliness, or it has nothing to do with scholarliness at all.

>>11068200
>The discussion stopped being civil and/or productive when you all started mocking me with your criticisms
That's not a excuse to resort to death threats. This is not a fully public space but this is still an area of discussion. If you have any decency, self-control and self-respect, and for your own sake, please refrain from issuing violent threats from now on.

>Do you have something scholarly to say
I already did here >>11066614 by comparing your statement with the source you used for it and showing a discrepancy between the two.

>It seems to be your opinion that the thread stopped being civil or productive when I started making the reminders about my promises
It may have not been an exemplar of scholarly debate but it was relatively topic-focused. All your opponents until that post >>11066431 have been on point. And you're the one who introduced threats with that very post. No matter who may have started it you certainly have been the biggest contributor to the unhealthy climate of this thread. Instead of trying to shift the blame towards others, you should be reflecting upon your own mistakes.

>>11068275
>Every comment in this thread even remotely related to RH is completely fucking retarded
That is accurate, and that applies most of all to your posts. Reread them.

>>11068286
>I make threats of death and torture because people are impolite to me
>but I don't give a fuck about politeness or civility
you can only pick one of these beliefs tookie

>>11068273
Oh so its not important enough to explain.
Thanks mate.

>>11068294
You didn't show the discrepancy though you fucking piece of shit. You only said there was a discrepancy without showing what the discrepancy was. My opinion is that you know it, and you didn't show the discrepancy because there is none, and you were just shitting up my thread with your unscholarly bullshit, and my opinion is that the only reason you're posting here is to mock me, encourage me to remind you about the Lord's justice, and then twist me hating your mockery of scholarliness into me hating disagreement.

>>11068298
Case in point, if something I wrote about RH was retarded, then someone could cite that thing and explain why it was retarded, and I would not be able to post an effective rebuttal. However, the reason no such thing is cited is because no such thing exists, and making claims without supporting is a complete mockery of civility and scholarliness.

>>11068298
This fucking idiot, man. What kind of a fucking retard comes with the line of rhetoric, "What you wrote is retarded but the posts saying that what you wrote was retarded were also retarded." They can't both be retarded you fucking moron. Either I am wrong or they are, and they ones who never support their claims that I am the one who is wrong.

One of these things is true:
(A) I am the only on in this thread who knows that a claim can only have merit when it is accompanied with supporting evidence.
(B) Everyone in this thread knows that as well as I do and they make these unsupported claims anyways because their only intention is to mock me.

>>11068301
I agree.

>>11068275
>And for that reason, I have not responded to any scholarly comment with death threats.
Yes, you have.

>If it is your opinion that obvious fallacies are scholarly,
Yes.
>and that unsupported claims are scholarly,
Yes.
>and that mockery is scholarly.
No.

>Are you so fucking retarded that you can conflate these mockers' words with earnest criticism?
No, you are so fucking retarded that you conflate earnest criticism with mockers' words.

>You try to frame it like because I want to kill everyone who mocks me, it means I want to kill everyone who disagrees with me,
I understand that. But the problem with this philosophy is that you are very bad at distinguishing between people who honestly disagree with you and people who mock you. You have been accusing a lot of people who are honestly trying to help you of trying to mock you instead. I want to hereby advise you that you are not good at telling the difference between those groups of people, and you should stop trusting your judgement of this.

>your comment is neither civil nor scholarly, and you should be killed for it.
Case in point.

>Do you not understand that I make these threads specifically to reap scholarly criticisms?
No, I do not understand that, because pointing out to someone where there judgement is lacking is one of the greatest scholarly criticisms one can receive, and you have been very consistently refusing to listen to such advice. If reaping scholarly criticism is truly your aim, I suggest you spend some time practicing your ability to receive it in the way it was intended.

>>11068337
so which one of them are you picking

>>11068349
>>11068349
>If it is your opinion that obvious fallacies are scholarly,
>Yes.
Pic related, the dictionary says you're fucking wrong as fuck. See how I supported my claim that you are wrong with evidence?

>unsupported claims are scholarly,
I can prove you wrong with the dictionary. What evidence can you offer for a rebuttal?

>you conflate earnest criticism with mockers' words.
A statement, "This is wrong," is just shit flinging. An earnest criticism says, "This is wrong because X,Y,Z." If you think there was a claim made in this thread that I am wrong, and that that claim was supported by evidence, then link to the post, cite what you think was the claim, and cite what you think was the supporting evidence.

My conjecture is that there is no such post in this thread.

>>11068329
>(A) I am the only on in this thread who knows that a claim can only have merit when it is accompanied with supporting evidence.
>(B) Everyone in this thread knows that as well as I do and they make these unsupported claims anyways because their only intention is to mock me.
Not him, but what about
(C) They don't understand that aren't providing enough evidence.
(D) You don't understand their evidence.

>>11068402
Regarding (D): what evidence? There was no evidence anywhere. If you think there was a post with a claim and evidence in it, then link to it.
Regarding (C): The maximum amount of evidence anywhere was zero, and I do not consider it a realistic possibility that they didn't know that zero evidence was "not enough."

Not one claim that I wrong was supported by even a thin shred of evidence anywhere in this thread, and if there was a thin shred of evidence given with a claim somewhere, then you could link to it, and then you all could spend the remaining ~200 posts writing
>schizo BTFO

>>11068349
>>11068401
>Pic related, the dictionary says you're fucking wrong as fuck.
oops, pic now

>>11068349
>>11068349
>obvious fallacies are scholarly,
>Yes.

Dictionary says something is scholarly if it is
>involving or relating to serious academic study.
Unsupported claims have nothing to do with this.

Dictionary also says something is scholarly if it is
>having or showing knowledge, learning, or devotion to academic pursuits.
Unsupported claims don't have or show that.

What definition of "scholarly" are using? Is it one from a dictionary or do you just invent your own definitions for words so you don't have to admit that your opinion is wrong?

>>11068426
>what evidence? There was no evidence anywhere. If you think there was a post with a claim and evidence in it, then link to it.
You might be right regarding this thread (I am too lazy to check), but I was really thinking about all of your threads.
>then you all could spend the remaining ~200 posts writing
>>schizo BTFO
I'd never write that. I know others do, but I do not condone it. Let it be heard that I think those calling you that are despicable people.

But let it also be heard that I do condone calling you despicable. Because you really are most of the time. Or maybe it's better to say dickhead. Maybe not. At least not today ;)

>>11068474
>but I was really thinking about all of your threads.
More claims with no evidence.

My unsupported claim is that all of the threads were structured basically like this one, and criticisms from those threads which were neither stupid nor wrong are reflected in the current version of the paper.

My claim is that you can go through my entire years-long post history and you would never (pretty much) find even one instance of a comment of the form "This is wrong because of XYZ," to which I responded with reminders about the Lord's justice as opposed to a careful consideration of the merits of XYZ. If you did find one, then look a little earlier and see if I hadn't just debunked XYZ a moment earlier.

>>11068513
>>11068490
>>11068474
>>11068448
>>11068434
>>11068426
>>11068402
>>11068401
>>11068358
>>11068349
>>11068337
>>11068329
>>11068298
>>11068294
>>11068292
>>11068286
>>11068284
>>11068280
>>11068275
>>11068273
>>11068248
>>11068244
>>11068243
>>11068235
>>11068231
>>11068220
>>11068216
>>11068212
>>11068200
>>11068182
>>11068147
>>11068134
>>11068130
>>11068121
>>11068120
>>11068108
>>11068101
>>11068097
>>11068090
>>11068078
>>11068069
>>11068065
>>11068058
>>11068054
>>11068051
>>11068049
>>11068046
>>11068037
>>11068027
>>11068025
>>11068008
>>11067999
>>11067998
>>11067989
>>11067959
>>11067951
>>11067928
>>11067922
>>11067901
>>11067888
>>11067872
>>11067848
>>11067798
>>11067783
>>11067636
>>11067596
>>11067165
>>11066636
>>11066617
>>11066614
>>11066613
>>11066589
>>11066498
>>11066431
>>11066366
>>11066338
>>11065448
>>11065425
>>11065422
>>11065407

>>11068490
If you think I deserve hatred and contempt then you deserve to die.

Do you think I deserve hatred an contempt because it is my intention to fulfill the prophecies about the Lord's wrath? For what do I deserve hatred and contempt?

>>11068535
I don't think you derserve anything. I don't think of the world like that. But I do think this type of behavior is idiotic and doesn't serve you well. I want to make that clear to you.

>>11068553
Do you think the Soverein Lord God was being an idiot when he told the prophets to prophecy the same in an ancient language?

>>11068535
>>11068570
You should really read my post again. Extend your imagination. You know who I am.

>>11068553
>I want to make that clear to you.
Then post your supporting evidence or else keep it to yourself and admit that you don't give a fuck about me.

>>11068577
Evidence of your self-destructive behavior? I think this thread is full of it. That was what I was talking about.

>>11068587
How is it self-destructive? Is it your opinion that if someone refuses to believe that I am who I am, and they make problems for me because of their disbelief and their dislike, then I have destroyed myself? I am who I am, and the larger number of people I can rack up going on record in opposition to me then more easily I can make the remnant smaller.

>>11068602
>How is it self-destructive?
You say you yearn the life of a scholar, yet you have spent the last 4 hours arguing with strangers whether you are entitled to put forward death threats on a regular basis.

I don't yearn for that life, I already have it. What I yearn for is a river of the blood of my enemies for me to wade through.

You all keep saying "death threats" like you're trying to frame my posts as some big crimes rather than free speech, but if you look at what I wrote, then I think you will find that I made no threats. I was careful not to, in fact. What I've been doing for four hours is exercising the free speech rights that every USA citizen has, even ones who are no the Sovereign Lord.

I'm doing it because I have literally nothing better to do, and the reason for that is because so many of you all get together to shit on me collaboratively that the entire world denies me any reward for my work.

And if you quite closely, I was never like this until you left me to rot in the gutter.

>>11068524
bless you, (you)poster!

I am sorry, Tooker. I have never harrassed you like people do here, but you have harrassed me multiple times when it was totally uncalled for. I am just trying to explain that you often turn your friends to enemies, and you make your enemies even stronger. What do I gain from this? It seems it is absolutely detrimental for me. You make it impossible for people to help you.

It's a fucking wonder that there still exists people that try to engage with you in a scholarly manner. Because you sure as hell do everything in your power to chase them away.

>>11068697
>You make it impossible for people to help you.
Buy my book. It costs $10. Is that not easy enough?

>>11068715
What a toke

>>11068697
Then you must be the one who was saying that the Riemann hypothesis is about zeros inside the critical strip: Mr. Mild Catfont, if I'm not mistaken. You're in really bad company on this website, man. Me too, but perhaps I see the truth of just how bad it really is a little more clearly than you?

>>11068739
If you think that's a joke, check out my sales dashboard

>>11065407
Stop posting your bogus p=np "proof" on /g/ please, for your own good, stop it with the schizo shit and get a job.

>>11068788
Whats your book about?

>>11068848
From medieval fantasy to ultra-high tech, the Weather Vane is a fast-paced adventure full of fun and excitement, literary flourish, and colorful characters. A group of ascendant masters find themselves in the afterlife and learn that they are newly recruited into the cosmic battle of good versus evil. Before they can join the fight, shipwreck strikes and they are lost in the ether. Stranded in a magical land beyond the reaches of the universe, The Weather Vane follows our crew of heroes as they try to piece things back together.

Also, I have a shirt you can buy:
teespring[doot]com/infinity-hat-plain

>>11068881
>From medieval fantasy to ultra-high tech, the Weather Vane is a fast-paced adventure full of fun and excitement, literary flourish, and colorful characters. A group of ascendant masters find themselves in the afterlife and learn that they are newly recruited into the cosmic battle of good versus evil. Before they can join the fight, shipwreck strikes and they are lost in the ether. Stranded in a magical land beyond the reaches of the universe, The Weather Vane follows our crew of heroes as they try to piece things back together.

Are you being serious? Post A sneak peek

>>11068899
Yes, I am serious. I wrote this book and I very proud of it. It is very good and fast-paced, and you will like it if you enjoy fiction. You can see the beginning on Amazon's "look inside" feature (unless this is a fake book and the government is only making it seem to me like it is for sale on Amazon).

Here's the other shirt too:
teespring[doot]com/classical-architecture

>>11068881
Damn, Tooker! Now we're talking!

Yeah, but who's buying though?

>>11068935

Holy shit the cringe. 3 5-star reviews, all of whom never reviewed anything else?

>>11068935
I dont find a look inside feature, can you please post a small excerpt at least?

>>11068976
Ok, buddeh. Here is the first six chapters. THEN YOU BUY!!!
pastebin.com/rK8f50Zv

And to you:
>>11068697
I think offers of help on this piece of shit website are not so genuine, throwing your not-so-different voice into the sea of my nemeses, and if someone really wanted to help me then they would get me an arXiv endorsement or send me an email, "I'd like to help you."

>>11068935
>teespring[doot]com/classical-architecture
now you need to just need to add some infinity hat programming socks

>>11069023
>pastebin.com/rK8f50Zv
this... is the real book? Richard and Sphinctor? for real?
I'm thinking this guy is maybe not Tooker and is just using his name to try and sell shirts.

Classical Architecture
from Jonathan Tooker
This is a nice shirt. It says "Timesand."

Doesn't really read Tooks to me.

>>11069061
The book and the shirts are both me. I used my Hebrew name because is is written in a different voice than my scholarly work.

>>11069023
You didnt have to post so much my dude, just a small excerpt was fine, as un just post a small section of the book in the thread.

Well even if the book is a bit nutty its actually a good thing you're devoting time to creative and possibly productive endeavors.
I would buy just to help you out if I had 10 bucks to spare but I don't, sorry.

>>11069186
yeah, it's just weird how the vast majority of people who do have $10 to spare would rather spend it on two frapuccinos or the other person's book.

I posted a good amount. The real story is what happens after the shipwreck.

>>11068182
>ask them if Jonathan Warren Tooker has rank 47
anyone check on this? It's true. And that is only in Euro masonry. In Egyptian masonry, I have rank 100, which is also the rank that only God has. Having combined score 147 makes me both God and Caesar, incidentally.
>give unto Caesar what is Caesar's
>give unto God what is God's

>>11069198
>Frapuccino
Im not a first worlder, i literally dont have 10usd to spare.

Well dude, i really hope youre getting your act together, if thats the case, I wish you all the best in your endeavors. Have a good one.

In fact, I'd say that the main reason the USA hates Ayman al-Zawahiri so much is because the Egyptian fellow knows full well who I am, and does not plan to betray the trust of the many generations of his ancestors in the way that the Scottish/York masons are doing.

>>11069219
Yeah man, no problem. I am a first worlder and I usually don't have an extra $10 either.

>>11067951
How is it mocking? I am trying to help you flesh out your theory.
Do you think all disagreement is mocking?

Also, Egyptian masonry and Italian masonry are the same thing, I think.

>>11069251
If you say, "This is wrong," then I think you are mocking me. If you say, "This is wrong because of such and such a reason," then I will have a look at that before I decide to form an opinion about what you are up to.

So here is the real story. If you were full of the fear of the Lord, then you would not post because you would be afraid that I might be offended by what you bring me in the way that the Lord liked Able's offering but did not like Cain's offering. If you were afraid, then my opinion is that you would not try to toe the line about what you think you can get away with. If you were afraid, then you would run away. If everyone would flee when they see me coming on the street, then that would serve my purposes just fine.

If you read the Bible, I think the main thing it says is that you should fear the Lord. To a lesser extent, it says you should love the Lord but the main thing is that you should be afraid. You should be afraid that I won't like your offering if you post in my thread.

>>11068200
>>11068244
>>11068677
>>11068766
>>11068788
>>11068788
>>11069088
>>11069244
>>11069288
El Arcón means "The Lord" in English.

>>11068182
Who's gonna help the widow's son?

>>11069375
this guy gets it

>>11069288
I haven't read the Bible. I read the Avesta though, and the Bible is pretty much a knockoff Avesta.

>>11069288
I haven't said you're wrong, by the way. I just saw you talking about torturing people and that upset me.
>If everyone would flee when they see me coming on the street, then that would serve my purposes just fine.
Then who would read your articles? How could you share your ideas if everyone fled before you could talk to them?

>>11069454
I would write my words down for them to read.

>>11068134
>talented
lmao no
His only skill is Latex and a passing familiarity with the jargon. He doesn't understand what infinity is.

The paper he gives in the OP is extremely misleading because unlike his previous papers, he gives a veneer of credibility to his work ; but again, nothing he constructs is actually compatible with what he is trying to prove

Compare http://vixra.org/abs/1208.0076 to his more recent "works"

Tooker's sanity is falling apart

>>11069633
Sure, he's deluded now, but nevertheless has an understanding and intuition many would envy. A bit of schizo treatment and he'll be back on track in no time I'm sure.
The bitter thing isn't his misunderstanding of infinity etc, but rather that he thinks he's fighting something and that he's on a holy war.

You pieces of shit keep saying, "He doesn't understand infinity," but you never cite an error in the paper or explain what it is I don't understand.

>>11070310
>you never cite an error in the paper or explain what it is I don't understand.
This is very dishonest of you to say. Although most anons in your threads indeed do not give any explanation, there are many people (I would estimate at least a 100) who have given you in-depth explanations of why they think you are wrong. This doesn't necessarily mean that they are right of course. But when you phrase it like this you are outright lying.

Hundreds of hours has been spent by anons contemplating the validity your work. If you try to push this under the rug for whatever crooked reasons you might have, then you are in direct conflict with God. I am starting to believe that you do not have any faith at all. Because you surely do not act like you do.

I hope this retard is taken off the streets before he hurts someone.

>>11070345
So then you're the kind of person who can see me write "you never say why" in a thread where no one has said why, and then you reach the conclusion that I am a "liar" because you think when I write "you" I'm referring to every person I have interacted with on the internet rather those in this thread about whom my statement is perfectly? Am I getting that right, or are you not that kind of person and you are just being a cunt because it please it you to be so?

In any case, let me sum up most of those reasons you cite:
>Archimedes property is based on my opinion and not on what Euclid wrote, so it is about natural numbers because I want it to be
>You can't use the hat as a notational reminder about what to with the freedom of order of algebraic operations which is inherent to mundane infinity non-hat
>Other people can postulate axioms and study them, and publish them, but not you
>viXra? into the trash!

Did those ~100 people give any other reasons? If they did, those reasons are likely reflected in the current version.

>>11070394
You've got a point, but you also got to remember that context is for kings.

And that the greatest king of them all is God.