ahmet

some bigotries which very common in this forum. step 1: one demonstrates or proposes an opinion. step 2: a well known member attempts to disagree to that opinion. step3 : there is occuring of existence of many members downvoting that opinion (regardless the reality in that opinion, in fact this is a weakness of opinionating). And this is bigotry, isn't it? my opinion: there are many people who carry out just their job but surely not being busy with science (like in this forum). so, is there no scientist all around the world: I think their numbers are very small. eh, none has to agree to me :)

I think that U.S. 's freedom is fake. (We knew that) So, thanks to Allah , I never been to here in spite of my B2 English. (Yeah yes, the language itself does not mean everything) English Society to me is falsifying many things these days, but already has never been right in general. remembering or even reminding a point, they killed more than 200.000 people just in one time. So, speaking fastly they are not good. one interesting point is that there are many people calling stupid albert einstein as a genius which is definitely wrong.yes he was completely stupid. why does not anyone speak alike and see the point: "he produced an absolute a headache for all of humanity" (check my 3rd line in this comment for reference of proof) so, obviously he was completely stupid. and English society these days are also responsible for almost the whole of murders in Gaza. Wild jews/jewishes are the worst of all to me. ah yes, we are saying or even seeing that the sun is shining today. But who can guarantee for tomorrow?

whatever someone says, you will eventually suppose that you were right in every case. May I suppose that this was the "approach/supposition of stupid English Society"? anyway, what I said was exactly: that OP was wrong in his/her assertion. studiot is either. but as said, whatever we say, I am sure that someone will suppose that they were always correct. So, what to discuss here? nothing. And please accept that this is bigotry.

so, obviously you have not learnt anything!

No. (Check your notes or references about basics of algebra.) does it mention or tell about closed or open set? also consider, does a well ordered set have to be open set? I opinionate in negative.

And you suppose I will pay attention what you say in this regard? I do not ask such a thing to someone like you. if I prefer to ask, two criteria are mandatory to be satisfied: he must be muslim he must know me. even in such a case, redirecting the question does not mean that it would certainly be accepted. it will just mean that I would be able to handle/care the opinion.

For sure, it is NOT a joke. But of course that would be the reader's selection to accept the critique or not. Here, or in reality; being poor regarding thoughts/opinions is bad thing (and obviously, that is the thing what I said in other words)

I just looked to the title and; I do not say that the quality was lacking, I prefer to say that there was no quality. This is what that article caused me to think and interrupted me to read further. - my result: the direction or the aim is wrong to me. Consider also, whether the relevant personality who deemed as scientist in that article had psychiaric ilness. .... and is either a delusion or such a minimal relevance that not only neglectable but also waste of time. in general, I tend not to make any comment in such context because I have tendency to deal with only intellectual side of literature. to me, this is Non intellectual aim generated by someone who deemed to deal with scientific contexts. inshaAllah ,Allah will protect me to deal with something which is not necessarily needed.

also, it is pointless. What will the OP do with the number of those axioms,I wonder?

do you mean (something like) "arithmetic units" by "arithmetic(?). (some potential keywords in the contexts that I predict might be are : algebraic numbers, transcendent numbers etc) also, to me : it is not "theory of 'natural' numbers" , it is "theory of numbers" or "numbers theory"

yes , I meant that one (above). To me, it is nice for pure maths (to specify in functional analysis) but surely not for applied mathematics.

hahaha :) :) :) have you also felt yourself bored in mathematics. Horribly, I also see somewhere here alleging that maths was not Science. interesting. yes, this is the definition of metric. You may find more context and examples here (of course, if you are willing to do so) INTRODUCTORY FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS WITH APPLICATIONS Erwin Kreyszig University of Windsor. ISBN 0-471-50731-8

yes. No, this is not a correct opinion. Also, SI units are confirmed just between the existing humans. That does not mean that its scope is valid and right at everywehere. if this is an assertion extended to everything, then it is illogic. May I ask where did you take this illogic notion? the commencement is valid only for the universe itself. (But do not extend that commencement to everything. ) This is not clear to me. Could you explain what did you mean here? noooooo. :) not everything are based on observations and experimental outputs. no. ? mmm, may I also ask, why you narrow/limit yourself to this world ?

Eh, it is very simple. Consider, why is a line, in fact a circle in complex analysis? now,I am also sure that you did NOT understand what I said.

why do you have to? does the reality depicts the different conclusion than what you want, why *************************************** anyway, I think voting itself is NOT efficacious. the forum administration will just prevent themself from some various ideas. However, this does not mean that those ideas (which someone do not want even to hear ) were unavailable. Simply expelling someone's ideas. Yeah I remember at my BSc one physicist was saying that a professor in medicine had taken a nobel prize because the administration supposed that that was a novelty in Science. But when they were to be able to perfectly say that professors in medcine newly heard the theorem, that was surely not the new (i.e. not novel) in mathematics. I am afraid. I predict , because of such unrealistic approaches, English society will lose their everything in future.