BlackRoseAmongThorns comments on Big Numbers (2022-01-13)

[–] BlackRoseAmongThorns@slrpnk.net 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

You're only raging because the only defense you have is a YouTube video, which i already saw the proof of about 10 years ago.

At least give an actual insult instead of impotent "i guess you failed the course you don't remember blah blah", for a course I finished the second part of last semester. So no reason to forget it as I'm expected to use it still.

You should have read about the topic instead of whatever this response is.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] CheezyWeezle@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

You are the one devolving to ad hominem. You haven't addressed a point I have made in your last two comments. You seem to think that a YouTube video is some lowly source that doesn't warrant merit. How sad then that you were proven wrong by a youtube video. YOU are the one who lacks any defense because you KNOW you were wrong, and by failing to address my points with facts you are proving that point.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] BlackRoseAmongThorns@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

"how sad" sure I'm at uni and you need a YouTube video to defend yourself because you don't know the subject matter, andyou are trying to get my attention.

You have more important stuff to do than continuing this thread, might i suggest reading about the subject data on Wikipedia?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] CheezyWeezle@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Lmao you replied to me in the first place, exactly how am I trying to get your attention? I already had it from the beginning...

You gripe about the merits of a youtube video (which I only linked to because I'm not gonna spell the whole damn proof out for you here), and you tell me to go read wikipedia? I'm guessing you are just being sarcastic there, because if not... sheesh. Yikes. Oof, even.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] BlackRoseAmongThorns@slrpnk.net -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Wikipedia is extremely good for mathematics, that's one, two is that the "proof" is inherently flawed as it leads to a very trivial contradiction.

I could walk you through the proof to so you how it's wrong, but you are obviously more concerned with proving to a university student that your high school level understanding of maths is better because you saw a YouTube video.

You should reflect on that.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] CheezyWeezle@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

Hahaha ok then show me how the proof is flawed? You will have a LOT of mathematicians and scientists extremely interested in your proof.

Also, I learned this stuff in high school, but I went to college a decade ago so... maybe when you get done with math 253 and get into some higher level courses that cover complex analysis, you will change your tune.

Wikipedia IS indeed great for mathematics, as is a youtube video from university professors who teach and apply these mathematics. Exactly what is wrong with a youtube video featuring high level math professors teaching concepts about mathematics? You just keep saying "durr your only defense is a youtube video" when it literally is not "my only defense" it is just a single source I used to prove you wrong. You never gave a rebuttal to my point, just tried to attack the source. You say you know about the video and the concept, but you still make false and baseless claims that I already proved wrong. You are simply butthurt that you were wrong.