# Why is this question completely disappearing where I have answered and got a bounty of 200?

The hidden question was:

New numeration system, mapping to binary numeration system

Where I have answered with the copyright notice that must be always respected and not only for my topics, and my answer was reworded by a bounty of 200

How is this possible on this site where I do refer to my published answer on your site for other purposes of investigational cases about new mathematical discoveries and publish them on other sites for public attention and awareness

I do still expect a legal explanation from others or moderators for such an action since I have given an answer up to my best efforts and knowledge where I never expected to be hidden and soon may be claimed by others as well

Kindly, don't hide my this legal inquiry like so many other topics of mine that had been hidden in so many mathematical sections at SE where not a single convincing reason was provided by all the moderators who deliberately have hidden so many other true proven discoveries of mine and since many years as well

However, I do have printed copies of my deleted issues that will be soon exposed in other opened mind sites for further investigations and true historical purposes about so many fundamental issues in mathematics

Bassam Karzeddin

• Again, the same irrelevant habit, downvoting anonymously then deleting then hiding the whole issue as if nobody had ever heard of, or saw before and later stealing secretly the whole issue in so much of devilish untrusted professional many methods, but here the case is so different, and this is a question also printed already, and I don't think it is of any moral that someone gets reworded one day and be stolen in the second day, it is truly a big scandal for the entire system and how its main purpose has become on how to steal amateurs true talents and keep safe the documented ignorance, – Bassam Karzeddin Jan 12 '20 at 14:48
• If you insist to hide it here, then this topic is going to be publically published in other less moderated and unmoderated sites and exactly as it happened without adding or subtracting a word, and we know that those anonymous downvoters have the most interest in hiding these topics for their own purposes, but they don't know yet that most of the populations have already become more expert people in their own fields of no true mathematics, simply observe the thousands of repeated unanswered questions asked by clever school kids say on Quora for example, and soon they will invade you too – Bassam Karzeddin Jan 12 '20 at 14:58
• community moderation is allowed here ... can't deal with it, you are free to leave. – user645636 Jan 12 '20 at 16:14
• math.stackexchange.com/questions/3477718/… – user645636 Jan 12 '20 at 16:17
• @RoddyMacPhee Thank you for your feedback but isn't truly so strange act by moderators that a question with 9 upvotes and one answer with a bounty of 200, gets completely hidden even from my own profile, without informing the participant or even commenting or providing any valid reason for such act, I wish to know what was wrong in the question or even in the answer to delete both of them without any obvious reasons except the three moderators agreements? Does a moderator have this unlimited right on this site? wonders, at any case, it is going to be publically published in many other sites – Bassam Karzeddin Jan 12 '20 at 17:17
• free use policy might have a say there about copyright materials. cop·y·right /ˈkäpēˌrīt/ Learn to pronounce noun the exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same. trade·mark /ˈtrādˌmärk/ Learn to pronounce noun a symbol, word, or words legally registered or established by use as representing a company or product. – user645636 Jan 12 '20 at 17:26
• You sound worse than a crank ( I am one). Being amateur has it's perks ( you can relate things they might not remember to things you've just learned and help everyone), that being said, it's important you know about the site you use to do these things. – user645636 Jan 12 '20 at 17:34
• @RoddyMacPhee and as long as I don't legally copy-right them, then others are freely allowed to steal them under the sunlight and before everyone's own eyes, isn't it true this way working these days with academic professionals,? no wonder, as if the copyrighted mathematics is even true mathematics, and from the forged fake history of mathematics they show nobilities and homesites to unbelievable limits of keeping the original handwriting of genius dead boys in museums as a witness for such alleged nobility for usually dead people as always as usual with this forgotten unnoticible liy word – Bassam Karzeddin Jan 12 '20 at 17:42
• Moderators had nothing to do with it, Bassam. Your answer was deleted by the votes of three users, not moderators. – Gerry Myerson Jan 13 '20 at 1:49
• If you were able to convince fourteen people that $\pi$ isn't a number, that just proves there are fourteen very stupid people on quora. Anyway, you can make a case for your answer to be undeleted at math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/28692/… – Gerry Myerson Jan 13 '20 at 19:10
• @GerryMyerson The main problem with Quora is that downvotes are not recorded. OP could have 10000 downvotes but none of us would know. I suspect OP's true problem is the idea that OP thinks that there is some true math, and axiomatization is a fallacious attempt by mathematicians to reach it. Sadly, someone with this mindset can't be reached. – Don Thousand Jan 13 '20 at 21:46
• quora.com/… This is the case with false maths, where also Qoura would never show you many answers that were reported by so many academic anonymous mathematicians who can't defend their mathematics but want simply protect their old wrong inherited and refuted beliefs – Bassam Karzeddin Jan 14 '20 at 6:55
• You're relying on "feeling"? You've lost before you've even begun. Because I feel like $\pi$ is a distance. What are you going to do about it :P – Don Thousand Jan 15 '20 at 8:10
• I hope you understand that just stating things doesn't make them true. Anyways, I don't get why you waste so much time rehashing things you've said a dozen times. Yes, we get it, you only think constructible numbers are platonic. – Don Thousand Feb 11 '20 at 9:42

Kindly, don't hide my this legal inquiry like so many other topics of mine that had been hidden in so many mathematical sections at SE where not a single convincing reason was provided by all the moderators who deliberately have hidden so many other true proven discoveries of mine and since many years as well

Nobody has hidden any true discoveries of yours. You can post all you like on viΧra, and no one here will attempt to stop you. And don't claim you have a "legal inquiry" when you don't.

However, I do have printed copies of my deleted issues that will be soon exposed in other opened mind sites for further investigations and true historical purposes about so many fundamental issues in mathematics

What is getting exposed now is your attitude towards the mathematical community. And "opened mind" ≠ "open-minded".

If you insist to hide it here, then this topic is going to be publically published in other less moderated and unmoderated sites and exactly as it happened without adding or subtracting a word, and we know that those anonymous downvoters have the most interest in hiding these topics for their own purposes, but they don't know yet that most of the populations have already become more expert people in their own fields of no true mathematics, simply observe the thousands of repeated unanswered questions asked by clever school kids say on Quora for example, and soon they will invade you too

Is that a threat? Do you see any real mathematician hiding your posts "for their own purposes"? And what are "fields of no true mathematics"? If a field is of "no true mathematics", what good is it for anyone to become experts in it?

This is the case with false maths, where also Qoura would never show you many answers that were reported by so many academic anonymous mathematicians who can't defend their mathematics but want simply protect their old wrong inherited and refuted beliefs

What is your evidence that it is others who have "old wrong inherited and refuted beliefs"?

This is truly not any game, it is an old finished story about real number discovery by that Pythagorian who was thrown to see, but people again repeated the same old tragedy when expressing the true discovered irrational numbers by their decimal rational numbers and never being aware that even the decimal rational field is also endless field, thus mimicking the older Pythagoreans who didn't tolerate the discovery by going back to Euclidean rational numbers and up to date, and innocently being deceived about non-real numbers like those transedential and algebraic numbers (non-c)

There is a rigorous and precise mathematical definition of "real number" and "algebraic number" and "transcendental number", and there are many transcendental real numbers. And... $$0$$ is an algebraic real number. If you have some other idea of "number", then you are not talking about real numbers, and it is your responsibility to define what you mean, rather than call others "deceived".

I never trust the honesty, Nobility of any moderated site or any other official mathematical authorities like the alleged top-most repuitable Journals and Universities in such a very huge big issues based on personal long experience with their human orientations for unnecessary business and human normal physicology

If you don't trust Math SE, leave instead of insulting the community here. And there is no such thing as "physicology". Moderation is necessary in any functional community, otherwise...

• math.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/31135/edit , can this link be visible or must be hidden again from public visibility? – Bassam Karzeddin Jan 29 '20 at 13:35
• Your comment makes no sense to me. – user21820 Jan 29 '20 at 17:26
• 21820, please go to sci. math if you are interested to know about all your wrong math definition about a true real number, here is a traditional moderated site devoted to all kinds of old human knowledge where anything new and revolutionary is strictly not permissible by the vast majorities of the academic mainstreams, this site can't tolerate a free opinion and many people know this fact about it, they simply hide great discoveries where eventually and soon would be shamed about it, sorry to tell you that your common understanding isn't any different from almost all acadimics, noyhing – Bassam Karzeddin Jan 30 '20 at 7:32
• Please yourself go. I am not interested in all your wrong math. – user21820 Feb 1 '20 at 10:52

Lets see,

• Potential to cite later = proof you were first.
• Questions and Answers no longer are creators property by site decorum.
• Copyright notice, is a way to be marked as spam as you're simply avertizing your own services.
• If you don't believe the history of math, then debate that at history of math and science not here
• etc.
• This site is not a discovery sharing site. – user645636 Jan 13 '20 at 11:12
• @BassamKarzeddin I suggest a therapist, honestly. Learning how to accept that you are wrong is a wonderful ability. The world definitely has its flaws but no one has time to create a conspiracy to hide your findings. – Don Thousand Jan 13 '20 at 21:40
• @DonThousand I truly do suggest for you and for everyone else interested in human axiomatic false definitions based on choices rather than proven facts to see that their short definitions are simply not better than many wrong decisions where a numerical counterexample based on natural numbers would certainly show the falsehood concepts they have invented are simply broken, and to see it more clearly just say if there is an existing real root for such an odd degree polynomial $(x^{49} = x^7 + 1)$, where I do claim (with many elementary proofs) that no real root ever exists, hence no any root – Bassam Karzeddin Jan 14 '20 at 7:09
• @DonThousand If one is truly is lucky enough to understand only that this single polynomial of $(x^{49 - x^7 - 1 = 0)$ is impossible to have any real existing root in true real existing numbers, then certainly and immediately would realize many more important things that are false in the core foundation stone of the modern mathematics about all my alleged and proven claims, like the false hypothesis of continuity of real numbers, the false imaginary numbers, the false real numbers that aren't constructible, ..., etc, it is truly the greatest chances ever made for new true honest Nobel resrs. – Bassam Karzeddin Jan 14 '20 at 8:30
• @DonThousand Let me hope that you have got my concept about the non-existence of any real number assumed with infinite terms or digits, and regardless of any human axioms that are also valid actually for engineering earthy problem solutions approximations where it doesn't require the perfection of true math since they were solely discovered by scientists and engineers for the solutions of their own problems, see this: quora.com/… – Bassam Karzeddin Jan 14 '20 at 15:47
• What is your definition of a "real number". I have a good feeling, based on your writings, that your definition is vastly different from how mathematicians define it. – Don Thousand Jan 14 '20 at 15:51
• @DonThousand As I did say before, the real number is an impossible definition by any intelligent beings but a matter of pure discovery, where that discovery had already finished since thousands of years ago by the Pythagorean theorem only, and numbers are the perpetual existing being created from no number one since the true creator of numbers can't be a number like them, hence would be strictly violated once being (multiplied, divisible, powered) by them, but can be truly added to them to recreate more of them, either directly or by true angeling to create the true irrational we can't deny – Bassam Karzeddin Jan 15 '20 at 8:08
• @BassamKarzeddin And there you go. The moment you say that the real numbers can't be defined, you aren't doing math. Because they are defined. You just object to them being defined based on your platonic ideals. Honestly, if that's what you want to do, fine, so be it. But don't claim that you are doing math, because you aren't. Math is based on definitions and axioms. Not "discovery" (Discoveries can be used to build intuition to do math, but aren't in themselves math) – Don Thousand Feb 4 '20 at 18:45
• @DonThousand, what did I claim that real numbers were already discovered being existing numbers thus can be exactly constructed, in short, real numbers are constructible numbers and nothing else, In my public published profiles on sci. math and few on Quora (that are strictly forbidden to be shown on this site, where they deleted them without providing a single reasonable reason) I have provided around 10 elementary proofs about the fact of non-existence of other alleged real numbers, but since they contradict the academic mainstream old concepts then they always get rid of them not wanting – Bassam Karzeddin Feb 9 '20 at 8:32
• Even with answers like the deleted below which got a bounty of 200 points, they delete the answer trying to protect something too important for every school students such that nobody should know anything about the proven fallibility of too many concepts in modern math., but luckily a very large number of clever school students had already got them where they are raining the Quora math section with their same question like my contents to the limit that the professional academic mathematicians have become suddenly too reluctant to answer them the way they were used to before, but keeping silent – Bassam Karzeddin Feb 9 '20 at 8:41
• It seems ridiculous to me this strange silent insistence by moderators not only to hide my reworded answer with 200 bounties (illegally) which was repeated here and also deleted for no stated convincing reason so far, but they insist also to hide the complete profile of mine for no obvious or written reasons, where once i asked why to delete my full profile on this link: math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/31284/… The Moderators delete the question, not wanting anyone to – Bassam Karzeddin Mar 7 '20 at 13:42
• know anything about the issue, it is very mysterious to me since I have already exposed this type of traditional practice by the common moderator's sensitivity towards their many elementary fundamental wrongs beliefs about so many basic issues in mathematics, where that illustration to such incomprehensible behaviors had been published on Quora, sci. math (where no one can delete), twitter and alike for people to care placing their best achievements in such untrusted sites, due to the very narrow minds of moderators towards many well-proven and superior mathematics that they are against. – Bassam Karzeddin Mar 7 '20 at 13:51