-16
$\begingroup$

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

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ 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, $\endgroup$ – Bassam Karzeddin Jan 12 at 14:48
  • $\begingroup$ 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 $\endgroup$ – Bassam Karzeddin Jan 12 at 14:58
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ community moderation is allowed here ... can't deal with it, you are free to leave. $\endgroup$ – Roddy MacPhee Jan 12 at 16:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ math.stackexchange.com/questions/3477718/… $\endgroup$ – Roddy MacPhee Jan 12 at 16:17
  • $\begingroup$ @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 $\endgroup$ – Bassam Karzeddin Jan 12 at 17:17
  • $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Roddy MacPhee Jan 12 at 17:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Roddy MacPhee Jan 12 at 17:34
  • $\begingroup$ @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 $\endgroup$ – Bassam Karzeddin Jan 12 at 17:42
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Moderators had nothing to do with it, Bassam. Your answer was deleted by the votes of three users, not moderators. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jan 13 at 1:49
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson I can see only one downvote and usually by the same moderators, but the problem isn't in this case of deleting my answer or question since this happened with my contents almost so many times with most of my contents, the problem here is so peculiar where a moderator decides to remove an answer that had been already reworded by a bounty of 200 (around 10 upvotes), and not only that but removing the upvoted question with 9 upvotes and the lonely reworded answer even from its originator and so unlike many other deletions to my contents that are still visible to me, Why all that? $\endgroup$ – Bassam Karzeddin Jan 13 at 6:36
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Your answer was not removed by a moderator. Three users, not moderators, voted to delete your answer – not downvoted your answer, but voted to delete your answer – and that was enough to delete your answer. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jan 13 at 14:09
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson And so strangely, in my case those users can't say a word, and not only in that issue but with many other deleted topics, as if they could delete the proven facts, see here for example how only in one answer I could at least convince 14 persons that $\pi$ isn't a number as per this link: quora.com/When-and-who-was-the-first-to-break-mathematics/…, whereas I could convince many other hundreds in different similar answers with irrefutable rigorous proofs, where those would ultimately come here and everywhere else to make them understand truth $\endgroup$ – Bassam Karzeddin Jan 13 at 17:02
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ 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/… $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jan 13 at 19:10
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – Don Thousand Jan 13 at 21:46
  • $\begingroup$ @Gerry Myers-on, why do you think so, just express your in mind numbers without a decimal notation but in fractions and see whether your best approximation methods like (Cushy sequence, Dedekind cuts, limits, convergence, intermediate no theorem, ..., etc) would ever be capable to give you many uncountable numbers that are strictly less than $\sqrt{2}$, and make sure that is absolutely perpetual an impossible no matter what would you jump to conclude, where true math was never based on conclusions, just because the real number isn't a matter of human false definitions or wrong decisions, sure $\endgroup$ – Bassam Karzeddin Jan 14 at 6:48
3
$\begingroup$

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...

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

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 the answer was simply a rant, like your comments, it has potential to be marked as not an answer.
  • If you don't believe the history of math, then debate that at history of math and science not here
  • etc.
$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ This site is not a discovery sharing site. $\endgroup$ – Roddy MacPhee Jan 13 at 11:12
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – Don Thousand Jan 13 at 21:40
  • $\begingroup$ @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 $\endgroup$ – Bassam Karzeddin Jan 14 at 7:09
  • $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – Bassam Karzeddin Jan 14 at 8:30
  • $\begingroup$ @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/… $\endgroup$ – Bassam Karzeddin Jan 14 at 15:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Don Thousand Jan 14 at 15:51
  • $\begingroup$ @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 $\endgroup$ – Bassam Karzeddin Jan 15 at 8:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .