Agreed also it gets kids n ppl interested in maths so is this a bad thing if it turns out to not originally to be true I have shown this to kids n friends who never liked maths n now they are already on to learning the trigonometry with very little help from me and these are regular ppl n carpenters etc… So it seems like someone wants to get seen as an intellectual so bad they must prove their is no connection to numbers and angles in writing btw he gave no actual evidence in his big reveal that we have been lied to by government n the” earth is flat” lol

]]>it’s easy to go faster than the wind, when you’re going downhill with the wind

]]>https://observablehq.com/@dlaliberte/infinite-binary-tree-of-intervals

and

https://observablehq.com/@dlaliberte/refutation-of-cantors-diagonalization

It is mind boggling how many misconceptions he manages to squeeze in, it would make a great and very amusing article.

]]>Don’t get me wrong, your stated opinions sound convincing. However just because it’s posted on the internet does not make it true. For both sides. Let’s see some published sources. And on that note, wikipedia is not a published source. I’ve found plenty of those pages proven wrong by published credible sources.

]]>> the same thing as “not(A nand A)”

Did you mean “not(A and A)”?

And finally, I’m getting a “formula does not parse” after “It’s pretty straightforward in terms of logic”.

]]>> the same thing as “not(A nand A)”

I think you meant to say “not(A and A)”?

And finally, I’m getting a “formula does not parse” after “It’s pretty straightforward in terms of logic”.

]]>Overall the series is very interesting, it glues many pieces together.

]]>