Re: Mathematical simplicity (redux)

On 04/08/2025 06:36 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:

Richard Hachel formulated the question :

Le 08/04/2025 à 02:49, Moebius a écrit :

Am 06.04.2025 um 10:49 schrieb efji:
>

On 04/05/2025 03:35 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

>

Mathematics isn't always simple.

>
Actually, it's not really simple at all (in general).
>
That's why idiots (like RH, WM, JG, etc.) are't able to complehend
mathematics.
>

Hachel's mathematical level is roughly equivalent to the US 9th
grade (maybe less) :) Everything after Pythagore is difficult for him.

>
Yeah, obviously.

>
Not obviously.
>
If this were true, there would be no need to repeat it over and over
again.

>
I've heard it over and over again that 1+1=2, so you're saying it must
not be true then?

It's a sort of super-imposition, the horizon the crests
the waves the sea, of all the real values what result
in their modular middles the "in-teg-ral", that the field
attains to completion while the continuum attains to individuals,
regularity and regularity and regularity each apiece and apart
yet, meeting in the middle, "the middle of nowhere", as with
regards to why a fuller, wider dialectical account in the deconstructive
then reintegrative, makes to arrive at why
then the simplicity of numbering and counting, super-impose
each other, the simplicity of continuous and discrete, super-impose each
other, why this sort of super-classical account makes it
totally simple to arrive at "Ken: 2 + 2 = 4".