jnana

Colin leslie dean proves A 1 unit by 1 unit √2 triangle cannot be constructed mathematics ends in contradiction-Euclidean geometry is destroyed mathematician will tell you √2 does not terminate yet in the same breath tell you that a 1 unit by 1 unit √2 triangle can be constructed, even though they admit √2 does not terminate thus you cant construct a √2 hypotenuse thus a 1 unit by 1 unit √2 triangle cannot be constructed, which contradicts what mathematicians tell you thus maths ends in contradiction Euclidean geometry is destroyed http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/scientific-reality-is-only-the-reality-of-a-monkey.pdf or https://www.scribd.com/document/660607834/Scientific-Reality-is-Only-the-Reality-of-a-Monkey

colin leslie dean proves Evolutionary theory-evolving species - ends in nonsense so what is a species just a definition https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/species/ "A species is often defined as a group of organisms that can reproduce naturally with one another and create fertile offspring" Or from your own biology site https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/species “One can also define species as an individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring .” but species hybridization contradicts that https://kids.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frym.2019.00113 "When organisms from two different species mix, or breed together, it is known as hybridization" "Fertile hybrids create a very complex problem in science, because this breaks a rule from the Biological Species Concept" so the definition of species is nonsense note when Biologist cant tell us what a species is -without contradiction thus evolution theory ie evolving species is nonsense http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/scientific-reality-is-only-the-reality-of-a-monkey.pdf or https://www.scribd.com/document/660607834/Scientific-Reality-is-Only-the-Reality-of-a-Monkey

colin leslie dean proves ZFC is inconsistent:thus ALL mathematics falls into meaninglessness The Foundations of Mathematics end in meaningless jibbering nonsense A) Mathematics ends in contradiction-6 proofs http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/MATHEMATICS.pdf and https://www.scribd.com/document/40697621/Mathematics-Ends-in-Meaninglessness-ie-self-contradiction Proof 5 ZFC is inconsistent:thus ALL mathematics falls into meaninglessness https://brilliant.org/wiki/zfc/ ZFC. ZFC, or Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, is an axiomatic system used to formally define set theory (and thus mathematics in general). but ZFC is inconsistent:thus ALL mathematics falls into meaninglessness proof it all began with Russells paradox and to get around the consequences of it Modern set theory just outlaws/blocks/bans this Russells paradox by the introduction of the ad hoc axiom the Axiom schema of specification ie axiom of separation which wiki says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory "The restriction to z is necessary to avoid Russell's paradox and its variants. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory "Axiom schema of specification (also called the axiom schema of separation or of restricted comprehension): If z is a set, and \phi! is any property which may characterize the elements x of z, then there is a subset y of z containing those x in z which satisfy the property. The "restriction" to z is necessary to avoid Russell's paradox and its variant" now Russell's paradox is a famous example of an impredicative construction, namely the set of all sets which do not contain themselves the axiom of separation is used to outlaw/block/ban impredicative statements like Russells paradox but this axiom of separation is itself impredicative http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/predicativity.pdf "in ZF the fundamental source of impredicativity is the seperation axiom which asserts that for each well formed function p(x)of the language ZF the existence of the set x : x } a ^ p(x) for any set a Since the formular p may contain quantifiers ranging over the supposed "totality" of all the sets this is impredicativity according to the VCP this impredicativity is given teeth by the axiom of infinity" thus ZFC thus it outlaws/blocks/bans itself thus ZFC contradicts itself and 1)ZFC is inconsistent 2) that the paradoxes it was meant to avoid are now still valid and thus mathematics is inconsistent Now we have paradoxes like Russells paradox Banach-Tarskin paradox Burili-Forti paradox with the axiom of seperation banning itself ZFC is thus inconsistent and thus ALL mathematics is just rubbish meaningless jibbering nonsense

The Foundations of Mathematics end in meaningless jibbering nonsense A) Mathematics ends in contradiction-6 proofs http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/MATHEMATICS.pdf and https://www.scribd.com/document/40697621/Mathematics-Ends-in-Meaninglessness-ie-self-contradiction Proof 5 ZFC is inconsistent:thus ALL mathematics falls into meaninglessness https://brilliant.org/wiki/zfc/ ZFC. ZFC, or Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, is an axiomatic system used to formally define set theory (and thus mathematics in general). but ZFC is inconsistent:thus ALL mathematics falls into meaninglessness proof it all began with Russells paradox and to get around the consequences of it Modern set theory just outlaws/blocks/bans this Russells paradox by the introduction of the ad hoc axiom the Axiom schema of specification ie axiom of separation which wiki says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory "The restriction to z is necessary to avoid Russell's paradox and its variants. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory "Axiom schema of specification (also called the axiom schema of separation or of restricted comprehension): If z is a set, and \phi! is any property which may characterize the elements x of z, then there is a subset y of z containing those x in z which satisfy the property. The "restriction" to z is necessary to avoid Russell's paradox and its variant" now Russell's paradox is a famous example of an impredicative construction, namely the set of all sets which do not contain themselves the axiom of separation is used to outlaw/block/ban impredicative statements like Russells paradox but this axiom of separation is itself impredicative http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/predicativity.pdf "in ZF the fundamental source of impredicativity is the seperation axiom which asserts that for each well formed function p(x)of the language ZF the existence of the set x : x } a ^ p(x) for any set a Since the formular p may contain quantifiers ranging over the supposed "totality" of all the sets this is impredicativity according to the VCP this impredicativity is given teeth by the axiom of infinity" thus ZFC thus it outlaws/blocks/bans itself thus ZFC contradicts itself and 1)ZFC is inconsistent 2) that the paradoxes it was meant to avoid are now still valid and thus mathematics is inconsistent Now we have paradoxes like Russells paradox Banach-Tarskin paradox Burili-Forti paradox with the axiom of seperation banning itself ZFC is thus inconsistent and thus ALL mathematics is just rubbish meaningless jibbering nonsense B) Godels theorems end in meaninglessness 1) Godels sentence G is outlawed by the very axiom he uses to prove his theorem ie the axiom of reducibiility -thus his proof is invalid-and thus godel commits a flaw by useing it to prove his theorem http://www.enotes.com/topic/Axiom_of_reducibility russells axiom of reducibility was formed such that impredicative statements where banned http://www.scribd.com/doc/32970323/Godels-incompleteness-theorem-inva... but godels uses this AR axiom in his incompleteness proof ie axiom 1v and formular 40 and as godel states he is useing the logic of PM ie AR “P is essentially the system obtained by superimposing on the Peano axioms the logic of PM” ie AR now godel constructs an impredicative statement G which AR was meant to ban The impredicative statement Godel constructs is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems#F... “the corresponding Gödel sentence G asserts: “G cannot be proved to be true within the theory T”” now godels use of AR bans godels G statement thus godel cannot then go on to give a proof by useing a statement his own axiom bans but by doing so he invalidates his whole proof and his proof/logic is flawed 2) from http://pricegems.com/articles/Dean-Godel.html "Mr. Dean complains that Gödel "cannot tell us what makes a mathematical statement true", but Gödel's Incompleteness theorems make no attempt to do this" Godels 1st theorem “....., there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250) but Godel did not know what makes a maths statement true thus his theorem is meaningless checkmate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth#Mathematics Gödel thought that the ability to perceive the truth of a mathematical or logical proposition is a matter of intuition, an ability he admitted could be ultimately beyond the scope of a formal theory of logic or mathematics[63][64] and perhaps best considered in the realm of human comprehension and communication, but commented: Ravitch, Harold (1998). "On Gödel's Philosophy of Mathematics".,Solomon, Martin (1998). "On Kurt Gödel's Philosophy of Mathematics" http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/GODEL5.pdf and https://www.scribd.com/document/32970323/Godels-incompleteness-theorem-invalid-illegitimate

Mathematics ends in contradiction-6 proofs http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/MATHEMATICS.pdf and https://www.scribd.com/document/40697621/Mathematics-Ends-in-Meaninglessness-ie-self-contradiction Proof 5 ZFC is inconsistent:thus ALL mathematics falls into meaninglessness https://brilliant.org/wiki/zfc/ ZFC. ZFC, or Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, is an axiomatic system used to formally define set theory (and thus mathematics in general). but ZFC is inconsistent:thus ALL mathematics falls into meaninglessness proof it all began with Russells paradox and to get around the consequences of it Modern set theory just outlaws/blocks/bans this Russells paradox by the introduction of the ad hoc axiom the Axiom schema of specification ie axiom of separation which wiki says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory "The restriction to z is necessary to avoid Russell's paradox and its variants. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory "Axiom schema of specification (also called the axiom schema of separation or of restricted comprehension): If z is a set, and \phi! is any property which may characterize the elements x of z, then there is a subset y of z containing those x in z which satisfy the property. The "restriction" to z is necessary to avoid Russell's paradox and its variant" now Russell's paradox is a famous example of an impredicative construction, namely the set of all sets which do not contain themselves the axiom of separation is used to outlaw/block/ban impredicative statements like Russells paradox but this axiom of separation is itself impredicative http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/predicativity.pdf "in ZF the fundamental source of impredicativity is the seperation axiom which asserts that for each well formed function p(x)of the language ZF the existence of the set x : x } a ^ p(x) for any set a Since the formular p may contain quantifiers ranging over the supposed "totality" of all the sets this is impredicativity according to the VCP this impredicativity is given teeth by the axiom of infinity" thus ZFC thus it outlaws/blocks/bans itself thus ZFC contradicts itself and 1)ZFC is inconsistent 2) that the paradoxes it was meant to avoid are now still valid and thus mathematics is inconsistent Now we have paradoxes like Russells paradox Banach-Tarskin paradox Burili-Forti paradox with the axiom of seperation banning itself ZFC is thus inconsistent and thus ALL mathematics is just rubbish meaningless jibbering nonsense Godels theorems end in meaninglessness 1) Godels sentence G is outlawed by the very axiom he uses to prove his theorem ie the axiom of reducibiility -thus his proof is invalid-and thus godel commits a flaw by useing it to prove his theorem http://www.enotes.com/topic/Axiom_of_reducibility russells axiom of reducibility was formed such that impredicative statements where banned http://www.scribd.com/doc/32970323/Godels-incompleteness-theorem-inva... but godels uses this AR axiom in his incompleteness proof ie axiom 1v and formular 40 and as godel states he is useing the logic of PM ie AR “P is essentially the system obtained by superimposing on the Peano axioms the logic of PM” ie AR now godel constructs an impredicative statement G which AR was meant to ban The impredicative statement Godel constructs is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems#F... “the corresponding Gödel sentence G asserts: “G cannot be proved to be true within the theory T”” now godels use of AR bans godels G statement thus godel cannot then go on to give a proof by useing a statement his own axiom bans but by doing so he invalidates his whole proof and his proof/logic is flawed 2) from http://pricegems.com/articles/Dean-Godel.html "Mr. Dean complains that Gödel "cannot tell us what makes a mathematical statement true", but Gödel's Incompleteness theorems make no attempt to do this" Godels 1st theorem “....., there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250) but Godel did not know what makes a maths statement true thus his theorem is meaningless checkmate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth#Mathematics Gödel thought that the ability to perceive the truth of a mathematical or logical proposition is a matter of intuition, an ability he admitted could be ultimately beyond the scope of a formal theory of logic or mathematics[63][64] and perhaps best considered in the realm of human comprehension and communication, but commented: Ravitch, Harold (1998). "On Gödel's Philosophy of Mathematics".,Solomon, Martin (1998). "On Kurt Gödel's Philosophy of Mathematics" http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/GODEL5.pdf and https://www.scribd.com/document/32970323/Godels-incompleteness-theorem-invalid-illegitimate

Magister colin leslie dean proves Kants Critique of Pure Reason is shown to be a failure and complete rubbish As stated https://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/papers/kant2.htm “The Critique of Pure Reason is unified by a single line of argument involving just two or three central ideas, which, in spite of a certain complexity and obscurity in its development, can be fairly summed up as follows: Kant poses the question, "How is synthetic, a priori knowledge possible?"” a priori knowledge is https://www.britannica.com/topic/a-priori-knowledge a priori judgments are “Latent in the distinction between the a priori and the a posteriori for Kant is the antithesis between necessary truth and contingent truth (a truth is necessary if it cannot be denied without contradiction) The former applies to a priori judgments, which are arrived at independently of experience and hold universally).” kants notion that mathematics and euclidean geometry is a priori is shown to be rubbish thus his claim that mathematics and euclidean geometry is synthetic a priori is rubbish thus Kants Critique of Pure Reason is shown to be a failure and complete rubbish http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/Kant.pdf or www.scribd.com/document/690781235/Commentary-Kants-Critique-of-Pure-Reason-is-shown-to-be-a-failure-and-complete-rubbish-criticisms-epsitemology-ontology-metaphysics-synthetic-a examples 1)from number theory 2) from geometry example 1) from number theory from mathematics let x=0.999...(the 9s dont stop thus is an infinite decimal thus non-integer) 10x =9.999... 10x-x =9.999…- 0.999… 9x=9 x= 1(an integer) maths prove an interger=/is a non-integer maths ends in contradiction-thus mathematics cant be a priori with mathematics ending in contradiction you can prove anything in mathematics ie you can prove Fermat's last theorem and you can disprove Fermat's last theorem you only need to find 1 contradiction in a system ie mathematics to show that for the whole system you can prove anything https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion In classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from falsehood, anything [follows]'; or ex contradictione [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from contradiction, anything [follows]'), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus (falsely attributed to Duns Scotus), is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.[1] That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (including their negations) can be inferred from it; this is known as deductive explosion thus thus mathematics cant be a priori thus Kants Critique of Pure Reason is shown to be a failure and complete rubbish 2) from geometry A 1 unit by 1 unit √2 triangle cannot be constructed-mathematics ends in contradiction proof mathematicians will tell you √2 does not terminate yet in the same breath tell you A 1 unit by 1 unit √2 triangle can be constructed even though they admit √2 does not terminate thus you cant construct a √2 hypotenuse thus you cannot construct 1 unit by 1 unit √2 triangle thus geometry ends in contradiction-thus geometry cant be a priori thus Kants Critique of Pure Reason is shown to be a failure and complete rubbish you only need to find 1 contradiction in a system ie mathematics to show that for the whole system you can prove anything https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion In classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from falsehood, anything [follows]'; or ex contradictione [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from contradiction, anything [follows]'), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus (falsely attributed to Duns Scotus), is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.[1] That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (including their negations) can be inferred from it; this is known as deductive explosion thus Kants Critique of Pure Reason is shown to be a failure and complete rubbish

Magister colin leslie dean has shown Determinism shown to end contradiction Determinism shown to end in Meaninglessness nonsense Causal determinism en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism “Causal determinism, sometimes synonymous with historical determinism (a sort of path dependence), is "the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature." “Causal determinism has also been considered more generally as the idea that everything that happens or exists is caused by antecedent conditions” take the 3 body problem –as a simplification of all things in the universe But note all the universe is made up of things in interrelationships with everything else if we take Newton’s law of gravitation F = G(m1m2)/R2. Thus when we move object A it effects the other two objects B and C But when objects B and C move that effects object A So we can say that A in effect caused its own motion thus we can say the antecedent cause of A is infact just the antecedent A itself in other words the cause of the cause is the cause just nonsense meaninglessness note because all things in the universe are interrelationships with everything else then from the above all things are their own antecedent cause just nonsense meaninglessness thus causation is both logically nonsense and science itself must then be meaningless nonsense gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/Determinism-shown-to-end-in-meaninglessness.pdf or www.scribd.com/document/716760568/Determinism-Shown-to-End-in-Meaninglessness-causation-science-Hume-epistemology-logic-ontology-metaphysics-Kant-physics

can someone please define what a demon is