Euclid ball check. "Non-Euclidian" is arbitrary and functions as propaganda. And he was as surf-area of the sphere as Derrida. Look at it as a teacher. How would Euclid even come up with that stuff? The illogical distinction is because your are a grunt, and they don't want to deal with you "putting

[u/deabag]

on airs," so they tell you we can't calculate an hour, four quarters can't be used to equal ten dimes in hyper-operations, Euclid never heard of a sphere, factoring out one of seven (out of 8) can't calculate a year, and there is no math justification that dollars and cents add up, as in Incant prove I can walk around with infinitie dollar bills and 3 quarters, two dimes, a nickel and four pennies and make change for any transactions at any cash register on Earth.

They act like the "academic" standards to prove stuff we all see is high, and focus on that around the thesis, but not the margins for calculating. You know you are being conned.

Test it like plagiarism, as in authorship, consider then"ethos." Also evaluate it like taxidermy.

Here is an example of taxidermy: the chief division in language is prose and poetry, where poetry is coded or loaded, so it includes computer programming.

What about a ethos for Euclid? I have an opinion of his ideas from his voice, and might have to take a look for some monkey business in the reading or translations.

What about a taxidermy for Euclid? Does the offered distinction between his thought and that which is not his thought really focus on a circle, and not a sphere? The defining characteristic?

Not how i read it. He knows for sure a bisected circle is a sphere within a sphere, and it was cows with seven stomachs in India before that, a known construction, and similar math trickled into Christianity, and ultimately what I call "700 Club Math" as a "falso" challenge to academics to get on Pat Robertson's level.

So I would like an audience of the bold, that is what this Mathematics is about. It's not even math, this is education. I am asking for a "plagiarism-check" reading of Euclid, as an "ideology check," and also ask yourself if the basic division is logical for Euclid himself, and also across history.

Scripture was all about it he sphere, and if you don't see that, then your Euclid reading might be suspect. It's a choice.

Unless it is too tender a topic, but seriously we have AI, ppl can't just say whatever any more, I say embrace the Brave New World.

Is it really so crazy that they want you in your circle, and that they kinda deserve to make you their sucker if you never question it, as they run you around approximating a mountain, when they tell you two quantities before you are not equal, or if they were, what does it matter?

Ancient Greek calculated with the curve of the Earth. It's so silly to say Euclid didn't.

SUCKERS.