No has said it because it’s not true.

My favorite version of this proof:

Let S be the subset of natural numbers that are not interesting. Suppose by way of contradiction that S is inhabited. Then by the well ordering principle of natural numbers, there is a least such element, s in S. In virtue of being the least non interesting number, s is in fact interesting. Hence s is not in S. Since s is in S and not in S, we have derived a contradiction. Therefore our assumption that S is inhabited must be false. Thus S is empty and there are no non interesting numbers.

A group is not an algebra. A group consists of a single associative binary operation with an identity element and inverses for each element.

A ring is an abelian (commutative) group under addition, along with an additional associative binary operation (multiplication) that distributes over addition. The additive identity is called zero.

A field is a ring in which every nonzero element has a multiplicative inverse.

A vector space over a field consists of an abelian group (the vectors) together with scalar multiplication by elements of the field, satisfying distributivity and compatibility conditions.

A non-associative algebra is a vector space equipped with a bilinear multiplication operation that distributes over vector addition and is compatible with scalar multiplication.

An (associative) algebra is a non-associative algebra whose multiplication operation is associative.

You can read more about these definitions online and in textbooks - these are standard definitions. If you are using different definitions, then it would help your case to provide them so we can better understand your claims.

The definition I’m aware of for non associative algebras has them distributive by default, so I believe the chain of equations is valid.

It’s not the same, and you kinda answered your own question with that quote. Consider what happens when an object defines both dunder bool and dunder len. It’s possible for dunder len to return 0 while dunder bool returns True, in which case the falsy-ness of the instance would not depend at all on the value of len

Interesting. I think it isn’t unital either otherwise Ω=0.

0=Ω+Ω=Ω+ΩΩ=Ω(1+Ω)=ΩΩ=Ω

Ah. That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation!

Not sure I understand. Are you agreeing that the moon landing happened but you also claim the footage is faked? Do you have any reasons to support that? You mention something about radio technology from the 1920s, but the moon landing occurred nearly 50 years later, so I hardly see how that is relevant.

Edit: I misread your comment. Thanks to @[email protected] for pointing it out.

Yeah, I’m gonna need more than your incredulity to convince me. Like, fun that you think it is inconceivable, but your inability to imagine has no bearing on reality. Especially when there is plenty of evidence to suggest they actually filmed and broadcasted it live. For example, the fact that a live television broadcast was a primary goal of the mission, or the fact that RCA made custom TV cameras for the Apollo program , or that the broadcast lasted for hours, or any of the analyses out there that shows the video is likely real. Also, no one suggested that the Apollo astronauts had a camera crew with them - what a bizarre thing to mention.

Why stop there? They’re just as real as any number.