General concensus2012

So far I am as public anonymous! To the general consensus information, on new information to Wikipedia, is somehow original work, and thus somehow not wanted self propaganda or advertising! So when I am dead or after many many years, it might be valuable "consensus" information for Wikipedia! If evolution or whatever functioned in the biased manner humans minds do, imagine what beings we "would" or "could" be! Of course this sounds a bit weird, does it not? And I am no ancient Religious freak!

My Data (Thanks!)

Can anybody want to block only this page? Please do so!

Spam

If you persist in spamming multiple pages with off-topic material regarding your book, I will request that you be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of entirely non-notable self-published works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. General concensus2012 (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Back again Fri21Sep2018

General concensus2012 (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

George F. Thomson Broadhead

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GeorgeFThomson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:general_concensus2012

https://www.joinquest.com

General concensus2012 (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Page talks on Intuitionistic logic

I came across this publication, quite in accord with Intuitionistism and Constructivism.

Mathematicians are continuously developing Maths. I am sure absurdity cannot be maths entirely! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intuitionistic_logic#Intuitionistic_vs_Constructive

"Even if Hilbert was not the first to give a non-constructive proof, he was a major proponent of the non-constructive spirit, especially in his early period. Although Kronecker, who in general influenced Hilbert34, believed that existential propositions are meaningless if they do not explicitly specify the object the existence of which they ascertain, Hilbert saw in the negation of PLE a major shrink of mathematics. Providing a constructive proof of his previously non-constructively proven basis theorem, he revealed the importance of PLE, since the object that had to be constructed was already proven to “exist”. Even Gordan admitted that “theology” had its merits. Of course, as we can already suspect from K¨onig’s lemma case, this cannot be done with every nonconstructively proven theorem..." http://www.math.lmu.de/~petrakis/Master%20Thesis.pdf .

"Though Brouwer was completely against mathematics with PLE, it is worth remarking that by ¬∃loxP(x) ⇒ ¬∃coxP(x), the proof of logical non-existence implies constructive non-existence. In that way constructively acceptable results of logical non-existence can be incorporated to a TK. There are two major, classical questions on the philosophy of mathematics..." General concensus2012 (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Somebody is missing the point, or I do not understand Newton

Orbital_mechanics

I am having problems with understanding space, vacuum, and atmosphere. That is aerodynamics versus astrodynamics!

If somebody is wrong or everybody is wrong, or we need the story, or I am a skeptic. I wonder if being a skeptic and self publishing a book is a post modern given free humans rights! Well not in some countries.

Well don't throw at me a whack of equations, as basics is enough.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.223.49 (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC) (General concensus2012 (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC))