The thing is... they do not believe, they defined it.

It might be helpful to break this into separate questions and provide references that clarify your position in more detail. For instance point 3 about the fundamental theorem of algebra being flawed makes me wonder why you think it is flawed, but I assume you have some reference you could cite to clarify what you mean.

"ethics" ???????

@rus9384 So many naive definitions had been proven wrong, and so, unfortunately, many of their simple definitions had become actually as mere beliefs only, where the mathematicians still think wrongly that a mere simple definition can make a real discovery, but the fact it makes only a mental mind game where it leads ultimately to so many obvious contradictions, where then they adopt a kind of catalogue on how and when to use rules of imaginary numbers for instance where you must not contradict the original decision, so everything becomes as a matter of fun at the end

If you do not like infinities, you can adopt the Ultrafinitism point of view: fullstop.

Maths partially became a state of art and made not only for discovery. E.g. how knowing that there are infinitely many "bluvorious" numbers does not help understand the world. (Yes, I just invented the meaningless word).

@MauroALLEGRANZA, Yes I added this topic for a clear reason that says, people generally deny and resist strictly anything beyond or contradicts strictly their own common inherited beliefs, this fact is not only in old centuries but so intrinsic behaviour of human beings especially with those alleged people with the highest knowledge, they truly can't distinguish that they are simply believers, but of course there are very rare exceptions to every rule, sure

When you engage these people who believe in allegedly false beliefs, how do you approach them? History shows that how one makes a point affects how well the point is taken. As a case study, I've worked with creationists who violently oppose evolution, but if you take the time to work with them and listen to them, they become more open to it.

Taking my own advice to heart, I have to ask, how much formal mathematical training do you have? I wrote my answer assuming very little, because I presumed that one could not have a large amount of formal training without being introduced to the structures mathematicians use to avoid blind belief, but in retrospect, that was an assumption. I may be able to better tailor an answer if I know more about your training.

@MauroALLEGRANZA, the whole issue is irrelevant to what we do like or believe or what we actually dislike, the whole point is to discover the absolute facts that usually case all those many unsettled issues in mathematics, where people now are talking about them in many unmoderated sites for most days and nights, where also so many innocent and so undesirable questions to the professionals are almost raining daily at SE sections, despite immediate daily continuous actions of deleting them by the professional moderators, where this finally creates a stronger reaction with many more cotra.

Welcome to Philosophy SE. I am voting to close your question because — as the rules state — questions that are a rant in disguise and that pushes a personal opinion/agenda are not appropriate here.

@MichaelK Actually you aren't at all welcoming me to Philosophy, and your voting to close my question was very much expected, because I know that mere facts rarely, please anybody, especially if it strictly contradicts their own common inherited old beliefs, because I usually experienced or got used to these reactions for years by now, but certainly every point had been published publicly elsewhere, where simply no one can touch, remove or dirt it, here are few short answers of mine at Quora for anyone interested: quora.com/profile/Bassam-Karzeddin-1, also at sci.math freely.

@bassamkarzeddin You are not stating facts, you are pushing a personal opinion that "infinity" and "complex numbers" are "meaningless concepts". You claim that your personal forays into these concepts are "proven" and expect us to exit Stack Exchange to read and accept your works as fact. Again: you are pushing a personal agenda. Let me be blunt: Philosophy SE is not your personal soap-box that you can use to market your work and your opinions. There are plenty of forums for that sort of activity, but Stack Exchange is not one of them.

@MichaelK, I truly don't market anything personal for any kind of profits, but stating proven facts so rigorously (elsewhere), just to be honoured of saving the humanity from so much addicted sweet mind games in mathematics that best suits a carpenter talent, where then it becomes so huge and so easy as well, and take away the talented people from real true challenging discoveries or so old problems since many centuries or thousands of years by now, especially in number theory and Geometry, it is also well-understood that Engineering mathematics is never pure matyhematics but tiny..

@bassamkarzeddin Marketing your works and/or opinions in order to "be honoured" is not what Philosophy SE is about. Please, take your quest for vanity elsewhere. You are welcome to refer to your works when your works have been published, and then reviewed and recognised as valid and useful by your peers. Until then I wish you best of luck... and that someone will grant you with a modicum of humility.

"saving the humanity from so much addicted sweet mind games in mathematics", out of all problems in the world: diseases, catastrophes, terrorism, thus is problem is, indeed, outstanding one and is the most important.

@MichaelK, I do understand that you are trying your best to hide such a question and definitely you would find many supporters, and we do understand why people generally believe in the authority decisions as peer review and published, but the whole important point that this topic tells you that so much of peer review papers, historical so rigorous topics had flowed from the beginning, so to say the whole issue is not that easy that you can decide, this must be placed underworld review (including independent thinkers, philosophers, logicians, politicians, ...etc) instead of mathematicains only

@rus9384, what do I mean that mathematicians must act equalizers to the whole humanity, since they are the best people who understand the equal sign, but it seems that some devilish force had made them astray and away, where then a devil had convinced them slowly to replace this sign, =, by so many other things as (nearly equal, limits, convergence, intermediate theorems, epsilon, delta, approaching fast, infamous cuts, ...etc, just to keep them astray and away sleeping and so addicted in so many fictional Paradises, where then such a crimes are so visible on earth by the rules of devils)

@bassamkarzeddin: Watch your tone. I do not care what you say, but your formulations are a) offensive and disrespectful and b) posing the question as a purely rhetorical one. This means that it is the form of your content, the how you do it that makes it inappropriate content for SE.

Bassam Karzeddin, from looking at your choices of words and phrases, I may be able to offer a helpful suggestion: explore rhetoric, which is the art of persuasive discourse. Entering an area which has a prevailing position and announcing "all of you are wrong, I am right, and you are idiots for not seeing it already" has an enormous precedent for resulting in summary rejection of your argument. People just don't find value in discussing things with people who use that style. In fact, my opinion is that if you were ...

... arguing that the concept of addition is useful (something that most people would agree with), and you argued it with the tone you used here, you would find that many people would reject your claim, even though they agree with you, simply on the grounds that the rhetorical style is not one which they are interested in engaging in.

@Gordon, not at all but was outlining the so simple idea, that what would happen in today or tomorrow world as well, once the supposed more truly logical people are kept aside on the top of the trees like innocent birds where hardly come to be noted by others in their so dark and so addicted silent world, and you might see nowadays how the importance of such a good footballer boy is practically much more important than almost the whole mathematicians on earth with all their news or beliefs or theorems or so, same as applicable if you consider a (singer, politician, dancer, ..etc), so what?

But who are you to say what mathematicians must do? They are not your employees, not your slaves. You may say you want them to do something, but they may want to do something other. No, it's not the devilish force, it's curiosity and you can't call it devilish force. It is the reason why people had evolved.

@bassamkarzdeedin First, I have to say I enjoy your writing style. You know how to paint pictures with words. Very colorful, and you have some talent in writing. But there are very few innocent birds here, especially when it comes to mathematics! You are attacking the wrong audience. You have to show your work around here in an orderly way, that's all. Fortunately, I don't know any mathematics, so I can't give an opinion on your theories. But for the real math people you will have to slow down and be orderly.

@Gordon, It is indeed your good luck that you don't know any advanced mathematics, where most of those many fictions can be simply grasped by laypersons or talented school student the way you got them easily and fast, but the whole problem so, unfortunately, seems intrinsic with specialized and professional mathematicians believers generally, where egoistic physicology problems play a very important rule in this regard, they had already taken my this topic to bad mathematics section elsewhere: reddit.com/r/badmathematics/comments/89u8of/…