---
title: 'Australia''s Best Erotic Poet Is Bad at Mathematics'
source: 'https://youtube.com/watch?v=vuq0V5l5jq4'
video_id: 'vuq0V5l5jq4'
date: 2026-07-31
duration_sec: 417
---

# Australia's Best Erotic Poet Is Bad at Mathematics

> Source: [Australia's Best Erotic Poet Is Bad at Mathematics](https://youtube.com/watch?v=vuq0V5l5jq4)

## Summary

A self-proclaimed 'Australia's best erotic poet' repeatedly posts a proof in math forums claiming mathematics is self-contradictory. This video dissects his flawed reasoning, demonstrates the correct formal definition of whole numbers, and critiques his poetry and cultural appropriation.

### Key Points

- **Introducing Colin Leslie Dean** [00:02] — Australia's self-declared best erotic poet posts his proof that mathematics is self-contradictory across math forums, calling mathematicians fools. The video aims to show why he is wrong and maybe teach some real math.
- **Dean's Contradiction Argument** [00:48] — He defines whole numbers as numbers with no non-zero digits to the right of the decimal point, and non-whole numbers as having non-zero digits there. Since 1 equals 0.9 repeating (which has non-zero digits to the right), a whole number equals a non-whole number, which he calls a contradiction.
- **Proof by Contradiction** [01:31] — This structure is a proof by contradiction: if assumptions lead to a contradiction, one assumption must be false. Dean concludes the false assumption is that mathematics has meaning, but there is a better candidate.
- **The Flaw: Defining Whole Numbers by Decimals** [02:14] — The real issue is Dean's decimal-based definition. Mathematical facts should be independent of notation; ancient Greeks had notions of whole and non-whole numbers without decimals, so a non-decimal definition exists.
- **Formal Construction of Whole Numbers** [02:50] — The standard modern definition starts with pairs of counting numbers. Pairs are equivalent if you add 1 to both elements; equivalence is transitive. Collecting all equivalent pairs into sets yields the integers, where each set can have multiple names like '1' and '0.9 repeating'.
- **Resolving the Contradiction** [04:30] — With the correct definition, 1 and 0.9 repeating are merely two names for the same integer, so no contradiction arises. The presence of digits to the right of the decimal becomes irrelevant.
- **Critique of Dean's Poetry** [04:42] — The video reviews Dean's poetry, calling it unreadable: 20 pages of a single run-on sentence without line breaks or rhythm, archaic words randomly placed, and unpredictable font shifts between Papyrus and Matta Script.
- **Cultural Appropriation Concerns** [05:11] — Dean published erotic poems he claims are re-imagined translations of Aboriginal poetry, which is problematic unless he is Aboriginal. He also authored books of Muslim, Indian, and Japanese erotica, raising ethical questions unless he has genuine ties to those cultures.
- **Conclusion** [06:23] — Mathematics is safe from Dean's flawed proof; with proper definitions, the foundations are rugged. The video suggests the literature community can handle his poetry on its own terms.

## Transcript

in every mathematics Forum that he can post in Australia's self-declared best erotic poet dumps his proof that mathematics is self-contradictory and that a mathematicians are fools for doing maths today I'm going to show why
doing maths today I'm going to show why the self-titled magar Colin Leslie Dean is wrong and perhaps teach a little bit about actual mathematics along the way if I'm feeling extra Feist I might even go after him on his home
I might even go after him on his home turf of literature so what is Colin Dean's proof of mathematics self-contradiction that he inflicts upon the undeserving mathematical Community with the annoying recurrence rivaled
with the annoying recurrence rivaled only by a foot fungus it goes as follows the whole numbers are numbers without nonzero digits to the right of the decimal place and the nonhle number numbers have nonzeros to the right of
the decimal point 1.0 is a whole number because it can be 1.0 is a whole number because it can be represented with no nonzero numbers to the right of the decimal point 0.9 repeating is not a whole number it has
nonzero digits to the right of the decimal point but one equals 0.9 repeating this means that the that a whole number is equal to a non-hole
number something being equal to its opposite is a contradiction so therefore all of mathematics is wrong a proof structured like this is called a proof by contradiction the idea is if you start from a group of assumptions and
get to a contradiction then one of your assumptions must be wrong to our master of erotic verse the assumption that he has concluded is wrong is that
has concluded is wrong is that mathematics has meaning however perhaps there is another assumption that was made which would be better to select as the incorrect one perhaps what is wrong is not the whole of mathematics but the
definition our poet is using for whole numbers there is a basic principle of mathematics that mathematical facts should be true independent of the
notation that you use the ancient Greek for example have Notions of whole and non-hole numbers but they didn't have decimals so that clearly shows that
there must be some other way of distinguishing between whole and distinguishing between whole and non-hole numbers without using decimals I'm not going to go into the ancient Greek system here I'm going to go with
the standard modern definition of whole numbers it starts with taking pairs of counting or natural numbers pairs where the replacement in the pair matters I've
already talked about what the formal definition of what a counting number is in another video but in short the counting numbers are basically zero the next number after zero the next number after that one and so on and so on with
these pairs of counting numbers we now establish a few rules about how pairs can be equivalent first we say a pair is equivalent to the pair that we get after
adding one to the first and the second number in the pair then we say that equivalence is transitive in other words if Diamond pair and circle pair are
equivalent and circle pair and square pair are equivalent then Diamond pair and square pair are equivalent we then collect all the equivalent pairs into sets we then can call the entire collection of sets the the whole numbers
collection of sets the the whole numbers or integers we can give each set a name and each set can have multiple names so this set can be called one 0.9 repeating
itchy you know with this definition of a whole number our Poetics friends proof can now be resolved without contradiction because we are simply referring to two different names for the same thing and the fact that one name
has digits to the right of the decimal point no longer matters well at least Colin Leslie Dean has his poetry so let's review his poetry his
poetry so let's review his poetry his poetry is unreadable yes poetry is subjective but for this particular subject 20 pages of a single runon sentence without line breaks or rhythm
sentence without line breaks or rhythm with archaic words splashed in seeming L at random shifting unpredictably between using the fonts Papyrus and Matta script is just not conducive to pleasure but there is something that goes beyond just
there is something that goes beyond just my personal preferences he has published quinin erotic poems from the Australian Aborigines which he claims are re-imagined translations of Aboriginal poetry
cultures of the Australian Aboriginal people are under constant threat so if a non-aboriginal person was to publish poetry passing off as being genuinely
Aboriginal that would be kind of scummy I truly hope that he is of Aboriginal descent but let's just skim over the rest of this guy's catalog of published books of poetry he has a book of Muslim erotica
poetry he has a book of Muslim erotica authored by him and a book of Indian erotica oh and some Japanese erotica unless he's an Indian Muslim Aboriginal
Australia with Japanese Heritage this is really problematic the mathematical Community will most likely never be free of our
self-appointed greatest erotic poet but at least the foundations of mathematics isn't at risk with a few good definitions it is rugged as for the literature Community I am sure that they are able
Community I am sure that they are able to make their own about more Concepts such as these please consider watching some of
these please consider watching some of my videos recommended