Ignoring less significant value is common and necessary in engineering,
but taking the infinitesimal as zero (a blunder, simply because there
is no such thing as 'too small is zero' in logic) in
(real) number theory or beyond (some set theory) is just a blunder.

I did not polish this research and feel no need to, because I am busy
for other interested things and decided to announce this result:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/NumberView-en.txt/download
From the (beginning) research, only the derivative of power function is
exactly correct (equation can be validly linked by '='). Others
(exponential and trigonometric function) are 'infinitesimally 'close'
(this part of proof is incomplete).

P.S. I just point out one point for quick understanding: The dense
property in rational number and real number are different, the
procedure of reasoning (dense property) with the former must terminate,
while the latter must not, although they are all infinite procedures.
That's it, infinity refers to a procedure.

wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
> Ignoring less significant value is common and necessary in engineering,
> but taking the infinitesimal as zero (a blunder, simply because there
> is no such thing as 'too small is zero' in logic) in
> (real) number theory or beyond (some set theory) is just a blunder.
[...]

Did you really intend to post this to comp.lang.c?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

On Wed, 2024-01-17 at 07:37 -0800, Keith Thompson wrote:
> wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
> > Ignoring less significant value is common and necessary in
> > engineering,
> > but taking the infinitesimal as zero (a blunder, simply because
> > there
> > is no such thing as 'too small is zero' in logic) in
> > (real) number theory or beyond (some set theory) is just a blunder.
> [...]
>
> Did you really intend to post this to comp.lang.c?
>

Hah, you again. I was posting NEWS. If you don't like it, just ignore
it. Some people might like it.

On 17/01/2024 17:01, wij wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-01-17 at 07:37 -0800, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Ignoring less significant value is common and necessary in
>>> engineering,
>>> but taking the infinitesimal as zero (a blunder, simply because
>>> there
>>> is no such thing as 'too small is zero' in logic) in
>>> (real) number theory or beyond (some set theory) is just a blunder.
>> [...]
>>
>> Did you really intend to post this to comp.lang.c?
>>
>
> Hah, you again. I was posting NEWS. If you don't like it, just ignore
> it. Some people might like it.
>

To put this another way - it has no connection to C, so it does not
belong here. I /do/ find mathematics interesting, but this is not the
place for discussing it unless it is /really/ exciting and appeals to
many people, or is at least likely to be useful to people programming in C.

And since that "paper" is a mixture of misunderstandings, nonsense and
wild unjustified claims, it could barely count as mathematics. So I
don't know where you should be posting it. Maybe you'll find some
patient people in a mathematics group who will help you through your
countless errors. I'm not that patient - at least, not with such an
off-topic and error-ridden paper. Once the first few points get fixed,
the whole premise would fall apart, so it would be a waste of time.

Instead, I suggest you think about this - calculus has been a
cornerstone of mathematics, physics, and science in general for hundreds
of years. Millions of maths students learn all about the kind of thing
you are discussing, every year. If it were fundamentally broken in a
way that a complete amateur could describe in a short paper, don't you
think that someone might have noticed?

I recommend you stick to C in this group.

And I recommend you give up your maths, or at least start /learning/
things before you try to write about them, and find some suitable
discussion forum where you can get feedback quickly and not waste a lot
of effort writing something that is clearly wrong from the very start.

On Wed, 2024-01-17 at 18:41 +0100, David Brown wrote:
> On 17/01/2024 17:01, wij wrote:
> > On Wed, 2024-01-17 at 07:37 -0800, Keith Thompson wrote:
> > > wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > Ignoring less significant value is common and necessary in
> > > > engineering,
> > > > but taking the infinitesimal as zero (a blunder, simply because
> > > > there
> > > > is no such thing as 'too small is zero' in logic) in
> > > > (real) number theory or beyond (some set theory) is just a
> > > > blunder.
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Did you really intend to post this to comp.lang.c?
> > >
> >
> > Hah, you again. I was posting NEWS. If you don't like it, just
> > ignore
> > it. Some people might like it.
> >
>
> To put this another way - it has no connection to C, so it does not
> belong here.  I /do/ find mathematics interesting, but this is not
> the
> place for discussing it unless it is /really/ exciting and appeals to
> many people, or is at least likely to be useful to people programming
> in C.

Understand.

> And since that "paper" is a mixture of misunderstandings, nonsense
> and
> wild unjustified claims, it could barely count as mathematics.  So I
> don't know where you should be posting it.  Maybe you'll find some
> patient people in a mathematics group who will help you through your
> countless errors.  I'm not that patient - at least, not with such an
> off-topic and error-ridden paper.  Once the first few points get
> fixed,
> the whole premise would fall apart, so it would be a waste of time.

The 'paper' was actually my personal plan for writing programs to 
solve math. problems. The intended audience was only me (but
modified these years for people to read it 'comfortably', but because
I also had to keep it the original contents, so the result should be
a bit confusing).
I believe I found several serious problems with 'your math'. I
understand many people will disagree (maybe strongly disagree).

> Instead, I suggest you think about this - calculus has been a
> cornerstone of mathematics, physics, and science in general for
> hundreds
> of years.  Millions of maths students learn all about the kind of
> thing
> you are discussing, every year.  If it were fundamentally broken in a
> way that a complete amateur could describe in a short paper, don't
> you
> think that someone might have noticed?

Yes, that is something I wondered very much, too --- Why do so
many people believes 0.999..∉[0,1), what is the number close to
the left of 1? ... I do not intend to discuss this subject that
would be unfruitfully long.

> I recommend you stick to C in this group.

Thank for you comment. I don't write C for a long time. I now focus
on something on 'General Problem Solving' stuff. C would be
terrible for this.

> And I recommend you give up your maths, or at least start /learning/
> things before you try to write about them, and find some suitable
> discussion forum where you can get feedback quickly and not waste a
> lot
> of effort writing something that is clearly wrong from the very
> start.
>

P.S. Your comment looks like people not familiar with such
subject would say. Don't worry about me. I am very confident what I say
is correct. Your math. has a serious/foundamental defect.

On 17/01/2024 19:51, wij wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-01-17 at 18:41 +0100, David Brown wrote:

>> I recommend you stick to C in this group.
>
> Thank for you comment. I don't write C for a long time. I now focus
> on something on 'General Problem Solving' stuff. C would be
> terrible for this.
>

It sounds like C would be a poor fit. You might find Python better, or
some other language that has easy support of different kinds of number
with different precision. But without any connection to C, this is not
the right place for the discussion. (Note - I'm not trying to chase you
out of comp.lang.c - I'm trying to chase the wildly off-topic and
unproductive threads out of comp.lang.c.)

>> And I recommend you give up your maths, or at least start /learning/
>> things before you try to write about them, and find some suitable
>> discussion forum where you can get feedback quickly and not waste a
>> lot
>> of effort writing something that is clearly wrong from the very
>> start.
>>
>
> P.S. Your comment looks like people not familiar with such
> subject would say. Don't worry about me. I am very confident what I say
> is correct. Your math. has a serious/foundamental defect.
>

I see this kind of stuff every now and again. Someone is convinced they
have discovered a way in which "mainstream science" or "mainstream
maths" is wrong. They believe they have a way to trisect an angle with
ruler and compass, solve the halting problem, or prove that the earth is
flat, or - in your case - that calculus is flawed. It's sometimes down
to misunderstandings, and I hope that's the case for you - and that you
make the effort to learn about the subjects and realise how they
actually work. In other cases, there are deep-seated delusions and
people waste an inordinate amount of time on something that is
fundamentally wrong. I have no idea how to help such people.

It's quite clear that you haven't studied mathematics at the level you
are trying to use here, but have merely picked up a few bits and pieces
without really knowing what they mean. And you are clearly have some
vague ideas about mathematical rigour, but not the training or
experience to do it in practice. Thus you are making some attempts at
defining some your terms, while simultaneously misusing and
misunderstanding standard terms in ways that you are not properly
defining. (Hint - claiming properties of something does not mean that
thing exists as a mathematical object.)

So - good luck in trying to solve whatever problems you are trying to
solve. Good luck in learning real mathematics, and finding that it is
fascinating and amazing, and not flawed in the way you think. Good luck
in finding a suitable place to discuss these things.

And good luck in not posting here unless it is about C.

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]
> To put this another way - it has no connection to C, so it does not
> belong here.

David, I suggest following your own advice. A critique of this paper is
no more topical than the original post, and it strongly encourages wij
to continue posting. You're not helping.

[...]

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

On 1/17/2024 12:57 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> [...]
>> To put this another way - it has no connection to C, so it does not
>> belong here.
>
> David, I suggest following your own advice. A critique of this paper is
> no more topical than the original post, and it strongly encourages wij
> to continue posting. You're not helping.
>
> [...]
>

Well, David was being kind? He did mention the topicality of the
inquiry. For instance:

David Brown:
____________
[...]
It sounds like C would be a poor fit. You might find Python better, or
some other language that has easy support of different kinds of number
with different precision. But without any connection to C, this is not
the right place for the discussion. (Note - I'm not trying to chase you
out of comp.lang.c - I'm trying to chase the wildly off-topic and
unproductive threads out of comp.lang.c.)
[...]
____________