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.

On 1/17/24 6:31 AM, wij wrote:
> 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.
>
>

In one sense, you ara correct, Calculus is based on a delta/epsilon
argument that if for every allowable error in results (epsilon) no
matter how small (as long as it isn't required to be 0) there is a
existance of a range of input numbers (delta) also greater than zero
where that error is satisfied, then we say that the limit of the thing
exists at that value.

Since there is no lower limit to epsilon, the limit process lets us
define the results as if it was defined at the value 0, so to calculus,
actually infintesimal is zero.

Other maths can be created that work on different rules, and those may
handle some conditions that the normal calculus can't, they tend to not
handle something that calculus does.

wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

It may or may not be. But in calculus, the rigorous theory, this is not
done. A degree in mathematics is helpful for pontificating about such
things.

> 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).

Again, you're lacking a degree in maths, otherwise you would not be
saying such ridiculous and false things. What on Earth does
"infinitesimally close" even mean? It has no meaning in the real or
complex numbers, or any subfield of them.

> 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.

Yet again, the degree in maths is missing. Your last paragraph is
meaningless. Of course the property of denseness is different in two
distinct fields, otherwise the fields would be the same. The process of
reasoning always terminates, if a conclusion is ever to be reached.

Mathematics has developed rigorous methods for dealing with "infinite"
things. It wouldn't do you any harm to learn about these.

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany)

On Wed, 2024-01-17 at 07:44 -0500, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/17/24 6:31 AM, wij wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> >
>
> In one sense, you ara correct, Calculus is based on a delta/epsilon
> argument that if for every allowable error in results (epsilon) no
> matter how small (as long as it isn't required to be 0) there is a
> existance of a range of input numbers (delta) also greater than zero
> where that error is satisfied, then we say that the limit of the
> thing
> exists at that value.
>
> Since there is no lower limit to epsilon, the limit process lets us
> define the results as if it was defined at the value 0, so to
> calculus,
> actually infintesimal is zero.
> Other maths can be created that work on different rules, and those

Invalid argument ignored (reciting book-say while the article is about
rebuttal of book-say and no insight was provided)

> may
> handle some conditions that the normal calculus can't, they tend to
> not
> handle something that calculus does.

Anything relevant? We have discussed 'Infinity' for a long time,
please provides 'insight'.

On Wed, 2024-01-17 at 12:46 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> It may or may not be.  But in calculus, the rigorous theory, this is
> not
> done.  A degree in mathematics is helpful for pontificating about
> such
> things.
>
> > 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).
>
> Again, you're lacking a degree in maths, otherwise you would not be
> saying such ridiculous and false things.  What on Earth does
> "infinitesimally close" even mean?  It has no meaning in the real or
> complex numbers, or any subfield of them.
>
> > 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.
>
> Yet again, the degree in maths is missing.  Your last paragraph is
> meaningless.  Of course the property of denseness is different in two
> distinct fields, otherwise the fields would be the same.  The process
> of
> reasoning always terminates, if a conclusion is ever to be reached.
>
> Mathematics has developed rigorous methods for dealing with
> "infinite"
> things.  It wouldn't do you any harm to learn about these.

You emphasized several times on '??graduate degree' and insist on 
book-says which indicates you are a student or a book-worm type of
person manufactured by the system, knowing nothing yet about the
real thing.

For you, the article belongs to 'research level'. Keep humble won't
hurt.

wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-01-17 at 12:46 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 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.

>> It may or may not be.  But in calculus, the rigorous theory, this is
>> not done.  A degree in mathematics is helpful for pontificating about
>> such things.

>> > 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).

>> Again, you're lacking a degree in maths, otherwise you would not be
>> saying such ridiculous and false things.  What on Earth does
>> "infinitesimally close" even mean?  It has no meaning in the real or
>> complex numbers, or any subfield of them.

>> > 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.

>> Yet again, the degree in maths is missing.  Your last paragraph is
>> meaningless.  Of course the property of denseness is different in two
>> distinct fields, otherwise the fields would be the same.  The process
>> of reasoning always terminates, if a conclusion is ever to be reached.

>> Mathematics has developed rigorous methods for dealing with "infinite"
>> things.  It wouldn't do you any harm to learn about these.

> You emphasized several times on '??graduate degree' and insist on 
> book-says which indicates you are a student or a book-worm type of
> person manufactured by the system, knowing nothing yet about the
> real thing.

That's an unwarranted insult. I am a graduate mathematician, hence
educated in maths. You are clearly not. A maths degree course is
difficult, and it gets down to fundamentals, where things are _proved_.

> For you, the article belongs to 'research level'. Keep humble won't
> hurt.

No, I am afraid it is at crank level. At the same level as somebody
trying to prove 2 + 2 = 5, or demonstrate that the Earth is flat. A few
hundred years ago, your statements would have been legitimate views open
to debate and research. These things, however, have long been settled
and incorporated into mathematics, just as the fact that the Earth is an
approximate sphere has been incorporated into geography.

That you do not understand such things should be a reason for humbleness
on _your_ part, and perhaps a willingness to accept the knowledge and
wisdom of those who have studied and understand them.

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

On Wed, 2024-01-17 at 14:45 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2024-01-17 at 12:46 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > > wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 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.
>
> > > It may or may not be.  But in calculus, the rigorous theory, this
> > > is
> > > not done.  A degree in mathematics is helpful for pontificating
> > > about
> > > such things.
>
> > > > 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).
>
> > > Again, you're lacking a degree in maths, otherwise you would not
> > > be
> > > saying such ridiculous and false things.  What on Earth does
> > > "infinitesimally close" even mean?  It has no meaning in the real
> > > or
> > > complex numbers, or any subfield of them.
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > > Yet again, the degree in maths is missing.  Your last paragraph
> > > is
> > > meaningless.  Of course the property of denseness is different in
> > > two
> > > distinct fields, otherwise the fields would be the same.  The
> > > process
> > > of reasoning always terminates, if a conclusion is ever to be
> > > reached.
>
> > > Mathematics has developed rigorous methods for dealing with
> > > "infinite"
> > > things.  It wouldn't do you any harm to learn about these.
>
> > You emphasized several times on '??graduate degree' and insist on 
> > book-says which indicates you are a student or a book-worm type of
> > person manufactured by the system, knowing nothing yet about the
> > real thing.
>
> That's an unwarranted insult.  I am a graduate mathematician, hence
> educated in maths.  You are clearly not.  A maths degree course is
> difficult, and it gets down to fundamentals, where things are
> _proved_.

Ok, a 'real' scholar should know that the real thing is the king. If
what even olcott the idiot says could be reproduced, any scholar
must obey, nothing to do with what one graduates, except
the 'real' thing means money/power/politics sort of stuff recognized
by the authority.

> > For you, the article belongs to 'research level'. Keep humble won't
> > hurt.
>
> No, I am afraid it is at crank level.  At the same level as somebody
> trying to prove 2 + 2 = 5, or demonstrate that the Earth is flat.  
> A few
> hundred years ago, your statements would have been legitimate views
> open
> to debate and research.  These things, however, have long been
> settled
> and incorporated into mathematics, just as the fact that the Earth is
> an
> approximate sphere has been incorporated into geography.

What the (1st-hand) proof you have that the Earth is like a ball?

> That you do not understand such things should be a reason for
> humbleness
> on _your_ part, and perhaps a willingness to accept the knowledge and
> wisdom of those who have studied and understand them.

That doesn't sound like what a scholar should say, rather, a crank
as you said.

wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-01-17 at 14:45 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2024-01-17 at 12:46 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> > > wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > 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.

>> > > It may or may not be.  But in calculus, the rigorous theory, this
>> > > is not done.  A degree in mathematics is helpful for pontificating
>> > > about such things.

>> > > > 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).

>> > > Again, you're lacking a degree in maths, otherwise you would not
>> > > be saying such ridiculous and false things.  What on Earth does
>> > > "infinitesimally close" even mean?  It has no meaning in the real
>> > > or complex numbers, or any subfield of them.

>> > > > 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.

>> > > Yet again, the degree in maths is missing.  Your last paragraph is
>> > > meaningless.  Of course the property of denseness is different in
>> > > two distinct fields, otherwise the fields would be the same.  The
>> > > process of reasoning always terminates, if a conclusion is ever to
>> > > be reached.

>> > > Mathematics has developed rigorous methods for dealing with
>> > > "infinite" things.  It wouldn't do you any harm to learn about
>> > > these.

>> > You emphasized several times on '??graduate degree' and insist on 
>> > book-says which indicates you are a student or a book-worm type of
>> > person manufactured by the system, knowing nothing yet about the
>> > real thing.

>> That's an unwarranted insult.  I am a graduate mathematician, hence
>> educated in maths.  You are clearly not.  A maths degree course is
>> difficult, and it gets down to fundamentals, where things are
>> _proved_.

> Ok, a 'real' scholar should know that the real thing is the king.

That's what I've been trying to get you to accept over the last couple of
posts. And the real thing is not vague fumbling talk about
infinitesimals or crank talk about derivatives being "infinitesimally
close". It's the rigorous theory of calculus as discovered and
formalised by brilliant mathematicians over the last few hundred years.

> If what even olcott the idiot says could be reproduced, any scholar
> must obey, nothing to do with what one graduates, except
> the 'real' thing means money/power/politics sort of stuff recognized
> by the authority.

I can't really parse what you're trying to say, but real knowledge
doesn't arise from money/power/politics, and certainly has nothing to do
with Peter Olcott.

>> > For you, the article belongs to 'research level'. Keep humble won't
>> > hurt.

>> No, I am afraid it is at crank level.  At the same level as somebody
>> trying to prove 2 + 2 = 5, or demonstrate that the Earth is flat.   A
>> few hundred years ago, your statements would have been legitimate
>> views open to debate and research.  These things, however, have long
>> been settled and incorporated into mathematics, just as the fact that
>> the Earth is an approximate sphere has been incorporated into
>> geography.

> What the (1st-hand) proof you have that the Earth is like a ball?

A perfectly adequate answer would be to say that scientists over the last
few hundred years have established it, and there is no credible doubt
about the fact; also that astronauts have taken photographs of the Earth
showing it to be a ball.

But to answer your question in the spirit it was put, yes I have strong
evidence: Having moved a long way south, the sun is higher in the sky
than it was, and the variation of the length of day throughout the year
is less extreme than further north.

>> That you do not understand such things should be a reason for
>> humbleness on _your_ part, and perhaps a willingness to accept the
>> knowledge and wisdom of those who have studied and understand them.

> That doesn't sound like what a scholar should say, rather, a crank
> as you said.

No. Do you know what a crank is? It is somebody who is ignorant on a
particular topic, believes himself to be an expert on it, refuses to
accept established facts about it, and propounds falsehoods as though
they were fact.

Peter Olcott is a crank about computing theory. If you carry on
announcing falsehoods about mathematics, you will establish yourself as a
mathematical crank. Alternatively, you could take the effort to learn
some mathematics (I know, it isn't easy), or simply accept what those
knowledgeable in maths tell you.

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

On 1/17/24 12:31, wij wrote:
> 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.
>
>

The file:

> Zero-Point primitive function::= Function g'(x,h) is the ZP-primitive
> function of g(x,h) iff g and g' are exactly the same except
g(x,0) is
> undefined but g'(x,0) is defined.
> g and g' looks similar but very different in essence: g'(x,h) is
a function
> of g(x,U'(x)).
>
> Theorem: If the ZP-privitive function g' (of g) exists, g' is unique.
> Proof: Omitted.

Consider
g'1(x,h) = {x÷h if h≠0 else 42 if h=0}
g'2(x,h) = {x÷h if h≠0 else 99 if h=0}
They both meet your definition but they are not unique.

You might also want to study limits.

On 1/17/24 14:48, wij wrote:
>
> Invalid argument ignored (reciting book-say while the article is about
> rebuttal of book-say and no insight was provided)
>

No you.

>> may
>> handle some conditions that the normal calculus can't, they tend to
>> not
>> handle something that calculus does.
>
> Anything relevant? We have discussed 'Infinity' for a long time,
> please provides 'insight'.
>
you will find "book-say" very insightful if you bother to understand it.

On Wed, 2024-01-17 at 16:42 +0000, acm@muc.de wrote:
> wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2024-01-17 at 14:45 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > > wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2024-01-17 at 12:46 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > > > > wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > 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.
>
> > > > > It may or may not be.  But in calculus, the rigorous theory,
> > > > > this
> > > > > is not done.  A degree in mathematics is helpful for
> > > > > pontificating
> > > > > about such things.
>
> > > > > > 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).
>
> > > > > Again, you're lacking a degree in maths, otherwise you would
> > > > > not
> > > > > be saying such ridiculous and false things.  What on Earth
> > > > > does
> > > > > "infinitesimally close" even mean?  It has no meaning in the
> > > > > real
> > > > > or complex numbers, or any subfield of them.
>
> > > > > > 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.
>
> > > > > Yet again, the degree in maths is missing.  Your last
> > > > > paragraph is
> > > > > meaningless.  Of course the property of denseness is
> > > > > different in
> > > > > two distinct fields, otherwise the fields would be the same. 
> > > > > The
> > > > > process of reasoning always terminates, if a conclusion is
> > > > > ever to
> > > > > be reached.
>
> > > > > Mathematics has developed rigorous methods for dealing with
> > > > > "infinite" things.  It wouldn't do you any harm to learn
> > > > > about
> > > > > these.
>
> > > > You emphasized several times on '??graduate degree' and insist
> > > > on 
> > > > book-says which indicates you are a student or a book-worm type
> > > > of
> > > > person manufactured by the system, knowing nothing yet about
> > > > the
> > > > real thing.
>
> > > That's an unwarranted insult.  I am a graduate mathematician,
> > > hence
> > > educated in maths.  You are clearly not.  A maths degree course
> > > is
> > > difficult, and it gets down to fundamentals, where things are
> > > _proved_.
>
> > Ok, a 'real' scholar should know that the real thing is the king.
>
> That's what I've been trying to get you to accept over the last
> couple of
> posts.  And the real thing is not vague fumbling talk about
> infinitesimals or crank talk about derivatives being "infinitesimally
> close".  It's the rigorous theory of calculus as discovered and
> formalised by brilliant mathematicians over the last few hundred
> years.
>
> > If what even olcott the idiot says could be reproduced, any scholar
> > must obey, nothing to do with what one graduates, except
> > the 'real' thing means money/power/politics sort of stuff
> > recognized
> > by the authority.
>
> I can't really parse what you're trying to say, but real knowledge
> doesn't arise from money/power/politics, and certainly has nothing to
> do
> with Peter Olcott.
>
> > > > For you, the article belongs to 'research level'. Keep humble
> > > > won't
> > > > hurt.
>
> > > No, I am afraid it is at crank level.  At the same level as
> > > somebody
> > > trying to prove 2 + 2 = 5, or demonstrate that the Earth is
> > > flat.   A
> > > few hundred years ago, your statements would have been legitimate
> > > views open to debate and research.  These things, however, have
> > > long
> > > been settled and incorporated into mathematics, just as the fact
> > > that
> > > the Earth is an approximate sphere has been incorporated into
> > > geography.
>
> > What the (1st-hand) proof you have that the Earth is like a ball?
>
> A perfectly adequate answer would be to say that scientists over the
> last
> few hundred years have established it, and there is no credible doubt
> about the fact; also that astronauts have taken photographs of the
> Earth
> showing it to be a ball.

So your truth is not very different than hear-and-say?

> But to answer your question in the spirit it was put, yes I have
> strong
> evidence: Having moved a long way south, the sun is higher in the sky
> than it was, and the variation of the length of day throughout the
> year
> is less extreme than further north.

Those Earther flatters do not travel?

Why is your feel more truthful than those Earth flatter?

> > > That you do not understand such things should be a reason for
> > > humbleness on _your_ part, and perhaps a willingness to accept
> > > the
> > > knowledge and wisdom of those who have studied and understand
> > > them.
>
> > That doesn't sound like what a scholar should say, rather, a crank
> > as you said.
>
> No.  Do you know what a crank is?  It is somebody who is ignorant on
> a
> particular topic, believes himself to be an expert on it, refuses to
> accept established facts about it, and propounds falsehoods as though
> they were fact.
>
> Peter Olcott is a crank about computing theory.  If you carry on
> announcing falsehoods about mathematics, you will establish yourself
> as a
> mathematical crank.  Alternatively, you could take the effort to
> learn
> some mathematics (I know, it isn't easy), or simply accept what those
> knowledgeable in maths tell you.
>

On 1/17/24 14:52, wij wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-01-17 at 12:46 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> It may or may not be.  But in calculus, the rigorous theory, this is
>> not
>> done.  A degree in mathematics is helpful for pontificating about
>> such
>> things.
>>
>>> 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).
>>
>> Again, you're lacking a degree in maths, otherwise you would not be
>> saying such ridiculous and false things.  What on Earth does
>> "infinitesimally close" even mean?  It has no meaning in the real or
>> complex numbers, or any subfield of them.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Yet again, the degree in maths is missing.  Your last paragraph is
>> meaningless.  Of course the property of denseness is different in two
>> distinct fields, otherwise the fields would be the same.  The process
>> of
>> reasoning always terminates, if a conclusion is ever to be reached.
>>
>> Mathematics has developed rigorous methods for dealing with
>> "infinite"
>> things.  It wouldn't do you any harm to learn about these.
>
> You emphasized several times on '??graduate degree' and insist on
> book-says which indicates you are a student or a book-worm type of
> person manufactured by the system, knowing nothing yet about the
> real thing.
>

You can learn a lot from books, if you have the right ones. They can
tell you how to think, and then show you why things are true.

You're trying to write new book-say, so I don't know why you use it as
an insult.

> For you, the article belongs to 'research level'. Keep humble won't
> hurt.

Apart from using different words, what do you add that is not in the
books? Just tell us that part. If you know the books, you can tell us
which part is new.

On 1/17/24 16:46, wij wrote:
>
> What the (1st-hand) proof you have that the Earth is like a ball?
>

The ancient Greeks discovered it by measuring the angles of shadows at
the same time in different cities. I haven't seen any reason to do this
experiment, but if you are doubting it, then I think you should do it.
It's easy now that you can just watch a video camera in another country,
instead of travelling by horse.

>> That you do not understand such things should be a reason for
>> humbleness
>> on _your_ part, and perhaps a willingness to accept the knowledge and
>> wisdom of those who have studied and understand them.
>
> That doesn't sound like what a scholar should say, rather, a crank
> as you said.
>

It does sound like something a scholar would say. A good scholar would
say that you should be willing to accept all knowledge with evidence.
Math is good like this, because a book can show you the proof of
calculus from first principles - just like you're doing in your writing.
Instead of spending time inventing the same things again, the people who
came before you can help you discover it more quickly. And when you are
talking about the same thing as someone else, it is good to use the same
word so that you each know what the other person is talking about.

On Wed, 2024-01-17 at 18:19 +0100, immibis wrote:
> On 1/17/24 14:52, wij wrote:
> > On Wed, 2024-01-17 at 12:46 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > > wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > It may or may not be.  But in calculus, the rigorous theory, this
> > > is
> > > not
> > > done.  A degree in mathematics is helpful for pontificating about
> > > such
> > > things.
> > >
> > > > 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).
> > >
> > > Again, you're lacking a degree in maths, otherwise you would not
> > > be
> > > saying such ridiculous and false things.  What on Earth does
> > > "infinitesimally close" even mean?  It has no meaning in the real
> > > or
> > > complex numbers, or any subfield of them.
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Yet again, the degree in maths is missing.  Your last paragraph
> > > is
> > > meaningless.  Of course the property of denseness is different in
> > > two
> > > distinct fields, otherwise the fields would be the same.  The
> > > process
> > > of
> > > reasoning always terminates, if a conclusion is ever to be
> > > reached.
> > >
> > > Mathematics has developed rigorous methods for dealing with
> > > "infinite"
> > > things.  It wouldn't do you any harm to learn about these.
> >
> > You emphasized several times on '??graduate degree' and insist on
> > book-says which indicates you are a student or a book-worm type of
> > person manufactured by the system, knowing nothing yet about the
> > real thing.
> >
>
> You can learn a lot from books, if you have the right ones. They can
> tell you how to think, and then show you why things are true.
>
> You're trying to write new book-say, so I don't know why you use it
> as
> an insult.
>
> > For you, the article belongs to 'research level'. Keep humble won't
> > hurt.
>
> Apart from using different words, what do you add that is not in the
> books? Just tell us that part. If you know the books, you can tell us
> which part is new.
>

I just saw olcott call you a troll. You are really a troll.

On 1/17/24 19:08, wij wrote:
>
> I just saw olcott call you a troll. You are really a troll.
>

Pot, meet kettle. Wanna read what I wrote, or?

On 17/01/2024 11:31, wij wrote:
> 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) [...].

Stop there. According to the axioms of the real numbers [and
note that "real" here is not necessarily related to "reality"], there
are /no/ non-zero infinitesimals. According to other sets of axioms,
eg those of non-standard analysis, or those of the surreal numbers,
or those of the hyperreals, there do exist non-zero infinitesimal
surreal/hyperreal/... numbers, but then no-one competent makes the
mistake of equating a non-zero infinitesimal to zero. See, for
example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonstandard_analysis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal_number

Get back to us when you have understood these articles. Your first
task then is to tell us what axioms /you/ intend to use; otherwise
it is impossible to make head or tail of your results.

> I did not polish this research and feel no need to, [...].

That is all too obvious. You have been peddling this stuff
for years now, with no signs of understanding either what you are
doing or what others have told you to try to help.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Necke

On Wed, 2024-01-17 at 23:31 +0000, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 17/01/2024 11:31, wij wrote:
> > 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)
> > [...].
>
> Stop there.  According to the axioms of the real numbers
> [and
> note that "real" here is not necessarily related to "reality"], there
> are /no/ non-zero infinitesimals.  According to other sets of axioms,
> eg those of non-standard analysis, or those of the surreal numbers,
> or those of the hyperreals, there do exist non-zero infinitesimal
> surreal/hyperreal/... numbers, but then no-one competent makes the
> mistake of equating a non-zero infinitesimal to zero.  See, for
> example:
>
>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonstandard_analysis
>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number
>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal_number
>
> Get back to us when you have understood these articles.  Your first
> task then is to tell us what axioms /you/ intend to use;  otherwise
> it is impossible to make head or tail of your results.
>
> > I did not polish this research and feel no need to, [...].
>
> That is all too obvious.  You have been peddling this stuff
> for years now, with no signs of understanding either what you are
> doing or what others have told you to try to help.

There was a moment I thought this Andy is that Andy, and surprised
the contents of the post is significantly better. The article
https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/NumberView-en.txt/download
is not changed much since the last time shown. I felt no need to
polish is because people who knows what I was talking about
should comprehend it all. I am not interested in explaining
anything twice. This post is a NEWS. I am not trying to convince
anyone this time. I have better things to do.

I just noticed your post contain something about music. I have
a product that can help composing music, you might be interested.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/smlx/