On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 01:48:27 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >But I do know and it causes big problems for you. Sorry about this.
> You do not understand it at all.
> >It is as circular as they get. You do not have N or Z until you have Q. What part of this do you not understand? Just ask.
> That is YOUR view!
>
> WE, in mathematics, starts with N and we then LATER construct Q, we have N first, Q later. That makes it NOT circular.

Folks, the above statement from someone who claims:

"c=f+g <=> g=c-f is CIRCULAR" - ZELOS MALUM.

torsdag 26 augusti 2021 kl. 12:22:44 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 01:48:27 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >But I do know and it causes big problems for you. Sorry about this.
> > You do not understand it at all.
> > >It is as circular as they get. You do not have N or Z until you have Q. What part of this do you not understand? Just ask.
> > That is YOUR view!
> >
> > WE, in mathematics, starts with N and we then LATER construct Q, we have N first, Q later. That makes it NOT circular.
> Folks, the above statement from someone who claims:
>
> "c=f+g <=> g=c-f is CIRCULAR" - ZELOS MALUM.

You are a liar :)

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/QMhqLZH1434/m/vAEmniRtBwAJ

Read it, I am saying that is what YOU are saying, not what I think.

On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 01:05:27 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> torsdag 26 augusti 2021 kl. 12:22:44 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 01:48:27 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >But I do know and it causes big problems for you. Sorry about this.
> > > You do not understand it at all.
> > > >It is as circular as they get. You do not have N or Z until you have Q. What part of this do you not understand? Just ask.
> > > That is YOUR view!
> > >
> > > WE, in mathematics, starts with N and we then LATER construct Q, we have N first, Q later. That makes it NOT circular.
> > Folks, the above statement from someone who claims:
> >
> > "c=f+g <=> g=c-f is CIRCULAR" - ZELOS MALUM.
> You are a liar :)

ONLY a moron like you calls others liars when the evidence is clear, because nowhere do I make such a stupid claim. LMAO

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/QMhqLZH1434/m/vAEmniRtBwAJ

> Read it, I am saying that is what YOU are saying, not what I think.

Can anything get more cranky than claiming that "if c=f+g then g=c-f is circular" ? LMAO

You went along with that delusional psychopath Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python).

That is what YOU said! You are a crank! Here it is again with link following:

***************************************************************
> > He think that stuff you point out is circular
> >
> > if c=f+g
> > then g=c-f
> > so circular!
***************************************************************

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/QMhqLZH1434/m/vAEmniRtBwAJ

fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 12:39:40 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 01:05:27 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > torsdag 26 augusti 2021 kl. 12:22:44 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 01:48:27 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >But I do know and it causes big problems for you. Sorry about this.
> > > > You do not understand it at all.
> > > > >It is as circular as they get. You do not have N or Z until you have Q. What part of this do you not understand? Just ask.
> > > > That is YOUR view!
> > > >
> > > > WE, in mathematics, starts with N and we then LATER construct Q, we have N first, Q later. That makes it NOT circular.
> > > Folks, the above statement from someone who claims:
> > >
> > > "c=f+g <=> g=c-f is CIRCULAR" - ZELOS MALUM.
> > You are a liar :)
> ONLY a moron like you calls others liars when the evidence is clear, because nowhere do I make such a stupid claim. LMAO
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/QMhqLZH1434/m/vAEmniRtBwAJ
>
> > Read it, I am saying that is what YOU are saying, not what I think.
> Can anything get more cranky than claiming that "if c=f+g then g=c-f is circular" ? LMAO
>
> You went along with that delusional psychopath Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python).
>
> That is what YOU said! You are a crank! Here it is again with link following:
>
> ***************************************************************
> > > He think that stuff you point out is circular
> > >
> > > if c=f+g
> > > then g=c-f
> > > so circular!
> ***************************************************************
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/QMhqLZH1434/m/vAEmniRtBwAJ
I pointed out that is how YOU think. Not that I think it you dishonest lying sack of shit :)

On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 5:25:57 AM UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 12:39:40 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 01:05:27 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > torsdag 26 augusti 2021 kl. 12:22:44 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 01:48:27 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >But I do know and it causes big problems for you. Sorry about this.
> > > > > You do not understand it at all.
> > > > > >It is as circular as they get. You do not have N or Z until you have Q. What part of this do you not understand? Just ask.
> > > > > That is YOUR view!
> > > > >
> > > > > WE, in mathematics, starts with N and we then LATER construct Q, we have N first, Q later. That makes it NOT circular.
> > > > Folks, the above statement from someone who claims:
> > > >
> > > > "c=f+g <=> g=c-f is CIRCULAR" - ZELOS MALUM.
> > > You are a liar :)
> > ONLY a moron like you calls others liars when the evidence is clear, because nowhere do I make such a stupid claim. LMAO
> > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/QMhqLZH1434/m/vAEmniRtBwAJ
> >
> > > Read it, I am saying that is what YOU are saying, not what I think.
> > Can anything get more cranky than claiming that "if c=f+g then g=c-f is circular" ? LMAO
> >
> > You went along with that delusional psychopath Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python).
> >
> > That is what YOU said! You are a crank! Here it is again with link following:
> >
> > ***************************************************************
> > > > He think that stuff you point out is circular
> > > >
> > > > if c=f+g
> > > > then g=c-f
> > > > so circular!
> > ***************************************************************
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/QMhqLZH1434/m/vAEmniRtBwAJ
> I pointed out that is how YOU think. Not that I think it you dishonest lying sack of shit :)

The lying sack of SHIT is YOU, you vile bastard.

I said the exact opposite of what you and Python were saying.

IF [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) THEN f'(x)= [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - Q(x,h)

and then the two fucking morons (YOU and Python) tried to insinuate that it was circular. LMAO.

You're the world's greatest mainstream crank!

måndag 30 augusti 2021 kl. 13:31:20 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 5:25:57 AM UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 12:39:40 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 01:05:27 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > torsdag 26 augusti 2021 kl. 12:22:44 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 01:48:27 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >But I do know and it causes big problems for you. Sorry about this.
> > > > > > You do not understand it at all.
> > > > > > >It is as circular as they get. You do not have N or Z until you have Q. What part of this do you not understand? Just ask.
> > > > > > That is YOUR view!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WE, in mathematics, starts with N and we then LATER construct Q, we have N first, Q later. That makes it NOT circular.
> > > > > Folks, the above statement from someone who claims:
> > > > >
> > > > > "c=f+g <=> g=c-f is CIRCULAR" - ZELOS MALUM.
> > > > You are a liar :)
> > > ONLY a moron like you calls others liars when the evidence is clear, because nowhere do I make such a stupid claim. LMAO
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/QMhqLZH1434/m/vAEmniRtBwAJ
> > >
> > > > Read it, I am saying that is what YOU are saying, not what I think.
> > > Can anything get more cranky than claiming that "if c=f+g then g=c-f is circular" ? LMAO
> > >
> > > You went along with that delusional psychopath Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python).
> > >
> > > That is what YOU said! You are a crank! Here it is again with link following:
> > >
> > > ***************************************************************
> > > > > He think that stuff you point out is circular
> > > > >
> > > > > if c=f+g
> > > > > then g=c-f
> > > > > so circular!
> > > ***************************************************************
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/QMhqLZH1434/m/vAEmniRtBwAJ
> > I pointed out that is how YOU think. Not that I think it you dishonest lying sack of shit :)
> The lying sack of SHIT is YOU, you vile bastard.
>
> I said the exact opposite of what you and Python were saying.
>
> IF [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) THEN f'(x)= [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - Q(x,h)
>
> and then the two fucking morons (YOU and Python) tried to insinuate that it was circular. LMAO.
>
> You're the world's greatest mainstream crank!
You did when we discussed D and T, derivative and tangent, functions.

D was defined in terms of limit
T was defined in terms of D

yet you claim it was circular because D uses T after some re-arrangement. Just like the illustration I gave.

On Tuesday, 31 August 2021 at 01:03:03 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 30 augusti 2021 kl. 13:31:20 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> > On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 5:25:57 AM UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 12:39:40 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 01:05:27 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > torsdag 26 augusti 2021 kl. 12:22:44 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 01:48:27 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > >But I do know and it causes big problems for you. Sorry about this.
> > > > > > > You do not understand it at all.
> > > > > > > >It is as circular as they get. You do not have N or Z until you have Q. What part of this do you not understand? Just ask.
> > > > > > > That is YOUR view!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > WE, in mathematics, starts with N and we then LATER construct Q, we have N first, Q later. That makes it NOT circular.
> > > > > > Folks, the above statement from someone who claims:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "c=f+g <=> g=c-f is CIRCULAR" - ZELOS MALUM.
> > > > > You are a liar :)
> > > > ONLY a moron like you calls others liars when the evidence is clear, because nowhere do I make such a stupid claim. LMAO
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/QMhqLZH1434/m/vAEmniRtBwAJ
> > > >
> > > > > Read it, I am saying that is what YOU are saying, not what I think.
> > > > Can anything get more cranky than claiming that "if c=f+g then g=c-f is circular" ? LMAO
> > > >
> > > > You went along with that delusional psychopath Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python).
> > > >
> > > > That is what YOU said! You are a crank! Here it is again with link following:
> > > >
> > > > ***************************************************************
> > > > > > He think that stuff you point out is circular
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if c=f+g
> > > > > > then g=c-f
> > > > > > so circular!
> > > > ***************************************************************
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/QMhqLZH1434/m/vAEmniRtBwAJ
> > > I pointed out that is how YOU think. Not that I think it you dishonest lying sack of shit :)
> > The lying sack of SHIT is YOU, you vile bastard.
> >
> > I said the exact opposite of what you and Python were saying.
> >
> > IF [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) THEN f'(x)= [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - Q(x,h)
> >
> > and then the two fucking morons (YOU and Python) tried to insinuate that it was circular. LMAO.
> >
> > You're the world's greatest mainstream crank!
> You did when we discussed D and T, derivative and tangent, functions.
>
Lying again, crank? Nowhere did I say this. Provide the link, you vile bastard!

>
> D was defined in terms of limit

I have NEVER defined the derivative in terms of a limit. Newsflash: I do not use the bullshit of limit theory in my historic geometric theorem. It is 100% geometry:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

> T was defined in terms of D

That's EXACTLY what YOU do in your bullshit MAINSTREAM calculus and it is CIRCULAR.

>
> yet you claim it was circular because D uses T after some re-arrangement. Just like the illustration I gave.

Your drivel was nothing of the sort. You imagined that you were agreeing with your fellow asswipe Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python) and I made a fool of you yet again! LMAO.

tisdag 31 augusti 2021 kl. 13:49:23 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 31 August 2021 at 01:03:03 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > måndag 30 augusti 2021 kl. 13:31:20 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> > > On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 5:25:57 AM UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 12:39:40 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 01:05:27 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > torsdag 26 augusti 2021 kl. 12:22:44 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 01:48:27 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > > > >But I do know and it causes big problems for you. Sorry about this.
> > > > > > > > You do not understand it at all.
> > > > > > > > >It is as circular as they get. You do not have N or Z until you have Q. What part of this do you not understand? Just ask.
> > > > > > > > That is YOUR view!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > WE, in mathematics, starts with N and we then LATER construct Q, we have N first, Q later. That makes it NOT circular.
> > > > > > > Folks, the above statement from someone who claims:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "c=f+g <=> g=c-f is CIRCULAR" - ZELOS MALUM.
> > > > > > You are a liar :)
> > > > > ONLY a moron like you calls others liars when the evidence is clear, because nowhere do I make such a stupid claim. LMAO
> > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/QMhqLZH1434/m/vAEmniRtBwAJ
> > > > >
> > > > > > Read it, I am saying that is what YOU are saying, not what I think.
> > > > > Can anything get more cranky than claiming that "if c=f+g then g=c-f is circular" ? LMAO
> > > > >
> > > > > You went along with that delusional psychopath Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python).
> > > > >
> > > > > That is what YOU said! You are a crank! Here it is again with link following:
> > > > >
> > > > > ***************************************************************
> > > > > > > He think that stuff you point out is circular
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > if c=f+g
> > > > > > > then g=c-f
> > > > > > > so circular!
> > > > > ***************************************************************
> > > > >
> > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/QMhqLZH1434/m/vAEmniRtBwAJ
> > > > I pointed out that is how YOU think. Not that I think it you dishonest lying sack of shit :)
> > > The lying sack of SHIT is YOU, you vile bastard.
> > >
> > > I said the exact opposite of what you and Python were saying.
> > >
> > > IF [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) THEN f'(x)= [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - Q(x,h)
> > >
> > > and then the two fucking morons (YOU and Python) tried to insinuate that it was circular. LMAO.
> > >
> > > You're the world's greatest mainstream crank!
> > You did when we discussed D and T, derivative and tangent, functions.
> >
> Lying again, crank? Nowhere did I say this. Provide the link, you vile bastard!
> >
> > D was defined in terms of limit
> I have NEVER defined the derivative in terms of a limit. Newsflash: I do not use the bullshit of limit theory in my historic geometric theorem. It is 100% geometry:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> > T was defined in terms of D
> That's EXACTLY what YOU do in your bullshit MAINSTREAM calculus and it is CIRCULAR.
> >
> > yet you claim it was circular because D uses T after some re-arrangement. Just like the illustration I gave.
> Your drivel was nothing of the sort. You imagined that you were agreeing with your fellow asswipe Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python) and I made a fool of you yet again! LMAO.

>Lying again, crank? Nowhere did I say this. Provide the link, you vile bastard!

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/5NjpX0It60I/m/nLvlglEMCQAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/bxHjnK8_00o/m/L5t27UkMCQAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/QMhqLZH1434/m/a_ShbscMCQAJ
Right in this post :slight_smile:

>I have NEVER defined the derivative in terms of a limit.

I didn't say you did, I said I did. D was defiend in terms of limit, T in terms of D, and you cry circular which is not it.

To be circular T is defined in terms of D, and D in terms of T, but it isn't. D is defined independently of T

>That's EXACTLY what YOU do in your bullshit MAINSTREAM calculus and it is CIRCULAR.

See, right here you do claim it is circular just like I said you do.

D defined in terms of limit
T defined in terms of D
Is not circular. It is a linear progression of definitions.

>Your drivel was nothing of the sort. You imagined that you were agreeing with your fellow asswipe Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python) and I made a fool of you yet again! LMAO.

You didn't, you did however manage to confirm in this post exactly what I said you did while denying it. That is quite foolish.

On Sunday, 22 August 2021 at 09:56:04 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> If you watch the following video, you will be astounded at the amount of bullshit that is propagated in non-standard analysis. Not only do you need to know calculus in order to show the non-standard analysis works, but you also need a couple of semesters of abstract algebra and group theory!
>
> Of course it's all bullshit on top of existing bullshit:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArAjEq8uFvA
>
> The parts that stand out:
>
> 0:21 We assume some familiarity with calculus (limit, continuity, derivative) and abstract algebra (ring, field, quotient).
>
> JG: This is typical mainstream modus operandi of self-referential "proofs". Chuckle.
>
> 0:56 In the history of calculus, Leibniz and Newton freely used infinitesimals in calculus.
>
> JG: Utter bullshit. There is no such thing as an infinitesimal. Although the presenter goes on to show later that he can produce such through ultra-filters, the theory is gibberish and fails under the slightest logic inspection.
>
> 1:10 Intuitively, an infinitesimal is an infinitely small number.
>
> JG: No respectable academic should ever use the word "intuitive".
>
> "Intuitively, an infinitely small number is an infinitely small number."
>
> Circular reasoning "works" in mainstream. Chuckle.
>
> There is NO such thing as an "infinitely small number". It is mythology.
>
> 1:41 The derivative of x^2 is 2x. If dx is an infinitesimal change in x, ...., then
> dy/dx = [(x+dx)^2-x^2]/dx = 2x + dx
>
> Since dx is infinitesimal, we can ignore it and write dy/dx = 2x.
>
> JG: Not only is no such thing as an infinitesimal, but "infinitesimal change" is more shit on top of existing shit. Meaningless nonsense. You simply have to believe that an infinitesimal exists and that you can ignore it, which is pretty strange because if you are just going to ignore it, then why even bother if it exists? LMAO.
>
> 2:04 But this argument is nonsense.
> If dx = 0, we can't divide dy by dx to get dy/dx
> If dx=/= 0, we can't ignore it.
> assuming dx is a real number.
>
> JG: The scattered brained idiot got one thing right only: "His argument is nonsense". Then he seems to be unable to make up his mind whether he actually assumed dx is an "infinitesimal" or a "real number" - both non-existent objects in sound mathematics (non-existent means neither has a well-formed definition).
>
> 2:17 "Wait, why can't we divide by 0 again?"
>
> JG: LMAO. Because 0 is not a TRUE number, you fucking moron!!!!! ROFLMAO. All the arithmetic operations are first defined GEOMETRICALLY, long before algebra is introduced in Book 7 of Euclid's Elements.
>
> 2:17 For numbers p and q, the quotient p/q should be a unique number r such that p=rq.
>
> JG: I could write a book in response to that utter garbage claim showing how much this dimwit misunderstands in mathematics. I'll just touch on a few misconceptions.
>
> 1. p/q is a NUMBER. It does not mean "p divided by q".
> 2. Next, r is any other number that is in proportion or equal to r.
> 3. p=rq implies that multiplication is already known, but this is nonsense because division comes before multiplication and multiplication is defined using division.
>
> 2:51 So it doesn't make sense to define p/0.
>
> JG: It sure doesn't, but not for any of the reasons the dimwit (include yourself here!) imagines to be the case.
>
> 3:03 Berkeley calls them "ghosts of departed quantities".
>
> JG: I would have loved to meet this Bishop. Chuckle. Very witty guy indeed.
>
> The idiot presenter continues on ad nauseam.
>
> End of Bullshit.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> My geometric theorem is explained here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> Fixing the broken mainstream definition of definite integral:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
>
> Still not as elegant and rigorous as my New Calculus:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
Essentially what the Baboons of mainstream academia will have you believe is that:

t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = Lim (h->0)[f(c+h)-f(c)]/h = f'(c) + Q(c,h) and is possible ONLY if Q(c,h)=0, but this happens only in the case of the straight line t(x). It NEVER happens with the finite difference quotients. The mainstream want you to believe that there is some finite difference ratio hovering at infinity which produces f'(c):

t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_1)-f(c)]/h_1 ; [f(c+h_2)-f(c)]/h_2 ; [f(c+h_3)-f(c)]/h_3 ; ... ; [f(c+h_3n-f(c)]/h_n ...; [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo

t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo ?! What?!!! There is no such finite difference. It does not exist! But Baboon mathematics of the mainstream insists there is a limit!

Can you imagine how embarrassed Newton and Leibniz would be at these idiots today?! They knew that they could not solve the tangent line problem - this had to wait for the great John Gabriel. It is I who revealed to the entire world that:

[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)

It usually takes a genius to realise the most simple concepts that escape the syphilitic brains of highly educated idiots in the mainstream.