First learn how my historic geometric identity of January 2020 proves your mainstream formulation
of calculus is an elaborate fraud:

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

Seeing is believing, so download the following applet and watch how my historic geometric theorem
works for any given function:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ON1GQ7b6UNpZSEEsbG14eAFCPv8p03pv

There are no viruses or spy software in my applets and to my knowledge most browsers will warn
you before you download any malicious code in applets. Don't waste your time on the fraudulent
mainstream formulation of calculus which cannot be understood because it is anti-mathematical nonsense.
Download my applet now and gain understanding and knowledge you couldn't find at school or university!

Second, learn how it fixes the mainstream bogus definition of definite integral:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y

Applet which explains the definite integral without any ill-formed concepts such as infinity,
infinitesimals or the circular rot of limit theory:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JYRxjGb3MxlYWp_2KqVXwXNr5XUvUNz7

A video explaining the new applet:

https://youtu.be/TJqvbshIGtg

Third, study my free eBook because not only your mathematical future depends on it but also your sanity!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO

Lastly, ignore all the trolls and cranks such as Dan Christensen, Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python aka YBM aka JPM),
Jan Burse, Michael MORONey, QB, Earle, Jens Stuckelberger, Jan Bilawski, Zelos Malum, Markus Klyver, Alan McKenzie,
Ludwig Poehlman (certified crank aka Archimedes Plutonium) etc. These fools have nothing to say about my work.
All they know is how to throw shade because they are ignorant, arrogant, incompetent and incorrigibly stupid.
Unfortunately, sci.math has become the mainstream's "Truth Network" - replete with paid trolls, some of whose names
are mentioned in this paragraph. These fools have lost the privilege of being educated by me. Gracing them with any
kind of response is like placing a prized pearl on a pile of dung.

I shall not respond to any of them again.

At times it's good to laugh at the stupidity and dishonesty of mainstream academics. However, the situation is dire
when religion trumps common sense:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9

This comment will be periodically reposted for the sake of new visitors as long as I am alive.

My lecture on the true Foundations of Mathematics was recorded.

You can download it here:

https://youtu.be/_WZJY1xgJTk

The Gift applet (almost in power point format!):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SYT-MbYtXUAYgwPeTgZ8QC8gxNpj-fap

Remember, you cannot understand mathematics without me because no one understands mathematics as
well as I do. The lecture is a bit on the slow side (because of my health issues), BUT you will
learn more about the foundations of mathematics than you ever knew your entire life!

The Elements is not about geometry. It's not about algebra. It's not about constructions. It is a
template for the realisation of all SCIENCE.

I quote a Greek scholar (http://www.physics.ntua.gr/mourmouras/euclid/common/anti_prologou.html):

Τα Στοιχεία Ευκλείδου δέν είναι Γεωμετρία (ούτε επιπεδομετρία, ούτε γεωμετρία χώρου), απλώς μπορούν
να παραχθούν από αύτα «Γεωμετρίες» (είτε «Ευκλείδειες,» είτε «μή Ευκλείδειες», κλπ), όπως επίσης
μπορούν να παραχθούν πολλές άλλες θεωρίες «Μαθηματικές» καί όχι μόνο, π.χ. Θεωρία Αριθμών, Aναλογίες,
Aσύμμετρα Μεγέθη, Θεωρία της Σχετικότητας, κ.α.

Τα Στοιχεία τού Ευκλείδου δεν είναι ούτε αντικείμενα του Πραγματικού κόσμου, καίούτε είναι αντικείμενα
τών Μαθηματικών, αλλά χωρίς αυτά, όλα τά παραπάνω δέν μπορούν να περιγραφούν, να κατανοηθούν, να ερμηνευτούν.

Πολλοί συγχέουν τον πραγματικό χώρο τών «Φυσικών» επιστημών με τά Στοιχεία Ευκλείδου. Aπό τα Στοιχεία
Ευκλείδου προέρχονται οί πλείστες μαθηματικές καί φυσικές επιστήμες, τόσο οί παραδοσιακές όσο καί οί
μοντέρνες. Γιά τις τεχνολογίες αυτό είναι προφανές.

Τα Στοιχεία Ευκλείδου αποτελούν ένα ενιαίον όλο, ένα «Σύστημα», τό οποίο είναι «κλειστό καί ἀνοικτό»,
τόσο όσο καί ή σκέψη, ό λόγος καί ή γραμματική τής ανθρώπινης υπόστασης. H πληρότητα καί ἡ συνέπεια
είναι δομημένες μέ έναν εκπληκτικό τρόπο, πού τό καθιστούν μοναδικό.

My καθαρεύουσα (high Greek) Greek is very poor, but here is my translation:

Euclidean Elements are not Geometry (neither plane geometry nor space geometry), from these can be produced
"Geometries" (either "Euclidean" or "non-Euclidean", etc.), as well as many other "Mathematical" theories
can be produced and not only, e.g. Number Theory, Proportions, Asymmetric Sizes, Theory of Relativity, etc.

The Elements of Euclid are neither objects of the real world, nor are they objects of Mathematics, but without
them, all the above cannot be described, understood, interpreted. Many confuse the real world of the "Natural"
sciences with the Euclidean Elements. Most of the mathematical and natural sciences, both traditional and modern,
come from the Euclidean Elements. For technologies this is obvious.

The Euclidean Elements constitute a single whole, a "System", which is "closed and open", as much as the thought,
reason and grammar of the human condition. Completeness and consistency are structured in an amazing way,
which make it unique.

----------------------------------------------------------

This professor (of Physics and mathematics) also reads all the Ancient texts and gives lectures. He is quite an
interesting academic and very learned. He is currently reading all of Aristotle's texts:

https://www.youtube.com/c/DimitriosMourmouras

What you probably do not know is that there is no mention of any of the following words in the Elements:

axiom
geometry
straight-edge or ruler
compass

The diagrams are merely used as a means of communicating the relationships between points (location) and
distances (lines).

The Elements is a product of pure thought that was realised first by the brilliant Ancient Greeks.

Become a subscriber to my New Calculus YT channel to learn more mathematics than you learned in all your
school and university years:

https://www.youtube.com/c/JohnGabriel/videos

Mainstream mathematics has turned into a universe of alternate "facts". The majority of mainstream academics
are stupid and ignorant beyond belief so that mainstream math is today more of a cult than the science it was meant to be.

Unfortunately mainstream academia does not teach one how to think, only to memorise the prescribed doctrines
that form their official statement of beliefs. Free yourself from the utter bullshit you are forced to memorise
and if you're honest with yourself, will admit that you never actually understand.

Mainstream academia are themselves alarmed because their days of deception are numbered. I am their prime target
because the more I publish facts (truth), the more I am hated for it. Even the certified cranks (Archimedes Plutonium aka Ludwig Poehlman)
join in the mocking spectacle.

Don't believe a word I say, but prove that what I say is indeed the case. How, you ask? Use your brain!

There's more....

Learn about the BIG LIE "Calculus was made rigorous...":

https://www.academia.edu/45408445/Big_Lie_Calculus_was_made_rigorous

"Why can’t you understand the difference between assuming that f'(x)=3x^2, as a “fact” upon which to build
further proofs, and hypothesizing that f'(x) might equal 3x^2, as a guess to be treated with extreme suspicion
and checked using the definition before I’m allowed to write f'(x)=3x^2?" - Anders Kaesorg.

The 5 Step method is outlined below and it summarises the mindset of most morons from MIT:

1. Assumption of fact
2. Hypothesis
3. Probability
4. Suspicion
5. Verification

:-)

https://youtu.be/gX5Bt8BEdNM

Subscribe to my YT Channel - the best math channel on the web:

https://www.youtube.com/c/JohnGabriel/videos

Who gave you the 0.999... and the 0.333...:

Euler wrote a very good book on algebra but unfortunately it was soiled with his delusional notions.

Daher ist uns Bruch 1/(1+a) gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a + aa -aaa + ...&c.

Therefore is our fraction 1/(1+a) equal to this infinite series 1 - a + aa -aaa + ...&c.

1/(1+a) is the <<limit>> of the series <<1 - a + aa -aaa + ...&c.>>

JG's Pathetic Daily Spam Post -- Same shit AGAIN and AGAIN!
STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of John Gabriel's fake math

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:37:59 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> First learn how ...

[snip]

When will YOU learn Troll Boy?

JG here claims to have a discovered a shortcut to mastering calculus without using limits. Unfortunately for him, this means he has no workable a definition of the derivative of a function. It blows up for functions as simple f(x)=|x|. Or even f(x)=0. As a result, he has had to ban 0, negative numbers and instantaneous rates of change rendering his goofy little system quite useless.

Forget calculus. JG has also banned all axioms because he cannot even derive the most elementary results of basic arithmetic, e.g. 2+2=4. Such results require the use of axioms, so he must figure he's now off the hook.

Even at his advanced age (60+?), John Gabriel is STILL struggling with basic, elementary-school arithmetic. As he has repeatedly posted here:

"There are no points on a line."
--April 12, 2021

"Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
--July 10, 2020

"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017

“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015

"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
--October 28, 2017

"Zero is not a number."
-- Dec. 2, 2019

"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017

“There is no such thing as an empty set.”
--Oct. 4, 2019

“3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
--Oct. 22, 2019

No math genius our JG, though he actually lists his job title as “mathematician” at Linkedin.com. Apparently, they do not verify your credentials.

Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated March 10, 2020) at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog a http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of Dans Pingeons,
he only wants to distract from the Even problem.

Now I got a new proposal, different from the 2 step s(s(_))
proposal and the even/odd mutual recursion proposal:

even(0).
even(s(X)) :- \+ even(X).

The above only works for ground arguments. Logically the
completion would be, which has a greater scope:

even(Y) <=> Y=0 | EXIST(X):[Y=s(X) & ~even(X)]

Can we prove now?

even(X) | even(3*X+1)

Problem: Would need to define 3*X+1 as well.

Dan Christensen schrieb am Dienstag, 7. Juni 2022 um 17:24:23 UTC+3:
> JG's Pathetic Daily Spam Post -- Same shit AGAIN and AGAIN!
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of John Gabriel's fake math

Mostowski Collapse wrote:

> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of Dans Pingeons, he only wants to
> distract from the Even problem. Now I got a new proposal, different from
> the 2 step s(s(_)) proposal and the even/odd mutual recursion proposal:
> even(0). even(s(X)) :- \+ even(X).

agree. He's definitely not strong in Prolog. However, amazing with these
*fake_money* capitalist nazis. The capitalist rulers of the "west" told
them "go there and kill Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) people, including
elders and children". Worse than terrorism, my friend.

British nazis men who killed for nazi "Ukraine" sentenced to death
https://www.rt.com/russia/556874-uk-british-mercenaries-death-sentence/

A court in Donetsk has sentenced to death three foreign men, who served in
the Ukrainian forces and fought for Kiev in the Donetsk People's Republic
(DPR). British citizens Aiden Aslin and Shaun Pinner, as well as Moroccan
Saadun Ibrahim, were found guilty on Thursday of acting as mercenaries and
attempting to seize power by force in the DP

The interesting thing, its primitive recursive even : N -> B,
where B = {0,1}, namely sketch:

even(0) = 1
even(s(X)) = 1 - even(X)

So first step towards certain inductive definitions
as primitive recursive functions.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 9. Juni 2022 um 19:12:52 UTC+3:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of Dans Pingeons,
> he only wants to distract from the Even problem.
>
> Now I got a new proposal, different from the 2 step s(s(_))
> proposal and the even/odd mutual recursion proposal:
>
> even(0).
> even(s(X)) :- \+ even(X).
>
> The above only works for ground arguments. Logically the
> completion would be, which has a greater scope:
>
> even(Y) <=> Y=0 | EXIST(X):[Y=s(X) & ~even(X)]
>
> Can we prove now?
>
> even(X) | even(3*X+1)
>
> Problem: Would need to define 3*X+1 as well.
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Dienstag, 7. Juni 2022 um 17:24:23 UTC+3:
> > JG's Pathetic Daily Spam Post -- Same shit AGAIN and AGAIN!
> > STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of John Gabriel's fake math

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 12:34:44 PM UTC-4, Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse) wrote:

> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 9. Juni 2022 um 19:12:52 UTC+3:

> The interesting thing, its primitive recursive even : N -> B,
> where B = {0,1}, namely sketch:
>
> even(0) = 1
> even(s(X)) = 1 - even(X)
>

Just admit you were wrong, Jan Burse, and accept the most common definition: For any natural number is said to be even iff it is a multiple of 2. Simple. And no "dark elements." That is a feature, not a bug, Jan Burse. (HA, HA, HA!!!)

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Dan Christensen wrote:

> Just admit you were wrong, Jan Burse, and accept the most common
> definition: For any natural number is said to be even iff it is a
> multiple of 2. Simple. And no "dark elements." That is a feature, not a
> bug, Jan Burse. (HA, HA, HA!!!)

British mercenary says he was ‘duped’ into Ukraine conflict by Western
media
https://www.rt.com/russia/556897-british-mercenary-ukraine-western-media/

A UK national captured in Donbass says he has been abandoned by both Kiev
and London

A UK citizen who fought for the Ukrainian forces in Mariupol before
surrendering in mid-April has told RT that he regrets his decision to
fight for Kiev.

Aiden Aslin said the Western media had played a major role in convincing
him to support the Ukrainian cause and eventually made him a “pawn” in a
political game.

He was speaking to RT in an interview before a court in Donetsk sentenced
him and two other foreigners to death on charges of acting as mercenaries
and seeking to seize power by force in the Donetsk People’s Republic
(DPR).

Aslin said he had followed the Ukrainian conflict since 2014 and was
“originally pro-Russian” and “pro-Donbass.” He supported Crimea’s
reunification with Russia and believes the people of Donbass have a right
to independence.

“My views started to change after I started seeing media reports and stuff
that was basically saying that it was not locals but the Russian soldiers
that were doing everything [in Donbass],” Aslin admitted, adding that he
was watching CNN as well as BBC and Fox News. Since surrendering to the
DPR militia, he has found that he has more in common with the Donbass
soldiers than Ukrainians with whom he had fought.

I was kind of duped.

The Briton said he even received threats from fighters of the infamous
Azov Battalion, known for its neo-Nazi ideology. Aslin said he believed
Azov had changed since being incorporated in the Ukrainian National Guard
but eventually saw firsthand that “they have not changed much.

The UK national had previously fought Islamic State (IS, former ISIS)
terrorists in Syria together with the Kurdish YPG militia and has a YPG
insignia as a tattoo on his arm. When an Azov fighter saw that tattoo two
years ago, he told Aslin he “wanted to cut it off,” the Briton said. “I
told him I was a leftist and his attitude changed” completely, Aslin said,
adding that the Azov regiment member began to see him “not as a friend
but… more like an enemy” after that exchange.

He was also skeptical about the level of training in the Ukrainian Army.
“They are not as professional as they would like to be,” he said, calling
their artillery training “substandard” to the extent that they can miss
military targets and hit civilian infrastructure instead.

“Another factor you have to consider [in case of the Ukrainian] Army is
that there is a lot of alcohol involved,” he added.

Looking back, Aslin said he should have avoided the Ukrainian forces and
sought a civilian job instead. “I wish I had done things differently and
not chosen to be a political pawn in the military system,” he stated,
blaming Kiev for its failure to end the conflict.

“They [the Ukrainian government] could have easily ended the war. They had
the opportunity but they chose not to, mainly because I think money was
involved,” Aslin said. He now feels abandoned by both Kiev and London.

All his attempts to contact the Ukrainian side from captivity have been
unsuccessful, said the former combatant.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has not mentioned Aslin’s case
“even once” since the Briton surrendered, he said. Meanwhile, UK officials
who he and his lawyers have contacted just keep saying he is “of utmost
priority” for Ukraine.

“I have to ask the Ukrainian government, ‘If you consider us, as you say,
heroes, why do you act as if we do not exist?'” Aslin said.

He urged other foreigners who might consider joining Kiev’s cause not to
be “duped into a war that is one you should not be fighting.

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 2:47:09 PM UTC-4, Van Fuse wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> > Just admit you were wrong, Jan Burse, and accept the most common
> > definition: For any natural number is said to be even iff it is a
> > multiple of 2. Simple. And no "dark elements." That is a feature, not a
> > bug, Jan Burse. (HA, HA, HA!!!)
> British mercenary says he was ‘duped’ into Ukraine conflict by Western
> media
> https://www.rt.com/russia/556897-british-mercenary-ukraine-western-media/
>

Remember:

WAR OF AGGRESSION = NAZI

Maybe you can show this RuSSian video at your trial, Nazi Boy. On second thought, it may not help. It might look will like you are trying to justify your war crimes. You really want to avoid that if you want to get out of prison by your 80th birthday.

tisdag 7 juni 2022 kl. 06:37:59 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> First learn how my historic geometric identity of January 2020 proves your mainstream formulation
> of calculus is an elaborate fraud:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> Seeing is believing, so download the following applet and watch how my historic geometric theorem
> works for any given function:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ON1GQ7b6UNpZSEEsbG14eAFCPv8p03pv
>
> There are no viruses or spy software in my applets and to my knowledge most browsers will warn
> you before you download any malicious code in applets. Don't waste your time on the fraudulent
> mainstream formulation of calculus which cannot be understood because it is anti-mathematical nonsense.
> Download my applet now and gain understanding and knowledge you couldn't find at school or university!
>
> Second, learn how it fixes the mainstream bogus definition of definite integral:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
>
> Applet which explains the definite integral without any ill-formed concepts such as infinity,
> infinitesimals or the circular rot of limit theory:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JYRxjGb3MxlYWp_2KqVXwXNr5XUvUNz7
>
> A video explaining the new applet:
>
> https://youtu.be/TJqvbshIGtg
>
> Third, study my free eBook because not only your mathematical future depends on it but also your sanity!
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
>
> Lastly, ignore all the trolls and cranks such as Dan Christensen, Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python aka YBM aka JPM),
> Jan Burse, Michael MORONey, QB, Earle, Jens Stuckelberger, Jan Bilawski, Zelos Malum, Markus Klyver, Alan McKenzie,
> Ludwig Poehlman (certified crank aka Archimedes Plutonium) etc. These fools have nothing to say about my work.
> All they know is how to throw shade because they are ignorant, arrogant, incompetent and incorrigibly stupid.
> Unfortunately, sci.math has become the mainstream's "Truth Network" - replete with paid trolls, some of whose names
> are mentioned in this paragraph. These fools have lost the privilege of being educated by me. Gracing them with any
> kind of response is like placing a prized pearl on a pile of dung.
>
> I shall not respond to any of them again.
>
> At times it's good to laugh at the stupidity and dishonesty of mainstream academics. However, the situation is dire
> when religion trumps common sense:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9
>
> This comment will be periodically reposted for the sake of new visitors as long as I am alive.
>
> My lecture on the true Foundations of Mathematics was recorded.
>
> You can download it here:
>
> https://youtu.be/_WZJY1xgJTk
>
> The Gift applet (almost in power point format!):
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SYT-MbYtXUAYgwPeTgZ8QC8gxNpj-fap
>
> Remember, you cannot understand mathematics without me because no one understands mathematics as
> well as I do. The lecture is a bit on the slow side (because of my health issues), BUT you will
> learn more about the foundations of mathematics than you ever knew your entire life!
>
> The Elements is not about geometry. It's not about algebra. It's not about constructions. It is a
> template for the realisation of all SCIENCE.
>
> I quote a Greek scholar (http://www.physics.ntua.gr/mourmouras/euclid/common/anti_prologou.html):
>
> Τα Στοιχεία Ευκλείδου δέν είναι Γεωμετρία (ούτε επιπεδομετρία, ούτε γεωμετρία χώρου), απλώς μπορούν
> να παραχθούν από αύτα «Γεωμετρίες» (είτε «Ευκλείδειες,» είτε «μή Ευκλείδειες», κλπ), όπως επίσης
> μπορούν να παραχθούν πολλές άλλες θεωρίες «Μαθηματικές» καί όχι μόνο, π.χ. Θεωρία Αριθμών, Aναλογίες,
> Aσύμμετρα Μεγέθη, Θεωρία της Σχετικότητας, κ.α.
>
> Τα Στοιχεία τού Ευκλείδου δεν είναι ούτε αντικείμενα του Πραγματικού κόσμου, καίούτε είναι αντικείμενα
> τών Μαθηματικών, αλλά χωρίς αυτά, όλα τά παραπάνω δέν μπορούν να περιγραφούν, να κατανοηθούν, να ερμηνευτούν.
>
> Πολλοί συγχέουν τον πραγματικό χώρο τών «Φυσικών» επιστημών με τά Στοιχεία Ευκλείδου. Aπό τα Στοιχεία
> Ευκλείδου προέρχονται οί πλείστες μαθηματικές καί φυσικές επιστήμες, τόσο οί παραδοσιακές όσο καί οί
> μοντέρνες. Γιά τις τεχνολογίες αυτό είναι προφανές.
>
> Τα Στοιχεία Ευκλείδου αποτελούν ένα ενιαίον όλο, ένα «Σύστημα», τό οποίο είναι «κλειστό καί ἀνοικτό»,
> τόσο όσο καί ή σκέψη, ό λόγος καί ή γραμματική τής ανθρώπινης υπόστασης. H πληρότητα καί ἡ συνέπεια
> είναι δομημένες μέ έναν εκπληκτικό τρόπο, πού τό καθιστούν μοναδικό.
>
> My καθαρεύουσα (high Greek) Greek is very poor, but here is my translation:
>
> Euclidean Elements are not Geometry (neither plane geometry nor space geometry), from these can be produced
> "Geometries" (either "Euclidean" or "non-Euclidean", etc.), as well as many other "Mathematical" theories
> can be produced and not only, e.g. Number Theory, Proportions, Asymmetric Sizes, Theory of Relativity, etc.
>
> The Elements of Euclid are neither objects of the real world, nor are they objects of Mathematics, but without
> them, all the above cannot be described, understood, interpreted. Many confuse the real world of the "Natural"
> sciences with the Euclidean Elements. Most of the mathematical and natural sciences, both traditional and modern,
> come from the Euclidean Elements. For technologies this is obvious.
>
> The Euclidean Elements constitute a single whole, a "System", which is "closed and open", as much as the thought,
> reason and grammar of the human condition. Completeness and consistency are structured in an amazing way,
> which make it unique.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> This professor (of Physics and mathematics) also reads all the Ancient texts and gives lectures. He is quite an
> interesting academic and very learned. He is currently reading all of Aristotle's texts:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/c/DimitriosMourmouras
>
> What you probably do not know is that there is no mention of any of the following words in the Elements:
>
> axiom
> geometry
> straight-edge or ruler
> compass
>
> The diagrams are merely used as a means of communicating the relationships between points (location) and
> distances (lines).
>
> The Elements is a product of pure thought that was realised first by the brilliant Ancient Greeks.
>
> Become a subscriber to my New Calculus YT channel to learn more mathematics than you learned in all your
> school and university years:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/c/JohnGabriel/videos
>
> Mainstream mathematics has turned into a universe of alternate "facts". The majority of mainstream academics
> are stupid and ignorant beyond belief so that mainstream math is today more of a cult than the science it was meant to be.
>
> Unfortunately mainstream academia does not teach one how to think, only to memorise the prescribed doctrines
> that form their official statement of beliefs. Free yourself from the utter bullshit you are forced to memorise
> and if you're honest with yourself, will admit that you never actually understand.
>
> Mainstream academia are themselves alarmed because their days of deception are numbered. I am their prime target
> because the more I publish facts (truth), the more I am hated for it. Even the certified cranks (Archimedes Plutonium aka Ludwig Poehlman)
> join in the mocking spectacle.
>
> Don't believe a word I say, but prove that what I say is indeed the case. How, you ask? Use your brain!
>
> There's more....
>
> Learn about the BIG LIE "Calculus was made rigorous...":
>
> https://www.academia.edu/45408445/Big_Lie_Calculus_was_made_rigorous
>
> "Why can’t you understand the difference between assuming that f'(x)=3x^2, as a “fact” upon which to build
> further proofs, and hypothesizing that f'(x) might equal 3x^2, as a guess to be treated with extreme suspicion
> and checked using the definition before I’m allowed to write f'(x)=3x^2?" - Anders Kaesorg.
>
> The 5 Step method is outlined below and it summarises the mindset of most morons from MIT:
>
> 1. Assumption of fact
> 2. Hypothesis
> 3. Probability
> 4. Suspicion
> 5. Verification
>
> :-)
>
> https://youtu.be/gX5Bt8BEdNM
>
> Subscribe to my YT Channel - the best math channel on the web:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/c/JohnGabriel/videos
>
> Who gave you the 0.999... and the 0.333...:
>
> Euler wrote a very good book on algebra but unfortunately it was soiled with his delusional notions.
>
> Daher ist uns Bruch 1/(1+a) gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a + aa -aaa + ...&c.
>
> Therefore is our fraction 1/(1+a) equal to this infinite series 1 - a + aa -aaa + ...&c.
>
> 1/(1+a) is the <<limit>> of the series <<1 - a + aa -aaa + ...&c.>>
>
> Ergo, Lim S = S or S = Lim S.
>
> There is much more in the following link:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
>
> Free your mind from the religious rot of mainstream mathematics academia which is a full-blown cult, not
> too different from that of Trump's supporters.
>
> Learn about how dishonest and incompetent mainstream academics failed to realise a rigorous formulation of calculus:
>
> I am a genius who discovered the New Calculus and quite possibly the greatest mathematician of all time.
> If you said this, no doubt you are a crank, but I am the exception. Don't believe me?
>
> Study my works:
>
> My historic geometric theorem which placed the final nail in the coffin of your bogus mainstream formulation of calculus:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> It's demonstrated for any smooth function in this free applet:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ON1GQ7b6UNpZSEEsbG14eAFCPv8p03pv
>
> Greek language applet:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/120g3VfFFqAzyZWHzHljXZYuWYpl5kUDB
>
> How the theorem fixes your bogus mainstream formulation using Newton's and Leibniz's juvenile ideas:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
>
> Definite integration (no hand waving circular nonsense of limit theory, infinitesimals, infinity,
> Riemann sums and the myriad of mainstream shit one finds in textbooks) demonstrated for any smooth
> function in this free applet:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JYRxjGb3MxlYWp_2KqVXwXNr5XUvUNz7
>
> Greek language applet:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iG5Oc7pV3x3AIVcz6Cpd4x5UavYMwhhp
>
> Explaining my historic identity:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sjs3eZJZnwI6caaUA1MtC7FhNYSLfICZ
>
> You won't find this information anywhere else! I offer it free of charge to you.
>
> Today I am the greatest mathematician. If history is written correctly, I will be remembered as the greatest
> mathematician ever.
>
> It will be your loss if you pass on this once in a lifetime opportunity.
>
> Learn about my first contact with your bullshit mainstream calculus:
>
> I first made contact with the flawed mainstream formulation of calculus in the encyclopedia Britannica. It was
> on page 600 of that edition. In the following article I give you a glimpse into my genius mind and share some
> of my thoughts with lesser mortals such as you.
>
> https://www.academia.edu/61998111/My_First_Contact_with_the_flawed_mainstream_calculus
>
> Some excerpts:
>
> As you can see, it was called the “Calculus of Differences”, which is somewhat of a misnomer. This raised the
> first red flag in my mind. It’s not as if the “Calculus of Variations” is a different kind of calculus at all.
> The latter is optimisation using calculus. Karen Uhlenbeck(who in her silly Abel prize winner speech claimed
> that it is not just about optimisation clearly never understood calculus), the Abel prize laureate was recognised
> for her “work” in this respect. So, both these expressions are extraneous verbiage. The name is simply “Calculus”.
>
>
> For starters, the mainstream morons of math academia(BIG STUPID incorrigible apes) obfuscated these definitions
> even further while claiming they had rigorised calculus. The use of omega (w) was dropped for h.
> Next, they added the flawed concept of limit, not realising that the expression called a finite difference is
> stated as an equation using my historic geometric identity of January2020:
>
> [ f(x+h)-f(x) ] / h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
>
> In effect, what the buffoons of mainstream math academia had done was to take the limit of a constant, ie, Q(x,h),
> which even in their theory cannot change, but in the limit definition, it goes to ZERO!
>
> If it is not zero, the RHS is no longer equal to the LHS. The primates reason as follows:
>
> lim_{h->0} [ f(x+h)-f(x) ] / h = f'(x) + lim_{h->0} Q(x,h)
>
> There are so many things wrong with what the orangutans did.
>
> 1. The limit of a constant is the constant itself.
> 2. They assume that only f'(x) remains constant.
> 3. The limit definition itself is circular, because as an MIT master graduate (an imbecile called Anders Kaesorg) once said:
>
> "The definition of the derivative in standard calculus is f'(x) is the number m, iff it exists) such that for all
> epsilon > 0, there exists a delta > 0, such that for all h =/= 0, with |h|<delta, | f(x+h)-f(x) ] / h -m | < epsilon."
>
> Dunno about you, but isn't the derivative m used in its own definition?
>
> m is the derivative which is used in the verifinition (portmanteau of verification and definition). In other words, this
> was all magic! Chuckle.
>
> Until my historic geometric theorem, the apes of mainstream academia had no valid systematic way of computing the
> derivative, never mind the definite integral!
>
> In another comment he was called out about claiming that h can never be zero, however, the effect of taking the limit
> of the constant (mind you!) Q(x,h) is equivalent to setting h=0!
>
> By the time I was 13 years of age, I had already taught myself the garbage of mainstream calculus. I would be modest
> if I said that my knowledge of calculus at that age had already surpassed that of any mainstream professor of mathematics.
>
>
> One wonders if the previous form was purposely used in an act of willful deception. The higher up the academic math ape,
> the more chances are that it is a well-known fact the definition was flawed and they had no clue how to fix it. Since they
> did not know, the next best thing was to pile up tons of rubbish theory such as the construction of “real numbers” which
> is a fallacy since there is no valid construction. Add in the laughable ZFC axioms and who would even dare to challenge
> the authenticity of their utter rot.
>
> Then at the beginning of the twentieth century, very bad ideas such as instantaneous rate of change were introduced by
> the idiots at the top Ivy League unis. One such idiot is Prof. Gilbert Strang (MIT) - a proper idiot if there ever was one.
>
> All the mainstream academics I have encountered are incompetent, ignorant, arrogant and incorrigibly stupid. The few
> that know I am right, are too cowardly to step forward and say so.
>
> ****A crank is one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.****
>
> The majority of mainstream mathematics academics are cranks or truth-deniers.
false

Where do you see dark elements? Sounds pretty crazy to
me, your dark elements? So far this definition here:

even(Y) <=> Y=0 | EXIST(X):[Y=s(X) & ~even(X)]

Has no membership in the set of natural numbers N, is
neither your Case 1 type nor your Case 2 type,

You can make it Case 1 type:

Y e N => [even(Y) <=> Y=0 | EXIST(X):[X e N & Y=s(X) & ~even(X)]]

Or you can make it Case 2 type:

even(Y) <=> Y e N & Y=0 | EXIST(X):[X e N & Y=s(X) & ~even(X)]

For Case 1 it is neither even(-1) nor ~even(-1) provable. Which
many people would frown on. On the other hand Case 2 is more
standard since ~even(-1) becomes provable. But I leave it to

the reader to choose between Case 1 and Case 2. But that above
has less dark elements in N, we can indeed prove:

even(0)
~even(1)
even(2)
~even(3)

Which is not possible with this nonsense:

EvenNextOdd.html

Dan Christensen schrieb am Donnerstag, 9. Juni 2022 um 21:01:36 UTC+3:
> On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 12:34:44 PM UTC-4, Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse) wrote:
>
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 9. Juni 2022 um 19:12:52 UTC+3:
>
> > The interesting thing, its primitive recursive even : N -> B,
> > where B = {0,1}, namely sketch:
> >
> > even(0) = 1
> > even(s(X)) = 1 - even(X)
> >
> Just admit you were wrong, Jan Burse, and accept the most common definition: For any natural number is said to be even iff it is a multiple of 2. Simple. And no "dark elements." That is a feature, not a bug, Jan Burse. (HA, HA, HA!!!)
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

You can try yourself, it satisfies the robinson criteria, for all n,
even(n) gets correctly decided, unlike your EvenNextOdd.html:

even(0).
even(s(X)) :- \+ even(X).

?- even(0).
?- even(s(0)).
?- even(s(s(0))).
?- even(s(s(s(0)))).

http://www.xlog.ch/izytab/doclet/docs/18_live/10_reference/example01/package.html

true.
fail.
true.
fail.

But the above are SLDNF derivations, which are a little
but more difficult to translate into natural deduction,
than a definition that does not use \+/1.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 10. Juni 2022 um 11:54:13 UTC+3:
> Where do you see dark elements? Sounds pretty crazy to
> me, your dark elements? So far this definition here:
> even(Y) <=> Y=0 | EXIST(X):[Y=s(X) & ~even(X)]
> Has no membership in the set of natural numbers N, is
> neither your Case 1 type nor your Case 2 type,
>
> You can make it Case 1 type:
>
> Y e N => [even(Y) <=> Y=0 | EXIST(X):[X e N & Y=s(X) & ~even(X)]]
>
> Or you can make it Case 2 type:
>
> even(Y) <=> Y e N & Y=0 | EXIST(X):[X e N & Y=s(X) & ~even(X)]
>
> For Case 1 it is neither even(-1) nor ~even(-1) provable. Which
> many people would frown on. On the other hand Case 2 is more
> standard since ~even(-1) becomes provable. But I leave it to
>
> the reader to choose between Case 1 and Case 2. But that above
> has less dark elements in N, we can indeed prove:
>
> even(0)
> ~even(1)
> even(2)
> ~even(3)
>
> Which is not possible with this nonsense:
>
> EvenNextOdd.html
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Donnerstag, 9. Juni 2022 um 21:01:36 UTC+3:
> > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 12:34:44 PM UTC-4, Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse) wrote:
> >
> > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 9. Juni 2022 um 19:12:52 UTC+3:
> >
> > > The interesting thing, its primitive recursive even : N -> B,
> > > where B = {0,1}, namely sketch:
> > >
> > > even(0) = 1
> > > even(s(X)) = 1 - even(X)
> > >
> > Just admit you were wrong, Jan Burse, and accept the most common definition: For any natural number is said to be even iff it is a multiple of 2. Simple. And no "dark elements." That is a feature, not a bug, Jan Burse. (HA, HA, HA!!!)
> > Dan
> >
> > Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> > Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:02:45 PM UTC+10, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> You can try yourself, it satisfies the robinson criteria, for all n,
> even(n) gets correctly decided, unlike your EvenNextOdd.html:
> even(0).
> even(s(X)) :- \+ even(X).
> ?- even(0).
> ?- even(s(0)).
> ?- even(s(s(0))).
> ?- even(s(s(s(0)))).
>
> http://www.xlog.ch/izytab/doclet/docs/18_live/10_reference/example01/package.html
>
> true.
> fail.
> true.
> fail.

Great Video JG

just use

not(e (X , evens)) :- e(X,odds).
not(e (X , odds)) :- e(X,evens).

other way around

e(X,evens) :- not(e(X,odds)).

use depth limiting for both versions

The theory should be FOL. In FOL there are not
really meta predicates, unlike Prolog. Negation

as failure can be defined in Prolog itself:

\+ X :- X, !, fail.
\+ _.

But later it is viewed as classical negation here:

even(Y) <=> Y=0 | EXIST(X):[Y=s(X) & ~even(X)]

The negation ~ is now a logical primitive.

Graham Cooper schrieb am Freitag, 10. Juni 2022 um 13:27:07 UTC+3:
> On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:02:45 PM UTC+10, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > You can try yourself, it satisfies the robinson criteria, for all n,
> > even(n) gets correctly decided, unlike your EvenNextOdd.html:
> > even(0).
> > even(s(X)) :- \+ even(X).
> > ?- even(0).
> > ?- even(s(0)).
> > ?- even(s(s(0))).
> > ?- even(s(s(s(0)))).
> >
> > http://www.xlog.ch/izytab/doclet/docs/18_live/10_reference/example01/package.html
> >
> > true.
> > fail.
> > true.
> > fail.
> Great Video JG
>
> just use
>
> not(e (X , evens)) :- e(X,odds).
> not(e (X , odds)) :- e(X,evens).
>
> other way around
>
> e(X,evens) :- not(e(X,odds)).
>
> use depth limiting for both versions

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 2:47:09 PM UTC-4, Van Fuse wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> > Just admit you were wrong, Jan Burse, and accept the most common
> > definition: For any natural number is said to be even iff it is a
> > multiple of 2. Simple. And no "dark elements." That is a feature, not a
> > bug, Jan Burse. (HA, HA, HA!!!)
> British mercenary says he was ‘duped’ into Ukraine conflict by Western
> media
> https://www.rt.com/russia/556897-british-mercenary-ukraine-western-media/
>
> A UK national captured in Donbass says he has been abandoned by both Kiev
> and London
>

Remember:

WAR OF AGGRESSION = NAZI

Tell it to the judges at your war crimes trial, Nazi Boy. They won't be impressed. It certainly will NOT get and your boss off the hook. If you confess, you might get out of prison by your 80th birthday.

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 4:54:13 AM UTC-4, Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse) wrote:
> Where do you see dark elements? Sounds pretty crazy to
> me, your dark elements?

You wanted to assign a truth value to Even(x) for every object x in the universe. How silly is that?

> So far this definition here:
> even(Y) <=> Y=0 | EXIST(X):[Y=s(X) & ~even(X)]

[snip]

So where do the natural numbers come into the picture?

Play around with this new and even wonkier definition if you like, Jan Burse, or define evenness as most others do: For any natural number, we say that it is even iff it is multiple of 2.

ALL(a):[a in N =>[Even(a) <=> EXIST(b):[b in N & a=2*b]]]

Why do you reject such a common-sense definition? Not wonky enough for you, Jan Burse?

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Dan Christensen wrote:

>> British mercenary says he was ‘duped’ into Ukraine conflict by Western
>> media
>> https://www.rt.com/russia/556897-british-mercenary-ukraine-western-media/
>> A UK national captured in Donbass says he has been abandoned by both
>> Kiev and London
>
> Remember:

Reuters ignores swastika tattoo of Ukrainian ‘local’ on its own photo
https://www.rt.com/russia/556967-reuters-swastika-tattoo-ukraine/
“There must be a lot of Nazis in this region if Reuters couldn't find a photo of a Ukrainian without a swastika tattoo,” said one representative comment.

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:59:31 PM UTC-4, Jae Baba wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> >> British mercenary says he was ‘duped’ into Ukraine conflict by Western
> >> media
> >> https://www.rt.com/russia/556897-british-mercenary-ukraine-western-media/
> >> A UK national captured in Donbass says he has been abandoned by both
> >> Kiev and London
> >
> > Remember:
> Reuters ignores swastika tattoo of Ukrainian ‘local’ on its own photo

Unfortunately for all you RuSSian Nazis, it is a war crime to bomb homes, schools and hospitals and to murder the civilian population.

Remember:

WAR OF AGGRESSION = NAZI

Remember what happened to the the original Nazis. Escape while you can, Nazi Boy.

Dan Christensen wrote:

>> >> British mercenary says he was ‘duped’ into Ukraine conflict by
>> >> Western media
>> >> https://www.rt.com/russia/556897-british-mercenary-ukraine-western-
media/
>> >> A UK national captured in Donbass says he has been abandoned by both
>> >> Kiev and London
>> >
>> > Remember:
>> Reuters ignores swastika tattoo of Ukrainian ‘local’ on its own photo
>
> Unfortunately for all you RuSSian Nazis, it is a war crime to bomb
> homes,

Ukrainian Official Admits She Lied About Russians Committing Mass Rape to
Convince Countries to Send More Weapons
https://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=254686

Lyudmila Denisova, the former Ukrainian Parliamentary Commissioner for
Human Rights, was removed from her position following a vote of no
confidence in the Ukrainian parliament which passed by a margin of 234-
to-9.

These include radiation leaks at besieged nuclear plants which turned out
not to have occurred, the media’s complete misinformation about what
happened on *Snake_Island*, the *‘Ghost_of_Kiev_Hoax*, as well as the
‘attack’ on a Holocaust memorial that never happened.