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

https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020

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!

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

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

https://www.academia.edu/41616655/An_Introduction_to_the_Single_Variable_New_Calculus

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://www.academia.edu/45001199/Mainstream_mathematics_professors_are_incorrigibly_stupid_creatures_who_cannot_be_corrected

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://www.academia.edu/45471184/Eulers_Blunder

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:

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, July 21, 2022 at 12:12:18 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Learn how my...

[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

DC's Pathetic Daily Spam Post -- Same shit AGAIN and AGAIN!
STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of Dan Christensen's fake math
It was here:

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Sonntag, 17. Juli 2022 um 08:13:23 UTC+2:
> Here is a proof of f1(0)=0. I guess you can also prove f2(0)=1.
> Its extremly extremly long, because DC Proof is sooooooooo stupid:
>
> 158 f1(0)=0
> Detach, 150, 157
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/iRJvlsKToKc/m/xEjrYVzdAAAJ

So to summarize we have proofs of:
a) Existence of f1 and f2
b) f1=f2 & ~(f2=f2)

Whats your point? It doesn't make your Function Equality axiom
less inconsistent. Your conclusion is still that your Function
Equality axiom leads to an inconsistent theory.

And its not an inconsistency by some handwaving when
WM claims that set theory is inconsistent, its an inconsistency
which is not only a conjecture but which is demonstrable,

since it is demonatrable for some A, that A & ~A is
provable. The A here is f1=f2. So your Function Equality
axiom leads to an inconsistent system.

Also the presensence or absence of existence proofs
is no guarantee for consistency. Especially inconsistent
systems can prove anything, through ex falso quodlibet,

and therefore you can prove all kind of existence in
inconsistent systems. There is no such method as show
existence of an object, and then the system is not inconsistent,

thats just utter nonsense as well.

Dan Christensen schrieb am Donnerstag, 21. Juli 2022 um 06:18:28 UTC+2:
> 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:

> DC's Pathetic Daily Spam Post -- Same shit AGAIN and AGAIN!
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of Dan Christensen's fake math It was
> here:

sure. You morons dont even know what functions and function_blocks are.

WAR IN UKRAINE WAR OF TRENCHES UKRAINIAN nazis RUNNING FROM ONE HOLE TO
ANOTHER LIKE RATS https://www.bitchute.com/video/LxLHgsS4rCur/

On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 10:41:54 AM UTC-4, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> DC's Pathetic Daily Spam Post -- Same shit AGAIN and AGAIN!
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of Dan Christensen's fake math
> It was here:
>
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Sonntag, 17. Juli 2022 um 08:13:23 UTC+2:
> > Here is a proof of f1(0)=0. I guess you can also prove f2(0)=1.
> > Its extremly extremly long, because DC Proof is sooooooooo stupid:
> >
> > 158 f1(0)=0
> > Detach, 150, 157
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/iRJvlsKToKc/m/xEjrYVzdAAAJ
>

Nothing there about another function f2.

> So to summarize we have proofs of:
> a) Existence of f1 and f2
> b) f1=f2 & ~(f2=f2)
>

Should be: f1=f2 & ~(f1=f2)?

Where you derived that nonsense, you failed actually prove the existence of functions f1 and f2 using the Function Axiom. It is a cautionary tale for students: If you are are simply go to define functions without proving their existence, you must be VERY careful. As I recall, you quite carelessly mixed up the different domain sets and made a complete mess of things. Did your little buddy and fellow troll JG here "help" you with that proof? (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

Please tell this your tool DC Proof, it shows me:

130 EXIST(fun):ALL(a1):ALL(b):[a1 ε dom1 & b ε cod1
=> [fun(a1)=b <=> (a1,b) ε gra1]]
Detach, 15, 129
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/iRJvlsKToKc/m/xEjrYVzdAAAJ

Do you say your tool has an error?

Dan Christensen schrieb am Donnerstag, 21. Juli 2022 um 19:44:04 UTC+2:
> Should be: f1=f2 & ~(f1=f2)?
> Where you derived that nonsense, you failed actually prove
the existence of functions f1 and f2 using the Function Axiom.

My speculation is rather your brain has an error.

Come on its so easy to see that your function equality
axiom produces absurdity, because dom is extrinsic.

Thats rather a no-brainer to understand the cause of trouble.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 21. Juli 2022 um 21:48:41 UTC+2:
> Please tell this your tool DC Proof, it shows me:
>
> 130 EXIST(fun):ALL(a1):ALL(b):[a1 ε dom1 & b ε cod1
> => [fun(a1)=b <=> (a1,b) ε gra1]]
> Detach, 15, 129
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/iRJvlsKToKc/m/xEjrYVzdAAAJ
>
> Do you say your tool has an error?
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Donnerstag, 21. Juli 2022 um 19:44:04 UTC+2:
> > Should be: f1=f2 & ~(f1=f2)?
> > Where you derived that nonsense, you failed actually prove
> the existence of functions f1 and f2 using the Function Axiom.

Mostowski Collapse wrote:

> Please tell this your tool DC Proof, it shows me:
>
> 130 EXIST(fun):ALL(a1):ALL(b):[a1 ε dom1 & b ε cod1 => [fun(a1)=b <=>
> Do you say your tool has an error?
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Donnerstag, 21. Juli 2022 um 19:44:04 UTC+2:

this german told the truth, about 20 years ago I guess, you nazi_wankers
are still stupid. You never learn, you disgusting sondre bitches.

Former German MSM Journalist Udo Ulfkotte explaining western corporate
journalists https://www.bitchute.com/video/w6gva3wtoy2m/

"gearmony still a colony of united states"