Newton did not fully understand the relationship between integral and derivative and like the morons who came after him, never actually proved anything in this respect. Newton's so-called "proof" is no proof at all.

https://www.academia.edu/88991847/Neither_Newton_nor_Leibniz_actually_proved_their_claims_about_integrals_and_area

His proof is so laughable and the most pathetic part about it, is that thousands of morons fell for it - especially those baboons of mainstream math academia.

On Monday, 24 October 2022 at 12:15:54 UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Newton did not fully understand the relationship between integral and derivative and like the morons who came after him, never actually proved anything in this respect. Newton's so-called "proof" is no proof at all.
>
> https://www.academia.edu/88991847/Neither_Newton_nor_Leibniz_actually_proved_their_claims_about_integrals_and_area
>
> His proof is so laughable and the most pathetic part about it, is that thousands of morons fell for it - especially those baboons of mainstream math academia.

What the proof basically amounts to is this:

If y=ax^m/n then z(x)= an/(m+n) x^ (m+n)/(n)

Newton called the above a "RULE". His spoof concerning the differentiation of z(x) goes unnoticed by the baboons of mainstream math academia. To wit, a moron called William Dunham (author of Calculus Gallery) sings Newton's praises.

The slight involves an extra rectangle area ov which reduces to v and coincides with y. Most laughable and stupid - just like mainstream math academics today.

On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 8:20:07 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Monday, 24 October 2022 at 12:15:54 UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > Newton did not fully understand the relationship between integral and derivative and like the morons who came after him, never actually proved anything in this respect. Newton's so-called "proof" is no proof at all.
> >
> > https://www.academia.edu/88991847/Neither_Newton_nor_Leibniz_actually_proved_their_claims_about_integrals_and_area
> >
> > His proof is so laughable and the most pathetic part about it, is that thousands of morons fell for it - especially those baboons of mainstream math academia.
> What the proof basically amounts to is this:
>
> If y=ax^m/n then z(x)= an/(m+n) x^ (m+n)/(n)
>
> Newton called the above a "RULE". His spoof concerning the differentiation of z(x) goes unnoticed by the baboons of mainstream math academia. To wit, a moron called William Dunham (author of Calculus Gallery) sings Newton's praises.
>
> The slight involves an extra rectangle area ov which reduces to v and coincides with y. Most laughable and stupid - just like mainstream math academics today.

Are you feeling quite okay JG 115? You seem to be unraveling quite a bit here. Maybe take a break from maths and take up gardening instead. Constructive, relaxing, therapeutic: might be just what you need. Reading some Albert Ellis might help as well.

It will also give you time to grow some fortitude and actually take that Mensa test that you have been ducking for well over a year now (how much preparation time does a man need?....). Not intimidated at having to beat a modest hurdle of 133 (SD=15 , 98.6 percentile) are we?

Regards

QB 133

Remain Calm and Keep Loving Classical Analysis
Recommended Book of the Day: A Course of Pure Mathematics, Centenary Edition, by G. H. Hardy .