onsdag 12 juli 2023 kl. 19:12:02 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 12 July 2023 at 12:50:49 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > onsdag 12 juli 2023 kl. 13:46:23 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Wednesday, 12 July 2023 at 05:44:22 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > onsdag 12 juli 2023 kl. 08:46:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Tuesday, 11 July 2023 at 17:35:01 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > tisdag 11 juli 2023 kl. 20:13:10 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, 11 July 2023 at 12:59:57 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > måndag 10 juli 2023 kl. 16:27:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, 10 July 2023 at 08:57:31 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > måndag 10 juli 2023 kl. 01:42:08 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 19:25:55 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 9 juli 2023 kl. 23:55:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 17:11:29 UTC-4, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 9 juli 2023 kl. 15:45:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The sci.math cranks Jean Pierre Messager and Markus Klyver keep on lying everywhere about how Q(x,h) is "not unique". Well, if this were true, then the theorem would be false, but as is commonly known, theorems are called theorems because they are TRUE.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the prize idiot Markus Klyver constantly asks how we know Q(x,h) is defined in a unique way. Well, even the question is irrelevant because we don't get to define Q(x,h) - it happens to be the difference in slopes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A more reasonable question to ask is "How do we find Q(x,h)?" The answer is simple: we manipulate the level magnitude { f '(x)+Q(x,h) } (also known incorrectly as arithmetic mean - of course I was the first human to realise this because known of my inferiors in the mainstream even smelled it) so that we can set h=0 without any illegal operation. Setting h=0 is NOT the same as taking a limit even though the end result is the same. In fact, in your bogus mainstream calculus you are not allowed to do this at all! But most of mainstream flaws are a result of stupidity and a lack of understanding. I am a genius which means I know better than you or anyone else.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I have proved that setting h=0 is in fact 100% valid:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/98758410/Was_Newtons_and_Leibnizs_method_of_setting_h_0_valid_The_answer_is_YES
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My historic geometric theorem was realised from the 100% rigorous New Calculus:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus, once we set h=0, we have both the expressions for f'(x) and Q(x,h) because f'(x) is the expression that does not contain any factor of h.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Watch a short 2 minute video:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCIbByi9A8M
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's called taking a limit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh really? So, now you are saying that setting h=0 is the same as taking a limit?! Hypocrite and lying scum bag.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it is EQUIVALENT to taking a limit, but not the same process at all.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Setting h=0 is the same process as simply ignoring the terms in h because you know they are the difference in slope.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Taking a limit is evaluating the convergence of a finite difference.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Two very different processes. Of course, a stupid fuck like you wouldn't know.
> > > > > > > > > > > > So suddenly h went to be non-zero to h=0? That's obviously not allowed, you need a limit.
> > > > > > > > > > > You're very confused. The high school boy KMP explained to you in his videos. I regret to inform you that perhaps you are too stupid to understand. Frankly it doesn't matter what h is because the terms in h are discarded for the derivative. However, h cannot change for the definite integral because ( f'(x) + Q(x,h) ) is the arithmetic mean of all the y ordinates of f'(x) in the interval (x, x+h).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Like I said, setting h=0 is the same as DISCARDING the slope difference. Whilst setting h=0 is EQUIVALENT to taking a limit, it is not the same PROCESS because taking a limit involves evaluating a convergent finite difference, that is, [f(x+h_i)-f(x)]/h_i.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As I said, the article explains, but you do need a brain ... I am sooo sorry! LMAO
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/104346112/Many_Abel_Prize_Laureates_but_not_a_single_one_with_any_worthwhile_contribution
> > > > > > > > > > A limit need not to come from a sequence. Sequential convergence and convergence is not always the same.
> > > > > > > > > And what relevance does that have at all to my claim that the limit is indeed the value to which the sequence of finite differences converges to? I see. NONE. Look stupid boy, I am more educated than you and more intelligent. You cannot intimidate me. Get it idiot? You look stupid every time you raise a different objection. Get with the argument, bozo!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > All you have is "Nah, I don't agree with you." That's not an argument.
> > > > > > > > It's not my problem you don't understand limits.
> > > > > > > It is your problem that you are a moron.
> > > > > > That's the least insulting you have been in a long time.
> > > > > LOL. I am simply mirroring your bad behavior. You are mentally ill. Find another hobby where you won't be insulted because I always insult fools like you simply because you don't understand anything but the language of insults.
> > > > You're behaving like a spoiled brat that didn't get what he wanted. You're over 60. Get help with your mental illness and become a nice person..
> > > >
> > > > Then maybe you can think about mathematics. I have already explained to you why your definitions are wrong and aren't working.
> > > Oh, you mean this drivel?
> > >
> > > " (h*f(x))/h means h is a factor of f(x)." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum
> > >
> > > " (2*5)/2 means 2 is a factor of 5." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum
> > >
> > > LMAO.
> > Yes, in the ring of rational numbers (and real numbers for that matter), 2 is a factor of 5. It is not true in the ring of integers.
> We are not talking about the bullshit you learn in abstract algebra. There you can say all sorts of shit. There are no "rings" in calculus.
Call them whatever you like. Fact is you haven't defined Q uniquely. This is a big problem for you and your calculus.

On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 09:45:36 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> The sci.math cranks Jean Pierre Messager and Markus Klyver keep on lying everywhere about how Q(x,h) is "not unique". Well, if this were true, then the theorem would be false, but as is commonly known, theorems are called theorems because they are TRUE.
>
> So, the prize idiot Markus Klyver constantly asks how we know Q(x,h) is defined in a unique way. Well, even the question is irrelevant because we don't get to define Q(x,h) - it happens to be the difference in slopes.
>
> A more reasonable question to ask is "How do we find Q(x,h)?" The answer is simple: we manipulate the level magnitude { f '(x)+Q(x,h) } (also known incorrectly as arithmetic mean - of course I was the first human to realise this because known of my inferiors in the mainstream even smelled it) so that we can set h=0 without any illegal operation. Setting h=0 is NOT the same as taking a limit even though the end result is the same. In fact, in your bogus mainstream calculus you are not allowed to do this at all! But most of mainstream flaws are a result of stupidity and a lack of understanding. I am a genius which means I know better than you or anyone else.
>
> However, I have proved that setting h=0 is in fact 100% valid:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/98758410/Was_Newtons_and_Leibnizs_method_of_setting_h_0_valid_The_answer_is_YES
>
> My historic geometric theorem was realised from the 100% rigorous New Calculus:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
>
> Thus, once we set h=0, we have both the expressions for f'(x) and Q(x,h) because f'(x) is the expression that does not contain any factor of h.
>
> Watch a short 2 minute video:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCIbByi9A8M

In my conversation with Anthropic's Clause AI, I explain the difference between general measure and factor measure, showing how it all happens first with magnitudes in geometry and is transferred intact to algebra through the abstract unit whose type and size is irrelevant.

Be sure to study this eye-opening article! It is especially relevant for mathematics professors and teachers who have never understood these concepts beyond a superficial understanding.

https://www.academia.edu/104575302/The_difference_between_general_measure_and_factor_measure

On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 18:51:14 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 09:45:36 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > The sci.math cranks Jean Pierre Messager and Markus Klyver keep on lying everywhere about how Q(x,h) is "not unique". Well, if this were true, then the theorem would be false, but as is commonly known, theorems are called theorems because they are TRUE.
> >
> > So, the prize idiot Markus Klyver constantly asks how we know Q(x,h) is defined in a unique way. Well, even the question is irrelevant because we don't get to define Q(x,h) - it happens to be the difference in slopes.
> >
> > A more reasonable question to ask is "How do we find Q(x,h)?" The answer is simple: we manipulate the level magnitude { f '(x)+Q(x,h) } (also known incorrectly as arithmetic mean - of course I was the first human to realise this because known of my inferiors in the mainstream even smelled it) so that we can set h=0 without any illegal operation. Setting h=0 is NOT the same as taking a limit even though the end result is the same. In fact, in your bogus mainstream calculus you are not allowed to do this at all! But most of mainstream flaws are a result of stupidity and a lack of understanding. I am a genius which means I know better than you or anyone else.
> >
> > However, I have proved that setting h=0 is in fact 100% valid:
> >
> > https://www.academia.edu/98758410/Was_Newtons_and_Leibnizs_method_of_setting_h_0_valid_The_answer_is_YES
> >
> > My historic geometric theorem was realised from the 100% rigorous New Calculus:
> >
> > https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> >
> > Thus, once we set h=0, we have both the expressions for f'(x) and Q(x,h) because f'(x) is the expression that does not contain any factor of h.
> >
> > Watch a short 2 minute video:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCIbByi9A8M
> In my conversation with Anthropic's Clause AI, I explain the difference between general measure and factor measure, showing how it all happens first with magnitudes in geometry and is transferred intact to algebra through the abstract unit whose type and size is irrelevant.
>
> Be sure to study this eye-opening article! It is especially relevant for mathematics professors and teachers who have never understood these concepts beyond a superficial understanding.
>
> https://www.academia.edu/104575302/The_difference_between_general_measure_and_factor_measure

It will also help you to understand why I, the great John Gabriel say that h is a factor of f(x+h)-f(x). :-)

lördag 15 juli 2023 kl. 00:52:55 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 18:51:14 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 09:45:36 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > The sci.math cranks Jean Pierre Messager and Markus Klyver keep on lying everywhere about how Q(x,h) is "not unique". Well, if this were true, then the theorem would be false, but as is commonly known, theorems are called theorems because they are TRUE.
> > >
> > > So, the prize idiot Markus Klyver constantly asks how we know Q(x,h) is defined in a unique way. Well, even the question is irrelevant because we don't get to define Q(x,h) - it happens to be the difference in slopes.
> > >
> > > A more reasonable question to ask is "How do we find Q(x,h)?" The answer is simple: we manipulate the level magnitude { f '(x)+Q(x,h) } (also known incorrectly as arithmetic mean - of course I was the first human to realise this because known of my inferiors in the mainstream even smelled it) so that we can set h=0 without any illegal operation. Setting h=0 is NOT the same as taking a limit even though the end result is the same. In fact, in your bogus mainstream calculus you are not allowed to do this at all! But most of mainstream flaws are a result of stupidity and a lack of understanding. I am a genius which means I know better than you or anyone else.
> > >
> > > However, I have proved that setting h=0 is in fact 100% valid:
> > >
> > > https://www.academia.edu/98758410/Was_Newtons_and_Leibnizs_method_of_setting_h_0_valid_The_answer_is_YES
> > >
> > > My historic geometric theorem was realised from the 100% rigorous New Calculus:
> > >
> > > https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> > >
> > > Thus, once we set h=0, we have both the expressions for f'(x) and Q(x,h) because f'(x) is the expression that does not contain any factor of h..
> > >
> > > Watch a short 2 minute video:
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCIbByi9A8M
> > In my conversation with Anthropic's Clause AI, I explain the difference between general measure and factor measure, showing how it all happens first with magnitudes in geometry and is transferred intact to algebra through the abstract unit whose type and size is irrelevant.
> >
> > Be sure to study this eye-opening article! It is especially relevant for mathematics professors and teachers who have never understood these concepts beyond a superficial understanding.
> >
> > https://www.academia.edu/104575302/The_difference_between_general_measure_and_factor_measure
> It will also help you to understand why I, the great John Gabriel say that h is a factor of f(x+h)-f(x).

Every rational h is a factor of any other rational number.

On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 18:52:55 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 18:51:14 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 09:45:36 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > The sci.math cranks Jean Pierre Messager and Markus Klyver keep on lying everywhere about how Q(x,h) is "not unique". Well, if this were true, then the theorem would be false, but as is commonly known, theorems are called theorems because they are TRUE.
> > >
> > > So, the prize idiot Markus Klyver constantly asks how we know Q(x,h) is defined in a unique way. Well, even the question is irrelevant because we don't get to define Q(x,h) - it happens to be the difference in slopes.
> > >
> > > A more reasonable question to ask is "How do we find Q(x,h)?" The answer is simple: we manipulate the level magnitude { f '(x)+Q(x,h) } (also known incorrectly as arithmetic mean - of course I was the first human to realise this because known of my inferiors in the mainstream even smelled it) so that we can set h=0 without any illegal operation. Setting h=0 is NOT the same as taking a limit even though the end result is the same. In fact, in your bogus mainstream calculus you are not allowed to do this at all! But most of mainstream flaws are a result of stupidity and a lack of understanding. I am a genius which means I know better than you or anyone else.
> > >
> > > However, I have proved that setting h=0 is in fact 100% valid:
> > >
> > > https://www.academia.edu/98758410/Was_Newtons_and_Leibnizs_method_of_setting_h_0_valid_The_answer_is_YES
> > >
> > > My historic geometric theorem was realised from the 100% rigorous New Calculus:
> > >
> > > https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> > >
> > > Thus, once we set h=0, we have both the expressions for f'(x) and Q(x,h) because f'(x) is the expression that does not contain any factor of h..
> > >
> > > Watch a short 2 minute video:
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCIbByi9A8M
> > In my conversation with Anthropic's Clause AI, I explain the difference between general measure and factor measure, showing how it all happens first with magnitudes in geometry and is transferred intact to algebra through the abstract unit whose type and size is irrelevant.
> >
> > Be sure to study this eye-opening article! It is especially relevant for mathematics professors and teachers who have never understood these concepts beyond a superficial understanding.
> >
> > https://www.academia.edu/104575302/The_difference_between_general_measure_and_factor_measure
> It will also help you to understand why I, the great John Gabriel say that h is a factor of f(x+h)-f(x). :-)

So, in summary, we say that h is a factor of f(x+h)-f(x) if and only if, the whole of h is used to measure f(x+h)-f(x). In other words, there are no smaller equal parts of h used.

lördag 15 juli 2023 kl. 14:39:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 18:52:55 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 18:51:14 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 09:45:36 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > The sci.math cranks Jean Pierre Messager and Markus Klyver keep on lying everywhere about how Q(x,h) is "not unique". Well, if this were true, then the theorem would be false, but as is commonly known, theorems are called theorems because they are TRUE.
> > > >
> > > > So, the prize idiot Markus Klyver constantly asks how we know Q(x,h) is defined in a unique way. Well, even the question is irrelevant because we don't get to define Q(x,h) - it happens to be the difference in slopes.
> > > >
> > > > A more reasonable question to ask is "How do we find Q(x,h)?" The answer is simple: we manipulate the level magnitude { f '(x)+Q(x,h) } (also known incorrectly as arithmetic mean - of course I was the first human to realise this because known of my inferiors in the mainstream even smelled it) so that we can set h=0 without any illegal operation. Setting h=0 is NOT the same as taking a limit even though the end result is the same. In fact, in your bogus mainstream calculus you are not allowed to do this at all! But most of mainstream flaws are a result of stupidity and a lack of understanding. I am a genius which means I know better than you or anyone else..
> > > >
> > > > However, I have proved that setting h=0 is in fact 100% valid:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.academia.edu/98758410/Was_Newtons_and_Leibnizs_method_of_setting_h_0_valid_The_answer_is_YES
> > > >
> > > > My historic geometric theorem was realised from the 100% rigorous New Calculus:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> > > >
> > > > Thus, once we set h=0, we have both the expressions for f'(x) and Q(x,h) because f'(x) is the expression that does not contain any factor of h.
> > > >
> > > > Watch a short 2 minute video:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCIbByi9A8M
> > > In my conversation with Anthropic's Clause AI, I explain the difference between general measure and factor measure, showing how it all happens first with magnitudes in geometry and is transferred intact to algebra through the abstract unit whose type and size is irrelevant.
> > >
> > > Be sure to study this eye-opening article! It is especially relevant for mathematics professors and teachers who have never understood these concepts beyond a superficial understanding.
> > >
> > > https://www.academia.edu/104575302/The_difference_between_general_measure_and_factor_measure
> > It will also help you to understand why I, the great John Gabriel say that h is a factor of f(x+h)-f(x). :-)
> So, in summary, we say that h is a factor of f(x+h)-f(x) if and only if, the whole of h is used to measure f(x+h)-f(x). In other words, there are no smaller equal parts of h used.
So f(x+h)-f(x) is an integer multiple of h? Well, that's certainly not true either. 🐈

On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 08:52:52 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> lördag 15 juli 2023 kl. 14:39:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 18:52:55 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 18:51:14 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 09:45:36 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > The sci.math cranks Jean Pierre Messager and Markus Klyver keep on lying everywhere about how Q(x,h) is "not unique". Well, if this were true, then the theorem would be false, but as is commonly known, theorems are called theorems because they are TRUE.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, the prize idiot Markus Klyver constantly asks how we know Q(x,h) is defined in a unique way. Well, even the question is irrelevant because we don't get to define Q(x,h) - it happens to be the difference in slopes.
> > > > >
> > > > > A more reasonable question to ask is "How do we find Q(x,h)?" The answer is simple: we manipulate the level magnitude { f '(x)+Q(x,h) } (also known incorrectly as arithmetic mean - of course I was the first human to realise this because known of my inferiors in the mainstream even smelled it) so that we can set h=0 without any illegal operation. Setting h=0 is NOT the same as taking a limit even though the end result is the same. In fact, in your bogus mainstream calculus you are not allowed to do this at all! But most of mainstream flaws are a result of stupidity and a lack of understanding. I am a genius which means I know better than you or anyone else.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, I have proved that setting h=0 is in fact 100% valid:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.academia.edu/98758410/Was_Newtons_and_Leibnizs_method_of_setting_h_0_valid_The_answer_is_YES
> > > > >
> > > > > My historic geometric theorem was realised from the 100% rigorous New Calculus:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> > > > >
> > > > > Thus, once we set h=0, we have both the expressions for f'(x) and Q(x,h) because f'(x) is the expression that does not contain any factor of h.
> > > > >
> > > > > Watch a short 2 minute video:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCIbByi9A8M
> > > > In my conversation with Anthropic's Clause AI, I explain the difference between general measure and factor measure, showing how it all happens first with magnitudes in geometry and is transferred intact to algebra through the abstract unit whose type and size is irrelevant.
> > > >
> > > > Be sure to study this eye-opening article! It is especially relevant for mathematics professors and teachers who have never understood these concepts beyond a superficial understanding.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.academia.edu/104575302/The_difference_between_general_measure_and_factor_measure
> > > It will also help you to understand why I, the great John Gabriel say that h is a factor of f(x+h)-f(x). :-)
> > So, in summary, we say that h is a factor of f(x+h)-f(x) if and only if, the whole of h is used to measure f(x+h)-f(x). In other words, there are no smaller equal parts of h used.
> So f(x+h)-f(x) is an integer multiple of h? Well, that's certainly not true either. 🐈

Hey moron.
I have told you many times that h is a factor of every term in f(x+h)-f(x). This means that f(x+h)-f(x) can be written as h x k.

Quit posting your shit here!

lördag 15 juli 2023 kl. 17:10:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 08:52:52 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > lördag 15 juli 2023 kl. 14:39:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 18:52:55 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 18:51:14 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 09:45:36 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > The sci.math cranks Jean Pierre Messager and Markus Klyver keep on lying everywhere about how Q(x,h) is "not unique". Well, if this were true, then the theorem would be false, but as is commonly known, theorems are called theorems because they are TRUE.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, the prize idiot Markus Klyver constantly asks how we know Q(x,h) is defined in a unique way. Well, even the question is irrelevant because we don't get to define Q(x,h) - it happens to be the difference in slopes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A more reasonable question to ask is "How do we find Q(x,h)?" The answer is simple: we manipulate the level magnitude { f '(x)+Q(x,h) } (also known incorrectly as arithmetic mean - of course I was the first human to realise this because known of my inferiors in the mainstream even smelled it) so that we can set h=0 without any illegal operation. Setting h=0 is NOT the same as taking a limit even though the end result is the same. In fact, in your bogus mainstream calculus you are not allowed to do this at all! But most of mainstream flaws are a result of stupidity and a lack of understanding. I am a genius which means I know better than you or anyone else.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, I have proved that setting h=0 is in fact 100% valid:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/98758410/Was_Newtons_and_Leibnizs_method_of_setting_h_0_valid_The_answer_is_YES
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My historic geometric theorem was realised from the 100% rigorous New Calculus:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thus, once we set h=0, we have both the expressions for f'(x) and Q(x,h) because f'(x) is the expression that does not contain any factor of h.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Watch a short 2 minute video:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCIbByi9A8M
> > > > > In my conversation with Anthropic's Clause AI, I explain the difference between general measure and factor measure, showing how it all happens first with magnitudes in geometry and is transferred intact to algebra through the abstract unit whose type and size is irrelevant.
> > > > >
> > > > > Be sure to study this eye-opening article! It is especially relevant for mathematics professors and teachers who have never understood these concepts beyond a superficial understanding.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.academia.edu/104575302/The_difference_between_general_measure_and_factor_measure
> > > > It will also help you to understand why I, the great John Gabriel say that h is a factor of f(x+h)-f(x). :-)
> > > So, in summary, we say that h is a factor of f(x+h)-f(x) if and only if, the whole of h is used to measure f(x+h)-f(x). In other words, there are no smaller equal parts of h used.
> > So f(x+h)-f(x) is an integer multiple of h? Well, that's certainly not true either. 🐈
> Hey moron.
> I have told you many times that h is a factor of every term in f(x+h)-f(x). This means that f(x+h)-f(x) can be written as h x k.
>
> Quit posting your shit here!
But if k is allowed to be rational, every rational number can be written as that. 🤷‍♂️

On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 13:25:09 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> lördag 15 juli 2023 kl. 17:10:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 08:52:52 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > lördag 15 juli 2023 kl. 14:39:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 18:52:55 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 18:51:14 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 09:45:36 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > The sci.math cranks Jean Pierre Messager and Markus Klyver keep on lying everywhere about how Q(x,h) is "not unique". Well, if this were true, then the theorem would be false, but as is commonly known, theorems are called theorems because they are TRUE.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, the prize idiot Markus Klyver constantly asks how we know Q(x,h) is defined in a unique way. Well, even the question is irrelevant because we don't get to define Q(x,h) - it happens to be the difference in slopes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A more reasonable question to ask is "How do we find Q(x,h)?" The answer is simple: we manipulate the level magnitude { f '(x)+Q(x,h) } (also known incorrectly as arithmetic mean - of course I was the first human to realise this because known of my inferiors in the mainstream even smelled it) so that we can set h=0 without any illegal operation. Setting h=0 is NOT the same as taking a limit even though the end result is the same. In fact, in your bogus mainstream calculus you are not allowed to do this at all! But most of mainstream flaws are a result of stupidity and a lack of understanding. I am a genius which means I know better than you or anyone else.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, I have proved that setting h=0 is in fact 100% valid:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/98758410/Was_Newtons_and_Leibnizs_method_of_setting_h_0_valid_The_answer_is_YES
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My historic geometric theorem was realised from the 100% rigorous New Calculus:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thus, once we set h=0, we have both the expressions for f'(x) and Q(x,h) because f'(x) is the expression that does not contain any factor of h.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Watch a short 2 minute video:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCIbByi9A8M
> > > > > > In my conversation with Anthropic's Clause AI, I explain the difference between general measure and factor measure, showing how it all happens first with magnitudes in geometry and is transferred intact to algebra through the abstract unit whose type and size is irrelevant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Be sure to study this eye-opening article! It is especially relevant for mathematics professors and teachers who have never understood these concepts beyond a superficial understanding.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/104575302/The_difference_between_general_measure_and_factor_measure
> > > > > It will also help you to understand why I, the great John Gabriel say that h is a factor of f(x+h)-f(x). :-)
> > > > So, in summary, we say that h is a factor of f(x+h)-f(x) if and only if, the whole of h is used to measure f(x+h)-f(x). In other words, there are no smaller equal parts of h used.
> > > So f(x+h)-f(x) is an integer multiple of h? Well, that's certainly not true either. 🐈
> > Hey moron.
> > I have told you many times that h is a factor of every term in f(x+h)-f(x). This means that f(x+h)-f(x) can be written as h x k.
> >
> > Quit posting your shit here!
> But if k is allowed to be rational, every rational number can be written as that. 🤷‍♂️

h is allowed to be any magnitude, not k. k=h*[f(x+h)-f(x)]

k depends on f(x+h)-f(x).

TROLL!

lördag 15 juli 2023 kl. 21:52:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 13:25:09 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > lördag 15 juli 2023 kl. 17:10:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 08:52:52 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > lördag 15 juli 2023 kl. 14:39:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 18:52:55 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 18:51:14 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 09:45:36 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > The sci.math cranks Jean Pierre Messager and Markus Klyver keep on lying everywhere about how Q(x,h) is "not unique". Well, if this were true, then the theorem would be false, but as is commonly known, theorems are called theorems because they are TRUE.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, the prize idiot Markus Klyver constantly asks how we know Q(x,h) is defined in a unique way. Well, even the question is irrelevant because we don't get to define Q(x,h) - it happens to be the difference in slopes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A more reasonable question to ask is "How do we find Q(x,h)?" The answer is simple: we manipulate the level magnitude { f '(x)+Q(x,h) } (also known incorrectly as arithmetic mean - of course I was the first human to realise this because known of my inferiors in the mainstream even smelled it) so that we can set h=0 without any illegal operation. Setting h=0 is NOT the same as taking a limit even though the end result is the same. In fact, in your bogus mainstream calculus you are not allowed to do this at all! But most of mainstream flaws are a result of stupidity and a lack of understanding. I am a genius which means I know better than you or anyone else.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > However, I have proved that setting h=0 is in fact 100% valid:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/98758410/Was_Newtons_and_Leibnizs_method_of_setting_h_0_valid_The_answer_is_YES
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My historic geometric theorem was realised from the 100% rigorous New Calculus:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thus, once we set h=0, we have both the expressions for f'(x) and Q(x,h) because f'(x) is the expression that does not contain any factor of h.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Watch a short 2 minute video:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCIbByi9A8M
> > > > > > > In my conversation with Anthropic's Clause AI, I explain the difference between general measure and factor measure, showing how it all happens first with magnitudes in geometry and is transferred intact to algebra through the abstract unit whose type and size is irrelevant.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Be sure to study this eye-opening article! It is especially relevant for mathematics professors and teachers who have never understood these concepts beyond a superficial understanding.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/104575302/The_difference_between_general_measure_and_factor_measure
> > > > > > It will also help you to understand why I, the great John Gabriel say that h is a factor of f(x+h)-f(x). :-)
> > > > > So, in summary, we say that h is a factor of f(x+h)-f(x) if and only if, the whole of h is used to measure f(x+h)-f(x). In other words, there are no smaller equal parts of h used.
> > > > So f(x+h)-f(x) is an integer multiple of h? Well, that's certainly not true either. 🐈
> > > Hey moron.
> > > I have told you many times that h is a factor of every term in f(x+h)-f(x). This means that f(x+h)-f(x) can be written as h x k.
> > >
> > > Quit posting your shit here!
> > But if k is allowed to be rational, every rational number can be written as that. 🤷‍♂️
> h is allowed to be any magnitude, not k. k=h*[f(x+h)-f(x)]
>
> k depends on f(x+h)-f(x).
>
> TROLL!
Ok, so k can be "any magnitude" (real number) as well?

On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 17:28:51 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> lördag 15 juli 2023 kl. 21:52:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 13:25:09 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > lördag 15 juli 2023 kl. 17:10:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 08:52:52 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > lördag 15 juli 2023 kl. 14:39:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 18:52:55 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 18:51:14 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 09:45:36 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > The sci.math cranks Jean Pierre Messager and Markus Klyver keep on lying everywhere about how Q(x,h) is "not unique". Well, if this were true, then the theorem would be false, but as is commonly known, theorems are called theorems because they are TRUE.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, the prize idiot Markus Klyver constantly asks how we know Q(x,h) is defined in a unique way. Well, even the question is irrelevant because we don't get to define Q(x,h) - it happens to be the difference in slopes.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A more reasonable question to ask is "How do we find Q(x,h)?" The answer is simple: we manipulate the level magnitude { f '(x)+Q(x,h) } (also known incorrectly as arithmetic mean - of course I was the first human to realise this because known of my inferiors in the mainstream even smelled it) so that we can set h=0 without any illegal operation. Setting h=0 is NOT the same as taking a limit even though the end result is the same. In fact, in your bogus mainstream calculus you are not allowed to do this at all! But most of mainstream flaws are a result of stupidity and a lack of understanding. I am a genius which means I know better than you or anyone else.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > However, I have proved that setting h=0 is in fact 100% valid:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/98758410/Was_Newtons_and_Leibnizs_method_of_setting_h_0_valid_The_answer_is_YES
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My historic geometric theorem was realised from the 100% rigorous New Calculus:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thus, once we set h=0, we have both the expressions for f'(x) and Q(x,h) because f'(x) is the expression that does not contain any factor of h.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Watch a short 2 minute video:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCIbByi9A8M
> > > > > > > > In my conversation with Anthropic's Clause AI, I explain the difference between general measure and factor measure, showing how it all happens first with magnitudes in geometry and is transferred intact to algebra through the abstract unit whose type and size is irrelevant.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Be sure to study this eye-opening article! It is especially relevant for mathematics professors and teachers who have never understood these concepts beyond a superficial understanding.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/104575302/The_difference_between_general_measure_and_factor_measure
> > > > > > > It will also help you to understand why I, the great John Gabriel say that h is a factor of f(x+h)-f(x). :-)
> > > > > > So, in summary, we say that h is a factor of f(x+h)-f(x) if and only if, the whole of h is used to measure f(x+h)-f(x). In other words, there are no smaller equal parts of h used.
> > > > > So f(x+h)-f(x) is an integer multiple of h? Well, that's certainly not true either. 🐈
> > > > Hey moron.
> > > > I have told you many times that h is a factor of every term in f(x+h)-f(x). This means that f(x+h)-f(x) can be written as h x k.
> > > >
> > > > Quit posting your shit here!
> > > But if k is allowed to be rational, every rational number can be written as that. 🤷‍♂️
> > h is allowed to be any magnitude, not k. k=h*[f(x+h)-f(x)]
> >
> > k depends on f(x+h)-f(x).
> >
> > TROLL!
> Ok, so k can be "any magnitude" (real number) as well?

<PLONK>

Le 15/07/2023 à 23:34, Eram semper recta a écrit :
> On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 17:28:51 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
>> lördag 15 juli 2023 kl. 21:52:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
>>> On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 13:25:09 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> lördag 15 juli 2023 kl. 17:10:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
>>>>> On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 08:52:52 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> lördag 15 juli 2023 kl. 14:39:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
>>>>>>> On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 18:52:55 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 18:51:14 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 09:45:36 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The sci.math cranks Jean Pierre Messager and Markus Klyver keep on lying everywhere about how Q(x,h) is "not unique". Well, if this were true, then the theorem would be false, but as is commonly known, theorems are called theorems because they are TRUE.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, the prize idiot Markus Klyver constantly asks how we know Q(x,h) is defined in a unique way. Well, even the question is irrelevant because we don't get to define Q(x,h) - it happens to be the difference in slopes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A more reasonable question to ask is "How do we find Q(x,h)?" The answer is simple: we manipulate the level magnitude { f '(x)+Q(x,h) } (also known incorrectly as arithmetic mean - of course I was the first human to realise this because known of my inferiors in the mainstream even smelled it) so that we can set h=0 without any illegal operation. Setting h=0 is NOT the same as taking a limit even though the end result is the same. In fact, in your bogus mainstream calculus you are not allowed to do this at all! But most of mainstream flaws are a result of stupidity and a lack of understanding. I am a genius which means I know better than you or anyone else.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> However, I have proved that setting h=0 is in fact 100% valid:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/98758410/Was_Newtons_and_Leibnizs_method_of_setting_h_0_valid_The_answer_is_YES
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My historic geometric theorem was realised from the 100% rigorous New Calculus:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus, once we set h=0, we have both the expressions for f'(x) and Q(x,h) because f'(x) is the expression that does not contain any factor of h.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Watch a short 2 minute video:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCIbByi9A8M
>>>>>>>>> In my conversation with Anthropic's Clause AI, I explain the difference between general measure and factor measure, showing how it all happens first with magnitudes in geometry and is transferred intact to algebra through the abstract unit whose type and size is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Be sure to study this eye-opening article! It is especially relevant for mathematics professors and teachers who have never understood these concepts beyond a superficial understanding.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/104575302/The_difference_between_general_measure_and_factor_measure
>>>>>>>> It will also help you to understand why I, the great John Gabriel say that h is a factor of f(x+h)-f(x). :-)
>>>>>>> So, in summary, we say that h is a factor of f(x+h)-f(x) if and only if, the whole of h is used to measure f(x+h)-f(x). In other words, there are no smaller equal parts of h used.
>>>>>> So f(x+h)-f(x) is an integer multiple of h? Well, that's certainly not true either. 🐈
>>>>> Hey moron.
>>>>> I have told you many times that h is a factor of every term in f(x+h)-f(x). This means that f(x+h)-f(x) can be written as h x k.
>>>>>
>>>>> Quit posting your shit here!
>>>> But if k is allowed to be rational, every rational number can be written as that. 🤷‍♂️
>>> h is allowed to be any magnitude, not k. k=h*[f(x+h)-f(x)]
>>>
>>> k depends on f(x+h)-f(x).
>>>
>>> TROLL!
>> Ok, so k can be "any magnitude" (real number) as well?
>
> <PLONK>

chickening out ? again ?

lördag 15 juli 2023 kl. 23:34:38 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 17:28:51 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > lördag 15 juli 2023 kl. 21:52:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 13:25:09 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > lördag 15 juli 2023 kl. 17:10:31 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 08:52:52 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > lördag 15 juli 2023 kl. 14:39:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 18:52:55 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 18:51:14 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 09:45:36 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > The sci.math cranks Jean Pierre Messager and Markus Klyver keep on lying everywhere about how Q(x,h) is "not unique". Well, if this were true, then the theorem would be false, but as is commonly known, theorems are called theorems because they are TRUE.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So, the prize idiot Markus Klyver constantly asks how we know Q(x,h) is defined in a unique way. Well, even the question is irrelevant because we don't get to define Q(x,h) - it happens to be the difference in slopes.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > A more reasonable question to ask is "How do we find Q(x,h)?" The answer is simple: we manipulate the level magnitude { f '(x)+Q(x,h) } (also known incorrectly as arithmetic mean - of course I was the first human to realise this because known of my inferiors in the mainstream even smelled it) so that we can set h=0 without any illegal operation. Setting h=0 is NOT the same as taking a limit even though the end result is the same. In fact, in your bogus mainstream calculus you are not allowed to do this at all! But most of mainstream flaws are a result of stupidity and a lack of understanding. I am a genius which means I know better than you or anyone else.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > However, I have proved that setting h=0 is in fact 100% valid:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/98758410/Was_Newtons_and_Leibnizs_method_of_setting_h_0_valid_The_answer_is_YES
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My historic geometric theorem was realised from the 100% rigorous New Calculus:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thus, once we set h=0, we have both the expressions for f'(x) and Q(x,h) because f'(x) is the expression that does not contain any factor of h.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Watch a short 2 minute video:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCIbByi9A8M
> > > > > > > > > In my conversation with Anthropic's Clause AI, I explain the difference between general measure and factor measure, showing how it all happens first with magnitudes in geometry and is transferred intact to algebra through the abstract unit whose type and size is irrelevant.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Be sure to study this eye-opening article! It is especially relevant for mathematics professors and teachers who have never understood these concepts beyond a superficial understanding.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/104575302/The_difference_between_general_measure_and_factor_measure
> > > > > > > > It will also help you to understand why I, the great John Gabriel say that h is a factor of f(x+h)-f(x). :-)
> > > > > > > So, in summary, we say that h is a factor of f(x+h)-f(x) if and only if, the whole of h is used to measure f(x+h)-f(x). In other words, there are no smaller equal parts of h used.
> > > > > > So f(x+h)-f(x) is an integer multiple of h? Well, that's certainly not true either. 🐈
> > > > > Hey moron.
> > > > > I have told you many times that h is a factor of every term in f(x+h)-f(x). This means that f(x+h)-f(x) can be written as h x k.
> > > > >
> > > > > Quit posting your shit here!
> > > > But if k is allowed to be rational, every rational number can be written as that. 🤷‍♂️
> > > h is allowed to be any magnitude, not k. k=h*[f(x+h)-f(x)]
> > >
> > > k depends on f(x+h)-f(x).
> > >
> > > TROLL!
> > Ok, so k can be "any magnitude" (real number) as well?
> <PLONK>
No response?

On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 09:45:36 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> The sci.math cranks Jean Pierre Messager and Markus Klyver keep on lying everywhere about how Q(x,h) is "not unique". Well, if this were true, then the theorem would be false, but as is commonly known, theorems are called theorems because they are TRUE.
>
> So, the prize idiot Markus Klyver constantly asks how we know Q(x,h) is defined in a unique way. Well, even the question is irrelevant because we don't get to define Q(x,h) - it happens to be the difference in slopes.
>
> A more reasonable question to ask is "How do we find Q(x,h)?" The answer is simple: we manipulate the level magnitude { f '(x)+Q(x,h) } (also known incorrectly as arithmetic mean - of course I was the first human to realise this because known of my inferiors in the mainstream even smelled it) so that we can set h=0 without any illegal operation. Setting h=0 is NOT the same as taking a limit even though the end result is the same. In fact, in your bogus mainstream calculus you are not allowed to do this at all! But most of mainstream flaws are a result of stupidity and a lack of understanding. I am a genius which means I know better than you or anyone else.
>
> However, I have proved that setting h=0 is in fact 100% valid:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/98758410/Was_Newtons_and_Leibnizs_method_of_setting_h_0_valid_The_answer_is_YES
>
> My historic geometric theorem was realised from the 100% rigorous New Calculus:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
>
> Thus, once we set h=0, we have both the expressions for f'(x) and Q(x,h) because f'(x) is the expression that does not contain any factor of h.
>
> Watch a short 2 minute video:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCIbByi9A8M

https://www.academia.edu/104600846/Teaching_retarded_graduates_of_mainstream_mathematics_with_BS_and_MS_diplomas

söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 00:54:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 09:45:36 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > The sci.math cranks Jean Pierre Messager and Markus Klyver keep on lying everywhere about how Q(x,h) is "not unique". Well, if this were true, then the theorem would be false, but as is commonly known, theorems are called theorems because they are TRUE.
> >
> > So, the prize idiot Markus Klyver constantly asks how we know Q(x,h) is defined in a unique way. Well, even the question is irrelevant because we don't get to define Q(x,h) - it happens to be the difference in slopes.
> >
> > A more reasonable question to ask is "How do we find Q(x,h)?" The answer is simple: we manipulate the level magnitude { f '(x)+Q(x,h) } (also known incorrectly as arithmetic mean - of course I was the first human to realise this because known of my inferiors in the mainstream even smelled it) so that we can set h=0 without any illegal operation. Setting h=0 is NOT the same as taking a limit even though the end result is the same. In fact, in your bogus mainstream calculus you are not allowed to do this at all! But most of mainstream flaws are a result of stupidity and a lack of understanding. I am a genius which means I know better than you or anyone else.
> >
> > However, I have proved that setting h=0 is in fact 100% valid:
> >
> > https://www.academia.edu/98758410/Was_Newtons_and_Leibnizs_method_of_setting_h_0_valid_The_answer_is_YES
> >
> > My historic geometric theorem was realised from the 100% rigorous New Calculus:
> >
> > https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> >
> > Thus, once we set h=0, we have both the expressions for f'(x) and Q(x,h) because f'(x) is the expression that does not contain any factor of h.
> >
> > Watch a short 2 minute video:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCIbByi9A8M
> https://www.academia.edu/104600846/Teaching_retarded_graduates_of_mainstream_mathematics_with_BS_and_MS_diplomas

You haven't clarified anything. Are x and h indeterminates? Actual numbers? Something else?

On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 19:17:38 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 00:54:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 09:45:36 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > The sci.math cranks Jean Pierre Messager and Markus Klyver keep on lying everywhere about how Q(x,h) is "not unique". Well, if this were true, then the theorem would be false, but as is commonly known, theorems are called theorems because they are TRUE.
> > >
> > > So, the prize idiot Markus Klyver constantly asks how we know Q(x,h) is defined in a unique way. Well, even the question is irrelevant because we don't get to define Q(x,h) - it happens to be the difference in slopes.
> > >
> > > A more reasonable question to ask is "How do we find Q(x,h)?" The answer is simple: we manipulate the level magnitude { f '(x)+Q(x,h) } (also known incorrectly as arithmetic mean - of course I was the first human to realise this because known of my inferiors in the mainstream even smelled it) so that we can set h=0 without any illegal operation. Setting h=0 is NOT the same as taking a limit even though the end result is the same. In fact, in your bogus mainstream calculus you are not allowed to do this at all! But most of mainstream flaws are a result of stupidity and a lack of understanding. I am a genius which means I know better than you or anyone else.
> > >
> > > However, I have proved that setting h=0 is in fact 100% valid:
> > >
> > > https://www.academia.edu/98758410/Was_Newtons_and_Leibnizs_method_of_setting_h_0_valid_The_answer_is_YES
> > >
> > > My historic geometric theorem was realised from the 100% rigorous New Calculus:
> > >
> > > https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> > >
> > > Thus, once we set h=0, we have both the expressions for f'(x) and Q(x,h) because f'(x) is the expression that does not contain any factor of h..
> > >
> > > Watch a short 2 minute video:
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCIbByi9A8M
> > https://www.academia.edu/104600846/Teaching_retarded_graduates_of_mainstream_mathematics_with_BS_and_MS_diplomas
> You haven't clarified anything. Are x and h indeterminates? Actual numbers? Something else?

They are length magnitudes which may or may not be fully measurable. And you have been told this!

söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 01:51:23 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 19:17:38 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 00:54:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 09:45:36 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > The sci.math cranks Jean Pierre Messager and Markus Klyver keep on lying everywhere about how Q(x,h) is "not unique". Well, if this were true, then the theorem would be false, but as is commonly known, theorems are called theorems because they are TRUE.
> > > >
> > > > So, the prize idiot Markus Klyver constantly asks how we know Q(x,h) is defined in a unique way. Well, even the question is irrelevant because we don't get to define Q(x,h) - it happens to be the difference in slopes.
> > > >
> > > > A more reasonable question to ask is "How do we find Q(x,h)?" The answer is simple: we manipulate the level magnitude { f '(x)+Q(x,h) } (also known incorrectly as arithmetic mean - of course I was the first human to realise this because known of my inferiors in the mainstream even smelled it) so that we can set h=0 without any illegal operation. Setting h=0 is NOT the same as taking a limit even though the end result is the same. In fact, in your bogus mainstream calculus you are not allowed to do this at all! But most of mainstream flaws are a result of stupidity and a lack of understanding. I am a genius which means I know better than you or anyone else..
> > > >
> > > > However, I have proved that setting h=0 is in fact 100% valid:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.academia.edu/98758410/Was_Newtons_and_Leibnizs_method_of_setting_h_0_valid_The_answer_is_YES
> > > >
> > > > My historic geometric theorem was realised from the 100% rigorous New Calculus:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> > > >
> > > > Thus, once we set h=0, we have both the expressions for f'(x) and Q(x,h) because f'(x) is the expression that does not contain any factor of h.
> > > >
> > > > Watch a short 2 minute video:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCIbByi9A8M
> > > https://www.academia.edu/104600846/Teaching_retarded_graduates_of_mainstream_mathematics_with_BS_and_MS_diplomas
> > You haven't clarified anything. Are x and h indeterminates? Actual numbers? Something else?
> They are length magnitudes which may or may not be fully measurable. And you have been told this!
So real numbers.

h is a factor of any real number by x=x/h*h

On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 08:31:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 01:51:23 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 19:17:38 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 00:54:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 09:45:36 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > The sci.math cranks Jean Pierre Messager and Markus Klyver keep on lying everywhere about how Q(x,h) is "not unique". Well, if this were true, then the theorem would be false, but as is commonly known, theorems are called theorems because they are TRUE.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, the prize idiot Markus Klyver constantly asks how we know Q(x,h) is defined in a unique way. Well, even the question is irrelevant because we don't get to define Q(x,h) - it happens to be the difference in slopes.
> > > > >
> > > > > A more reasonable question to ask is "How do we find Q(x,h)?" The answer is simple: we manipulate the level magnitude { f '(x)+Q(x,h) } (also known incorrectly as arithmetic mean - of course I was the first human to realise this because known of my inferiors in the mainstream even smelled it) so that we can set h=0 without any illegal operation. Setting h=0 is NOT the same as taking a limit even though the end result is the same. In fact, in your bogus mainstream calculus you are not allowed to do this at all! But most of mainstream flaws are a result of stupidity and a lack of understanding. I am a genius which means I know better than you or anyone else.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, I have proved that setting h=0 is in fact 100% valid:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.academia.edu/98758410/Was_Newtons_and_Leibnizs_method_of_setting_h_0_valid_The_answer_is_YES
> > > > >
> > > > > My historic geometric theorem was realised from the 100% rigorous New Calculus:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> > > > >
> > > > > Thus, once we set h=0, we have both the expressions for f'(x) and Q(x,h) because f'(x) is the expression that does not contain any factor of h.
> > > > >
> > > > > Watch a short 2 minute video:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCIbByi9A8M
> > > > https://www.academia.edu/104600846/Teaching_retarded_graduates_of_mainstream_mathematics_with_BS_and_MS_diplomas
> > > You haven't clarified anything. Are x and h indeterminates? Actual numbers? Something else?
> > They are length magnitudes which may or may not be fully measurable. And you have been told this!
> So real numbers.
>
> h is a factor of any real number by x=x/h*h

Go away, MORON!

söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 14:47:40 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 08:31:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 01:51:23 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 19:17:38 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 00:54:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 09:45:36 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > The sci.math cranks Jean Pierre Messager and Markus Klyver keep on lying everywhere about how Q(x,h) is "not unique". Well, if this were true, then the theorem would be false, but as is commonly known, theorems are called theorems because they are TRUE.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, the prize idiot Markus Klyver constantly asks how we know Q(x,h) is defined in a unique way. Well, even the question is irrelevant because we don't get to define Q(x,h) - it happens to be the difference in slopes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A more reasonable question to ask is "How do we find Q(x,h)?" The answer is simple: we manipulate the level magnitude { f '(x)+Q(x,h) } (also known incorrectly as arithmetic mean - of course I was the first human to realise this because known of my inferiors in the mainstream even smelled it) so that we can set h=0 without any illegal operation. Setting h=0 is NOT the same as taking a limit even though the end result is the same. In fact, in your bogus mainstream calculus you are not allowed to do this at all! But most of mainstream flaws are a result of stupidity and a lack of understanding. I am a genius which means I know better than you or anyone else.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, I have proved that setting h=0 is in fact 100% valid:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/98758410/Was_Newtons_and_Leibnizs_method_of_setting_h_0_valid_The_answer_is_YES
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My historic geometric theorem was realised from the 100% rigorous New Calculus:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thus, once we set h=0, we have both the expressions for f'(x) and Q(x,h) because f'(x) is the expression that does not contain any factor of h.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Watch a short 2 minute video:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCIbByi9A8M
> > > > > https://www.academia.edu/104600846/Teaching_retarded_graduates_of_mainstream_mathematics_with_BS_and_MS_diplomas
> > > > You haven't clarified anything. Are x and h indeterminates? Actual numbers? Something else?
> > > They are length magnitudes which may or may not be fully measurable. And you have been told this!
> > So real numbers.
> >
> > h is a factor of any real number by x=x/h*h
> Go away, MORON!
Do you deny this fact? Do you have an alternative definition of a factor? Can you state it in a mathematical formal way?

On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 08:52:07 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 14:47:40 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 08:31:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 01:51:23 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 19:17:38 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 00:54:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 09:45:36 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > The sci.math cranks Jean Pierre Messager and Markus Klyver keep on lying everywhere about how Q(x,h) is "not unique". Well, if this were true, then the theorem would be false, but as is commonly known, theorems are called theorems because they are TRUE.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, the prize idiot Markus Klyver constantly asks how we know Q(x,h) is defined in a unique way. Well, even the question is irrelevant because we don't get to define Q(x,h) - it happens to be the difference in slopes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A more reasonable question to ask is "How do we find Q(x,h)?" The answer is simple: we manipulate the level magnitude { f '(x)+Q(x,h) } (also known incorrectly as arithmetic mean - of course I was the first human to realise this because known of my inferiors in the mainstream even smelled it) so that we can set h=0 without any illegal operation. Setting h=0 is NOT the same as taking a limit even though the end result is the same. In fact, in your bogus mainstream calculus you are not allowed to do this at all! But most of mainstream flaws are a result of stupidity and a lack of understanding. I am a genius which means I know better than you or anyone else.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, I have proved that setting h=0 is in fact 100% valid:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/98758410/Was_Newtons_and_Leibnizs_method_of_setting_h_0_valid_The_answer_is_YES
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My historic geometric theorem was realised from the 100% rigorous New Calculus:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thus, once we set h=0, we have both the expressions for f'(x) and Q(x,h) because f'(x) is the expression that does not contain any factor of h.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Watch a short 2 minute video:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCIbByi9A8M
> > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/104600846/Teaching_retarded_graduates_of_mainstream_mathematics_with_BS_and_MS_diplomas
> > > > > You haven't clarified anything. Are x and h indeterminates? Actual numbers? Something else?
> > > > They are length magnitudes which may or may not be fully measurable.. And you have been told this!
> > > So real numbers.
> > >
> > > h is a factor of any real number by x=x/h*h
> > Go away, MORON!
> Do you deny this fact? Do you have an alternative definition of a factor? Can you state it in a mathematical formal way?

People, be very careful of this vicious troll.

" (h*f(x))/h means h is a factor of f(x)." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum

" (2*5)/2 means 2 is a factor of 5." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum

For 2 to be a factor of 5, 2 needs to measure 5 as a whole. 2 IS NOT a factor of 5.

You may say 2 x k = 5 and then conclude that 2 is a factor but this is only half-true.

Why? Because in the above example, 5/2 is not a WHOLE MEASURE of 5. Thus, 5/2 is a general measure of 5. There are innumerably many. For example, 3 x k = 5 implies that 5/3 is a general measure of 5, in other words a factor in the LOOSE sense.

Neither 2 nor 3 are factors of 5, but they can be used as general measures of 5:

2 + 2 + 1 = 5 --> 5 is measured by 2 and ONE equal part of 2.
3 + 1 + 1 = 5 --> 5 is measured by 3 and TWO equal parts of 3.
3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 1/2 --> 5 is measured by SIX equal parts of 3/4 and 2/3 equal parts of 3/4.

So, whilst 3/4 measures 5, it doesn't measure 5 as a whole, therefore 3/4 is NOT a factor of 5.

For any h to be a factor of f(x+h)-f(x) means to measure f(x+h)-f(x) as a whole. If smaller equal parts of h are used to measure f(x+h)-f(x), then h is NOT a factor of f(x+h)-f(x).

In my historic geometric theorem, I prove CONCLUSIVELY that h is ALWAYS a factor of f(x+h)-f(x), meaning it MEASURES f(x+h)-f(x) as a whole.

In my excellent articles:

https://www.academia.edu/104575302/The_difference_between_general_measure_and_factor_measure

https://www.academia.edu/104155345/Lesson_6_The_Language_of_Euclid

I show you the difference between general measure and factor measure.

On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 11:09:10 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 08:52:07 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 14:47:40 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 08:31:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 01:51:23 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 19:17:38 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 00:54:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 09:45:36 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > The sci.math cranks Jean Pierre Messager and Markus Klyver keep on lying everywhere about how Q(x,h) is "not unique". Well, if this were true, then the theorem would be false, but as is commonly known, theorems are called theorems because they are TRUE.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, the prize idiot Markus Klyver constantly asks how we know Q(x,h) is defined in a unique way. Well, even the question is irrelevant because we don't get to define Q(x,h) - it happens to be the difference in slopes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A more reasonable question to ask is "How do we find Q(x,h)?" The answer is simple: we manipulate the level magnitude { f '(x)+Q(x,h) } (also known incorrectly as arithmetic mean - of course I was the first human to realise this because known of my inferiors in the mainstream even smelled it) so that we can set h=0 without any illegal operation. Setting h=0 is NOT the same as taking a limit even though the end result is the same. In fact, in your bogus mainstream calculus you are not allowed to do this at all! But most of mainstream flaws are a result of stupidity and a lack of understanding. I am a genius which means I know better than you or anyone else.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > However, I have proved that setting h=0 is in fact 100% valid:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/98758410/Was_Newtons_and_Leibnizs_method_of_setting_h_0_valid_The_answer_is_YES
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My historic geometric theorem was realised from the 100% rigorous New Calculus:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thus, once we set h=0, we have both the expressions for f'(x) and Q(x,h) because f'(x) is the expression that does not contain any factor of h.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Watch a short 2 minute video:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCIbByi9A8M
> > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/104600846/Teaching_retarded_graduates_of_mainstream_mathematics_with_BS_and_MS_diplomas
> > > > > > You haven't clarified anything. Are x and h indeterminates? Actual numbers? Something else?
> > > > > They are length magnitudes which may or may not be fully measurable. And you have been told this!
> > > > So real numbers.
> > > >
> > > > h is a factor of any real number by x=x/h*h
> > > Go away, MORON!
> > Do you deny this fact? Do you have an alternative definition of a factor? Can you state it in a mathematical formal way?
> People, be very careful of this vicious troll.
> " (h*f(x))/h means h is a factor of f(x)." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum
>
> " (2*5)/2 means 2 is a factor of 5." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum
> For 2 to be a factor of 5, 2 needs to measure 5 as a whole. 2 IS NOT a factor of 5.
>
> You may say 2 x k = 5 and then conclude that 2 is a factor but this is only half-true.
>
> Why? Because in the above example, 5/2 is not a WHOLE MEASURE of 5. Thus, 5/2 is a general measure of 5. There are innumerably many. For example, 3 x k = 5 implies that 5/3 is a general measure of 5, in other words a factor in the LOOSE sense.
>
> Neither 2 nor 3 are factors of 5, but they can be used as general measures of 5:
>
> 2 + 2 + 1 = 5 --> 5 is measured by 2 and ONE equal part of 2.
> 3 + 1 + 1 = 5 --> 5 is measured by 3 and TWO equal parts of 3.
> 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 1/2 --> 5 is measured by SIX equal parts of 3/4 and 2/3 equal parts of 3/4.
>
> So, whilst 3/4 measures 5, it doesn't measure 5 as a whole, therefore 3/4 is NOT a factor of 5.
>
> For any h to be a factor of f(x+h)-f(x) means to measure f(x+h)-f(x) as a whole. If smaller equal parts of h are used to measure f(x+h)-f(x), then h is NOT a factor of f(x+h)-f(x).
>
> In my historic geometric theorem, I prove CONCLUSIVELY that h is ALWAYS a factor of f(x+h)-f(x), meaning it MEASURES f(x+h)-f(x) as a whole.
>
> In my excellent articles:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/104575302/The_difference_between_general_measure_and_factor_measure
>
> https://www.academia.edu/104155345/Lesson_6_The_Language_of_Euclid
>
> I show you the difference between general measure and factor measure.

Being a genius as I am, can work against me when I try to explain to lesser mortals these profound facts, Stupid trolls like Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python, YBM, JPM) and Markus Klyver can sow doubt in your weak and ignorant minds. Ach, shame. Most of you are incorrigibly stupid, but not your fault - you were born this way and your weedy parents are to blame for producing sub-humans like you. In reality it would have been better if they aborted you.

söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 17:09:10 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 08:52:07 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 14:47:40 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 08:31:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 01:51:23 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 19:17:38 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 00:54:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 09:45:36 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > The sci.math cranks Jean Pierre Messager and Markus Klyver keep on lying everywhere about how Q(x,h) is "not unique". Well, if this were true, then the theorem would be false, but as is commonly known, theorems are called theorems because they are TRUE.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, the prize idiot Markus Klyver constantly asks how we know Q(x,h) is defined in a unique way. Well, even the question is irrelevant because we don't get to define Q(x,h) - it happens to be the difference in slopes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A more reasonable question to ask is "How do we find Q(x,h)?" The answer is simple: we manipulate the level magnitude { f '(x)+Q(x,h) } (also known incorrectly as arithmetic mean - of course I was the first human to realise this because known of my inferiors in the mainstream even smelled it) so that we can set h=0 without any illegal operation. Setting h=0 is NOT the same as taking a limit even though the end result is the same. In fact, in your bogus mainstream calculus you are not allowed to do this at all! But most of mainstream flaws are a result of stupidity and a lack of understanding. I am a genius which means I know better than you or anyone else.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > However, I have proved that setting h=0 is in fact 100% valid:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/98758410/Was_Newtons_and_Leibnizs_method_of_setting_h_0_valid_The_answer_is_YES
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My historic geometric theorem was realised from the 100% rigorous New Calculus:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thus, once we set h=0, we have both the expressions for f'(x) and Q(x,h) because f'(x) is the expression that does not contain any factor of h.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Watch a short 2 minute video:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCIbByi9A8M
> > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/104600846/Teaching_retarded_graduates_of_mainstream_mathematics_with_BS_and_MS_diplomas
> > > > > > You haven't clarified anything. Are x and h indeterminates? Actual numbers? Something else?
> > > > > They are length magnitudes which may or may not be fully measurable. And you have been told this!
> > > > So real numbers.
> > > >
> > > > h is a factor of any real number by x=x/h*h
> > > Go away, MORON!
> > Do you deny this fact? Do you have an alternative definition of a factor? Can you state it in a mathematical formal way?
> People, be very careful of this vicious troll.
> " (h*f(x))/h means h is a factor of f(x)." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum
>
> " (2*5)/2 means 2 is a factor of 5." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum
> For 2 to be a factor of 5, 2 needs to measure 5 as a whole. 2 IS NOT a factor of 5.
>
> You may say 2 x k = 5 and then conclude that 2 is a factor but this is only half-true.
>
> Why? Because in the above example, 5/2 is not a WHOLE MEASURE of 5. Thus, 5/2 is a general measure of 5. There are innumerably many. For example, 3 x k = 5 implies that 5/3 is a general measure of 5, in other words a factor in the LOOSE sense.
>
> Neither 2 nor 3 are factors of 5, but they can be used as general measures of 5:
>
> 2 + 2 + 1 = 5 --> 5 is measured by 2 and ONE equal part of 2.
> 3 + 1 + 1 = 5 --> 5 is measured by 3 and TWO equal parts of 3.
> 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 1/2 --> 5 is measured by SIX equal parts of 3/4 and 2/3 equal parts of 3/4.
>
> So, whilst 3/4 measures 5, it doesn't measure 5 as a whole, therefore 3/4 is NOT a factor of 5.
>
> For any h to be a factor of f(x+h)-f(x) means to measure f(x+h)-f(x) as a whole. If smaller equal parts of h are used to measure f(x+h)-f(x), then h is NOT a factor of f(x+h)-f(x).
>
> In my historic geometric theorem, I prove CONCLUSIVELY that h is ALWAYS a factor of f(x+h)-f(x), meaning it MEASURES f(x+h)-f(x) as a whole.
>
> In my excellent articles:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/104575302/The_difference_between_general_measure_and_factor_measure
>
> https://www.academia.edu/104155345/Lesson_6_The_Language_of_Euclid
>
> I show you the difference between general measure and factor measure.
So now "a factor" means an integer multiple?

söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 17:24:12 UTC+2 skrev Ιωάννης Γαβριήλ:
> On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 11:09:10 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 08:52:07 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 14:47:40 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 08:31:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 01:51:23 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 19:17:38 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 00:54:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 09:45:36 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > The sci.math cranks Jean Pierre Messager and Markus Klyver keep on lying everywhere about how Q(x,h) is "not unique". Well, if this were true, then the theorem would be false, but as is commonly known, theorems are called theorems because they are TRUE.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, the prize idiot Markus Klyver constantly asks how we know Q(x,h) is defined in a unique way. Well, even the question is irrelevant because we don't get to define Q(x,h) - it happens to be the difference in slopes.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A more reasonable question to ask is "How do we find Q(x,h)?" The answer is simple: we manipulate the level magnitude { f '(x)+Q(x,h) } (also known incorrectly as arithmetic mean - of course I was the first human to realise this because known of my inferiors in the mainstream even smelled it) so that we can set h=0 without any illegal operation. Setting h=0 is NOT the same as taking a limit even though the end result is the same. In fact, in your bogus mainstream calculus you are not allowed to do this at all! But most of mainstream flaws are a result of stupidity and a lack of understanding. I am a genius which means I know better than you or anyone else.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > However, I have proved that setting h=0 is in fact 100% valid:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/98758410/Was_Newtons_and_Leibnizs_method_of_setting_h_0_valid_The_answer_is_YES
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My historic geometric theorem was realised from the 100% rigorous New Calculus:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thus, once we set h=0, we have both the expressions for f'(x) and Q(x,h) because f'(x) is the expression that does not contain any factor of h.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Watch a short 2 minute video:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCIbByi9A8M
> > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/104600846/Teaching_retarded_graduates_of_mainstream_mathematics_with_BS_and_MS_diplomas
> > > > > > > You haven't clarified anything. Are x and h indeterminates? Actual numbers? Something else?
> > > > > > They are length magnitudes which may or may not be fully measurable. And you have been told this!
> > > > > So real numbers.
> > > > >
> > > > > h is a factor of any real number by x=x/h*h
> > > > Go away, MORON!
> > > Do you deny this fact? Do you have an alternative definition of a factor? Can you state it in a mathematical formal way?
> > People, be very careful of this vicious troll.
> > " (h*f(x))/h means h is a factor of f(x)." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum
> >
> > " (2*5)/2 means 2 is a factor of 5." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum
> > For 2 to be a factor of 5, 2 needs to measure 5 as a whole. 2 IS NOT a factor of 5.
> >
> > You may say 2 x k = 5 and then conclude that 2 is a factor but this is only half-true.
> >
> > Why? Because in the above example, 5/2 is not a WHOLE MEASURE of 5. Thus, 5/2 is a general measure of 5. There are innumerably many. For example, 3 x k = 5 implies that 5/3 is a general measure of 5, in other words a factor in the LOOSE sense.
> >
> > Neither 2 nor 3 are factors of 5, but they can be used as general measures of 5:
> >
> > 2 + 2 + 1 = 5 --> 5 is measured by 2 and ONE equal part of 2.
> > 3 + 1 + 1 = 5 --> 5 is measured by 3 and TWO equal parts of 3.
> > 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 1/2 --> 5 is measured by SIX equal parts of 3/4 and 2/3 equal parts of 3/4.
> >
> > So, whilst 3/4 measures 5, it doesn't measure 5 as a whole, therefore 3/4 is NOT a factor of 5.
> >
> > For any h to be a factor of f(x+h)-f(x) means to measure f(x+h)-f(x) as a whole. If smaller equal parts of h are used to measure f(x+h)-f(x), then h is NOT a factor of f(x+h)-f(x).
> >
> > In my historic geometric theorem, I prove CONCLUSIVELY that h is ALWAYS a factor of f(x+h)-f(x), meaning it MEASURES f(x+h)-f(x) as a whole.
> >
> > In my excellent articles:
> >
> > https://www.academia.edu/104575302/The_difference_between_general_measure_and_factor_measure
> >
> > https://www.academia.edu/104155345/Lesson_6_The_Language_of_Euclid
> >
> > I show you the difference between general measure and factor measure.
> Being a genius as I am, can work against me when I try to explain to lesser mortals these profound facts, Stupid trolls like Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python, YBM, JPM) and Markus Klyver can sow doubt in your weak and ignorant minds. Ach, shame. Most of you are incorrigibly stupid, but not your fault - you were born this way and your weedy parents are to blame for producing sub-humans like you. In reality it would have been better if they aborted you.
Are you a race supremacist?

On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 11:32:12 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 17:09:10 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 08:52:07 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 14:47:40 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 08:31:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 01:51:23 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 19:17:38 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 00:54:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 09:45:36 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > The sci.math cranks Jean Pierre Messager and Markus Klyver keep on lying everywhere about how Q(x,h) is "not unique". Well, if this were true, then the theorem would be false, but as is commonly known, theorems are called theorems because they are TRUE.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, the prize idiot Markus Klyver constantly asks how we know Q(x,h) is defined in a unique way. Well, even the question is irrelevant because we don't get to define Q(x,h) - it happens to be the difference in slopes.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A more reasonable question to ask is "How do we find Q(x,h)?" The answer is simple: we manipulate the level magnitude { f '(x)+Q(x,h) } (also known incorrectly as arithmetic mean - of course I was the first human to realise this because known of my inferiors in the mainstream even smelled it) so that we can set h=0 without any illegal operation. Setting h=0 is NOT the same as taking a limit even though the end result is the same. In fact, in your bogus mainstream calculus you are not allowed to do this at all! But most of mainstream flaws are a result of stupidity and a lack of understanding. I am a genius which means I know better than you or anyone else.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > However, I have proved that setting h=0 is in fact 100% valid:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/98758410/Was_Newtons_and_Leibnizs_method_of_setting_h_0_valid_The_answer_is_YES
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My historic geometric theorem was realised from the 100% rigorous New Calculus:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thus, once we set h=0, we have both the expressions for f'(x) and Q(x,h) because f'(x) is the expression that does not contain any factor of h.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Watch a short 2 minute video:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCIbByi9A8M
> > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/104600846/Teaching_retarded_graduates_of_mainstream_mathematics_with_BS_and_MS_diplomas
> > > > > > > You haven't clarified anything. Are x and h indeterminates? Actual numbers? Something else?
> > > > > > They are length magnitudes which may or may not be fully measurable. And you have been told this!
> > > > > So real numbers.
> > > > >
> > > > > h is a factor of any real number by x=x/h*h
> > > > Go away, MORON!
> > > Do you deny this fact? Do you have an alternative definition of a factor? Can you state it in a mathematical formal way?
> > People, be very careful of this vicious troll.
> > " (h*f(x))/h means h is a factor of f(x)." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum
> >
> > " (2*5)/2 means 2 is a factor of 5." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum
> > For 2 to be a factor of 5, 2 needs to measure 5 as a whole. 2 IS NOT a factor of 5.
> >
> > You may say 2 x k = 5 and then conclude that 2 is a factor but this is only half-true.
> >
> > Why? Because in the above example, 5/2 is not a WHOLE MEASURE of 5. Thus, 5/2 is a general measure of 5. There are innumerably many. For example, 3 x k = 5 implies that 5/3 is a general measure of 5, in other words a factor in the LOOSE sense.
> >
> > Neither 2 nor 3 are factors of 5, but they can be used as general measures of 5:
> >
> > 2 + 2 + 1 = 5 --> 5 is measured by 2 and ONE equal part of 2.
> > 3 + 1 + 1 = 5 --> 5 is measured by 3 and TWO equal parts of 3.
> > 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 1/2 --> 5 is measured by SIX equal parts of 3/4 and 2/3 equal parts of 3/4.
> >
> > So, whilst 3/4 measures 5, it doesn't measure 5 as a whole, therefore 3/4 is NOT a factor of 5.
> >
> > For any h to be a factor of f(x+h)-f(x) means to measure f(x+h)-f(x) as a whole. If smaller equal parts of h are used to measure f(x+h)-f(x), then h is NOT a factor of f(x+h)-f(x).
> >
> > In my historic geometric theorem, I prove CONCLUSIVELY that h is ALWAYS a factor of f(x+h)-f(x), meaning it MEASURES f(x+h)-f(x) as a whole.
> >
> > In my excellent articles:
> >
> > https://www.academia.edu/104575302/The_difference_between_general_measure_and_factor_measure
> >
> > https://www.academia.edu/104155345/Lesson_6_The_Language_of_Euclid
> >
> > I show you the difference between general measure and factor measure.
> So now "a factor" means an integer multiple?

" (h*f(x))/h means h is a factor of f(x)." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum

" (2*5)/2 means 2 is a factor of 5." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum

It has always meant that which is why I told you that 2 is not a factor of 5, but you obviously failed your high school math class.

Idiot!

söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 18:36:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 11:32:12 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 17:09:10 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 08:52:07 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 14:47:40 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 08:31:58 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 01:51:23 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 19:17:38 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 00:54:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 09:45:36 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > The sci.math cranks Jean Pierre Messager and Markus Klyver keep on lying everywhere about how Q(x,h) is "not unique". Well, if this were true, then the theorem would be false, but as is commonly known, theorems are called theorems because they are TRUE.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So, the prize idiot Markus Klyver constantly asks how we know Q(x,h) is defined in a unique way. Well, even the question is irrelevant because we don't get to define Q(x,h) - it happens to be the difference in slopes.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > A more reasonable question to ask is "How do we find Q(x,h)?" The answer is simple: we manipulate the level magnitude { f '(x)+Q(x,h) } (also known incorrectly as arithmetic mean - of course I was the first human to realise this because known of my inferiors in the mainstream even smelled it) so that we can set h=0 without any illegal operation. Setting h=0 is NOT the same as taking a limit even though the end result is the same. In fact, in your bogus mainstream calculus you are not allowed to do this at all! But most of mainstream flaws are a result of stupidity and a lack of understanding. I am a genius which means I know better than you or anyone else.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > However, I have proved that setting h=0 is in fact 100% valid:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/98758410/Was_Newtons_and_Leibnizs_method_of_setting_h_0_valid_The_answer_is_YES
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My historic geometric theorem was realised from the 100% rigorous New Calculus:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thus, once we set h=0, we have both the expressions for f'(x) and Q(x,h) because f'(x) is the expression that does not contain any factor of h.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Watch a short 2 minute video:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCIbByi9A8M
> > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/104600846/Teaching_retarded_graduates_of_mainstream_mathematics_with_BS_and_MS_diplomas
> > > > > > > > You haven't clarified anything. Are x and h indeterminates? Actual numbers? Something else?
> > > > > > > They are length magnitudes which may or may not be fully measurable. And you have been told this!
> > > > > > So real numbers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > h is a factor of any real number by x=x/h*h
> > > > > Go away, MORON!
> > > > Do you deny this fact? Do you have an alternative definition of a factor? Can you state it in a mathematical formal way?
> > > People, be very careful of this vicious troll.
> > > " (h*f(x))/h means h is a factor of f(x)." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum
> > >
> > > " (2*5)/2 means 2 is a factor of 5." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum
> > > For 2 to be a factor of 5, 2 needs to measure 5 as a whole. 2 IS NOT a factor of 5.
> > >
> > > You may say 2 x k = 5 and then conclude that 2 is a factor but this is only half-true.
> > >
> > > Why? Because in the above example, 5/2 is not a WHOLE MEASURE of 5. Thus, 5/2 is a general measure of 5. There are innumerably many. For example, 3 x k = 5 implies that 5/3 is a general measure of 5, in other words a factor in the LOOSE sense.
> > >
> > > Neither 2 nor 3 are factors of 5, but they can be used as general measures of 5:
> > >
> > > 2 + 2 + 1 = 5 --> 5 is measured by 2 and ONE equal part of 2.
> > > 3 + 1 + 1 = 5 --> 5 is measured by 3 and TWO equal parts of 3.
> > > 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 1/2 --> 5 is measured by SIX equal parts of 3/4 and 2/3 equal parts of 3/4.
> > >
> > > So, whilst 3/4 measures 5, it doesn't measure 5 as a whole, therefore 3/4 is NOT a factor of 5.
> > >
> > > For any h to be a factor of f(x+h)-f(x) means to measure f(x+h)-f(x) as a whole. If smaller equal parts of h are used to measure f(x+h)-f(x), then h is NOT a factor of f(x+h)-f(x).
> > >
> > > In my historic geometric theorem, I prove CONCLUSIVELY that h is ALWAYS a factor of f(x+h)-f(x), meaning it MEASURES f(x+h)-f(x) as a whole.
> > >
> > > In my excellent articles:
> > >
> > > https://www.academia.edu/104575302/The_difference_between_general_measure_and_factor_measure
> > >
> > > https://www.academia.edu/104155345/Lesson_6_The_Language_of_Euclid
> > >
> > > I show you the difference between general measure and factor measure.
> > So now "a factor" means an integer multiple?
>
>
> " (h*f(x))/h means h is a factor of f(x)." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum
>
> " (2*5)/2 means 2 is a factor of 5." - Markus Klyver / Zelos Malum
> It has always meant that which is why I told you that 2 is not a factor of 5, but you obviously failed your high school math class.
>
> Idiot!

The idiot fortunately is someone else.

Let us take f(x)=x/2 and h=1.

f(x+h)-f(x)=h/2=1/2.

f(x+h)-f(x)=1/2 is not an integer multiple of h=1. In fact, in this case, 2*(f(x+h)-f(x))=h.

Explain.