On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 16:51:00 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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.

You are the idiot. STOP posting multiple responses, you CRANK! Your answer was given here:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/ZhnueJPQ3M0/m/tx9b44caCgAJ

What, are you going to become full Zelos Malum now or what?

söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 23:38:23 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 16:51:00 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 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.
> You are the idiot. STOP posting multiple responses, you CRANK! Your answer was given here:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/ZhnueJPQ3M0/m/tx9b44caCgAJ
>
> What, are you going to become full Zelos Malum now or what?

Let me remind you of this:

> > So now "a factor" means an integer multiple?
> 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.

On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 19:46:10 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 23:38:23 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 16:51:00 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 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.
> > You are the idiot. STOP posting multiple responses, you CRANK! Your answer was given here:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/ZhnueJPQ3M0/m/tx9b44caCgAJ
> >
> > What, are you going to become full Zelos Malum now or what?
> Let me remind you of this:
> > > So now "a factor" means an integer multiple?

That was for your example "2 is a factor of 5". Are you trying to catch me out, moron? LMAO

> > 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.

In any case, I gave you a full description here:
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.

måndag 17 juli 2023 kl. 01:52:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 19:46:10 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > söndag 16 juli 2023 kl. 23:38:23 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 16:51:00 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > You are the idiot. STOP posting multiple responses, you CRANK! Your answer was given here:
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/ZhnueJPQ3M0/m/tx9b44caCgAJ
> > >
> > > What, are you going to become full Zelos Malum now or what?
> > Let me remind you of this:
> > > > So now "a factor" means an integer multiple?
> That was for your example "2 is a factor of 5". Are you trying to catch me out, moron? LMAO
> > > 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.
> In any case, I gave you a full description here:
> 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).
> DO NOT ask me again about this as I shall IGNORE YOU.
>
> END OF DISCUSSION.
What does "measure" mean in your highly non-standard terminology? To be a rational multiple of something else? To be an integer multiple of something else?