No professor of calculus I have ever known is anything but a blithering idiot.

They especially avoided this limit theorem I proved many years ago because it makes all their lectures on epsilon-delta redundant and then they don't have enough garbage to keep their students busy with:

https://www.academia.edu/72391959/Geometric_Limit_Theorem_for_all_Epsilon_Delta_Arguments_in_limit_theory

måndag 11 september 2023 kl. 18:59:45 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> No professor of calculus I have ever known is anything but a blithering idiot.
>
> They especially avoided this limit theorem I proved many years ago because it makes all their lectures on epsilon-delta redundant and then they don't have enough garbage to keep their students busy with:
>
>
> https://www.academia.edu/72391959/Geometric_Limit_Theorem_for_all_Epsilon_Delta_Arguments_in_limit_theory
Epsilon is not a function of neither delta nor x. Read the limit definition again:

∀ε>0 ∃δ>0 (∀x (0<|x-a|<δ⇒|f(x)-L|<ε)).

delta comes after epsilon, so epsilon can't be a function of delta. Neither can delta depend on x.

You are very confused and don't understand the definition.

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:04:19 PM UTC+2, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 11 september 2023 kl. 18:59:45 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> >
> > https://www.academia.edu/72391959/Geometric_Limit_Theorem_for_all_Epsilon_Delta_Arguments_in_limit_theory
> >
> Epsilon is not a function of neither delta nor x. Read the limit definition again:
>
> ∀ε>0 ∃δ>0 (∀x (0<|x-a|<δ⇒|f(x)-L|<ε)).
>
> delta comes after epsilon, so epsilon can't be a function of delta. Neither can delta depend on x.
>
> You are very confused and don't understand the definition.

Indeed! This idiot claims that the usual statement is:

∀ε(δ) > 0 ∃δ > 0 (∀x (0 < |x - a| < δ ⇒ |f(x) - L| < ε)).

This buffoon obviously does not understand the dependency of δ from ε --- and not the other way round!

torsdag 14 september 2023 kl. 13:47:10 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 08:13:51 UTC-4, markus...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/72391959/Geometric_Limit_Theorem_for_all_Epsilon_Delta_Arguments_in_limit_theory
> > > > > >
> > > > > Epsilon is not a function of neither delta nor x. Read the limit definition again:
> > > > >
> > > > > ∀ε>0 ∃δ>0 (∀x (0<|x-a|<δ⇒|f(x)-L|<ε)).
> > > > >
> > > > > delta comes after epsilon, so epsilon can't be a function of delta. Neither can delta depend on x.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are very confused and don't understand the definition.
> > > > Indeed! This idiot claims that the usual statement is:
> > > >
> > > > ∀ε(δ) > 0 ∃δ > 0 (∀x (0 < |x - a| < δ ⇒ |f(x) - L| < ε)).
> > > >
> > > > This buffoon obviously does not understand the dependency of δ from ε --- and not the other way round!
> > > Field Rabbit,
> > > I proved that both δ and ε are expressible in terms of each other:
> > >
> > > Yes, epsilon IS Most definitely a function of delta and vice-versa:
> > >
> > > https://www.academia.edu/72391959/Geometric_Limit_Theorem_for_all_Epsilon_Delta_Arguments_in_limit_theory
> > >
> > > https://www.academia.edu/72391094/New_Method_Limit_Example
> > >
> > > You can spew out a lot of crap here, but ultimately, every knows you're an idiot.
> > You're completely wrong. Read the definition again:
> > ∀ε>0 ∃δ>0 (∀x (0<|x-a|<δ⇒|f(x)-L|<ε)).
> > It does NOT say "for every delta, choose an Epsilon". "For every epsilon, there is a delta" is exactly what we mean by "delta is a function of epsilon".
> You sound exactly like a stuck record, you poor useless loser!
>
> Now, if you need help understanding the above article I wrote and you ask nicely, I might explain. LMAO.
>
> <PLONK>
Expain to me your interpretation of the formal limit definition.

On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 14:55:44 UTC-4, markus...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/72391959/Geometric_Limit_Theorem_for_all_Epsilon_Delta_Arguments_in_limit_theory
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Epsilon is not a function of neither delta nor x. Read the limit definition again:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ∀ε>0 ∃δ>0 (∀x (0<|x-a|<δ⇒|f(x)-L|<ε)).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > delta comes after epsilon, so epsilon can't be a function of delta. Neither can delta depend on x.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are very confused and don't understand the definition.
> > > > > Indeed! This idiot claims that the usual statement is:
> > > > >
> > > > > ∀ε(δ) > 0 ∃δ > 0 (∀x (0 < |x - a| < δ ⇒ |f(x) - L| < ε)).
> > > > >
> > > > > This buffoon obviously does not understand the dependency of δ from ε --- and not the other way round!
> > > > Field Rabbit,
> > > > I proved that both δ and ε are expressible in terms of each other:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, epsilon IS Most definitely a function of delta and vice-versa:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.academia.edu/72391959/Geometric_Limit_Theorem_for_all_Epsilon_Delta_Arguments_in_limit_theory
> > > >
> > > > https://www.academia.edu/72391094/New_Method_Limit_Example
> > > >
> > > > You can spew out a lot of crap here, but ultimately, every knows you're an idiot.
> > > You're completely wrong. Read the definition again:
> > > ∀ε>0 ∃δ>0 (∀x (0<|x-a|<δ⇒|f(x)-L|<ε)).
> > > It does NOT say "for every delta, choose an Epsilon". "For every epsilon, there is a delta" is exactly what we mean by "delta is a function of epsilon".
> > You sound exactly like a stuck record, you poor useless loser!
> >
> > Now, if you need help understanding the above article I wrote and you ask nicely, I might explain. LMAO.
> >
> > <PLONK>
> Expain to me your interpretation of the formal limit definition.

FUCK YOU, you piece of slimy shit.

I'll piss in your face before I waste time on you again. LMAO

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:21:40 AM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:

> I'll piss in your face before I waste time on you again. [...]

You'd like to have a golden shower?

On 9/14/2023 3:24 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:21:40 AM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
>
>> I'll piss in your face before I waste time on you again. [...]
>
> You'd like to have a golden shower?

God damn!

Calm down, you fucking crack pot.

On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 6:21:40 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 14:55:44 UTC-4, markus...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/72391959/Geometric_Limit_Theorem_for_all_Epsilon_Delta_Arguments_in_limit_theory
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Epsilon is not a function of neither delta nor x. Read the limit definition again:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ∀ε>0 ∃δ>0 (∀x (0<|x-a|<δ⇒|f(x)-L|<ε)).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > delta comes after epsilon, so epsilon can't be a function of delta. Neither can delta depend on x.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You are very confused and don't understand the definition.
> > > > > > Indeed! This idiot claims that the usual statement is:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ∀ε(δ) > 0 ∃δ > 0 (∀x (0 < |x - a| < δ ⇒ |f(x) - L| < ε)).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This buffoon obviously does not understand the dependency of δ from ε --- and not the other way round!
> > > > > Field Rabbit,
> > > > > I proved that both δ and ε are expressible in terms of each other:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, epsilon IS Most definitely a function of delta and vice-versa:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.academia.edu/72391959/Geometric_Limit_Theorem_for_all_Epsilon_Delta_Arguments_in_limit_theory
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.academia.edu/72391094/New_Method_Limit_Example
> > > > >
> > > > > You can spew out a lot of crap here, but ultimately, every knows you're an idiot.
> > > > You're completely wrong. Read the definition again:
> > > > ∀ε>0 ∃δ>0 (∀x (0<|x-a|<δ⇒|f(x)-L|<ε)).
> > > > It does NOT say "for every delta, choose an Epsilon". "For every epsilon, there is a delta" is exactly what we mean by "delta is a function of epsilon".
> > > You sound exactly like a stuck record, you poor useless loser!
> > >
> > > Now, if you need help understanding the above article I wrote and you ask nicely, I might explain. LMAO.
> > >
> > > <PLONK>
> > Expain to me your interpretation of the formal limit definition.
> FUCK YOU, you piece of slimy shit.
>
> I'll piss in your face before I waste time on you again. LMAO

fredag 15 september 2023 kl. 00:21:40 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 14:55:44 UTC-4, markus...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/72391959/Geometric_Limit_Theorem_for_all_Epsilon_Delta_Arguments_in_limit_theory
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Epsilon is not a function of neither delta nor x. Read the limit definition again:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ∀ε>0 ∃δ>0 (∀x (0<|x-a|<δ⇒|f(x)-L|<ε)).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > delta comes after epsilon, so epsilon can't be a function of delta. Neither can delta depend on x.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You are very confused and don't understand the definition.
> > > > > > Indeed! This idiot claims that the usual statement is:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ∀ε(δ) > 0 ∃δ > 0 (∀x (0 < |x - a| < δ ⇒ |f(x) - L| < ε)).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This buffoon obviously does not understand the dependency of δ from ε --- and not the other way round!
> > > > > Field Rabbit,
> > > > > I proved that both δ and ε are expressible in terms of each other:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, epsilon IS Most definitely a function of delta and vice-versa:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.academia.edu/72391959/Geometric_Limit_Theorem_for_all_Epsilon_Delta_Arguments_in_limit_theory
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.academia.edu/72391094/New_Method_Limit_Example
> > > > >
> > > > > You can spew out a lot of crap here, but ultimately, every knows you're an idiot.
> > > > You're completely wrong. Read the definition again:
> > > > ∀ε>0 ∃δ>0 (∀x (0<|x-a|<δ⇒|f(x)-L|<ε)).
> > > > It does NOT say "for every delta, choose an Epsilon". "For every epsilon, there is a delta" is exactly what we mean by "delta is a function of epsilon".
> > > You sound exactly like a stuck record, you poor useless loser!
> > >
> > > Now, if you need help understanding the above article I wrote and you ask nicely, I might explain. LMAO.
> > >
> > > <PLONK>
> > Expain to me your interpretation of the formal limit definition.
> FUCK YOU, you piece of slimy shit.
>
> I'll piss in your face before I waste time on you again. LMAO
Why can't you just explain to me how you THINK the limit definition works?

On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 18:24:15 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:21:40 AM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> > I'll piss in your face before I waste time on you again. [...]
>
> You'd like to have a golden shower?

You mean piss and shit in your mouth?

Um, to be honest, your mouth is probably too fucking dirty and herpes or warts virus might infect me.

On second thought, no thanks. I don't think you are good enough for my piss and shit. LMAO

On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 12:59:45 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> No professor of calculus I have ever known is anything but a blithering idiot.
>
> They especially avoided this limit theorem I proved many years ago because it makes all their lectures on epsilon-delta redundant and then they don't have enough garbage to keep their students busy with:
>
>
> https://www.academia.edu/72391959/Geometric_Limit_Theorem_for_all_Epsilon_Delta_Arguments_in_limit_theory

In my old theorem (it is close to 3 decades old), I expose the bullshit of epsilon-delta arguments and I show conclusively a method that makes all the bullshit irrelevant. It takes genius to realise such things. I am sharing this priceless knowledge with you free!

fredag 15 september 2023 kl. 18:02:56 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 18:24:15 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:21:40 AM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >
> > > I'll piss in your face before I waste time on you again. [...]
> >
> > You'd like to have a golden shower?
> You mean piss and shit in your mouth?
>
> Um, to be honest, your mouth is probably too fucking dirty and herpes or warts virus might infect me.
>
> On second thought, no thanks. I don't think you are good enough for my piss and shit. LMAO
So you refuse to tell us how you think limits work? It's impossible to correct your misunderstanding if we don't know what it is.

On 9/15/2023 9:02 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 18:24:15 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
>> On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:21:40 AM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>
>>> I'll piss in your face before I waste time on you again. [...]
>>
>> You'd like to have a golden shower?
>
> You mean piss and shit in your mouth?
>
> Um, to be honest, your mouth is probably too fucking dirty and herpes or warts virus might infect me.

So, the only reason you would not take a crap into a mouth is because
you thing said mouth is "too dirty"? Wow. lol!!!

>
> On second thought, no thanks. I don't think you are good enough for my piss and shit. LMAO

On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 3:24:15 PM UTC-7, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:21:40 AM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> > I'll piss in your face before I waste time on you again. [...]
>
> You'd like to have a golden shower?

"Do you have problems with understanding the rules around sexual consent?" - Everybody Sane

On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 14:31:45 UTC-4, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 3:24:15 PM UTC-7, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:21:40 AM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >
> > > I'll piss in your face before I waste time on you again. [...]
> >
> > You'd like to have a golden shower?
> "Do you have problems with understanding the rules around sexual consent?" - Everybody Sane

Shut up, idiot. We have enough of you on this news group. Go away!

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:12:05 AM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 14:31:45 UTC-4, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 3:24:15 PM UTC-7, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > > On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:21:40 AM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'll piss in your face before I waste time on you again. [...]
> > >
> > > You'd like to have a golden shower?
> > "Do you have problems with understanding the rules around sexual consent?" - Everybody Sane
> Shut up, idiot. We have enough of you on this news group. Go away!

"Maybe you do, since you are giving somebody 'orders' on Usenet."