Chris M. Thomasson pretended :
> On 9/11/2023 2:29 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> Chris M. Thomasson pretended :
>>> On 9/10/2023 1:47 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>> Chris M. Thomasson used his keyboard to write :
>>>>> On 9/10/2023 1:34 PM, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> söndag 10 september 2023 kl. 22:32:29 UTC+2 skrev Fritz Feldhase:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 9:53:02 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In mathematics, IF A THEN B does not mean ∀ε>0 ∃δ>0(0<|x-a|<δ
>>>>>>>> ⇒|f(x)-L|<ε).
>>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "IF A THEN B in mathematics means: B is true only if A is true." (John
>>>>>>> Gabriel)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>> Let's take a very elementary example so that John understands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Consider this simple sentence: "If I'm hungry, I eat ". It doesn't mean
>>>>>> that I eat ONLY when I'm hungry.
>>>>>
>>>>> condition = Am I hungry?
>>>>>
>>>>> if condition is true then execute try_to_eat()
>>>>>
>>>>> try_to_eat()
>>>>> {
>>>>>     if try_to_hunt fails return false;
>>>>>     eat();
>>>>>     return true;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> So, try_to_eat only gets run when the condition (Am I hungry?) is true.
>>>>> try_to_eat might fail...
>>>>
>>>> Only because you misprogrammed it that way. You could put an 'eat anyway'
>>>> routine using elseif.
>>>
>>> eat_anyway? eat what? You only get to eat when you can successfully hunt?
>>> Do you assume that the person always has food to eat? ;^)
>>
>> Yes, as it is about eating, not hunting.
>
> Just having some fun. Well, do we _always_ have something to eat?

Are we sometimes not hungry but eating anyway?

On 9/11/2023 1:47 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson pretended :
>> On 9/11/2023 2:29 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>> Chris M. Thomasson pretended :
>>>> On 9/10/2023 1:47 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>> Chris M. Thomasson used his keyboard to write :
>>>>>> On 9/10/2023 1:34 PM, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> söndag 10 september 2023 kl. 22:32:29 UTC+2 skrev Fritz Feldhase:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 9:53:02 PM UTC+2, Eram semper
>>>>>>>> recta wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In mathematics, IF A THEN B does not mean ∀ε>0 ∃δ>0(0<|x-a|<δ
>>>>>>>>> ⇒|f(x)-L|<ε).
>>>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "IF A THEN B in mathematics means: B is true only if A is true."
>>>>>>>> (John Gabriel)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>> Let's take a very elementary example so that John understands.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Consider this simple sentence: "If I'm hungry, I eat ". It
>>>>>>> doesn't mean that I eat ONLY when I'm hungry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> condition = Am I hungry?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if condition is true then execute try_to_eat()
>>>>>>
>>>>>> try_to_eat()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>     if try_to_hunt fails return false;
>>>>>>     eat();
>>>>>>     return true;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, try_to_eat only gets run when the condition (Am I hungry?) is
>>>>>> true. try_to_eat might fail...
>>>>>
>>>>> Only because you misprogrammed it that way. You could put an 'eat
>>>>> anyway' routine using elseif.
>>>>
>>>> eat_anyway? eat what? You only get to eat when you can successfully
>>>> hunt? Do you assume that the person always has food to eat? ;^)
>>>
>>> Yes, as it is about eating, not hunting.
>>
>> Just having some fun. Well, do we _always_ have something to eat?
>
> Are we sometimes not hungry but eating anyway?

Have you ever seen the following movie?

https://youtu.be/nWiQodhMvz4

So, yes. This guy apparently had the ability to eat anytime he wanted to...

On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 16:16:48 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 11 september 2023 kl. 18:44:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 10:19:48 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > måndag 11 september 2023 kl. 15:57:12 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 05:20:41 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > söndag 10 september 2023 kl. 21:47:23 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Sunday, 10 September 2023 at 14:43:20 UTC-4, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > > söndag 10 september 2023 kl. 19:56:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, 10 September 2023 at 13:04:14 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > söndag 10 september 2023 kl. 17:54:55 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 10 September 2023 at 10:14:42 UTC-4, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > I also found this old discussion, started 17 years ago by John himself: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mathematical_analysis/Archive_1
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Here John Gabriel makes several mistakes. Let's enumerate some of them:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mathematical_analysis/Archive_1#Mathematical/Real_Analysis first:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. Misunderstands what "as close as you like..." means. It does not imply infinisimals and doesn't require numbers arbitrary small.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. He claims that the absolute value f(x)=|x| can have any limit at x=0 under the mainstream definition. This is clearly false, since if 0< |x| < δ:=ε, then of course we have |f(x)-L| = |x| < ε for L=0.
> > > > > > > > > > Misleading claim:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What I said was:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > |f(x) - L| < epsilon whenever 0 < |x - a| < delta
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > and that happens to be TRUE, moron! It is as true today as it was back then. I know mainstream thinks this is only a one way implication, but that is entirely WRONG. Not only must 0 < |x - a| < delta IMPLY |f(x) - L| < epsilon but IF |f(x) - L| < epsilon THEN it must be TRUE that 0 < |x - a| < delta.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Since the rest of your post is misleading crap and lies, it is hereby ignored.
> > > > > > > > > > <drivel>
> > > > > > > > > No, that's wrong again. That's you not understanding the limit definition. The implication must only hold one way.
> > > > > > > > You are WRONG because that definition is not part of mathematics but propositional logic.
> > > > > > > > If it only holds one way, then it is WRONG.
> > > > > > > > > The other implication makes no sense to hold.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > |f(x)-L|<ε can of course hold without 0<|x-a|<δ being true, but that's irrelevant for the limit definition.
> > > > > > > > It's very relevant as explained here:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/102705943/Why_your_calculus_lecturer_or_mathematics_teacher_is_most_likely_a_buffoon
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Like your teachers, you are a buffoon!
> > > > > > > No, that's completely wrong. You misunderstand the definition in several ways, John.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. The definition states 0<|x-a|<δ must imply |f(x)-L|<ε, not the other way around.
> > > > > > Propositional logic does not apply here. Study the article:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/102705943/Why_your_calculus_lecturer_or_mathematics_teacher_is_most_likely_a_buffoon
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It shows why you are the idiot you are.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <drivel>
> > > > > In that article, you let delta dependn on x which isn't allowed. 🤡🤡
> > > > That is so because delta depends on x, you moron!
> > > >
> > > > In mathematics there is no such thing as "isn't allowed". We deal only with reason and logic. There are no rules or decrees.
> > > That's factually incorrect.
> > "Factually incorrect" is a redundancy, but you wouldn't know because you're stupid.
> >
> > No. It is factually correct. Look moron: 0 < |x-c|<delta
> >
> > The value of x very much determines whether the inequality is true or false. Your mother must have dropped you on your head a few times, because you keep getting the simplest inferences wrong.
> >
> > Delta MOST certainly depends not ONLY on x, but also on c, the point of interest (limit).
> >
> > <drivel>
> > > You clearly can't read a simple definition.
> > What you've shown is that you not only can't read, but more importantly you just don't understand. Tsk, tsk.
> >
> > This is one of the reasons why I kicked you off the New Calculus Discord - you have exactly ZERO to offer and you kept arguing with everyone who corrected you.
> >
> > <drivel>
> No, that's just simply wrong. Delta cannot have a dependency on x.

Nope. YOU are what's wrong. :-)

You need psychological help soon. Your jealousy is killing you! LMAO