https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_increment_lemma

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:56:05 PM UTC+2, markus...@gmail.com wrote:

> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_increment_lemma

Right.

You will find it stated HERE:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100620155743/http://clem.mscd.edu/~talmanl/PDFs/APCalculus/MultiVarDiff.pdf
and HERE:
https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:31:46 PM UTC+2, markus...@gmail.com wrote:

> John Gabriel is like that kid that found something obvious and thinks he is a genius. He is a clown. Insufferable clown.

John Gabriel is a mentally ill person. Hence we'd better stop "discussing" mathematical topics with him.

What do you think of the idea of contacting his local law enforcement agency for them to do a "welfare" check on him? They might find that he needs internment in a mental institution and procure it. Hahahaha

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 4:26:10 PM UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:31:46 PM UTC+2, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > John Gabriel is like that kid that found something obvious and thinks he is a genius. He is a clown. Insufferable clown.
> John Gabriel is a mentally ill person. Hence we'd better stop "discussing" mathematical topics with him.

On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 14:56:05 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_increment_lemma

You wish, moron! At first all you could say was that it is wrong. Then you found some garbage on Wikipedia. LMAO.

https://www.academia.edu/105576431/The_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus

You keep getting dumber and more desperate. ROFLMAO.

On 9/11/2023 6:02 PM, Mathin3D wrote:
> What do you think of the idea of contacting his local law enforcement agency for them to do a "welfare" check on him? They might find that he needs internment in a mental institution and procure it. Hahahaha

Step one collect a shit load of comments that are hyper violent, we have
a damn near infinite pool of things to choose from. The apparent death
of John. Wow, I thought he was actually gone, dead. wow. The plethora of
death threats he had made, ect... Humm... Build this case, then present
it. Sound Kosher?

>
> On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 4:26:10 PM UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
>> On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:31:46 PM UTC+2, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> John Gabriel is like that kid that found something obvious and thinks he is a genius. He is a clown. Insufferable clown.
>> John Gabriel is a mentally ill person. Hence we'd better stop "discussing" mathematical topics with him.

On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 3:20:47 AM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 9/11/2023 6:02 PM, Mathin3D wrote:
> > What do you think of the idea of contacting his local law enforcement agency for them to do a "welfare" check on him? They might find that he needs internment in a mental institution and procure it. Hahahaha
> >
> Step one collect a shit load of comments that are hyper violent, we have
> a damn near infinite pool of things to choose from. The apparent death
> of John. Wow, I thought he was actually gone, dead. wow. The plethora of
> death threats he had made, ect... Humm... Build this case, then present
> it. Sound Kosher?

Let this idiot alone.

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 4:02:51 AM UTC+3, Mathin3D wrote:
> What do you think of the idea of contacting his local law enforcement agency for them to do a "welfare" check on him? They might find that he needs internment in a mental institution and procure it. Hahahaha
> On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 4:26:10 PM UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:31:46 PM UTC+2, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > John Gabriel is like that kid that found something obvious and thinks he is a genius. He is a clown. Insufferable clown.
> > John Gabriel is a mentally ill person. Hence we'd better stop "discussing" mathematical topics with him.

No you annymous coword & most probably hired morons like YOU, Markous & Fertz

JG knew and realized at least that your belived real "non-constructible "numbers aren't truly any existing numbers, the so-called Transedetial numbers are infact No numbers, Where Pi is in the top-list, beside those called irrational algebraic" non-constructible " believed numbers among humans like Cubrt2 is infact No number, but only an endless sequence of significant digits or terms

Also he knew that any alleged real number ending with those most stupid notations in mathematics like the three meaningless dots denoted by (...), added after a sequence of digits are infact No numbers at all like (0.999...)

Where as the academic mainstreams sheeples of mathematics & science as well couldn't & don't want to understand anything about such a too simple & very elementary truth in their mathematics

Even with the help of Artificial Intelligence & many elementary & so rigorous & irrefutable
Proofs, Trolls 🧌 & Morons would remain forever so untill only their higher mathematical authorities announcing the truth loudly, where then they suddenly become so experts in the field FOR SURE

Bassam karzeddin

On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 3:42:36 AM UTC+2, bassam karzeddin wrote:

> FOR SURE

For surer!!!

On 9/12/2023 6:37 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 3:20:47 AM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 9/11/2023 6:02 PM, Mathin3D wrote:
>>> What do you think of the idea of contacting his local law enforcement agency for them to do a "welfare" check on him? They might find that he needs internment in a mental institution and procure it. Hahahaha
>>>
>> Step one collect a shit load of comments that are hyper violent, we have
>> a damn near infinite pool of things to choose from. The apparent death
>> of John. Wow, I thought he was actually gone, dead. wow. The plethora of
>> death threats he had made, ect... Humm... Build this case, then present
>> it. Sound Kosher?
>
> Let this idiot alone.

Touche.

onsdag 13 september 2023 kl. 03:42:36 UTC+2 skrev bassam karzeddin:
> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 4:02:51 AM UTC+3, Mathin3D wrote:
> > What do you think of the idea of contacting his local law enforcement agency for them to do a "welfare" check on him? They might find that he needs internment in a mental institution and procure it. Hahahaha
> > On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 4:26:10 PM UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:31:46 PM UTC+2, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > John Gabriel is like that kid that found something obvious and thinks he is a genius. He is a clown. Insufferable clown.
> > > John Gabriel is a mentally ill person. Hence we'd better stop "discussing" mathematical topics with him.
> No you annymous coword & most probably hired morons like YOU, Markous & Fertz
>
> JG knew and realized at least that your belived real "non-constructible "numbers aren't truly any existing numbers, the so-called Transedetial numbers are infact No numbers, Where Pi is in the top-list, beside those called irrational algebraic" non-constructible " believed numbers among humans like Cubrt2 is infact No number, but only an endless sequence of significant digits or terms
>
> Also he knew that any alleged real number ending with those most stupid notations in mathematics like the three meaningless dots denoted by (...), added after a sequence of digits are infact No numbers at all like (0.999...)
>
>
> Where as the academic mainstreams sheeples of mathematics & science as well couldn't & don't want to understand anything about such a too simple & very elementary truth in their mathematics
>
>
> Even with the help of Artificial Intelligence & many elementary & so rigorous & irrefutable
> Proofs, Trolls 🧌 & Morons would remain forever so untill only their higher mathematical authorities announcing the truth loudly, where then they suddenly become so experts in the field FOR SURE
>
> Bassam karzeddin
"For sure" isn't a magical word that makes you right.

tisdag 12 september 2023 kl. 22:50:09 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 14:56:05 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_increment_lemma
>
> You wish, moron! At first all you could say was that it is wrong. Then you found some garbage on Wikipedia. LMAO.
>
> https://www.academia.edu/105576431/The_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus
>
> You keep getting dumber and more desperate. ROFLMAO.
It's the same equation.

Uh huh. 🤡🤡

On 9/13/2023 12:26 AM, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> onsdag 13 september 2023 kl. 03:42:36 UTC+2 skrev bassam karzeddin:

>> Even with the help of Artificial Intelligence & many elementary & so rigorous & irrefutable
>> Proofs, Trolls 🧌 & Morons would remain forever so untill only their higher mathematical authorities announcing the truth loudly, where then they suddenly become so experts in the field FOR SURE
>>
>> Bassam karzeddin

> "For sure" isn't a magical word that makes you right.

You'll find many of the cranks here have some magic word/phrase that
they use repeatedly, usually for no discernible reason. Almost like a
typed version of a Tourette's tic. But typing it out which takes a bit
of effort rather than a true tic where someone twitches or spits out a
curse subconsciously puzzles me somewhat.

But some of the more infamous ones are BKK and his "For sure", Koobee
Wublee's "<shrug>" and our own janitor's "t'=t" rant which has been
tracked and counted in the many hundreds before the counter realized
counting them was about as useful as counting autumn leaves falling.
Many others over time as well.

Borderline cases were Hanson's "Ahahaha...", some who always write
"E=mcc" rather than "E=mc²" the "I am a white Arab..." guy, Ken Seto
typing the same debunked claims almost word for word after vanishing for
a while and many other examples best forgotten.

mathematically inclined Volney wrote:

> But some of the more infamous ones are BKK and his "For sure", Koobee
> Wublee's "<shrug>" and our own janitor's "t'=t" rant which has been
> tracked and counted in the many hundreds before the counter realized
> counting them was about as useful as counting autumn leaves falling.
> Many others over time as well.

so true indeed, you talk lika mathematically inclined person. These guys
𝗶𝗻_𝗛𝗼𝗹𝗹𝘆𝘄𝗼𝗼𝗱 are realizing, they are in the wrong side of the busyness. As
𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗴𝗮𝘆_𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿_𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆, acting "president", is making about 1000 times more
than they do in movies.

just think. To be a gay actor 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗮 𝗽𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗼 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗸, now 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴
𝗮 "𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹" 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁, of an "independent" country, 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿
𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆 wanting to steal oil and natural resources. Just another
𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝘆_𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝘁, 𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗮_𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆 from its 86% Christian population. This
𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 is a really, really 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝘆_𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝘁.

𝗪𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲_𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘀_𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿_$100_𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘀_–_𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮
https://r%74.com/news/582866-us-ukraine-aid-exceeds-100-billion/

34_𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝗻_𝗱𝗲𝗯𝘁 and these 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗲𝘀 happy_merchants, still have this kind of
𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆_𝘁𝗼_𝗯𝘂𝗿𝗻?? The world needs to band together put 𝗮𝗻_𝗲𝗻𝗱 to the
𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗼_𝗱𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗿_𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗺.

On Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 00:26:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 12 september 2023 kl. 22:50:09 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 14:56:05 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_increment_lemma
> >
> > You wish, moron! At first all you could say was that it is wrong. Then you found some garbage on Wikipedia. LMAO.
> >
> > https://www.academia.edu/105576431/The_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus
> >
> > You keep getting dumber and more desperate. ROFLMAO.
> It's the same equation.
>
> Uh huh. 🤡🤡

You wish, moron! At first all you could say was that it is wrong. Then you found some garbage on Wikipedia. LMAO.

https://www.academia.edu/105576431/The_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus

You keep getting dumber and more desperate. ROFLMAO.

onsdag 13 september 2023 kl. 13:44:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 00:26:50 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > tisdag 12 september 2023 kl. 22:50:09 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 14:56:05 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_increment_lemma
> > >
> > > You wish, moron! At first all you could say was that it is wrong. Then you found some garbage on Wikipedia. LMAO.
> > >
> > > https://www.academia.edu/105576431/The_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus
> > >
> > > You keep getting dumber and more desperate. ROFLMAO.
> > It's the same equation.
> >
> > Uh huh. 🤡🤡
>
>
> You wish, moron! At first all you could say was that it is wrong. Then you found some garbage on Wikipedia. LMAO.
>
> https://www.academia.edu/105576431/The_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus
>
> You keep getting dumber and more desperate. ROFLMAO.
It is wrong. The identity is not wrong, it is trivially true, but your definition of f' is. You can't use that equation to define f' for all differentiable functions without using limits.

That's the issue. No one has ever denied that the equation is wrong. But you can't use it to define f' uniquely without limits.

On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 2:17:09 PM UTC+2, markus...@gmail.com wrote:

> It is wrong. The identity is not wrong, it is trivially true, but your definition of f' is. You can't use that equation to define f' for all differentiable functions without using limits.
>
> That's the issue. No one has ever denied that the equation is wrong. But you can't use it to define f' uniquely without limits.

"...that the equation holds".

On Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 08:17:09 UTC-4, markus...com wrote:
> > > > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_increment_lemma
> > > >
> > > > You wish, moron! At first all you could say was that it is wrong. Then you found some garbage on Wikipedia. LMAO.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.academia.edu/105576431/The_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus
> > > >
> > > > You keep getting dumber and more desperate. ROFLMAO.
> > > It's the same equation.
> > >
> > > Uh huh. 🤡🤡
> >
> >
> > You wish, moron! At first all you could say was that it is wrong. Then you found some garbage on Wikipedia. LMAO.
> >
> > https://www.academia.edu/105576431/The_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus
> >
> > You keep getting dumber and more desperate. ROFLMAO.
> It is wrong.

Nope. The identity as well as my theorem is proved 100% using analytic geometry.

https://www.academia.edu/105576431/The_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus

You just don't understand and you're a crank, not to mention a vicious troll.

> The identity is not wrong, it is trivially true, but your definition of f' is. You can't use that equation to define f' for all differentiable functions without using limits.

Yes, you can. That's is precisely what the theorem proves:

https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020

>
> That's the issue. No one has ever denied that the equation is wrong.

You've denied it thousands of times, you psycho loser!

First you rejected it.
Then you said it was wrong.
Then you said that I copied it from the bullshit in that link "fundamental increment lemma"

> But you can't use it to define f' uniquely without limits.

You can and a high school boy showed you, but you are a stupid boy who only knows how to say "Nah, uh!" same as Zelos Malum.

Everyone is having a good laugh at you and your fellow it Field Rabbit (Fritz Feldhase).

LMAO

torsdag 14 september 2023 kl. 13:39:22 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 08:17:09 UTC-4, markus...com wrote:
> > > > > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_increment_lemma
> > > > >
> > > > > You wish, moron! At first all you could say was that it is wrong. Then you found some garbage on Wikipedia. LMAO.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.academia.edu/105576431/The_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus
> > > > >
> > > > > You keep getting dumber and more desperate. ROFLMAO.
> > > > It's the same equation.
> > > >
> > > > Uh huh. 🤡🤡
> > >
> > >
> > > You wish, moron! At first all you could say was that it is wrong. Then you found some garbage on Wikipedia. LMAO.
> > >
> > > https://www.academia.edu/105576431/The_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus
> > >
> > > You keep getting dumber and more desperate. ROFLMAO.
> > It is wrong.
> Nope. The identity as well as my theorem is proved 100% using analytic geometry.
>
> https://www.academia.edu/105576431/The_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus
>
> You just don't understand and you're a crank, not to mention a vicious troll.
> > The identity is not wrong, it is trivially true, but your definition of f' is. You can't use that equation to define f' for all differentiable functions without using limits.
> Yes, you can. That's is precisely what the theorem proves:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> >
> > That's the issue. No one has ever denied that the equation is wrong.
> You've denied it thousands of times, you psycho loser!
>
> First you rejected it.
> Then you said it was wrong.
> Then you said that I copied it from the bullshit in that link "fundamental increment lemma"
> > But you can't use it to define f' uniquely without limits.
> You can and a high school boy showed you, but you are a stupid boy who only knows how to say "Nah, uh!" same as Zelos Malum.
>
> Everyone is having a good laugh at you and your fellow it Field Rabbit (Fritz Feldhase).
>
> LMAO
No, I have never denied that the equation is correct. The issue is that you can't define Q and thus f' from it uniquely. Ask him again lol

On 9/14/2023 4:39 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 08:17:09 UTC-4, markus...com wrote:
>>>>>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_increment_lemma
>>>>>
>>>>> You wish, moron! At first all you could say was that it is wrong. Then you found some garbage on Wikipedia. LMAO.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/105576431/The_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus
>>>>>
>>>>> You keep getting dumber and more desperate. ROFLMAO.
>>>> It's the same equation.
>>>>
>>>> Uh huh. 🤡🤡
>>>
>>>
>>> You wish, moron! At first all you could say was that it is wrong. Then you found some garbage on Wikipedia. LMAO.
>>>
>>> https://www.academia.edu/105576431/The_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus
>>>
>>> You keep getting dumber and more desperate. ROFLMAO.
>> It is wrong.
>
> Nope. The identity as well as my theorem is proved 100% using analytic geometry.
>
> https://www.academia.edu/105576431/The_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus
>
> You just don't understand and you're a crank, not to mention a vicious troll.
>
>> The identity is not wrong, it is trivially true, but your definition of f' is. You can't use that equation to define f' for all differentiable functions without using limits.
>
> Yes, you can. That's is precisely what the theorem proves:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
>
>>
>> That's the issue. No one has ever denied that the equation is wrong.
>
> You've denied it thousands of times, you psycho loser!
>
> First you rejected it.
> Then you said it was wrong.
> Then you said that I copied it from the bullshit in that link "fundamental increment lemma"
>
>> But you can't use it to define f' uniquely without limits.
>
> You can and a high school boy showed you,

One of your high school boy nym shifts?

> but you are a stupid boy who only knows how to say "Nah, uh!" same as Zelos Malum.
>
> Everyone is having a good laugh at you and your fellow it Field Rabbit (Fritz Feldhase).
>
> LMAO

On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 16:12:32 UTC-4, markus..
> > > > > > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_increment_lemma
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You wish, moron! At first all you could say was that it is wrong. Then you found some garbage on Wikipedia. LMAO.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/105576431/The_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You keep getting dumber and more desperate. ROFLMAO.
> > > > > It's the same equation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Uh huh. 🤡🤡
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You wish, moron! At first all you could say was that it is wrong. Then you found some garbage on Wikipedia. LMAO.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.academia.edu/105576431/The_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus
> > > >
> > > > You keep getting dumber and more desperate. ROFLMAO.
> > > It is wrong.
> > Nope. The identity as well as my theorem is proved 100% using analytic geometry.
> >
> > https://www.academia.edu/105576431/The_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus
> >
> > You just don't understand and you're a crank, not to mention a vicious troll.
> > > The identity is not wrong, it is trivially true, but your definition of f' is. You can't use that equation to define f' for all differentiable functions without using limits.
> > Yes, you can. That's is precisely what the theorem proves:
> >
> > https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> > >
> > > That's the issue. No one has ever denied that the equation is wrong.
> > You've denied it thousands of times, you psycho loser!
> >
> > First you rejected it.
> > Then you said it was wrong.
> > Then you said that I copied it from the bullshit in that link "fundamental increment lemma"
> > > But you can't use it to define f' uniquely without limits.
> > You can and a high school boy showed you, but you are a stupid boy who only knows how to say "Nah, uh!" same as Zelos Malum.
> >
> > Everyone is having a good laugh at you and your fellow it Field Rabbit (Fritz Feldhase).
> >
> > LMAO
> No, I have never denied that the equation is correct.

Boy, you are such a liar! Your previous posts show how many times you denied the identity.

Now, as I explained to you, the "fundamental increment lemma" is a joke because the derivative has ZERO impact on either f'(x) or Q(x,h) which are found from the secant slope.

In any case, my theorem is about slopes. That bullshit on Wikipedia is just plain wrong in every respect.

> The issue is that you can't define Q and thus f' from it uniquely.

You can and it is demonstrated in the proof:

https://www.academia.edu/105576431/The_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus

https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020

> Ask him again lol

Why would I do that?! I know much more he does and I know he agrees with me, because he is producing a video for me on the very topic and we chat almost weekly. LMAO you, moron!

He knows there is no sense in trying to reason with you because he knows you are an idiot!

Keep telling lies, you are free advertising for me and my subscription counts are just increasing.

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:06:00 AM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:

> the "fundamental increment lemma" is a joke because the derivative

i.e. f'(x)

> has ZERO impact on [...] f'(x)

That's a rather FASCINATING claim, man!

Please elabore why f'(x) has "ZERO impact on [...] f'(x)".

I mean, one might think that it has "100% impact", after all f'(x) *is* f'(x), is't it?

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:06:00 AM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:

> the "fundamental increment lemma" is a joke because the derivative

i.e. f'(x)

> has ZERO impact on [...] f'(x)

That's a rather FASCINATING claim, man!

Please elabore why f'(x) has "ZERO impact on [...] f'(x)".

I mean, one might think that it has "100% impact", after all f'(x) *is* f'(x), isn't it?

fredag 15 september 2023 kl. 00:06:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 16:12:32 UTC-4, markus..
> > > > > > > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_increment_lemma
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You wish, moron! At first all you could say was that it is wrong. Then you found some garbage on Wikipedia. LMAO.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/105576431/The_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You keep getting dumber and more desperate. ROFLMAO.
> > > > > > It's the same equation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Uh huh. 🤡🤡
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You wish, moron! At first all you could say was that it is wrong. Then you found some garbage on Wikipedia. LMAO.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.academia.edu/105576431/The_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus
> > > > >
> > > > > You keep getting dumber and more desperate. ROFLMAO.
> > > > It is wrong.
> > > Nope. The identity as well as my theorem is proved 100% using analytic geometry.
> > >
> > > https://www.academia.edu/105576431/The_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus
> > >
> > > You just don't understand and you're a crank, not to mention a vicious troll.
> > > > The identity is not wrong, it is trivially true, but your definition of f' is. You can't use that equation to define f' for all differentiable functions without using limits.
> > > Yes, you can. That's is precisely what the theorem proves:
> > >
> > > https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> > > >
> > > > That's the issue. No one has ever denied that the equation is wrong..
> > > You've denied it thousands of times, you psycho loser!
> > >
> > > First you rejected it.
> > > Then you said it was wrong.
> > > Then you said that I copied it from the bullshit in that link "fundamental increment lemma"
> > > > But you can't use it to define f' uniquely without limits.
> > > You can and a high school boy showed you, but you are a stupid boy who only knows how to say "Nah, uh!" same as Zelos Malum.
> > >
> > > Everyone is having a good laugh at you and your fellow it Field Rabbit (Fritz Feldhase).
> > >
> > > LMAO
> > No, I have never denied that the equation is correct.
> Boy, you are such a liar! Your previous posts show how many times you denied the identity.
>
> Now, as I explained to you, the "fundamental increment lemma" is a joke because the derivative has ZERO impact on either f'(x) or Q(x,h) which are found from the secant slope.
>
> In any case, my theorem is about slopes. That bullshit on Wikipedia is just plain wrong in every respect.
> > The issue is that you can't define Q and thus f' from it uniquely.
> You can and it is demonstrated in the proof:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/105576431/The_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus
>
> https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
>
> > Ask him again lol
>
> Why would I do that?! I know much more he does and I know he agrees with me, because he is producing a video for me on the very topic and we chat almost weekly. LMAO you, moron!
>
> He knows there is no sense in trying to reason with you because he knows you are an idiot!
>
> Keep telling lies, you are free advertising for me and my subscription counts are just increasing.
No, that's wrong. The issue is that you have discovered the mainstream definition of differentiability and done away with the limit condition on Q. That means you can't know what Q or f' is individually. There are infinitely many ways to write the difference quotient as a sum of two functions, of which one depends on x and h and the other only on x.

For example: say that you have [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = g(x) + Q(x, h).

But you also have [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = (g(x) + h(x)) + (Q(x, h) - h(x)).

How do you know for which h you have f' = g + h? You can't. In the mainstream definition we solve this with limits.

If you add the limit condition, you get the mainstream definition of differentiability. In fact, that's how we generalize differentiable functions to higher dimensions.

f(x+h)-f(x) = \sum A_i h_i + hQ(h_1, ..., h_n).

You just can't see this for some reason.