Students:

The New Calculus is formulated only with well-formed concepts that exclude rot such as infinity, infinitesimals and limit theory:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view

Learn why mainstream calculus is a flawed formulation and study every link in the article that follows:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13ElmePB_nRM9GNqGHNONubMmuDRi5geZ

You can't understand mathematics without me. No one on the planet understands mathematics as well as I do.

Yes, I do know better! :)

On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 4:08:43 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Students:
>
> The New Calculus is formulated only with well-formed concepts that exclude rot such as infinity, infinitesimals and limit theory:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view
>
>
> Learn why mainstream calculus is a flawed formulation and study every link in the article that follows:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/13ElmePB_nRM9GNqGHNONubMmuDRi5geZ
>
> You can't understand mathematics without me. No one on the planet understands mathematics as well as I do.
>
> Yes, I do know better! :)

Dan Christensen (just for starters) has pointed out many times that you do not have a workable definition of the derivative. Explain in detail how he is wrong: for example how you would derive the Euler-Lagrange equation from the calculus of variations in your approach, without using limits?

If pretty much every mathematician on Earth can understand limits, with some specialising in highly advanced employments of the concept, why are you unable to even grasp the basics?

Lie to yourself if you must; at this stage the decades of emotional investment combined with the stupidity of using your real name for long enough that you are easily recognised, means you might feel you have no other choice, but would it be too much to ask for some originality. Or some effort?

Have a wonderful day
QB

Remain Calm and Keep Loving Real Analysis

On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 11:39:15 AM UTC-4, ross.pro...@gmx.com wrote:
> On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 4:08:43 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > Students:
> >
> > The New Calculus is formulated only with well-formed concepts that exclude rot such as infinity, infinitesimals and limit theory:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view
> >
> >
> > Learn why mainstream calculus is a flawed formulation and study every link in the article that follows:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/13ElmePB_nRM9GNqGHNONubMmuDRi5geZ
> >
> > You can't understand mathematics without me. No one on the planet understands mathematics as well as I do.
> >
> > Yes, I do know better! :)
> Dan Christensen (just for starters) has pointed out many times that you do not have a workable definition of the derivative. Explain in detail how he is wrong: for example how you would derive the Euler-Lagrange equation from the calculus of variations in your approach, without using limits?

In his goofy little system, JG cannot even determine that the derivative of f(x) = |x| is -1 for x<0 and +1 for x>0 and undefined for x=0. This may have been why he banned 0 and negative numbers and declared the derivatives of linear functions to be undefined. He has also banned instantaneous rates of change in calculus--at bit like banning numbers in arithmetic or points and lines in geometry. He has been unable to formally prove anything, not even 2+2=4, so he banned all axioms! What moron.

Dan

On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 5:12:13 PM UTC+1, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 11:39:15 AM UTC-4, ross.pro...@gmx.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 4:08:43 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > Students:
> > >
> > > The New Calculus is formulated only with well-formed concepts that exclude rot such as infinity, infinitesimals and limit theory:
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view
> > >
> > >
> > > Learn why mainstream calculus is a flawed formulation and study every link in the article that follows:
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/13ElmePB_nRM9GNqGHNONubMmuDRi5geZ
> > >
> > > You can't understand mathematics without me. No one on the planet understands mathematics as well as I do.
> > >
> > > Yes, I do know better! :)
> > Dan Christensen (just for starters) has pointed out many times that you do not have a workable definition of the derivative. Explain in detail how he is wrong: for example how you would derive the Euler-Lagrange equation from the calculus of variations in your approach, without using limits?
> In his goofy little system, JG cannot even determine that the derivative of f(x) = |x| is -1 for x<0 and +1 for x>0 and undefined for x=0. This may have been why he banned 0 and negative numbers and declared the derivatives of linear functions to be undefined. He has also banned instantaneous rates of change in calculus--at bit like banning numbers in arithmetic or points and lines in geometry. He has been unable to formally prove anything, not even 2+2=4, so he banned all axioms! What moron.
>
> Dan

Indeed Dan. Mr Gabriel seems to have a strange fetish for (mostly) only accepting viewpoints that he believes the ancient Greeks would have taken; for example regarding the definition of a tangent line. He fails to consider the possibility that the ancient Greek mathematicians, if they were brought forward to the present day and could see what we have achieved in the modern era, would have agreed that our modern mathematics is an impressive evolutionary development and would upgrade their viewpoints to one agreeing with our own. The Greeks were after all imaginative and apparently open minded philosophers (well, except when they were going off the rails promoting dogmatic rubbish, but no one is perfect).

Mr Gabriel does the memories of Archimedes, Apollonius and Euclid, a disservice.

Kind Regards
QB

Remain Calm and Keep Loving Real Analysis

On Saturday, 3 July 2021 at 11:08:43 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Students:
>
> The New Calculus is formulated only with well-formed concepts that exclude rot such as infinity, infinitesimals and limit theory:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view
>
>
> Learn why mainstream calculus is a flawed formulation and study every link in the article that follows:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/13ElmePB_nRM9GNqGHNONubMmuDRi5geZ
>
> You can't understand mathematics without me. No one on the planet understands mathematics as well as I do.
>
> Yes, I do know better! :)

Students:

The New Calculus derivative and integral are well defined and there is no reference to ill-formed concepts such as infinity, infinitesimals and the rot of limit theory. Don't believe me, study my work!

Anything *useful* that can be done with the flawed mainstream formulation can be done many times better with the New Calculus and it's easier to learn because it makes sense. The more you use and learn it, the more you will love it.

On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 9:13:29 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:
"Anything *useful* that can be done with the flawed mainstream formulation can be done many times better with the New Calculus and it's easier to learn because it makes sense. The more you use and learn it, the more you will love it."

Quantum mechanics, general relativity and classical mechanics are all jolly useful. I'm sure students wouldn't enjoy not being able to employ these explanatory theories properly in scientific analyses because they had crippled themselves with 16th century style tools.

Do you reject quantum mechanics and general relativity Mr Gabriel?

Have a wonderful day
QB

Remain Calm and Keep Loving Real Analysis

[Recommended Book of the Day: Real Mathematical Analysis, 2e, by Charles Pugh]

On Saturday, 3 July 2021 at 16:13:29 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Saturday, 3 July 2021 at 11:08:43 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > Students:
> >
> > The New Calculus is formulated only with well-formed concepts that exclude rot such as infinity, infinitesimals and limit theory:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view
> >
> >
> > Learn why mainstream calculus is a flawed formulation and study every link in the article that follows:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/13ElmePB_nRM9GNqGHNONubMmuDRi5geZ
> >
> > You can't understand mathematics without me. No one on the planet understands mathematics as well as I do.
> >
> > Yes, I do know better! :)
> Students:
>
> The New Calculus derivative and integral are well defined and there is no reference to ill-formed concepts such as infinity, infinitesimals and the rot of limit theory. Don't believe me, study my work!
>
> Anything *useful* that can be done with the flawed mainstream formulation can be done many times better with the New Calculus and it's easier to learn because it makes sense. The more you use and learn it, the more you will love it.

Refreshing because of troll activity.

7/8/2021 Anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen spammed:

> "There are no points on a line."

Lie. I never said that. What I did say is that a line does not consists of points. When we talk about points on a line, we really mean distances that are indicated much like road signs do for distances travelled along a road.

A line one of innumerable distances between any two points.
A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.

> "Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"

True. Pi is merely a symbol for an incommensurable magnitude - apparently a concept too advanced for an imbecile like Dan Christensen.

> "1/2 not equal to 2/4"

Lie. I have NEVER said this. What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.

There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4. For example:

_ / _ _
_ _ / _ _ _ _

The length _ is not equal to the length _ _ .

> “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”

True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w

Also, my article on pi not being a number of any kind:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FFg_9XCkIwTZ9N1jbU4oMYfHHHuFHYf3

The true story of how we got numbers:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU

No such thing as a "real number" or a "real number line":

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMHVYcE8xcmRZRnc

There is no valid construction of "real number" - it's a myth:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU

> "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”

True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.

3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4

Actually, there is no "OR" part, so the logical disjunction is invalid.

> "Zero is not a number."

True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w2tt7IgoIu-ychDCoYi-4jOAzToy0ViM

> "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."

Half-truth. While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.

> “There is no such thing as an empty set.”

True. Even the father of all mainstream mathematical cranks rejected the idea of empty set. But let's not go too far ... there isn't even a definition of "set" in set theory!

https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w

https://youtu.be/1CcSsOG0okg

> “3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)

True. These are propositions that are implied by the given equations. For example, my historic geometric identity states:

[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = dy/dx + Q(x,h)

And so, f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)

The theorem:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

How it provides a rigorous definition of integral for the flawed mainstream calculus:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y

> Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated March 10, 2020) at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ

The day will come when this vicious anonymous troll Dan Christensen is convicted in a court of law.

Download for free the most important mathematics book ever written:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view

On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 12:02:41 PM UTC-4, I Am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:

> > "There are no points on a line."

Lie. I never said that.

A direct quote from April 12, 2021 here at sci.math

> What I did say is that a line does not consists of points.

In other words, "There are no points on a line." Thanks for clearing that up, Troll Boy. (What moron!)

[snip]

> > "Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
> True. Pi is merely a symbol for an incommensurable magnitude

Wrong again, Troll Boy. Pi is an irrational number, an element of the set of real numbers.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_number

> > "1/2 not equal to 2/4"
> Lie. I have NEVER said this.

A direct quote from October 22, 2017 here at sci.math

> What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
> What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
> 2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.
>
> There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4. For example:
>

When will you learn, Troll Boy? 1/2 is ALWAYS EQUAL to 2/4.

[snip]

> > “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
> True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail...

If you can't dazzle them brilliance, baffle them with bullshit, right, Troll Boy?

> > "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
> True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.
>

Nothing "invalid" about it, Troll Boy.

> 3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4
>

It means 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4, which is always truly.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table#Logical_disjunction_(OR)

[snip]

> > "Zero is not a number."
> True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.
>

It really is a number, Troll Boy. Deal with it.

> > "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."

> Half-truth.

Nope. Completely false.

> While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.

<yawn!>

> > “There is no such thing as an empty set.”

> True.

Umm... What about the set of all your brilliant mathematical discoveries? Empty.

[snip]

> > “3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions”

> True.

Nope. The biconditional is logical connective. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_biconditional

3 is not a logical proposition or a statement that is true or false. 3 is a number. So 3 <=> 2+1 would be an error in syntax. Deal with it, Troll Boy.

[snip]

> > Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated March 10, 2020) at

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ

Also, all direct quotes from you, Troll Boy. To the extent that you will be remembered at all, history will not be kind to you. Time to cut your losses and move on Troll Boy.

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen spammed:

> "There are no points on a line."

Lie. I never said that. What I did say is that a line does not consists of points. When we talk about points on a line, we really mean distances that are indicated much like road signs do for distances travelled along a road.

A line one of innumerable distances between any two points.
A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.

> "Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"

True. Pi is merely a symbol for an incommensurable magnitude - apparently a concept too advanced for an imbecile like Dan Christensen.

> "1/2 not equal to 2/4"

Lie. I have NEVER said this. What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.

There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4. For example:

_ / _ _
_ _ / _ _ _ _

The length _ is not equal to the length _ _ .

> “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”

True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w

Also, my article on pi not being a number of any kind:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FFg_9XCkIwTZ9N1jbU4oMYfHHHuFHYf3

The true story of how we got numbers:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU

No such thing as a "real number" or a "real number line":

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMHVYcE8xcmRZRnc

There is no valid construction of "real number" - it's a myth:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU

> "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”

True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.

3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4

Actually, there is no "OR" part, so the logical disjunction is invalid.

> "Zero is not a number."

True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w2tt7IgoIu-ychDCoYi-4jOAzToy0ViM

> "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."

Half-truth. While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.

> “There is no such thing as an empty set.”

True. Even the father of all mainstream mathematical cranks rejected the idea of empty set. But let's not go too far ... there isn't even a definition of "set" in set theory!

https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w

https://youtu.be/1CcSsOG0okg

> “3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)

True. These are propositions that are implied by the given equations. For example, my historic geometric identity states:

[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = dy/dx + Q(x,h)

And so, f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)

The theorem:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

How it provides a rigorous definition of integral for the flawed mainstream calculus:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y

> Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated March 10, 2020) at https://groups.google.com/forum

The day will come when this vicious anonymous troll Dan Christensen is convicted in a court of law.

Download for free the most important mathematics book ever written:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view

On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 2:49:29 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:

[Snipping portions of JG's pathetic posting already debunked here. See above. Expect him to repost it again. What a moron!]

Anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen spammed:

> "There are no points on a line."

Lie. I never said that. What I did say is that a line does not consists of points. When we talk about points on a line, we really mean distances that are indicated much like road signs do for distances travelled along a road.

A line one of innumerable distances between any two points.
A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.

> "Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"

True. Pi is merely a symbol for an incommensurable magnitude - apparently a concept too advanced for an imbecile like Dan Christensen.

> "1/2 not equal to 2/4"

Lie. I have NEVER said this. What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.

There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4. For example:

_ / _ _
_ _ / _ _ _ _

The length _ is not equal to the length _ _ .

> “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”

True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w

Also, my article on pi not being a number of any kind:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FFg_9XCkIwTZ9N1jbU4oMYfHHHuFHYf3

The true story of how we got numbers:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU

No such thing as a "real number" or a "real number line":

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMHVYcE8xcmRZRnc

There is no valid construction of "real number" - it's a myth:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU

> "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”

True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.

3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4

Actually, there is no "OR" part, so the logical disjunction is invalid.

> "Zero is not a number."

True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w2tt7IgoIu-ychDCoYi-4jOAzToy0ViM

> "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."

Half-truth. While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.

> “There is no such thing as an empty set.”

True. Even the father of all mainstream mathematical cranks rejected the idea of empty set. But let's not go too far ... there isn't even a definition of "set" in set theory!

https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w

https://youtu.be/1CcSsOG0okg

> “3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)

True. These are propositions that are implied by the given equations. For example, my historic geometric identity states:

[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = dy/dx + Q(x,h)

And so, f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)

The theorem:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

How it provides a rigorous definition of integral for the flawed mainstream calculus:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y

> Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated March 10, 2020) at https://groups.google.com/forum

The day will come when this vicious anonymous troll Dan Christensen is convicted in a court of law.

Download for free the most important mathematics book ever written:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view

Eram semper recta <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen spammed:

Er, Dan Christensen is called Dan Christensen. What's all this about
"anonymous"?

>> "There are no points on a line."

> Lie. I never said that. What I did say is that a line does not consist
> of points. When we talk about points on a line, we really mean
> distances that are indicated much like road signs do for distances
> travelled along a road.

Just words. Does anything mathematically interesting result from this
precious distinction?

[ .... ]

>> "Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"

> True. Pi is merely a symbol for an incommensurable magnitude -
> apparently a concept too advanced for an imbecile like Dan Christensen.

No. Modern mathematicians have got better things to do with their time
than cope with the needless complexities some imaginary distinction
between numbers and "incommensurable magnitudes" would bring. In the
real and complex numbers, addition, multiplication and multiplicative
inverse exist, and the operations are closed on the sets.

>> "1/2 not equal to 2/4"

> Lie. I have NEVER said this. ...... There is the case in geometry where
> 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4.

<Sigh>

> _ / _ _
> _ _ / _ _ _ _

> The length _ is not equal to the length _ _ .

You clearly don't understand what the operator / means.

>> “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”

> True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and
> indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number
> explains in detail:

1/3 does mean 1 divided by 3, something understood universally by
schoolchildren. Your article can't be that brilliant if it promulgates
such falsehoods / late bronze age irrelevancies.

[ .... ]

> No such thing as a "real number" or a "real number line":

> There is no valid construction of "real number" - it's a myth:

John, I keep telling you you're not qualified to state that mathematical
entities don't exist. You don't understand what that means.

Real numbers and the real number line most assuredly do exist.

[ .... ]

>> “There is no such thing as an empty set.”

> True. Even the father of all mainstream mathematical cranks rejected
> the idea of empty set. But let's not go too far ... there isn't even a
> definition of "set" in set theory!

There most assuredly is a definition of "set" in set theory. You're just
not intellectually equipped to understand that definition.

[ .... ]

>> Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About
>> the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated
>> March 10, 2020) at https://groups.google.com/forum

> The day will come when this vicious anonymous troll Dan Christensen is
> convicted in a court of law.

Oh yes? As already remarked, Dan C is not anonymous and nothing he's
written in this Newsgroup goes outside the bounds of law. He does an
excellent job warning any potential victims against getting sucked into
various systems of crank mathematics, which could easily damage or
destroy their mathematical development. I hope he carries on with this
valuable service.

[ .... ]

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

On Saturday, 3 July 2021 at 11:08:43 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Students:
>
> The New Calculus is formulated only with well-formed concepts that exclude rot such as infinity, infinitesimals and limit theory:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view
>
>
> Learn why mainstream calculus is a flawed formulation and study every link in the article that follows:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/13ElmePB_nRM9GNqGHNONubMmuDRi5geZ
>
> You can't understand mathematics without me. No one on the planet understands mathematics as well as I do.
>
> Yes, I do know better! :)

Students:

Again, I am not telling you to believe me! Take some time to study my work because I know whereof I speak. The majority of your teachers and math lecturers are absolute morons.

The continuous spamming by anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen is meant to dissuade you, but you should use your brain!

> "There are no points on a line."

Lie. I never said that. What I did say is that a line does not consists of points. When we talk about points on a line, we really mean distances that are indicated much like road signs do for distances travelled along a road.

A line is one of innumerable distances between any two points.
A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.

> "Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"

True. Pi is merely a symbol for an incommensurable magnitude - apparently a concept too advanced for an imbecile like Dan Christensen.

> "1/2 not equal to 2/4"

Lie. I have NEVER said this. What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.

There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4. For example:

_ / _ _
_ _ / _ _ _ _

The length _ is not equal to the length _ _ .

> “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”

True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w

Also, my article on pi not being a number of any kind:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FFg_9XCkIwTZ9N1jbU4oMYfHHHuFHYf3

The true story of how we got numbers:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU

No such thing as a "real number" or a "real number line":

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMHVYcE8xcmRZRnc

There is no valid construction of "real number" - it's a myth:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU

> "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”

True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.

3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4

Actually, there is no "OR" part, so the logical disjunction is invalid.

> "Zero is not a number."

True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w2tt7IgoIu-ychDCoYi-4jOAzToy0ViM

> "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."

Half-truth. While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.

> “There is no such thing as an empty set.”

True. Even the father of all mainstream mathematical cranks rejected the idea of empty set. But let's not go too far ... there isn't even a definition of "set" in set theory!

https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w

https://youtu.be/1CcSsOG0okg

> “3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)

True. These are propositions that are implied by the given equations. For example, my historic geometric identity states:

[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = dy/dx + Q(x,h)

And so, f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)

The theorem:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

How it provides a rigorous definition of integral for the flawed mainstream calculus:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y

> Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated March 10, 2020) at https://groups.google.com/forum

The day will come when this vicious anonymous troll Dan Christensen is convicted in a court of law.

Download for free the most important mathematics book ever written:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view

On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 12:40:45 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:

"Students ... Again, I am not telling you to believe me! Take some time to study my work because I know whereof I speak. The majority of your teachers and math lecturers are absolute morons. ... The continuous spamming by anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen is meant to dissuade you, but you should use your brain!"

Oh Mr Gabriel, you legendary court jester you...

Mr Gabriel is a man who rejects the theory of evolution despite not having a background in biology, rejects General Relativity despite not having a background in physics, rejects long term cognitive psychology and animal behavioral studies (despite having a background in neither area) because they seem to contradict his theories on elementary mathematical concepts, and rejects standard calculus (aka calculus) because he isn't very good at real analysis.

So when Mr Gabriel tells you that his 'new calculus' can reproduce anything 'useful' from standard calculus (aka calculus) but 'more rigorously', keep in mind that 'useful' doesn't include those branches of advanced mathematical physics that are overwhelmingly supported by evidence and which are the foundation for our modern technological civilization.

What a silly person, but a comedy genius if it is intentional.

Have a Wonderful Day
QB

Remain Calm and Keep Loving Real Analysis
[Recommended Book of the Day: Logic, an introduction to elementary logic, by Wilfred Hodges]

Eram semper recta <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 3 July 2021 at 11:08:43 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
>> Students:

>> The New Calculus is formulated only with well-formed concepts that
>> exclude rot such as infinity, infinitesimals and limit theory:

Students, John Gabriel really means he doesn't understand the concepts of
infinity, infinitesimals and limit theory. He also doesn't understand
axioms, or set theory.

[ .... ]

>> You can't understand mathematics without me. No one on the planet
>> understands mathematics as well as I do.

This person doesn't even have a degree in mathematics. His understanding
is woefully inadequate.

>> Yes, I do know better! :)

> Students:

> Again, I am not telling you to believe me! Take some time to study my
> work because I know whereof I speak. The majority of your teachers and
> math lecturers are absolute morons.

Students, who do you wish to learn from? Somebody without a degree in
maths who, lets not mince words, is a crank, who fails to understand
many mathematical developments from the last few hundred years, and who
refers to mathematicians as "morons" and "baboons"? Or somebody with a
higher degree in maths, who understands full well what axioms, set
theory, limits, etc. are, and speaks and writes moderately and
respectfully?

> The continuous spamming by anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math
> Dan Christensen is meant to dissuade you, but you should use your
> brain!

You should indeed use your brain.

[ .... ]

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 7:40:45 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:

> > "There are no points on a line."

At a loss for words, our Mr. Rectum here can only repeated his failed arguments word for word. What a moron.

Dan

Anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen spammed:

> "There are no points on a line."

Lie. I never said that. What I did say is that a line does not consists of points. When we talk about points on a line, we really mean distances that are indicated much like road signs do for distances travelled along a road.

A line is one of innumerable distances between any two points.
A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.

> "Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"

True. Pi is merely a symbol for an incommensurable magnitude - apparently a concept too advanced for an imbecile like Dan Christensen.

> "1/2 not equal to 2/4"

Lie. I have NEVER said this. What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.

There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4. For example:

_ / _ _
_ _ / _ _ _ _

The length _ is not equal to the length _ _ .

> “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”

True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w

Also, my article on pi not being a number of any kind:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FFg_9XCkIwTZ9N1jbU4oMYfHHHuFHYf3

The true story of how we got numbers:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU

No such thing as a "real number" or a "real number line":

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMHVYcE8xcmRZRnc

There is no valid construction of "real number" - it's a myth:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU

> "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”

True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.

3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4

Actually, there is no "OR" part, so the logical disjunction is invalid.

> "Zero is not a number."

True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w2tt7IgoIu-ychDCoYi-4jOAzToy0ViM

> "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."

Half-truth. While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.

> “There is no such thing as an empty set.”

True. Even the father of all mainstream mathematical cranks rejected the idea of empty set. But let's not go too far ... there isn't even a definition of "set" in set theory!

https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w

https://youtu.be/1CcSsOG0okg

> “3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)

True. These are propositions that are implied by the given equations. For example, my historic geometric identity states:

[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = dy/dx + Q(x,h)

And so, f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)

The theorem:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

How it provides a rigorous definition of integral for the flawed mainstream calculus:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y

> Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated March 10, 2020) at https://groups.google.com/forum

The day will come when this vicious anonymous troll Dan Christensen is convicted in a court of law.

Download for free the most important mathematics book ever written:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view