So, why hasn't the mainstream admitted error? I can only attribute this to cognisant pathology. It's like this:

Reporter (R) to Trump Supporter (TS): "Why do you still believe in the BIG LIE?"

TS: "Well, there are the audits and they will show that Trump won."

R: "But all the lawsuits challenging the election were tossed out. How can you still believe that Trump won in the face of overwhelming evidence?"

TS: "Bla, bla, bla."

Let's change this over to Euler's BIG BLUNDER:

Gabriel (G) to Mainstream Academic Moron (MAM): "How can you still deny that Euler defined S = Lim S?"

MAM: "Because Euler did not mean the limit of the series by 1/(1+a)."

G: "What else could he have meant?"

MAM: "The limit of the partial sums of the series."

G: "But isn't the series defined by its partial sums?"

MAM (typical idiot Dan Christensen): "Yes, but you have to say 1/3 = Lim (n->oo) (1/3)[1-(10)^(-n)]"

G: "Right. But for short, I simply call it Lim S where S is the series. So it means the same thing. Does it matter what we call objects if we mean the same thing?"

MAM(typical idiot Zelos Malum): "In mathematics, we baboons have what is called formalism, so it matters".

G: "What is informal about S = Lim S where S is a name I call the series 1-a+aa-aaa+...&c" and Lim S is short for 1/3 = Lim (n->oo) (1/3)[1-(10)^(-n)] which I call by the name 1/(1+a) and Euler calls both EQUAL?"

MAM:"Bla, bla, bla. "

Students:

This kind of pathology is alien to me. But it is what you will come up against when you are sitting in your math lecturer's class. It seems that reason is futile with the baboons of mainstream academia.

Euler most definitely wrote in his Elements of Al-Gibberish:

Daher ist uns Bruch 1/(1+a) {Lim S} gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.

Therefore is our fraction 1/(1+a) {Lim S} equal this unending series 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.

In other words S = Lim S. Sure, Euler didn't write {Lim S} but what the fuck is 1/(1+a), you vomit worthy morons?!

He also didn't write {S}, but what the fuck is 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c, you incorrigible fuck wads?! Euler even tells you it is a **series** and I can call it by any letter of the alphabet I damn well please.

In other words, he didn't have to insert {S} and {Lim S} because it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that is exactly what he meant. Euler knew NOTHING about limit theory - NOTHING. Moreover, Euler believed completely that a super task is possible. To call such a one a "mathematician" of any sort is an insult to one's intelligence. One of the greatest Gauss had identical sentiments to mine.. Gauss rejected infinity.

NONE of your hand waving drivel will save you from my wrath. I shall continue to expose your syphilitic brains till my last breath. You are ALL filth that cannot be salvaged and my efforts are certainly not for your benefit! LMAO.

Anyone who subscribes to bullshit like 1/3 = 0.333... or even more laughable 1 = 0.999... is and ALWAYS will be a FUCKING CRANK!

Students:

My efforts are for you! Study the very theory that mainstream academics advocate but do not understand themselves:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH

Ignore all the troll responses because they are vacuous vomit.

On Tuesday, 6 July 2021 at 09:26:57 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> So, why hasn't the mainstream admitted error? I can only attribute this to cognisant pathology. It's like this:
>
> Reporter (R) to Trump Supporter (TS): "Why do you still believe in the BIG LIE?"
>
> TS: "Well, there are the audits and they will show that Trump won."
>
> R: "But all the lawsuits challenging the election were tossed out. How can you still believe that Trump won in the face of overwhelming evidence?"
>
> TS: "Bla, bla, bla."
>
> Let's change this over to Euler's BIG BLUNDER:
>
> Gabriel (G) to Mainstream Academic Moron (MAM): "How can you still deny that Euler defined S = Lim S?"
>
> MAM: "Because Euler did not mean the limit of the series by 1/(1+a)."
>
> G: "What else could he have meant?"
>
> MAM: "The limit of the partial sums of the series."
>
> G: "But isn't the series defined by its partial sums?"
>
> MAM (typical idiot Dan Christensen): "Yes, but you have to say 1/3 = Lim (n->oo) (1/3)[1-(10)^(-n)]"
>
> G: "Right. But for short, I simply call it Lim S where S is the series. So it means the same thing. Does it matter what we call objects if we mean the same thing?"
>
> MAM(typical idiot Zelos Malum): "In mathematics, we baboons have what is called formalism, so it matters".
>
> G: "What is informal about S = Lim S where S is a name I call the series 1-a+aa-aaa+...&c" and Lim S is short for 1/3 = Lim (n->oo) (1/3)[1-(10)^(-n)] which I call by the name 1/(1+a) and Euler calls both EQUAL?"
>
> MAM:"Bla, bla, bla. "
>
> Students:
>
> This kind of pathology is alien to me. But it is what you will come up against when you are sitting in your math lecturer's class. It seems that reason is futile with the baboons of mainstream academia.
>
> Euler most definitely wrote in his Elements of Al-Gibberish:
>
> Daher ist uns Bruch 1/(1+a) {Lim S} gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
>
> Therefore is our fraction 1/(1+a) {Lim S} equal this unending series 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
>
> In other words S = Lim S. Sure, Euler didn't write {Lim S} but what the fuck is 1/(1+a), you vomit worthy morons?!
>
> He also didn't write {S}, but what the fuck is 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c, you incorrigible fuck wads?! Euler even tells you it is a **series** and I can call it by any letter of the alphabet I damn well please.
>
> In other words, he didn't have to insert {S} and {Lim S} because it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that is exactly what he meant. Euler knew NOTHING about limit theory - NOTHING. Moreover, Euler believed completely that a super task is possible. To call such a one a "mathematician" of any sort is an insult to one's intelligence. One of the greatest Gauss had identical sentiments to mine. Gauss rejected infinity.
>
> NONE of your hand waving drivel will save you from my wrath. I shall continue to expose your syphilitic brains till my last breath. You are ALL filth that cannot be salvaged and my efforts are certainly not for your benefit! LMAO.
>
> Anyone who subscribes to bullshit like 1/3 = 0.333... or even more laughable 1 = 0.999... is and ALWAYS will be a FUCKING CRANK!
>
> Students:
>
> My efforts are for you! Study the very theory that mainstream academics advocate but do not understand themselves:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
>
> Ignore all the troll responses because they are vacuous vomit.

I want to clean the filth that is mainstream math academia and leave the world a better place for all aspiring students of mathematics.

If what you are being asked to study has nothing to do with measure and number, then it can't be called mathematics.

On Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 2:29:53 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:

"I want to clean the filth that is mainstream math academia and leave the world a better place for all aspiring students of mathematics."

You could try applying for a job as a toilet cleaner at a university. You could then cheerfully clear up the filth made by students of mainstream mathematics all day!!! It would get you out the house, some proper human contact and you would have access to large blackboards after hours, and who knows it might give you easy access to the university psychologists. It sort of worked out for the fictional character Good Will Hunting. Of course his IQ actually was over 4 sigma above average, whereas you have yet to produce a proof of that claim. But there is a way (wink)...

Have a Wonderful Day
QB

Remain Clam and Keep Loving Real Analysis
[Recommended Book of the Day: A First Course in Probability, 6e, by Sheldon Ross (no relation)]

On Tuesday, 6 July 2021 at 09:42:12 UTC-4, Quantum Babbling aka ross.pro...@gmx.com wrote:

<drivel>

See what I mean, students? This anonymous coward will not even attempt to refute anything I wrote because he knows it's true.

His only goal on this newsgroup is to fish for information about me which he won't get.

The general public only knows what I allow them to know. For example, I am a genius - everyone knows this but since they do not like me, they are continuing to do what scum do - libel and lie about me.

It's ironic how they ask questions believing in their delusion that I would gladly divulge information when they never answer any of my questions or even dare to meet the challenges I put to them.

This is what YOU have to contend with my dear students! Syphilitic brains that cannot be reasoned with.

On Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 2:50:00 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:
"See what I mean, students? This anonymous coward will not even attempt to refute anything I wrote because he knows it's true."
"His only goal on this newsgroup is to fish for information about me which he won't get."

My remaining anonymous is not a matter of cowardice; it's more in your interests than mine if anything. But anyway, your silly claims and confusions (to describe the matter generously) about Euler (and much else) have been exposed and refuted many times on sci.math. If your level of comprehension and/or reasonableness was not sufficient to accept this the first 99 times, what would be the probability it would be sufficient on the 100th? Assuming your comments are even sincere, I suspect there is more of an emotional block than an intellectual one, but perhaps I am being too generous towards you again.

You had already said on your own initiative that your IQ was more than 4 sigma above average (LOL); I never asked you to say that. I have challenged you to prove that it is true. Unless you are either lying, or have simply guessed your IQ (badly), a proof that the claim is true could not provide additional personal information; it would however allow you to increase your credibility to non-experts (at least initially) and possibly attract a much wider audience, which seems to be what you desire anyway.

So why don't you provide proof?.... I think we both know the likely answers....but if you ever want to put your claims to some kind of serious test, you know the competition rules and terms :-) .

"This is what YOU have to contend with my dear students! Syphilitic brains that cannot be reasoned with."

Indeed, you are are evolution denier, a calculus denier, and have some...non-standard shall we say... views on Einstein's scientific contributions, despite having no meaningful background in biology or physics, and as for maths, well, the exact details of your background are a matter of speculation (to be generous again). The easiest way for students to 'contend' with such silliness is just to ignore 'lone geniuses' on the internet and stick to their mainstream textbooks and reliable internet forums populated by those who genuinely love the subject, rather than wasting their time with yet another silly person who cannot understand Cantor's arguments and concludes widespread brainwashing is a rational explanation.

You should seriously consider what I said about applying for manual jobs at universities. They can be nice places to work, it will get you out of the house for a while, and if you are lucky they might give you a library card so can read about all the subjects you wrongly believe you understand and you won't have to spend a fortune on textbooks.

Have a Wonderful Day
QB

Remain Calm and Keep Loving Real Analysis
[Recommended Book of the Day: A First Course in Probability, 6e, by Sheldon Ross (no relation)]

On Tuesday, 6 July 2021 at 09:26:57 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> So, why hasn't the mainstream admitted error? I can only attribute this to cognisant pathology. It's like this:
>
> Reporter (R) to Trump Supporter (TS): "Why do you still believe in the BIG LIE?"
>
> TS: "Well, there are the audits and they will show that Trump won."
>
> R: "But all the lawsuits challenging the election were tossed out. How can you still believe that Trump won in the face of overwhelming evidence?"
>
> TS: "Bla, bla, bla."
>
> Let's change this over to Euler's BIG BLUNDER:
>
> Gabriel (G) to Mainstream Academic Moron (MAM): "How can you still deny that Euler defined S = Lim S?"
>
> MAM: "Because Euler did not mean the limit of the series by 1/(1+a)."
>
> G: "What else could he have meant?"
>
> MAM: "The limit of the partial sums of the series."
>
> G: "But isn't the series defined by its partial sums?"
>
> MAM (typical idiot Dan Christensen): "Yes, but you have to say 1/3 = Lim (n->oo) (1/3)[1-(10)^(-n)]"
>
> G: "Right. But for short, I simply call it Lim S where S is the series. So it means the same thing. Does it matter what we call objects if we mean the same thing?"
>
> MAM(typical idiot Zelos Malum): "In mathematics, we baboons have what is called formalism, so it matters".
>
> G: "What is informal about S = Lim S where S is a name I call the series 1-a+aa-aaa+...&c" and Lim S is short for 1/3 = Lim (n->oo) (1/3)[1-(10)^(-n)] which I call by the name 1/(1+a) and Euler calls both EQUAL?"
>
> MAM:"Bla, bla, bla. "
>
> Students:
>
> This kind of pathology is alien to me. But it is what you will come up against when you are sitting in your math lecturer's class. It seems that reason is futile with the baboons of mainstream academia.
>
> Euler most definitely wrote in his Elements of Al-Gibberish:
>
> Daher ist uns Bruch 1/(1+a) {Lim S} gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
>
> Therefore is our fraction 1/(1+a) {Lim S} equal this unending series 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
>
> In other words S = Lim S. Sure, Euler didn't write {Lim S} but what the fuck is 1/(1+a), you vomit worthy morons?!
>
> He also didn't write {S}, but what the fuck is 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c, you incorrigible fuck wads?! Euler even tells you it is a **series** and I can call it by any letter of the alphabet I damn well please.
>
> In other words, he didn't have to insert {S} and {Lim S} because it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that is exactly what he meant. Euler knew NOTHING about limit theory - NOTHING. Moreover, Euler believed completely that a super task is possible. To call such a one a "mathematician" of any sort is an insult to one's intelligence. One of the greatest Gauss had identical sentiments to mine. Gauss rejected infinity.
>
> NONE of your hand waving drivel will save you from my wrath. I shall continue to expose your syphilitic brains till my last breath. You are ALL filth that cannot be salvaged and my efforts are certainly not for your benefit! LMAO.
>
> Anyone who subscribes to bullshit like 1/3 = 0.333... or even more laughable 1 = 0.999... is and ALWAYS will be a FUCKING CRANK!
>
> Students:
>
> My efforts are for you! Study the very theory that mainstream academics advocate but do not understand themselves:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
>
> Ignore all the troll responses because they are vacuous vomit.

It's pretty amusing how obsessed mainstream morons are with me. They cannot discuss the topic because they can't refute an iota of what I claim.

Eram semper recta <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> wrote:

[ .... ]

> It's pretty amusing how obsessed mainstream morons are with me. They
> cannot discuss the topic because they can't refute an iota of what I
> claim.

Don't kid yourself. What people care about is falsehood masquerading as
fact. People care about your continual libelling of great mathematicians
from the past and your attempts to mislead potential maths students.

When you post a falsehood in this newsgroup it will get corrected. That
pretty much applies to everything you post. But you as a person? Well
people care about having to wipe stuff of the soles of their shoes just
as much.

Still, the plausibility of your falsehoods is steadily dwindling, and
soon enough will reach the level that corrections are barely needed, much
as now is the case with Archimedes Plutonium. Looking forward to that,
are you?

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

On Tuesday, 6 July 2021 at 12:50:23 UTC-4, Incorrigible Scott moron Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Eram semper recta <thenewc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [ .... ]
> > It's pretty amusing how obsessed mainstream morons are with me. They
> > cannot discuss the topic because they can't refute an iota of what I
> > claim.
> Don't kid yo <snip - crap>

You've no idea how much damage I have inflicted on your lies, ignorance, deception and lack of morality. I can assure you, that this is only the beginning. By the time I am done with mainstream academics, they will be telling everyone that they never had anything to do with the Church of Academia because aside from embarrassment, they will be experiencing fear.

Chuckle.

On Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 7:46:45 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:

"You've no idea how much damage I have inflicted on your lies, ignorance, deception and lack of morality. I can assure you, that this is only the beginning. By the time I am done with mainstream academics, they will be telling everyone that they never had anything to do with the Church of Academia because aside from embarrassment, they will be experiencing fear."

OPENING NOTE: this is intended as a serious comment, not mockery, insults, putdowns or anything like that.

Okay, so quite a few of your posts, assuming they aren't just wind ups, illustrate signs of NPD, but I have to say that this comment of yours comes across as what I would expect to see in the diary of someone suffering from a round of psychosis.

That's not a jab on my part, I am being quite serious.

You really need to take some time off sci.math and similar sites if it is getting to that kind of stage for you. I believe you were thinking about music recently on your YouTube channel: concentrate on that for the next month instead, put thoughts about calculus, mainstream academia and 'the concept of number' on the shelf for a month; because all of this shit on here cannot be doing you any good at all, and it certainly isn't helping anyone else..

Kind Regards
QB

On Tuesday, 6 July 2021 at 15:25:22 UTC-4, Quantum Babbling aka ross.pro...@gmx.com wrote:

You obviously have a lot of idle time on your hands, but I am going to chop them off (not literally).

You need to shut the fuck up because when I find out who you are, I am going to do a lot of damage to you! I shall contact your boss and get you fired, you vile piece of shit. It will not go well for you, so I am warning you: fuck off and stop pestering me. Nothing you say has any value. I piss and shit on your every word, you vile Limey bastard. An ape like you has nothing to say to a genius. You are a NOBODY.

If I find out who you are, I am going to fuck you pretty well and I am working on it!!! Prof. Gilbert Strang, the fucking felon from MIT didn't think I could until I did. Same fate awaits you, dog!!! I would rip your eyes out and shove them up your arse if I could get away with it. LMAO.

Now do the right thing and fuck off!

On Tuesday, 6 July 2021 at 09:26:57 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> So, why hasn't the mainstream admitted error? I can only attribute this to cognisant pathology. It's like this:
>
> Reporter (R) to Trump Supporter (TS): "Why do you still believe in the BIG LIE?"
>
> TS: "Well, there are the audits and they will show that Trump won."
>
> R: "But all the lawsuits challenging the election were tossed out. How can you still believe that Trump won in the face of overwhelming evidence?"
>
> TS: "Bla, bla, bla."
>
> Let's change this over to Euler's BIG BLUNDER:
>
> Gabriel (G) to Mainstream Academic Moron (MAM): "How can you still deny that Euler defined S = Lim S?"
>
> MAM: "Because Euler did not mean the limit of the series by 1/(1+a)."
>
> G: "What else could he have meant?"
>
> MAM: "The limit of the partial sums of the series."
>
> G: "But isn't the series defined by its partial sums?"
>
> MAM (typical idiot Dan Christensen): "Yes, but you have to say 1/3 = Lim (n->oo) (1/3)[1-(10)^(-n)]"
>
> G: "Right. But for short, I simply call it Lim S where S is the series. So it means the same thing. Does it matter what we call objects if we mean the same thing?"
>
> MAM(typical idiot Zelos Malum): "In mathematics, we baboons have what is called formalism, so it matters".
>
> G: "What is informal about S = Lim S where S is a name I call the series 1-a+aa-aaa+...&c" and Lim S is short for 1/3 = Lim (n->oo) (1/3)[1-(10)^(-n)] which I call by the name 1/(1+a) and Euler calls both EQUAL?"
>
> MAM:"Bla, bla, bla. "
>
> Students:
>
> This kind of pathology is alien to me. But it is what you will come up against when you are sitting in your math lecturer's class. It seems that reason is futile with the baboons of mainstream academia.
>
> Euler most definitely wrote in his Elements of Al-Gibberish:
>
> Daher ist uns Bruch 1/(1+a) {Lim S} gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
>
> Therefore is our fraction 1/(1+a) {Lim S} equal this unending series 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
>
> In other words S = Lim S. Sure, Euler didn't write {Lim S} but what the fuck is 1/(1+a), you vomit worthy morons?!
>
> He also didn't write {S}, but what the fuck is 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c, you incorrigible fuck wads?! Euler even tells you it is a **series** and I can call it by any letter of the alphabet I damn well please.
>
> In other words, he didn't have to insert {S} and {Lim S} because it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that is exactly what he meant. Euler knew NOTHING about limit theory - NOTHING. Moreover, Euler believed completely that a super task is possible. To call such a one a "mathematician" of any sort is an insult to one's intelligence. One of the greatest Gauss had identical sentiments to mine. Gauss rejected infinity.
>
> NONE of your hand waving drivel will save you from my wrath. I shall continue to expose your syphilitic brains till my last breath. You are ALL filth that cannot be salvaged and my efforts are certainly not for your benefit! LMAO.
>
> Anyone who subscribes to bullshit like 1/3 = 0.333... or even more laughable 1 = 0.999... is and ALWAYS will be a FUCKING CRANK!
>
> Students:
>
> My efforts are for you! Study the very theory that mainstream academics advocate but do not understand themselves:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
>
> Ignore all the troll responses because they are vacuous vomit.

Students:

It seems to me that besides the paid troll Dan Christensen and MORONey, the new paid troll is Quantum Babbling. Observe that they cannot engage me wrt the topic. Everything in their drivel is off-topic, libelous and harassment.
Even after being asked to quit, they persist being the trolls that they are.. It's in their nature and they can't not be what they are.

On Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 9:26:57 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:
> So, why hasn't the mainstream admitted error? I can only attribute this to cognisant pathology. It's like this:
>

Speaking of errors...

WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't become a victim of JG's fake math

JG here claims to have a discovered as shortcut to mastering calculus without using limits. Unfortunately for him, this means he has no workable a definition of the derivative of a function. It blows up for functions as simple f(x)=|x|. Or even f(x)=0. As a result, he has had to ban 0, negative numbers and instantaneous rates of change rendering his goofy little system quite useless. What a moron!

Forget calculus. JG has also banned all axioms because he cannot even derive the most elementary results of basic arithmetic, e.g. 2+2=4. Such results require the use of axioms, so he must figure he's now off the hook. Again, what a moron!

Even at his advanced age (60+?), John Gabriel is STILL struggling with basic, elementary-school arithmetic. As he has repeatedly posted here:

"There are no points on a line."
--April 12, 2021

"Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
--July 10, 2020

"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017

“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015

"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
--October 28, 2017

"Zero is not a number."
-- Dec. 2, 2019

"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017

“There is no such thing as an empty set.”
--Oct. 4, 2019

“3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
--Oct. 22, 2019

No math genius our JG, though he actually lists his job title as “mathematician” at Linkedin.com. Apparently, they do not verify your credentials.

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

Dan

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

On Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 7:38:28 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, wrote:

> Prof. Gilbert Strang, the fucking felon from MIT didn't think I could until I did. Same fate awaits you, dog!!!

Troll Boy here is insanely jealous of the good professor who, last I heard, is still going strong at MIT and will be remembered fondly by thousands of students. We should all do so well. Troll Boy on the other hand... well, let's not rub it in. (Hee, hee!)

Dan

Eram semper recta <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 6 July 2021 at 15:25:22 UTC-4, Quantum Babbling aka
> ross.pro...@gmx.com wrote:

> You obviously have a lot of idle time on your hands, but I am going to
> chop them off (not literally).

> You need to shut the fuck up because when I find out who you are, I am
> going to do a lot of damage to you!

Why?

> I shall contact your boss and get you fired, you vile piece of shit.

Why?

> It will not go well for you, so I am warning you: fuck off and stop
> pestering me.

So, engaging in polite, helpful discussion with you is "pestering", is
it?

> Nothing you say has any value. I piss and shit on your every word, you
> vile Limey bastard.

What he has said has a great deal of value. If you don't like it, why
don't you just ignore him, or even kill file him? Problem (whatever it
might be) solved.

> An ape like you has nothing to say to a genius.

You are not a genius, at least not in mathematics. A true genius would
listen and learn from wherever.

> You are a NOBODY.

> If I find out who you are, I am going to fuck you pretty well and I am
> working on it!!!

More criminal threats. One of these days, if you are not careful, the
law will catch up with you.

> Prof. Gilbert Strang, the fucking felon from MIT didn't think I could
> until I did. Same fate awaits you, dog!!! I would rip your eyes out and
> shove them up your arse if I could get away with it. LMAO.

Why? QB has never done you any harm. And I think Professor Strang is
doing rather well at MIT.

> Now do the right thing and fuck off!

You should do the right thing and moderate your language.

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

On Tuesday, 6 July 2021 at 09:26:57 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> So, why hasn't the mainstream admitted error? I can only attribute this to cognisant pathology. It's like this:
>
> Reporter (R) to Trump Supporter (TS): "Why do you still believe in the BIG LIE?"
>
> TS: "Well, there are the audits and they will show that Trump won."
>
> R: "But all the lawsuits challenging the election were tossed out. How can you still believe that Trump won in the face of overwhelming evidence?"
>
> TS: "Bla, bla, bla."
>
> Let's change this over to Euler's BIG BLUNDER:
>
> Gabriel (G) to Mainstream Academic Moron (MAM): "How can you still deny that Euler defined S = Lim S?"
>
> MAM: "Because Euler did not mean the limit of the series by 1/(1+a)."
>
> G: "What else could he have meant?"
>
> MAM: "The limit of the partial sums of the series."
>
> G: "But isn't the series defined by its partial sums?"
>
> MAM (typical idiot Dan Christensen): "Yes, but you have to say 1/3 = Lim (n->oo) (1/3)[1-(10)^(-n)]"
>
> G: "Right. But for short, I simply call it Lim S where S is the series. So it means the same thing. Does it matter what we call objects if we mean the same thing?"
>
> MAM(typical idiot Zelos Malum): "In mathematics, we baboons have what is called formalism, so it matters".
>
> G: "What is informal about S = Lim S where S is a name I call the series 1-a+aa-aaa+...&c" and Lim S is short for 1/3 = Lim (n->oo) (1/3)[1-(10)^(-n)] which I call by the name 1/(1+a) and Euler calls both EQUAL?"
>
> MAM:"Bla, bla, bla. "
>
> Students:
>
> This kind of pathology is alien to me. But it is what you will come up against when you are sitting in your math lecturer's class. It seems that reason is futile with the baboons of mainstream academia.
>
> Euler most definitely wrote in his Elements of Al-Gibberish:
>
> Daher ist uns Bruch 1/(1+a) {Lim S} gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
>
> Therefore is our fraction 1/(1+a) {Lim S} equal this unending series 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
>
> In other words S = Lim S. Sure, Euler didn't write {Lim S} but what the fuck is 1/(1+a), you vomit worthy morons?!
>
> He also didn't write {S}, but what the fuck is 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c, you incorrigible fuck wads?! Euler even tells you it is a **series** and I can call it by any letter of the alphabet I damn well please.
>
> In other words, he didn't have to insert {S} and {Lim S} because it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that is exactly what he meant. Euler knew NOTHING about limit theory - NOTHING. Moreover, Euler believed completely that a super task is possible. To call such a one a "mathematician" of any sort is an insult to one's intelligence. One of the greatest Gauss had identical sentiments to mine. Gauss rejected infinity.
>
> NONE of your hand waving drivel will save you from my wrath. I shall continue to expose your syphilitic brains till my last breath. You are ALL filth that cannot be salvaged and my efforts are certainly not for your benefit! LMAO.
>
> Anyone who subscribes to bullshit like 1/3 = 0.333... or even more laughable 1 = 0.999... is and ALWAYS will be a FUCKING CRANK!
>
> Students:
>
> My efforts are for you! Study the very theory that mainstream academics advocate but do not understand themselves:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
>
> Ignore all the troll responses because they are vacuous vomit.

Students:

Pay attention to that which matters, not what my haters and enemies are constantly spewing out.

The fact that they are continuously attacking me and not addressing the topic (which they can't!) should speak volumes to you!

7/6/2021 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 Tuesday, 6 July 2021 at 09:26:57 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> So, why hasn't the mainstream admitted error? I can only attribute this to cognisant pathology. It's like this:
>
> Reporter (R) to Trump Supporter (TS): "Why do you still believe in the BIG LIE?"
>
> TS: "Well, there are the audits and they will show that Trump won."
>
> R: "But all the lawsuits challenging the election were tossed out. How can you still believe that Trump won in the face of overwhelming evidence?"
>
> TS: "Bla, bla, bla."
>
> Let's change this over to Euler's BIG BLUNDER:
>
> Gabriel (G) to Mainstream Academic Moron (MAM): "How can you still deny that Euler defined S = Lim S?"
>
> MAM: "Because Euler did not mean the limit of the series by 1/(1+a)."
>
> G: "What else could he have meant?"
>
> MAM: "The limit of the partial sums of the series."
>
> G: "But isn't the series defined by its partial sums?"
>
> MAM (typical idiot Dan Christensen): "Yes, but you have to say 1/3 = Lim (n->oo) (1/3)[1-(10)^(-n)]"
>
> G: "Right. But for short, I simply call it Lim S where S is the series. So it means the same thing. Does it matter what we call objects if we mean the same thing?"
>
> MAM(typical idiot Zelos Malum): "In mathematics, we baboons have what is called formalism, so it matters".
>
> G: "What is informal about S = Lim S where S is a name I call the series 1-a+aa-aaa+...&c" and Lim S is short for 1/3 = Lim (n->oo) (1/3)[1-(10)^(-n)] which I call by the name 1/(1+a) and Euler calls both EQUAL?"
>
> MAM:"Bla, bla, bla. "
>
> Students:
>
> This kind of pathology is alien to me. But it is what you will come up against when you are sitting in your math lecturer's class. It seems that reason is futile with the baboons of mainstream academia.
>
> Euler most definitely wrote in his Elements of Al-Gibberish:
>
> Daher ist uns Bruch 1/(1+a) {Lim S} gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
>
> Therefore is our fraction 1/(1+a) {Lim S} equal this unending series 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
>
> In other words S = Lim S. Sure, Euler didn't write {Lim S} but what the fuck is 1/(1+a), you vomit worthy morons?!
>
> He also didn't write {S}, but what the fuck is 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c, you incorrigible fuck wads?! Euler even tells you it is a **series** and I can call it by any letter of the alphabet I damn well please.
>
> In other words, he didn't have to insert {S} and {Lim S} because it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that is exactly what he meant. Euler knew NOTHING about limit theory - NOTHING. Moreover, Euler believed completely that a super task is possible. To call such a one a "mathematician" of any sort is an insult to one's intelligence. One of the greatest Gauss had identical sentiments to mine. Gauss rejected infinity.
>
> NONE of your hand waving drivel will save you from my wrath. I shall continue to expose your syphilitic brains till my last breath. You are ALL filth that cannot be salvaged and my efforts are certainly not for your benefit! LMAO.
>
> Anyone who subscribes to bullshit like 1/3 = 0.333... or even more laughable 1 = 0.999... is and ALWAYS will be a FUCKING CRANK!
>
> Students:
>
> My efforts are for you! Study the very theory that mainstream academics advocate but do not understand themselves:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
>
> Ignore all the troll responses because they are vacuous vomit.

Students:

It's completely unremarkable that when one tries to measure a rational number p/q in base b that it has a complete measure or repeating digits. The most important number theorem in mathematics (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o5kcWvU35tdt_SY83UFnXZAlsKBAsSYH) tells us that if b does not contain all the prime factors of q, then the measure is incomplete and there will be a repeating pattern.

For example, 1/7 has no measure in base 10 and the digits 142857 simply repeat. The trick to find a rational number from a repeating sequence such as 0.142857... makes use of the fact that such a sequence converges to a limit which in this case is 1/7:

x = 0.142857...
1000000x=142857.142857...
999999x=142857
x=1/7

There is NOTHING remarkable about this and it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with infinity. In fact, this trick which works (because of the limit being a rational number) for rational numbers will not work for any non-number such as pi, e, sqrt(2), etc. Rather in the case of these incommensurable magnitudes (NOT "irrational numbers"!), there is no repeating sequence so the limit is impossible to find.

x = π
10x = 10π
9x = 9π
x = π

Notice that the magnitude π is not even relevant in the above definition.

To account for all the digits (impossible!), the baboons of mainstream academia would need something like:

x = π
∞x = ∞π
x(∞-1) = π (∞-1)
∞x = ∞π since ∞ = (∞-1)
2 r x = C since 2r = (∞-1) and C = ∞π

And according to Cantor, the father of all mainstream mathematical cranks, (∞-1) = ∞π

This proves you cannot use the trick because π is not a rational number and that it works with rational numbers because they are RATIONAL NUMBERS! LMAO.

But in spite of this fact, the morons will still write π = C/2r.

Mainstream math baboons have no understanding of radix systems or even what it means to be a number.

Therefore, it is unremarkable again that an INCOMMENSURABLE MAGNITUDE has a non-repeating non-terminating measure in any base. In fact, such magnitudes have NO MEASURE in any base. Period.

Yes, I do know better than you or anyone else on the planet. This is not arrogance, it's FACT.

On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 12:04:08 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 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

Dan Christensen wrote:

> 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!)

aRE you a white arab?

7/9/21

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 10:55:51 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:

[Snipping portions of JG's pathetic posting already debunked here. See above.]

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