Without a deep understanding of number, it does not matter how many math degrees you acquire, you simply never understand mathematics.

Euclid wrote 6 books before he began to define the abstract object called a NUMBER. A lot of careful and systematic thought went in to the establishment of the foundations of mathematics, which IS the SCIENCE of MEASURE and NUMBER.

No human before me was able to define number as I have for you!

A number is a NAME given to a MEASURE that describes a MAGNITUDE or SIZE.

The only valid numbers are the RATIONAL NUMBERS and we have never used anything else but rational numbers in any field of STEM.

Learn more here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kU_QXEIT28efbQ2URrJydQrmtvihSRqq

The second most important concept in mathematics is the arithmetic mean without which calculus is not possible.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1faSnsxWy06artWDnEqOxGcMO-pQeIyMz

On Wednesday, 7 July 2021 at 08:06:28 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Without a deep understanding of number, it does not matter how many math degrees you acquire, you simply never understand mathematics.
>
> Euclid wrote 6 books before he began to define the abstract object called a NUMBER. A lot of careful and systematic thought went in to the establishment of the foundations of mathematics, which IS the SCIENCE of MEASURE and NUMBER.
>
> No human before me was able to define number as I have for you!
>
> A number is a NAME given to a MEASURE that describes a MAGNITUDE or SIZE.
>
> The only valid numbers are the RATIONAL NUMBERS and we have never used anything else but rational numbers in any field of STEM.
>
> Learn more here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kU_QXEIT28efbQ2URrJydQrmtvihSRqq
>
> The second most important concept in mathematics is the arithmetic mean without which calculus is not possible.
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1faSnsxWy06artWDnEqOxGcMO-pQeIyMz

Complex numbers, fields, groups and all the other bullshit you learn in mathematics does not measure anything. The few useful parts of these studies are those in which numbers are used to describe MEASURE from which we arrive at ALL of any reasonable knowledge.

On Wednesday, 7 July 2021 at 08:09:22 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 July 2021 at 08:06:28 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > Without a deep understanding of number, it does not matter how many math degrees you acquire, you simply never understand mathematics.
> >
> > Euclid wrote 6 books before he began to define the abstract object called a NUMBER. A lot of careful and systematic thought went in to the establishment of the foundations of mathematics, which IS the SCIENCE of MEASURE and NUMBER.
> >
> > No human before me was able to define number as I have for you!
> >
> > A number is a NAME given to a MEASURE that describes a MAGNITUDE or SIZE.
> >
> > The only valid numbers are the RATIONAL NUMBERS and we have never used anything else but rational numbers in any field of STEM.
> >
> > Learn more here:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kU_QXEIT28efbQ2URrJydQrmtvihSRqq
> >
> > The second most important concept in mathematics is the arithmetic mean without which calculus is not possible.
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1faSnsxWy06artWDnEqOxGcMO-pQeIyMz
> Complex numbers, fields, groups and all the other bullshit you learn in mathematics does not measure anything. The few useful parts of these studies are those in which numbers are used to describe MEASURE from which we arrive at ALL of any reasonable knowledge.

The most respected physicists agree with me that measure is at the core of everything they do and the reason they are able to acquire any knowledge.

Engineers love my New Calculus because they don't need to spend a lifetime understanding differential equations which are both simple and elegant in the New Calculus, but incomprehensible rot in mainstream calculus.

You won't find gibberish like this:

" ‘dy/dx’ must, at least for some considerable time, be regarded as an inseparable whole, just as ‘δx’ is. It does not in any simple or straight-forward way mean anything like ‘dy divided by dx’, and a statement such as ‘dy/dx x dx/dt = dy/dt, by cancelling dx’ is just so much gibberish."

SMP Advanced Mathematics 11 (page 221): Hillary & Shuard

dy and dx are well-formed finite differences in the New Calculus based on the first rigorous formulation of the derivative.
These are treated exactly as one would treat any other number. Only Hillary and Shuard understand the drivel of "inseparable whole" because it means nothing in real mathematics where every NUMBER is a RATIONAL NUMBER.

dy/dx is a symbolic fraction meaning there can be many equivalent finite differences. Fractions are NUMBERS. About the only thing these morons Hillary and Shuard got right is that dy/dx does not mean ‘dy divided by dx’.

A statement such as ‘dy/dx x dx/dt = dy/dt, by cancelling dx’ is VALID ARITHMETIC. The gibberish resides in the brains of Hillary and Shuard.

The mean value theorem which is the fundamental theorem of calculus, does not even require the knowledge of anything but magnitudes. My free ebook explains:

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

On Wednesday, 7 July 2021 at 08:34:09 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 July 2021 at 08:09:22 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 7 July 2021 at 08:06:28 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > Without a deep understanding of number, it does not matter how many math degrees you acquire, you simply never understand mathematics.
> > >
> > > Euclid wrote 6 books before he began to define the abstract object called a NUMBER. A lot of careful and systematic thought went in to the establishment of the foundations of mathematics, which IS the SCIENCE of MEASURE and NUMBER.
> > >
> > > No human before me was able to define number as I have for you!
> > >
> > > A number is a NAME given to a MEASURE that describes a MAGNITUDE or SIZE.
> > >
> > > The only valid numbers are the RATIONAL NUMBERS and we have never used anything else but rational numbers in any field of STEM.
> > >
> > > Learn more here:
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kU_QXEIT28efbQ2URrJydQrmtvihSRqq
> > >
> > > The second most important concept in mathematics is the arithmetic mean without which calculus is not possible.
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1faSnsxWy06artWDnEqOxGcMO-pQeIyMz
> > Complex numbers, fields, groups and all the other bullshit you learn in mathematics does not measure anything. The few useful parts of these studies are those in which numbers are used to describe MEASURE from which we arrive at ALL of any reasonable knowledge.
> The most respected physicists agree with me that measure is at the core of everything they do and the reason they are able to acquire any knowledge.
>
> Engineers love my New Calculus because they don't need to spend a lifetime understanding differential equations which are both simple and elegant in the New Calculus, but incomprehensible rot in mainstream calculus.
>
> You won't find gibberish like this:
>
> " ‘dy/dx’ must, at least for some considerable time, be regarded as an inseparable whole, just as ‘δx’ is. It does not in any simple or straight-forward way mean anything like ‘dy divided by dx’, and a statement such as ‘dy/dx x dx/dt = dy/dt, by cancelling dx’ is just so much gibberish."
>
> SMP Advanced Mathematics 11 (page 221): Hillary & Shuard
>
> dy and dx are well-formed finite differences in the New Calculus based on the first rigorous formulation of the derivative.
> These are treated exactly as one would treat any other number. Only Hillary and Shuard understand the drivel of "inseparable whole" because it means nothing in real mathematics where every NUMBER is a RATIONAL NUMBER.
>
> dy/dx is a symbolic fraction meaning there can be many equivalent finite differences. Fractions are NUMBERS. About the only thing these morons Hillary and Shuard got right is that dy/dx does not mean ‘dy divided by dx’.
>
> A statement such as ‘dy/dx x dx/dt = dy/dt, by cancelling dx’ is VALID ARITHMETIC. The gibberish resides in the brains of Hillary and Shuard.
>
> The mean value theorem which is the fundamental theorem of calculus, does not even require the knowledge of anything but magnitudes. My free ebook explains:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view

On a lighter note, one could ask questions like:

"For how much time must dy/dx be considered as an 'inseparable whole' "? Perhaps there is a way to figure out this minimum time in some optimisation problem? LMAO. Never mind, I have no clue what the fuck is an "inseparable whole".

Mainstream math academics are incorrigibly stupid fucks - especially the ones who have PhD after their names.

On Wednesday, 7 July 2021 at 08:37:20 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 July 2021 at 08:34:09 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 7 July 2021 at 08:09:22 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 7 July 2021 at 08:06:28 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > Without a deep understanding of number, it does not matter how many math degrees you acquire, you simply never understand mathematics.
> > > >
> > > > Euclid wrote 6 books before he began to define the abstract object called a NUMBER. A lot of careful and systematic thought went in to the establishment of the foundations of mathematics, which IS the SCIENCE of MEASURE and NUMBER.
> > > >
> > > > No human before me was able to define number as I have for you!
> > > >
> > > > A number is a NAME given to a MEASURE that describes a MAGNITUDE or SIZE.
> > > >
> > > > The only valid numbers are the RATIONAL NUMBERS and we have never used anything else but rational numbers in any field of STEM.
> > > >
> > > > Learn more here:
> > > >
> > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kU_QXEIT28efbQ2URrJydQrmtvihSRqq
> > > >
> > > > The second most important concept in mathematics is the arithmetic mean without which calculus is not possible.
> > > >
> > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1faSnsxWy06artWDnEqOxGcMO-pQeIyMz
> > > Complex numbers, fields, groups and all the other bullshit you learn in mathematics does not measure anything. The few useful parts of these studies are those in which numbers are used to describe MEASURE from which we arrive at ALL of any reasonable knowledge.
> > The most respected physicists agree with me that measure is at the core of everything they do and the reason they are able to acquire any knowledge.
> >
> > Engineers love my New Calculus because they don't need to spend a lifetime understanding differential equations which are both simple and elegant in the New Calculus, but incomprehensible rot in mainstream calculus.
> >
> > You won't find gibberish like this:
> >
> > " ‘dy/dx’ must, at least for some considerable time, be regarded as an inseparable whole, just as ‘δx’ is. It does not in any simple or straight-forward way mean anything like ‘dy divided by dx’, and a statement such as ‘dy/dx x dx/dt = dy/dt, by cancelling dx’ is just so much gibberish."
> >
> > SMP Advanced Mathematics 11 (page 221): Hillary & Shuard
> >
> > dy and dx are well-formed finite differences in the New Calculus based on the first rigorous formulation of the derivative.
> > These are treated exactly as one would treat any other number. Only Hillary and Shuard understand the drivel of "inseparable whole" because it means nothing in real mathematics where every NUMBER is a RATIONAL NUMBER.
> >
> > dy/dx is a symbolic fraction meaning there can be many equivalent finite differences. Fractions are NUMBERS. About the only thing these morons Hillary and Shuard got right is that dy/dx does not mean ‘dy divided by dx’.
> >
> > A statement such as ‘dy/dx x dx/dt = dy/dt, by cancelling dx’ is VALID ARITHMETIC. The gibberish resides in the brains of Hillary and Shuard.
> >
> > The mean value theorem which is the fundamental theorem of calculus, does not even require the knowledge of anything but magnitudes. My free ebook explains:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view
> On a lighter note, one could ask questions like:
>
> "For how much time must dy/dx be considered as an 'inseparable whole' "? Perhaps there is a way to figure out this minimum time in some optimisation problem? LMAO. Never mind, I have no clue what the fuck is an "inseparable whole".
>
> Mainstream math academics are incorrigibly stupid fucks - especially the ones who have PhD after their names.

dy/dx is a NAME given to a MEASURE (rise/run) that describes a MAGNITUDE (slope).

Grow a brain, you imbeciles!

On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 8:06:28 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:
> Without a deep understanding of number...

Which Troll Boy here sorely lacking. He cannot even prove 2+2=4.

************************************************
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 Wednesday, 7 July 2021 at 11:08:27 UTC-4, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 8:06:28 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:
> > Without a deep understanding of number...
>
> Which Troll Boy here sorely lacking. He cannot even prove 2+2=4.
>
> ************************************************
> 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

Students:

None of the above drivel is true.

On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 11:20:41 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 July 2021 at 11:08:27 UTC-4, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 8:06:28 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:
> > > Without a deep understanding of number...
> >
> > Which Troll Boy here sorely lacking. He cannot even prove 2+2=4.
> >
> > ************************************************
> > 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
> Students:
>
> None of the above drivel is true.

So, after all these years, you have FINALLY proven that 2+2=4 using your, ahem... "definition" of number. Let's see this long anticipated proof! (Don't hold your breath, folks!)

Dan

On Wednesday, 7 July 2021 at 08:06:28 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Without a deep understanding of number, it does not matter how many math degrees you acquire, you simply never understand mathematics.
>
> Euclid wrote 6 books before he began to define the abstract object called a NUMBER. A lot of careful and systematic thought went in to the establishment of the foundations of mathematics, which IS the SCIENCE of MEASURE and NUMBER.
>
> No human before me was able to define number as I have for you!
>
> A number is a NAME given to a MEASURE that describes a MAGNITUDE or SIZE.
>
> The only valid numbers are the RATIONAL NUMBERS and we have never used anything else but rational numbers in any field of STEM.
>
> Learn more here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kU_QXEIT28efbQ2URrJydQrmtvihSRqq
>
> The second most important concept in mathematics is the arithmetic mean without which calculus is not possible.
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1faSnsxWy06artWDnEqOxGcMO-pQeIyMz

Refreshed due to Dan Christensen troll activity.

7/7/2021 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 12:06:32 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:

[snipping portions of JG's pathetic posting already debunked in another thread here today]

Dan

7/9/2021
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

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 10:51:31 PM UTC-4, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 12:06:32 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:
>
> [snipping portions of JG's pathetic posting already debunked in another thread here today]
>
> Dan

Based solely on the title of this thread: beyond the importance of the concept of number lays the concept of operator.
That operators work on numbers is a fundamental distinction.
This means that we should not claim to be constructing numbers which include operators.
Thus status quo mathematics has failed a simple philosophical distinction.
It is the radix form which allows us to claim the ability to work in large values.
It is the radix form which allows us to claim the ability to work in small values.
It is the radix form which holds within it a rotational mechanism that allows a series of digits to make connections so as to carry on an endless progression should enough digits be present.
That the zero has a tooth that holds a truth that goes under-applied in modernity:
as when the modulo-two sign fails to be generalized;
under this thinking epsilon/delta answers to every number,
and every number has an integer x, a sign s, and an exponent (though unsigned)
s x e
which, upon realizing the usual decimal representation yield
s x
where s is sign and x is continuous magnitude. This grant of continuity I will argue remains as a grant rather than a proof by Dedekind and so forth. The option to declare every value in physics an integer is obvious, and that the concept of precision returns backward down into mathematics is as well. This is the proper interpretation of Dedekind's work: Mathematics and Physics cannot be divorced. As fighting siblings who are the offspring of philosophy no actual divorce is possible. Thus the division as within modern academia is false. A great collapse of accumulated garbage ensues. A food-fight if you like. Cleaning up the house, if you must. Burying the hatchet, in a way. The hammer and the chisel should get it out, and realize their parental ancestry that is their bond.

On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 8:35:11 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta 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

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 10:56:55 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:

[Snipping repetitive portions of JG's 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

On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 2:50:38 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:

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

HA, HA!! Mr. Rectum here, at a loss for words, can only repeat his failed arguments. What a moron!

On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:15:57 PM UTC+2, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:00:07 AM UTC-7, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 2:50:38 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:
> >
> > > > "There are no points on a line."
> > >
> > HA, HA!! Mr. Rectum here, at a loss for words, can only repeat his failed arguments. What a moron!
> A line is geometric and is built of geometric points in a straight form...
> Like a radius is straight and built of points..
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

Points are just circles with radius 0 and lines are circles with an infinite radius.

On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 15:50:50 UTC-4, sobriquet wrote:
> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:15:57 PM UTC+2, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:00:07 AM UTC-7, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 2:50:38 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:
> > >
> > > > > "There are no points on a line."
> > > >
> > > HA, HA!! Mr. Rectum here, at a loss for words, can only repeat his failed arguments. What a moron!
> > A line is geometric and is built of geometric points in a straight form...
> > Like a radius is straight and built of points..
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> Points are just circles with radius 0 and lines are circles with an infinite radius.

Er no, idiot. There is a significant semantic difference between a point (which is a concept of location) and lines (paths defined by a distance between two points).

"...circles with an infinite radius".

LMAO. This from the same idiot who believes AI is real.

Students:

Do you see what I mean? There is no end to the idiocy of mainstream fools.

On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 12:24:54 PM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 15:50:50 UTC-4, sobriquet wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:15:57 PM UTC+2, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:00:07 AM UTC-7, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 2:50:38 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > "There are no points on a line."
> > > > >
> > > > HA, HA!! Mr. Rectum here, at a loss for words, can only repeat his failed arguments. What a moron!
> > > A line is geometric and is built of geometric points in a straight form...
> > > Like a radius is straight and built of points..
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > Points are just circles with radius 0 and lines are circles with an infinite radius.
> Er no, idiot. There is a significant semantic difference between a point (which is a concept of location) and lines (paths defined by a distance between two points).
>
> "...circles with an infinite radius".
>
> LMAO. This from the same idiot who believes AI is real.
>
> Students:
>
> Do you see what I mean? There is no end to the idiocy of mainstream fools.

Don't leave out an equation's purpose...
Quantities need to exist with eternal operations.
Operations modify quantity math order.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:24:54 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 15:50:50 UTC-4, sobriquet wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:15:57 PM UTC+2, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:00:07 AM UTC-7, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 2:50:38 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > "There are no points on a line."
> > > > >
> > > > HA, HA!! Mr. Rectum here, at a loss for words, can only repeat his failed arguments. What a moron!
> > > A line is geometric and is built of geometric points in a straight form...
> > > Like a radius is straight and built of points..
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > Points are just circles with radius 0 and lines are circles with an infinite radius.
> Er no, idiot. There is a significant semantic difference between a point (which is a concept of location) and lines (paths defined by a distance between two points).
>
> "...circles with an infinite radius".
>
> LMAO. This from the same idiot who believes AI is real.
>
> Students:
>
> Do you see what I mean? There is no end to the idiocy of mainstream fools.

A circle has curvature which is the inverse of its radius.
Small circles have high curvature and big circles have low curvature.
This curvature can vary between boundary cases of 0, where the circle matches
up with a straight line and infinity, where the circle matches up with a point.

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/iacwhienwd

On Wednesday, 7 July 2021 at 08:06:28 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Without a deep understanding of number, it does not matter how many math degrees you acquire, you simply never understand mathematics.
>
> Euclid wrote 6 books before he began to define the abstract object called a NUMBER. A lot of careful and systematic thought went in to the establishment of the foundations of mathematics, which IS the SCIENCE of MEASURE and NUMBER.
>
> No human before me was able to define number as I have for you!
>
> A number is a NAME given to a MEASURE that describes a MAGNITUDE or SIZE.
>
> The only valid numbers are the RATIONAL NUMBERS and we have never used anything else but rational numbers in any field of STEM.
>
> Learn more here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kU_QXEIT28efbQ2URrJydQrmtvihSRqq
>
> The second most important concept in mathematics is the arithmetic mean without which calculus is not possible.
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1faSnsxWy06artWDnEqOxGcMO-pQeIyMz

Students:

I do know better than anyone else. This is not hubris. It's FACT.