Unlike the endless crap you have to learn in set theory or group theory which leads to nothing more than an asswipe dissertation, the New Calculus is the first rigorous formulation in human history.

Formulated without any bullshit such as limit theory, infinity and infinitesimals, it can be learned and mastered quickly. Partial differential equations make sense in the New Calculus because everything is well defined. This is not the case in your flawed mainstream calculus.

Students, don't wait till you get to college, download my free PDF and learn it now!

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

Not only will you actually understand calculus, but there are many theorems not possible using the bullshit mainstream definitions. If you thought Taylor's Polynomial is cool, just wait until you learn about the Gabriel Polynomial!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MnnnczqCA6vAEEoL1_OQAabDyHHzNcwW

I am a genius and I do know better than anyone else! Don't believe me. Study my works. You won't be sorry you did.

On Sunday, July 18, 2021 at 8:59:47 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel) wrote...

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

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

> "There are no points on a line."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_ / _ _
_ _ / _ _ _ _

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

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

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

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

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

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

The true story of how we got numbers:

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

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

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

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

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

> "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”

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

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

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

> "Zero is not a number."

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w

https://youtu.be/1CcSsOG0okg

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

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

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

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

The theorem:

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

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

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

> Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see:

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

Download for free the most important mathematics book ever written:

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

On Sunday, July 18, 2021 at 9:02:52 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel) wrote:

JG is taking a page out of Donald Trump's play book. What a surprise! ;^P

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

Nothing "invalid" about it, Troll Boy.

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

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

> Half-truth.

Nope. Completely false.

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

<yawn!>

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

> True.

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

[snip]

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

> True.

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

Dan

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

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

> "There are no points on a line."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_ / _ _
_ _ / _ _ _ _

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

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

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

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

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

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

The true story of how we got numbers:

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

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

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

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

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

> "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”

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

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

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

> "Zero is not a number."

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w

https://youtu.be/1CcSsOG0okg

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

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

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

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

The theorem:

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

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

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

> Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see:

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

Download for free the most important mathematics book ever written:

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

On Sunday, July 18, 2021 at 1:59:47 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:

Unlike the endless crap you have to learn in set theory or group theory which leads to nothing more than an asswipe dissertation, the New Calculus is the first rigorous formulation in human history. ... I am a genius and I do know better than anyone else! ... "

Very few mathematics students study set theory beyond a basic level; at most a significant minority go as far as a first course in topology. They would have to voluntarily choose modules in sets, logic and categories, or advanced mathematical logic, to go significantly beyond the basic formalism, early diagonal arguments and the language of open sets. At the elementary level, its just a convenient unifying language for mathematics.

As for group theory, it has been explained to you several times that this branch of mathematics has applications in number theory, coding theory, cryptography and advanced physics. Its also rather elementary in its early presentations; being about symmetry and permutations. You really found undergraduate level studies a struggle didn't you? Did you successfully obtain a BSc degree in mathematics?

As for your attempts at re-doing calculus, you haven't managed to handle points of inflection properly, haven't managed to handle general transcendental functions adequately, and have yet to show how the Euler-Lagrange equation from the calculus of variations (a cornerstone of advanced physics in many areas), can be obtained without the use of limits. After decades, you have very little to show for your position, and yet science and maths have advanced leaps and bounds in that time without your assistance.

A wise person would draw the obvious conclusion. Also since you seem to be an evolution denier and a general relativity denier, your intuition isn't exactly the best is it? Come on Sir, this could be a breakthrough moment for you, what do you suppose this all means?

Speaking of drawing conclusions, have you got proof of your self-claimed 4+-sigma IQ yet? If not are you willing to put your claims to an official Mensa test yet? [you know the terms of the competition/challenge, but I can re-post if its helps]. If no to both, should we draw the judicious conclusion?

Many Thanks
QB

Remain Calm and Keep Loving Real Analysis
[Recommended Book of the Day: Complex Analysis for Mathematics and Engineering, 4e, by Matthews and Howell]

On Sunday, 18 July 2021 at 08:59:47 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Unlike the endless crap you have to learn in set theory or group theory which leads to nothing more than an asswipe dissertation, the New Calculus is the first rigorous formulation in human history.
>
> Formulated without any bullshit such as limit theory, infinity and infinitesimals, it can be learned and mastered quickly. Partial differential equations make sense in the New Calculus because everything is well defined. This is not the case in your flawed mainstream calculus.
>
> Students, don't wait till you get to college, download my free PDF and learn it now!
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
>
> Not only will you actually understand calculus, but there are many theorems not possible using the bullshit mainstream definitions. If you thought Taylor's Polynomial is cool, just wait until you learn about the Gabriel Polynomial!
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MnnnczqCA6vAEEoL1_OQAabDyHHzNcwW
>
> I am a genius and I do know better than anyone else! Don't believe me. Study my works. You won't be sorry you did.

Refreshed to Dan Christensen clone troll activity.

On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 2:33:20 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:

"Refreshed to Dan Christensen clone troll activity."

Not trolling Sir, truth telling. Read, reflect, and learn.

Many Thanks
QB

Remain Calm and Keep Loving Real Analysis
[Recommended Book of the Day: Complex Analysis for Mathematics and Engineering, 4e, by Matthews and Howell]

On Sunday, 18 July 2021 at 08:59:47 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Unlike the endless crap you have to learn in set theory or group theory which leads to nothing more than an asswipe dissertation, the New Calculus is the first rigorous formulation in human history.
>
> Formulated without any bullshit such as limit theory, infinity and infinitesimals, it can be learned and mastered quickly. Partial differential equations make sense in the New Calculus because everything is well defined. This is not the case in your flawed mainstream calculus.
>
> Students, don't wait till you get to college, download my free PDF and learn it now!
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
>
> Not only will you actually understand calculus, but there are many theorems not possible using the bullshit mainstream definitions. If you thought Taylor's Polynomial is cool, just wait until you learn about the Gabriel Polynomial!
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MnnnczqCA6vAEEoL1_OQAabDyHHzNcwW
>
> I am a genius and I do know better than anyone else! Don't believe me. Study my works. You won't be sorry you did.

Refreshed to Dan Christensen clone troll activity.