Telling students that the derivative definition they are given at university is fraudulent, is the TRUTH. The evidence is ALL here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1peL7lzXsmZ4AVsgAwDLvn8QIZbWy8Ebm

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9

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

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

Eram semper recta wrote:

> Telling students that the derivative definition they are given at
> university is fraudulent, is the TRUTH. The evidence is ALL here:

Why four links for a simple definition? Derivatives are about the
dynamics, hence changes. Did you hear otherwise?

On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 1:56:53 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel wrote:
> Telling students that the derivative definition they are given at university is fraudulent, is the TRUTH. The evidence is ALL here:
>

Alas, Mr. Rectum's definition of a derivative would seem to be quite useless. It blows up even for functions as simple as f(x)=|x|. Or even f(x)=0..

*********************************************************

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

Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> Telling students that the derivative definition they are given at university is fraudulent, is the TRUTH. The evidence is ALL here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1peL7lzXsmZ4AVsgAwDLvn8QIZbWy8Ebm
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9

"A set is countable if its members can be named in a systematic way."

Then the set of real numbers is countable: I hereby use each real number
to name itself.

>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
>

--
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here
Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg

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 Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 14:26:43 UTC-4, Peter wrote:
> Eram semper recta wrote:
> >
> > Telling students that the derivative definition they are given at university is fraudulent, is the TRUTH. The evidence is ALL here:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1peL7lzXsmZ4AVsgAwDLvn8QIZbWy8Ebm
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9
> "A set is countable if its members can be named in a systematic way."
>
> Then the set of real numbers is countable: I hereby use each real number
> to name itself.

My, what a crank.

So Piddly Pete, let's start with your first claim:

The set of real numbers cannot be named systematically, therefore it is uncountable.

How would you name the members of the real set - by infinite decimal expansions? Chuckle. If so, then it is indeed countable, but the initial Cantor premise that all real numbers are expressed as infinite decimals effectively kills his bullshit diagonal argument.

Next, you can't say you use each real number to name itself UNLESS you have a way to systematically write down these numbers in a well-ordered sequence. You don't!

What are you trying to say, you poor moron? Are you aware that this has nothing to do with the OP?

>
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
> >

ROFLMFAO!!!! Huge LOLs

On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 2:57:59 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:

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

> > "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 Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 13:56:53 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Telling students that the derivative definition they are given at university is fraudulent, is the TRUTH. The evidence is ALL here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1peL7lzXsmZ4AVsgAwDLvn8QIZbWy8Ebm
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y

Students:

Like I said, there will be no attempt to refute my claims, because these CANNOT be refuted. I am telling you the TRUTH.

Should you believe me? OF COURSE NOT!

You need to study my articles to verify that my claims are true. Ignore all the background noise. You owe it to yourself to understand mathematics and you can only get this profound understanding from me! There is no one else who understands mathematics as well as I do.

On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 7:59:39 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy)wrote:
>
> Like I said, there will be no attempt to refute my claims, because these CANNOT be refuted.

Refute the fact that you cannot even establish that 2+2=4 in your goofy little system, Troll Boy. It's a boat that won't float. Time to scrap it and move on. Math never was your thing.

Dan

Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 14:26:43 UTC-4, Peter wrote:
>> Eram semper recta wrote:
>>>
>>> Telling students that the derivative definition they are given at university is fraudulent, is the TRUTH. The evidence is ALL here:
>>>
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1peL7lzXsmZ4AVsgAwDLvn8QIZbWy8Ebm
>>>
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9
>> "A set is countable if its members can be named in a systematic way."
>>
>> Then the set of real numbers is countable: I hereby use each real number
>> to name itself.
>
> My, what a crank.
>
> So Piddly Pete, let's start with your first claim:
>
> The set of real numbers cannot be named systematically, therefore it is uncountable.

Presumably when you wrote that you had given no thought to what a name
might be or what systematically might mean.
>
> How would you name the members of the real set - by infinite decimal expansions?

No. I name the real number x, x.

> Chuckle. If so, then it is indeed countable, but the initial Cantor premise that all real numbers are expressed as infinite decimals effectively kills his bullshit diagonal argument.
>
> Next, you can't say you use each real number to name itself UNLESS you have a way to systematically write down these numbers in a well-ordered sequence. You don't!
>
> What are you trying to say, you poor moron? Are you aware that this has nothing to do with the OP?
>
>>
>>>
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>>>
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
>>>
>
>
> ROFLMFAO!!!! Huge LOLs
>

--
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here
Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg

On Wednesday, 21 July 2021 at 05:42:34 UTC-4, Peter wrote:
> Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 14:26:43 UTC-4, Peter wrote:
> >> Eram semper recta wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Telling students that the derivative definition they are given at university is fraudulent, is the TRUTH. The evidence is ALL here:
> >>>
> >>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1peL7lzXsmZ4AVsgAwDLvn8QIZbWy8Ebm
> >>>
> >>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9
> >> "A set is countable if its members can be named in a systematic way."
> >>
> >> Then the set of real numbers is countable: I hereby use each real number
> >> to name itself.
> >
> > My, what a crank.
> >
> > So Piddly Pete, let's start with your first claim:
> >
> > The set of real numbers cannot be named systematically, therefore it is uncountable.
> Presumably when you wrote that you had given no thought to what a name
> might be or what systematically might mean.
> >
> > How would you name the members of the real set - by infinite decimal expansions?
> No. I name the real number x, x.

Lols. You can't call ALL the "real numbers" by the same name "x".

You could say that x represents some magnitude (but it may or may not have a measure, meaning that there may not be a number describing its measure).

****A NUMBER is a NAME given to a MEASURE that DESCRIBES a MAGNITUDE or SIZE****

If I just gave you a straight line, say ____ , what would you call its length? Presumably by some NAME, yes? But how can you tell me anything about its measure unless you COMPARE it to another straight line whose length I already know?

> > Chuckle. If so, then it is indeed countable, but the initial Cantor premise that all real numbers are expressed as infinite decimals effectively kills his bullshit diagonal argument.
> >
> > Next, you can't say you use each real number to name itself UNLESS you have a way to systematically write down these numbers in a well-ordered sequence. You don't!
> >
> > What are you trying to say, you poor moron? Are you aware that this has nothing to do with the OP?
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> >>>
> >>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
> >>>
> >
> >
> > ROFLMFAO!!!! Huge LOLs
> >
> --
> The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here
> Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg

On Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 13:56:53 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Telling students that the derivative definition they are given at university is fraudulent, is the TRUTH. The evidence is ALL here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1peL7lzXsmZ4AVsgAwDLvn8QIZbWy8Ebm
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y

Students:

Glaringly obvious by now should be the apparent lack of understanding and insight which mainstream math academics lack, not only about the derivative but about foundational concepts such as NUMBER.

It's a given there is no attempt to refute anything in my articles because there is NOTHING to refute. So your distractors want to move the topic away in order to obfuscate.

Isn't it time you woke up to these facts? Your well-paid "educators" do not have your best interests at heart. In fact, they couldn't give a shit about you. Your average math professor earns way over $100K, receives good benefits and provided he/she refrains from doing anything socially inappropriate, life tenure. The only other jobs I know with life tenure is a priest or supreme court justice. The business of deception is very lucrative.

I don't gain a penny from warning you. I have sacrificed my career and well being for YOU all!

You cannot understand mathematics without me.

On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 12:49:36 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 13:56:53 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > Telling students that the derivative definition they are given at university is fraudulent, is the TRUTH. The evidence is ALL here:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1peL7lzXsmZ4AVsgAwDLvn8QIZbWy8Ebm
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
> Students:
>
> Glaringly obvious by now should be the apparent lack of understanding and insight which mainstream math academics lack, not only about the derivative but about foundational concepts such as NUMBER.
>
> It's a given there is no attempt to refute anything in my articles because there is NOTHING to refute. So your distractors want to move the topic away in order to obfuscate.
>
> Isn't it time you woke up to these facts? Your well-paid "educators" do not have your best interests at heart. In fact, they couldn't give a shit about you. Your average math professor earns way over $100K, receives good benefits and provided he/she refrains from doing anything socially inappropriate, life tenure. The only other jobs I know with life tenure is a priest or supreme court justice. The business of deception is very lucrative.
>
> I don't gain a penny from warning you. I have sacrificed my career and well being for YOU all!
>
> You cannot understand mathematics without me.

What silly nonsense you continue to produce Mr Gabriel.

Modern mathematics has proven itself, both at the level of theory and at the level of applicability. The scientific developments of the 20th century are sufficient vindication of this. Your approach cannot accommodate this fact rationally, nor can you re-derive the core ideas of modern applied mathematics (e.g. calculus of variations).

Until you learn to accept such truths, you are not going to progress.

QB

On Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 13:56:53 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Telling students that the derivative definition they are given at university is fraudulent, is the TRUTH. The evidence is ALL here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1peL7lzXsmZ4AVsgAwDLvn8QIZbWy8Ebm
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y

Students:

As you can see, once again, there is blind denial from the mainstream, refusing to admit error and accept correction.

To wit, one of the limit properties states that the limit of a constant is a constant! Indeed!

But somehow the orangutans in the mainstream disregard that property with respect to the constant [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h which is the SLOPE of the NON-PARALLEL secant line in Newton's and Leibniz's bogus formulation of calculus.

I, and I ALONE solved the tangent line problem correctly. I produced the FIRST rigorous formulation of calculus in human history by removing all nonsense concepts such as limit theory, infinity and infinitesimals.

I should be honoured by the mainstream community, not ex-communicated and reviled. These evil academics have destroyed my life. I am officially homeless and not in the best of health.

My work is not worth one Abel prize - it is worth ALL the Abel prizes ever awarded to the fools in the Abel prize circus.

On Wednesday, 21 July 2021 at 15:14:45 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 13:56:53 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > Telling students that the derivative definition they are given at university is fraudulent, is the TRUTH. The evidence is ALL here:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1peL7lzXsmZ4AVsgAwDLvn8QIZbWy8Ebm
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
> Students:
>
> As you can see, once again, there is blind denial from the mainstream, refusing to admit error and accept correction.
>
>
> To wit, one of the limit properties states that the limit of a constant is a constant! Indeed!
>
> But somehow the orangutans in the mainstream disregard that property with respect to the constant [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h which is the SLOPE of the NON-PARALLEL secant line in Newton's and Leibniz's bogus formulation of calculus.
>
> I, and I ALONE solved the tangent line problem correctly. I produced the FIRST rigorous formulation of calculus in human history by removing all nonsense concepts such as limit theory, infinity and infinitesimals.
>
> I should be honoured by the mainstream community, not ex-communicated and reviled. These evil academics have destroyed my life. I am officially homeless and not in the best of health.
>
> My work is not worth one Abel prize - it is worth ALL the Abel prizes ever awarded to the fools in the Abel prize circus.

My latest video:

https://youtu.be/nuSH7mGu49g

onsdag 21. juli 2021 kl. 21:14:45 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 13:56:53 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > Telling students that the derivative definition they are given at university is fraudulent, is the TRUTH. The evidence is ALL here:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1peL7lzXsmZ4AVsgAwDLvn8QIZbWy8Ebm
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
> Students:
>
> As you can see, once again, there is blind denial from the mainstream, refusing to admit error and accept correction.
>
>
> To wit, one of the limit properties states that the limit of a constant is a constant! Indeed!
>
> But somehow the orangutans in the mainstream disregard that property with respect to the constant [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h which is the SLOPE of the NON-PARALLEL secant line in Newton's and Leibniz's bogus formulation of calculus.

Are you introdusing a new meaning of constant in mathematics: the constant [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h ?
KON

>
> I, and I ALONE solved the tangent line problem correctly. I produced the FIRST rigorous formulation of calculus in human history by removing all nonsense concepts such as limit theory, infinity and infinitesimals.
>
> I should be honoured by the mainstream community, not ex-communicated and reviled. These evil academics have destroyed my life. I am officially homeless and not in the best of health.
>
> My work is not worth one Abel prize - it is worth ALL the Abel prizes ever awarded to the fools in the Abel prize circus.

On Wednesday, 21 July 2021 at 16:42:57 UTC-4, konyberg wrote:
> onsdag 21. juli 2021 kl. 21:14:45 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 13:56:53 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > Telling students that the derivative definition they are given at university is fraudulent, is the TRUTH. The evidence is ALL here:
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1peL7lzXsmZ4AVsgAwDLvn8QIZbWy8Ebm
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
> > Students:
> >
> > As you can see, once again, there is blind denial from the mainstream, refusing to admit error and accept correction.
> >
> >
> > To wit, one of the limit properties states that the limit of a constant is a constant! Indeed!
> >
> > But somehow the orangutans in the mainstream disregard that property with respect to the constant [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h which is the SLOPE of the NON-PARALLEL secant line in Newton's and Leibniz's bogus formulation of calculus.
> Are you introdusing a new meaning of constant in mathematics: the constant [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h ?

Not at all. Is not the slope of any straight line constant? And is not [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h the slope of any given non-parallel secant line at x and h?

The slopes of the non-parallel secant lines are CONSTANT. They NEVER change because if they did, then my historic geometric identity [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) would be false! But we know that it is TRUE from my theorem!!! Both f'(x) and Q(x,h) are *****CONSTANTS*****.

If you take the limit of a constant, then it has NO EFFECT. The h does NOT change values for any given non-parallel secant line slope. There is ONLY ONE h for each non-parallel secant line slope.

> KON
> >
> > I, and I ALONE solved the tangent line problem correctly. I produced the FIRST rigorous formulation of calculus in human history by removing all nonsense concepts such as limit theory, infinity and infinitesimals.
> >
> > I should be honoured by the mainstream community, not ex-communicated and reviled. These evil academics have destroyed my life. I am officially homeless and not in the best of health.
> >
> > My work is not worth one Abel prize - it is worth ALL the Abel prizes ever awarded to the fools in the Abel prize circus.

On Wednesday, 21 July 2021 at 17:53:49 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 July 2021 at 16:42:57 UTC-4, konyberg wrote:
> > onsdag 21. juli 2021 kl. 21:14:45 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 13:56:53 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > Telling students that the derivative definition they are given at university is fraudulent, is the TRUTH. The evidence is ALL here:
> > > >
> > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1peL7lzXsmZ4AVsgAwDLvn8QIZbWy8Ebm
> > > >
> > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9
> > > >
> > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> > > >
> > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
> > > Students:
> > >
> > > As you can see, once again, there is blind denial from the mainstream, refusing to admit error and accept correction.
> > >
> > >
> > > To wit, one of the limit properties states that the limit of a constant is a constant! Indeed!
> > >
> > > But somehow the orangutans in the mainstream disregard that property with respect to the constant [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h which is the SLOPE of the NON-PARALLEL secant line in Newton's and Leibniz's bogus formulation of calculus.
> > Are you introdusing a new meaning of constant in mathematics: the constant [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h ?
> Not at all. Is not the slope of any straight line constant? And is not [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h the slope of any given non-parallel secant line at x and h?
>
> The slopes of the non-parallel secant lines are CONSTANT. They NEVER change because if they did, then my historic geometric identity [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) would be false! But we know that it is TRUE from my theorem!!! Both f'(x) and Q(x,h) are *****CONSTANTS*****.
>
> If you take the limit of a constant, then it has NO EFFECT. The h does NOT change values for any given non-parallel secant line slope. There is ONLY ONE h for each non-parallel secant line slope.

Try the identity [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) with actual numbers and a given function f(x)= x^2.

Then f'(x) = 2x+h.

If x = 2, then

Now if h=2, we have 2(2)+2 = f'(x) + Q(x,h) = 6 = (16-4)/2 = [(x+h)^2-(x)^2]/h

6 is the slope of the non-parallel secant line.

IF you try ANY other h in the above, then it will NOT be true!!!!

Now if h=1, we have 2(2)+1 = f'(x) + Q(x,h) = 5 = (9-4)/1 = [(x+h)^2-(x)^2]/h

5 is the slope of the non-parallel secant line.

IF you try ANY other h in the above, then it will NOT be true!!!!

and so on...

You get it now? Chuckle.

> > KON
> > >
> > > I, and I ALONE solved the tangent line problem correctly. I produced the FIRST rigorous formulation of calculus in human history by removing all nonsense concepts such as limit theory, infinity and infinitesimals.
> > >
> > > I should be honoured by the mainstream community, not ex-communicated and reviled. These evil academics have destroyed my life. I am officially homeless and not in the best of health.
> > >
> > > My work is not worth one Abel prize - it is worth ALL the Abel prizes ever awarded to the fools in the Abel prize circus.

On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:19:52 PM UTC-4, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 7:59:39 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy)wrote:
>
> >
> > Like I said, there will be no attempt to refute my claims, because these CANNOT be refuted.
> Refute the fact that you cannot even establish that 2+2=4 in your goofy little system, Troll Boy. It's a boat that won't float. Time to scrap it and move on. Math never was your thing.

No reply, Troll Boy???

>
> Dan

On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 3:14:45 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:
>
> But somehow the orangutans in the mainstream disregard that property with respect to the constant [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h which is the SLOPE of the NON-PARALLEL secant line in Newton's and Leibniz's bogus formulation of calculus.

By their formulation of calculus, it is a trivial exercise to show that the derivative of f(x)=|x| is -1 for x<0, +1 for x>0 and undefined for x=0, as is intuitively obvious from its V-shaped graph. In your goofy little system, it remains an intractable problem--a MASSIVE FAILURE! Sorry, but your banning of 0 and negative numbers simply won't cut it in the real world, 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

On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 12:38:25 AM UTC+1, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 3:14:45 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:
> >
> > But somehow the orangutans in the mainstream disregard that property with respect to the constant [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h which is the SLOPE of the NON-PARALLEL secant line in Newton's and Leibniz's bogus formulation of calculus.
> By their formulation of calculus, it is a trivial exercise to show that the derivative of f(x)=|x| is -1 for x<0, +1 for x>0 and undefined for x=0, as is intuitively obvious from its V-shaped graph. In your goofy little system, it remains an intractable problem--a MASSIVE FAILURE! Sorry, but your banning of 0 and negative numbers simply won't cut it in the real world, 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

And just to hit home how much work Mr Gabriel would still have ahead of him; he would still need to re-derive the Euler-Lagrange equation from the calculus of variations without using limits within his 'new calculus', otherwise it is useless for mathematical physics in many areas.

By contrast the mainstream approach to the derivative (aka the sensible approach), has given us classical mechanics, general relativity, and quantum mechanics (and a great deal else). If Mr Gabriel's beliefs were even close to being true, this state of affairs would not be rationally explainable. Its just an amazing coincidence that the whole of physics works :-) .

Kind Regards
QB

On Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 13:56:53 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Telling students that the derivative definition they are given at university is fraudulent, is the TRUTH. The evidence is ALL here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1peL7lzXsmZ4AVsgAwDLvn8QIZbWy8Ebm
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y

Students:

There is a new desperately vicious troll called Quantum Babbling. He claims:

"And just to hit home how much work Mr Gabriel would still have ahead of him; he would still need to re-derive the Euler-Lagrange equation from the calculus of variations without using limits within his 'new calculus', otherwise it is useless for mathematical physics in many areas."

The Euler-Lagrange equations in calculus are easily derivable in the New Calculus and much easier to understand. As for using the New Calculus, it is already used by thousands of STEM professionals worldwide, especially engineers who are those actually producing the most useful things!

There is NOTHING that can be done in mainstream calculus which cannot be done far better in the New Calculus. Bullshit concepts such as "limits" have no place in calculus or any other field of rational thought.

The anon coward known as QB does not know any mathematics, has no mathematics degrees and other than being Dan Christensen's new accomplice on sci.math, is merely a troll.

Observe that mainstream academics are extremely worried! They should be. Their days are numbered.

On Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 13:56:53 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Telling students that the derivative definition they are given at university is fraudulent, is the TRUTH. The evidence is ALL here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1peL7lzXsmZ4AVsgAwDLvn8QIZbWy8Ebm
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y

One of my subscribers commented:

"Japanese students of math have greater familiarity with geometry and are also less dogmatic about mainstream conceits, so you may have better luck introducing this to a Japanese audience."

I responded:

"I taught at private schools in China for approximately 3 years where I had Chinese, Korean and Japanese students in my class - they all understood the New Calculus and when I taught them the mainstream version, they thought I was joking with them!"

Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuSH7mGu49g

Crank John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
....
> Video:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuSH7mGu49g

"for any given x,h Q(x,h) is a constant"

LOL