On Monday, 17 February 2020 at 15:57:33 UTC-5, Kook Dan Christensen responded to Kook Archimedes Plutonium:
> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 3:09:11 PM UTC-5, Kook Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > In 2013, AP decides to write a true correct book on Calculus, eliminating the Limit concept as can be seen in the title of his first edition and the title of his 8th edition all posted in the year 2013.
>
> Do you really think you were the first kook to think he could do calculus without the concept of a limit, Archie Pu?

Yes, I was the first to produce a rigorous formulation of calculus - it's called the New Calculus which is 100% rigorous.

The most damning evidence against the mainstream is the fact that calculus can be done without any of the bullshit of infinity, infinitesimals and limit theory.

My historic geometric theorem of January 2020 was the final nail in the coffin of the bogus mainstream calculus:

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

Seeing is believing! Download the following applet to prove that what I am claiming is true for every smooth function including so-called piecewise functions like the bullshit f(x)=|x|:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ON1GQ7b6UNpZSEEsbG14eAFCPv8p03pv

Also, I show you how the same identity is used in the definition of your mainstream integral:

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

This response is not for the vile crank and criminal anon Dan Christensen but for any student who might venture on his bullshit and because he is a spammer, I post a spam response before he spams my comment again:

STUDENTS BEWARE: Dan Christensen is a vicious spamming troll and has been at it the last 5 years!

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

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 Wednesday, 4 August 2021 at 11:24:35 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Monday, 17 February 2020 at 15:57:33 UTC-5, Kook Dan Christensen responded to Kook Archimedes Plutonium:
> > On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 3:09:11 PM UTC-5, Kook Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > In 2013, AP decides to write a true correct book on Calculus, eliminating the Limit concept as can be seen in the title of his first edition and the title of his 8th edition all posted in the year 2013.
> >
> > Do you really think you were the first kook to think he could do calculus without the concept of a limit, Archie Pu?
>
>
> Yes, I was the first to produce a rigorous formulation of calculus - it's called the New Calculus which is 100% rigorous.
>
> The most damning evidence against the mainstream is the fact that calculus can be done without any of the bullshit of infinity, infinitesimals and limit theory.
>
> My historic geometric theorem of January 2020 was the final nail in the coffin of the bogus mainstream calculus:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> Seeing is believing! Download the following applet to prove that what I am claiming is true for every smooth function including so-called piecewise functions like the bullshit f(x)=|x|:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ON1GQ7b6UNpZSEEsbG14eAFCPv8p03pv
>
> Also, I show you how the same identity is used in the definition of your mainstream integral:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
>
> This response is not for the vile crank and criminal anon Dan Christensen but for any student who might venture on his bullshit and because he is a spammer, I post a spam response before he spams my comment again:
>
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Dan Christensen is a vicious spamming troll and has been at it the last 5 years!
>
> 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
>
> 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

Of course, there is nothing anyone would want to steal from the deranged psychopath Ludwig Phoelman (Archimedes Plutonium).

Eram semper recta wrote:

>> Do you really think you were the first kook to think he could do
>> calculus without the concept of a limit, Archie Pu?
>
> Yes, I was the first to produce a rigorous formulation of calculus -
> it's called the New Calculus which is 100% rigorous.

Listen up, they want "100% vaccination" now, guess three times why. Epic.

OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/phK8Sel4mrgg/