Leonhard Euler was one of the preeminent mainstream mathematics cranks. It was Euler who defined in his Elements of Al-gibberish (Algebra?) that S = Lim S.

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

Link to sci.math discussion mentioned in the video:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/4XuGLMwWCXI/m/jVeNMIflBQAJ

A mainstream math crank is a member of the mainstream math community who cannot be convinced of his/her error even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

About 30 years ago, an interesting research project was conducted SOLELY on mainstream academics with a view to learning why facts do not change their minds. One of the results is that they suffer from confirmation bias. The article link follows below:

www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

Eram semper recta wrote:

> Leonhard Euler was one of the preeminent mainstream mathematics cranks.
> It was Euler who defined in his Elements of Al-gibberish (Algebra?) that
> S = Lim S.

Here we go.

Merkel Snake Dance 1995 https://www.bitchute.com/video/CqvIKnMKELvI/

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

Globalist Purge Of Humanity is Happening - Money Power Glory (Lana Del
Ray) https://www.bitchute.com/video/ugsPTMaClb5g/

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 1:37:34 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:
> Leonhard Euler was one of the preeminent mainstream mathematics cranks. It was Euler who defined in his Elements of Al-gibberish (Algebra?) that S = Lim S.
>

That was YOUR blunder, Troll Boy! It was YOU that defaced a copy of Euler's original article on the topic with you nonsensical "S = Lim S", desperately hoping that at least one reader here was as dumb as you are. The whole thing just blew up in your face, but pathological liar that you are, you can't back down. You have to keep repeating the same lie over and over again. The Donald Trump of math. Really quite pathetic.

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

Mathematical man is an imbecile.
We shall know the Mind of God.
Math came before man.
Look at the BB's mathematical
beginning...

For advanced man the aether
is where the math is at.
Zero math is a math of its own.

Mitchell Raemsch

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 Friday, 6 August 2021 at 13:48:03 UTC-4, ANON TROLL Kolijn Sneijers wrote:

<snip - crap>

GET VACCINATED, YOU IDIOT!!!!

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 3:25:57 PM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 13:48:03 UTC-4, ANON TROLL Kolijn Sneijers wrote:
>
> <snip - crap>
>
> GET VACCINATED, YOU IDIOT!!!!

Did you come from a brilliant monkey Gabriel?

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 6:24:32 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy)wrote:

What Mr. Rectum snipped and refused to address:

That was YOUR blunder, Troll Boy! It was YOU that defaced a copy of Euler's original article on the topic with you nonsensical "S = Lim S", desperately hoping that at least one reader here was as dumb as you are. The whole thing just blew up in your face, but pathological liar that you are, you can't back down. You have to keep repeating the same lie over and over again. The Donald Trump of math. Really quite pathetic.

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!

> > Anonymous coward...

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be 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

Eram semper recta wrote:

> On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 13:48:03 UTC-4, ANON TROLL Kolijn Sneijers
> wrote:
>
> <snip - crap> GET VACCINATED, YOU IDIOT!!!!

You are fucked up in your head being injected, not vaccinated, for no
reason at all, by completely strangers, not doctors, having no idea what
they are injecting you with. That's the definition of imbecility, most
probably an inbreed family and culture issue, not understanding what is
going on.

You might be thinking, once you are completely fucked up in your head
already, others should join, so you can say, you are not fucked up in
your head alone.

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 3:25:57 PM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
>> On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 13:48:03 UTC-4, ANON TROLL Kolijn Sneijers
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip - crap> GET VACCINATED, YOU IDIOT!!!!
>
> Did you come from a brilliant monkey Gabriel?

You are insulting the monkeys. Can't you see what he does, he is
"snipping crap".

Merkel Snake Dance 1995 https://www.bitchute.com/video/CqvIKnMKELvI/

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

Globalist Purge Of Humanity is Happening - Money Power Glory (Lana Del
Ray) https://www.bitchute.com/video/ugsPTMaClb5g/

On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 13:37:34 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Leonhard Euler was one of the preeminent mainstream mathematics cranks. It was Euler who defined in his Elements of Al-gibberish (Algebra?) that S = Lim S.
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
>
> Link to sci.math discussion mentioned in the video:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/4XuGLMwWCXI/m/jVeNMIflBQAJ
>
> A mainstream math crank is a member of the mainstream math community who cannot be convinced of his/her error even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
>
> About 30 years ago, an interesting research project was conducted SOLELY on mainstream academics with a view to learning why facts do not change their minds. One of the results is that they suffer from confirmation bias. The article link follows below:
>
> www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

I know we don't agree on many things. However, you all need to come together to defeat the nym-shifting vicious troll from Czechoslovakia. Just keep reporting his garbage as misinformation, which is what it is. DO NOT respond to him.

fredag 6 augusti 2021 kl. 19:37:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> Leonhard Euler was one of the preeminent mainstream mathematics cranks. It was Euler who defined in his Elements of Al-gibberish (Algebra?) that S = Lim S.
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
>
> Link to sci.math discussion mentioned in the video:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/4XuGLMwWCXI/m/jVeNMIflBQAJ
>
> A mainstream math crank is a member of the mainstream math community who cannot be convinced of his/her error even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
>
> About 30 years ago, an interesting research project was conducted SOLELY on mainstream academics with a view to learning why facts do not change their minds. One of the results is that they suffer from confirmation bias. The article link follows below:
>
> www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

You're shitting on algebra now? Wow Crank Magnetism is increasing for you!

On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 13:37:34 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Leonhard Euler was one of the preeminent mainstream mathematics cranks. It was Euler who defined in his Elements of Al-gibberish (Algebra?) that S = Lim S.
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
>
> Link to sci.math discussion mentioned in the video:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/4XuGLMwWCXI/m/jVeNMIflBQAJ
>
> A mainstream math crank is a member of the mainstream math community who cannot be convinced of his/her error even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
>
> About 30 years ago, an interesting research project was conducted SOLELY on mainstream academics with a view to learning why facts do not change their minds. One of the results is that they suffer from confirmation bias. The article link follows below:
>
> www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

The typical mainstream math crank has never even heard of Euler's Elements of Algebra, never mind read or studied the same.