Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).

Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that

sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )

f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x

f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0

No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:

Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6

Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that

(x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3

No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.

Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.

Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!

On Sunday, 8 August 2021 at 16:49:00 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
>
> Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
>
> sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
>
> f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
>
> f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
>
> f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
>
> No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
>
> Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
>
> Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
>
> (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3

One does not even have to care what is (x-3) because it cancels out with itself.
No morons, you cannot even begin to talk about x being equal to 3 since there is no number such as 0/0. In other words, (x-3)/(x-3) must be a *NUMBER* for otherwise it cannot be used at all.

>
> No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
>
> Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
>
> Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!

On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 4:49:00 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:
> Sin(x)/(x) is defined ...

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be 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

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

>Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).

Nope because 0/0 is not defined.

>f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...

is the sinc function and is defined at x=0.

>Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!

Yet you fail to understand something so basic as 0/0 is not defined.

On Monday, 9 August 2021 at 01:15:39 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> Nope because 0/0 is not defined.

Yes, because multiplying any expression or function by 1 does not change its value.

> >f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...

> is the sinc function and is defined at x=0.

Really? LMAO. This from a purported math master graduate. Too funny. Check again, you imbecile!

> >Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> Yet you fail to understand something so basic as 0/0 is not defined.

I have never claimed it so once again straw argument by a crank like you.

zelos...@gmail.com wrote:

>>Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! +
>>x^4/5! - ... ).
>
> Nope because 0/0 is not defined.

When you establish a contract with zero liabilities regarding a
"pharmaceutical" product, that constitutes the *proof* governments bought
poison to commit genocide on own population.

Some samples from the confidential agreements

The purchaser is aware that the efficacy and long-term effects of the
vaccine are unknown and that side effects may occur which are not
currently known.

The buyer must pay Pfizer for the ordered doses, regardless of how
many you use and regardless of whether Pfizer has the preparation approved
by the authorities. ” (This was written before the FDA’s emergency
approval of the so-called “vaccines”).

The buyer hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Pfizer/BioNTech
and their subsidiaries indemnified against all claims, documents, claims,
losses, damages, debts, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses.

The buyer must pay all losses, including and without limitation costs
for legal fees and other legal costs.

Buyer must indemnify Pfizer for claims and all losses and must
implement this through statutory or regulatory requirements.

Pfizer has the right to make necessary adjustments to the agreed
number of contracted doses and delivery schedule, based on principles
decided by Pfizer. The buyer is obliged to agree to any change.

On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 8:39:09 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote
> Anonymous...

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

>Yes, because multiplying any expression or function by 1 does not change its value.

Nope, but dividing by zero makes it undefined.

>Really? LMAO. This from a purported math master graduate. Too funny. Check again, you imbecile!

I know things well enough, unlike you. You do not understand any nuances.

>I have never claimed it so once again straw argument by a crank like you.

You do when you say sin 0/0=1

On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 01:46:10 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Yes, because multiplying any expression or function by 1 does not change its value.
> Nope, but dividing by zero makes it undefined.

Relevance? There is no division by 0 in x/x for otherwise it cannot be the number 1.

Straw man arguments have no place in mathematics.

> >Really? LMAO. This from a purported math master graduate. Too funny. Check again, you imbecile!
> I know things well enough, unlike you. You do not understand any nuances.

nuance: a subtle difference in or shade of meaning, expression, or sound

In mathematics, we don't have "shades of meaning", only hard, cold facts and logic. Mathematics is not an art. It is a science. We do not have any place for clowns.

> >I have never claimed it so once again straw argument by a crank like you.

> You do when you say sin 0/0=1

No. Because sin x / x = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 4:12:23 AM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 01:46:10 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >Yes, because multiplying any expression or function by 1 does not change its value.
> > Nope, but dividing by zero makes it undefined.

That is defined as zero math.

> Relevance? There is no division by 0 in x/x for otherwise it cannot be the number 1.
You can divide by one in a fraction and it is the same value as the numerator.
Ratios are a two quantities operationally divided...

Mitchell Raemsch

>
> Straw man arguments have no place in mathematics.
> > >Really? LMAO. This from a purported math master graduate. Too funny. Check again, you imbecile!
> > I know things well enough, unlike you. You do not understand any nuances.
> nuance: a subtle difference in or shade of meaning, expression, or sound
>
> In mathematics, we don't have "shades of meaning", only hard, cold facts and logic. Mathematics is not an art. It is a science. We do not have any place for clowns.
> > >I have never claimed it so once again straw argument by a crank like you.
>
> > You do when you say sin 0/0=1
> No. Because sin x / x = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...

>Relevance? There is no division by 0 in x/x for otherwise it cannot be the number 1.

There is when x=0

>In mathematics, we don't have "shades of meaning", only hard, cold facts and logic. Mathematics is not an art. It is a science. We do not have any place for clowns.

There are nuances in mathematics as well that you do not understand. There are nuances in all studiesbecause you got concepts that encompasses much and then there are differences within that matters but most people do not understand.

>No. Because sin x / x = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...

Yes, because sin 0/0 is not equal to 1 - 0^2/3! + 0^4/5! - ...

sin 0/0 is undefined and not equal to anything

for NON-zero x, sin x/x=1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...

for sinc x = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
sinc is defined at 0

This is a nuance case you do not understand.

On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 00:58:48 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Relevance? There is no division by 0 in x/x for otherwise it cannot be the number 1.
> There is when x=0

NO, because if x were 0, then you can't multiply by x/x. The only meaning that x/x can have as a NUMBER is 1.

> >In mathematics, we don't have "shades of meaning", only hard, cold facts and logic. Mathematics is not an art. It is a science. We do not have any place for clowns.

> There are nuances in mathematics as well that you do not understand.

Rubbish.

> There are nuances in all studiesbecause you got concepts that encompasses much and then there are differences within that matters but most people do not understand.
> >No. Because sin x / x = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> Yes, because sin 0/0 is not equal to 1 - 0^2/3! + 0^4/5! - ...

sin 0/0 is EXACTLY equal to 1 - 0^2/3! + 0^4/5! - ...

>
> sin 0/0 is undefined and not equal to anything

Rubbish. 1 = sin 0/0.

> for NON-zero x, sin x/x=1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...

You moron! When one talks about x/x, it means 1, NOTHING else. You don't get to substitute meaningless NON-NUMBERS such as ZERO. Zero is not a "number", you pathetic CRANK!!!!

By definition:

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

THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.

<drivel>

>NO, because if x were 0, then you can't multiply by x/x. The only meaning that x/x can have as a NUMBER is 1.

For non-zero 0, if x=0 then it is undefined.

>Rubbish.

Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, (e.g. mathematics, cryptography, physics) may:

exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
misunderstand or not use standard notation and terminology,
ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.

Fits you quite nicely with this :)

>sin 0/0 is EXACTLY equal to 1 - 0^2/3! + 0^4/5! - ...

Nope, sin 0/0 is undefined

you cannot have undefined = 1

>Rubbish. 1 = sin 0/0.

Incorrect, sin 0/0=0/0=undefined

>You moron! When one talks about x/x, it means 1, NOTHING else. You don't get to substitute meaningless NON-NUMBERS such as ZERO. Zero is not a "number", you pathetic CRANK!!!!

0 is a number, it is in Z, Q and R and thus a number.

>By definition:
>A number is a NAME given to a MEASURE that describes a MAGNITUDE or SIZE.

This is your idea and only that, your idea. That is not what mathematics operates on or even cares about.

On Sunday, 8 August 2021 at 16:49:00 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
>
> Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
>
> sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
>
> f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
>
> f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
>
> f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
>
> No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
>
> Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
>
> Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
>
> (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
>
> No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
>
> Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
>
> Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!

Realisation of new knowledge can only occur in a mind where falsehoods are rejected and correction welcomed.

Vile mainstream academics hate correction because it exposes their stupidity, incompetence, arrogance and jealousy.

torsdag 12 augusti 2021 kl. 13:45:06 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Sunday, 8 August 2021 at 16:49:00 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> >
> > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> >
> > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> >
> > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> >
> > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> >
> > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> >
> > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> >
> > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> >
> > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> >
> > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> >
> > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> >
> > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> >
> > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> Realisation of new knowledge can only occur in a mind where falsehoods are rejected and correction welcomed.
>
> Vile mainstream academics hate correction because it exposes their stupidity, incompetence, arrogance and jealousy.

There is nothing to correct, all there is is your limited mind that cannot grasp anything besides your favourite stuff. You are like a little child

söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
>
> Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
>
> sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
>
> f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
>
> f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
>
> f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
>
> No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
>
> Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
>
> Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
>
> (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
>
> No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
>
> Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
>
> Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!

But x-k/(x-k) is not defined at x=k.

On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 10:53:23 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> >
> > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> >
> > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> >
> > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> >
> > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> >
> > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> >
> > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> >
> > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> >
> > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> >
> > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> >
> > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> >
> > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> >
> > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> But x-k/(x-k) is not defined at x=k.

So fucking what?!!! When a sound mind writes (x-k)/(x-k), one means UNITY.. Obviously it will be meaningless if you put x=k, but in this case, it is a result of the algebra which allows you to multiply by 1.

You don't care at all about x=k when you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k), but all of a sudden, you become a prima donna when you try to cancel (x-k)/(x-k) ? ROFLMAO.

Look idiot, you are dealing with a function that is not in irreducible form after you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k).

It's like you telling me 3/4 x 3/3 = 9/12 and then I write 3/4 x (k-3)/(k-3) =/= 9/12 when k-3 = 3. Get it idiot??

Eram semper recta wrote:

>> But x-k/(x-k) is not defined at x=k.
>
> So fucking what?!!! When a sound mind writes (x-k)/(x-k), one means
> UNITY. Obviously it will be meaningless if you put x=k, but in this
> case, it is a result of the algebra which allows you to multiply by 1.

So what?? You can wages war in any nation, where there are people poor
enough to cooperate in treason, and are willed to tolerate them for the
sake of getting a stable income.

There was no Soviet failure. There were armed terrorists fighting
themselves to destroy any good the Russians could have done. The Soviet
Union DID NOT invade Afghanistan to support an unpopular government as
you claim. The USSR came to the help of the progressive government of
Afghanistan by invitation.

fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 18:06:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 10:53:23 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > >
> > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > >
> > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > >
> > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > >
> > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > >
> > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > >
> > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > >
> > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > >
> > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > >
> > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > >
> > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > >
> > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > >
> > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> > But x-k/(x-k) is not defined at x=k.
> So fucking what?!!! When a sound mind writes (x-k)/(x-k), one means UNITY.. Obviously it will be meaningless if you put x=k, but in this case, it is a result of the algebra which allows you to multiply by 1.
>
> You don't care at all about x=k when you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k), but all of a sudden, you become a prima donna when you try to cancel (x-k)/(x-k) ? ROFLMAO.
>
> Look idiot, you are dealing with a function that is not in irreducible form after you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k).
>
> It's like you telling me 3/4 x 3/3 = 9/12 and then I write 3/4 x (k-3)/(k-3) =/= 9/12 when k-3 = 3. Get it idiot??
3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) as a function in k is only equal to 3/4 when k is not 3.

On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 15:47:49 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 18:06:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 10:53:23 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > > >
> > > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > > >
> > > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > > >
> > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > >
> > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > >
> > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > >
> > > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > > >
> > > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > > >
> > > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > > >
> > > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > > >
> > > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > > >
> > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> > > But x-k/(x-k) is not defined at x=k.
> > So fucking what?!!! When a sound mind writes (x-k)/(x-k), one means UNITY. Obviously it will be meaningless if you put x=k, but in this case, it is a result of the algebra which allows you to multiply by 1.
> >
> > You don't care at all about x=k when you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k), but all of a sudden, you become a prima donna when you try to cancel (x-k)/(x-k) ? ROFLMAO.
> >
> > Look idiot, you are dealing with a function that is not in irreducible form after you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k).
> >
> > It's like you telling me 3/4 x 3/3 = 9/12 and then I write 3/4 x (k-3)/(k-3) =/= 9/12 when k-3 = 3. Get it idiot??
> 3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) as a function in k is only equal to 3/4 when k is not 3.

3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) is not a function. It's an expression. 3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) is ALWAYS equal to 3/4. It CANNOT be equal to anything else. In mathematics, we deal ONLY with numbers. So if (k-3)/(k-3) is no longer a meaningful number, then you are no longer working with *numbers* but with some other garbage.

Really, you would write f(k) = 3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) ?? LMAO. Is this a fancy way of dropping 3 from the domain of f? A fancy way of punching a hole in f? Are you actually more stupid than I thought?

The reason you have such rot is due to the fact that your limit theory is such conflated bullshit. You NEED holes for expressions like to 0 < |x-c|<delta => |f(x)-L|<epsilon make any sense at all! It's a load of crap that you have been indoctrinated to believe is true.

Really?!!

After serious thinking Eram semper recta wrote :
> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 15:47:49 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
>> fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 18:06:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
>>> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 10:53:23 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
>>>>> Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! +
>>>>> x^4/5! - ... ).
>>>>>
>>>>> Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are
>>>>> morons) is an idiot to think that
>>>>>
>>>>> sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
>>>>>
>>>>> f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
>>>>>
>>>>> f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
>>>>>
>>>>> f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
>>>>>
>>>>> No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar
>>>>> in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
>>>>>
>>>>> Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
>>>>>
>>>>> Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
>>>>>
>>>>> (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
>>>>>
>>>>> No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are
>>>>> dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value
>>>>> cannot change.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
>>>> But x-k/(x-k) is not defined at x=k.
>>> So fucking what?!!! When a sound mind writes (x-k)/(x-k), one means UNITY.
>>> Obviously it will be meaningless if you put x=k, but in this case, it is a
>>> result of the algebra which allows you to multiply by 1.
>>>
>>> You don't care at all about x=k when you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k), but all
>>> of a sudden, you become a prima donna when you try to cancel (x-k)/(x-k) ?
>>> ROFLMAO.
>>>
>>> Look idiot, you are dealing with a function that is not in irreducible form
>>> after you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k).
>>>
>>> It's like you telling me 3/4 x 3/3 = 9/12 and then I write 3/4 x
>>> (k-3)/(k-3) =/= 9/12 when k-3 = 3. Get it idiot??
>> 3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) as a function in k is only equal to 3/4 when k is not 3.
>
>
> 3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) is not a function. It's an expression. 3/4*(k-3)/(k-3)
> is ALWAYS equal to 3/4. It CANNOT be equal to anything else. In mathematics,
> we deal ONLY with numbers. So if (k-3)/(k-3) is no longer a meaningful
> number, then you are no longer working with *numbers* but with some other
> garbage.

If k is equal to three, then your expression represents a division by
zero error or just NaN.

Zero simply does not exist as a denominator in Q even after embedding
it into R or C.

lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:33:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 15:47:49 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 18:06:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 10:53:23 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > > > >
> > > > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > > > >
> > > > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > > > >
> > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > >
> > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > >
> > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > >
> > > > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > > > >
> > > > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > > > >
> > > > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > > > >
> > > > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > > > >
> > > > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> > > > But x-k/(x-k) is not defined at x=k.
> > > So fucking what?!!! When a sound mind writes (x-k)/(x-k), one means UNITY. Obviously it will be meaningless if you put x=k, but in this case, it is a result of the algebra which allows you to multiply by 1.
> > >
> > > You don't care at all about x=k when you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k), but all of a sudden, you become a prima donna when you try to cancel (x-k)/(x-k) ? ROFLMAO.
> > >
> > > Look idiot, you are dealing with a function that is not in irreducible form after you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k).
> > >
> > > It's like you telling me 3/4 x 3/3 = 9/12 and then I write 3/4 x (k-3)/(k-3) =/= 9/12 when k-3 = 3. Get it idiot??
> > 3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) as a function in k is only equal to 3/4 when k is not 3..
> 3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) is not a function. It's an expression. 3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) is ALWAYS equal to 3/4. It CANNOT be equal to anything else. In mathematics, we deal ONLY with numbers. So if (k-3)/(k-3) is no longer a meaningful number, then you are no longer working with *numbers* but with some other garbage.
>
> Really, you would write f(k) = 3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) ?? LMAO. Is this a fancy way of dropping 3 from the domain of f? A fancy way of punching a hole in f? Are you actually more stupid than I thought?
>
> The reason you have such rot is due to the fact that your limit theory is such conflated bullshit. You NEED holes for expressions like to 0 < |x-c|<delta => |f(x)-L|<epsilon make any sense at all! It's a load of crap that you have been indoctrinated to believe is true.
>
> Really?!!
It is a function in k. If k is a fixed number which is not three, of course that's just equal to 1. If k is 3, then it's undefined.

How is this 'rot'? It's simply because you cannot divide by zero in a field..

On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:46:55 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:33:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 15:47:49 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 18:06:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 10:53:23 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > > > > >
> > > > > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > > > > >
> > > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > > >
> > > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> > > > > But x-k/(x-k) is not defined at x=k.
> > > > So fucking what?!!! When a sound mind writes (x-k)/(x-k), one means UNITY. Obviously it will be meaningless if you put x=k, but in this case, it is a result of the algebra which allows you to multiply by 1.
> > > >
> > > > You don't care at all about x=k when you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k), but all of a sudden, you become a prima donna when you try to cancel (x-k)/(x-k) ? ROFLMAO.
> > > >
> > > > Look idiot, you are dealing with a function that is not in irreducible form after you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k).
> > > >
> > > > It's like you telling me 3/4 x 3/3 = 9/12 and then I write 3/4 x (k-3)/(k-3) =/= 9/12 when k-3 = 3. Get it idiot??
> > > 3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) as a function in k is only equal to 3/4 when k is not 3.
> > 3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) is not a function. It's an expression. 3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) is ALWAYS equal to 3/4. It CANNOT be equal to anything else. In mathematics, we deal ONLY with numbers. So if (k-3)/(k-3) is no longer a meaningful number, then you are no longer working with *numbers* but with some other garbage.
> >
> > Really, you would write f(k) = 3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) ?? LMAO. Is this a fancy way of dropping 3 from the domain of f? A fancy way of punching a hole in f? Are you actually more stupid than I thought?
> >
> > The reason you have such rot is due to the fact that your limit theory is such conflated bullshit. You NEED holes for expressions like to 0 < |x-c|<delta => |f(x)-L|<epsilon make any sense at all! It's a load of crap that you have been indoctrinated to believe is true.
> >
> > Really?!!
> It is a function in k.

Nonsense. f(k) = 3/4 doesn't even depend on k. It's malformed if by creating a new function you make it undefined at x=3.

> If k is a fixed number which is not three, of course that's just equal to 1. If k is 3, then it's undefined.
>
> How is this 'rot'? It's simply because you cannot divide by zero in a field.

No, moron. It has nothing to do with "field" which is a bullshit concept.

You cannot divide by zero because zero is not a number.

lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 18:12:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Saturday, 14 August 2021 at 11:46:55 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 13:33:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 15:47:49 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 18:06:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 10:53:23 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > söndag 8 augusti 2021 kl. 22:49:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > Sin(x)/(x) is defined at x=0 because sin(x)/x = (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... ).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Prof. Jack Huizenga (and his fellow mainstream math colleagues who are morons) is an idiot to think that
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > sin(x)/x =/= (x/x) * (1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ... )
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > f(0)=1 and since f(x) = sin(x)/x, it is true that 1=sin(0)/0
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, there is no division actually taken place anywhere. This is similar in a sense to your mainstream drivel:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lim (x->3) (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = 6
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mainstream math academics are too fucking stupid to realise that
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (x-3)(x+3)/(x-3) = x+3
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No morons, we are not dealing with your "set theoretic" functions, we are dealing with "sound mathematics" which tells us these facts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mathematics tells us that if we multiply any expression by 1, its value cannot change.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, I do know better! I am smarter than YOU!
> > > > > > But x-k/(x-k) is not defined at x=k.
> > > > > So fucking what?!!! When a sound mind writes (x-k)/(x-k), one means UNITY. Obviously it will be meaningless if you put x=k, but in this case, it is a result of the algebra which allows you to multiply by 1.
> > > > >
> > > > > You don't care at all about x=k when you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k), but all of a sudden, you become a prima donna when you try to cancel (x-k)/(x-k) ? ROFLMAO.
> > > > >
> > > > > Look idiot, you are dealing with a function that is not in irreducible form after you multiply by (x-k)/(x-k).
> > > > >
> > > > > It's like you telling me 3/4 x 3/3 = 9/12 and then I write 3/4 x (k-3)/(k-3) =/= 9/12 when k-3 = 3. Get it idiot??
> > > > 3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) as a function in k is only equal to 3/4 when k is not 3.
> > > 3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) is not a function. It's an expression. 3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) is ALWAYS equal to 3/4. It CANNOT be equal to anything else. In mathematics, we deal ONLY with numbers. So if (k-3)/(k-3) is no longer a meaningful number, then you are no longer working with *numbers* but with some other garbage.
> > >
> > > Really, you would write f(k) = 3/4*(k-3)/(k-3) ?? LMAO. Is this a fancy way of dropping 3 from the domain of f? A fancy way of punching a hole in f? Are you actually more stupid than I thought?
> > >
> > > The reason you have such rot is due to the fact that your limit theory is such conflated bullshit. You NEED holes for expressions like to 0 < |x-c|<delta => |f(x)-L|<epsilon make any sense at all! It's a load of crap that you have been indoctrinated to believe is true.
> > >
> > > Really?!!
> > It is a function in k.
> Nonsense. f(k) = 3/4 doesn't even depend on k. It's malformed if by creating a new function you make it undefined at x=3.
> > If k is a fixed number which is not three, of course that's just equal to 1. If k is 3, then it's undefined.
> >
> > How is this 'rot'? It's simply because you cannot divide by zero in a field.
> No, moron. It has nothing to do with "field" which is a bullshit concept.
>
> You cannot divide by zero because zero is not a number.
(x-k)/(x-k) can surely be seen as a function of k which is defined whenever k is not x. Regardless, (x-k)/(x-k) is not the same as the function 1 since the constant function 1 is defined everywhere. Division by zero isn't allowed in a field, which the reals are.