If you watch the following video, you will be astounded at the amount of bullshit that is propagated in non-standard analysis. Not only do you need to know calculus in order to show the non-standard analysis works, but you also need a couple of semesters of abstract algebra and group theory!

Of course it's all bullshit on top of existing bullshit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArAjEq8uFvA

The parts that stand out:

0:21 We assume some familiarity with calculus (limit, continuity, derivative) and abstract algebra (ring, field, quotient).

JG: This is typical mainstream modus operandi of self-referential "proofs". Chuckle.

0:56 In the history of calculus, Leibniz and Newton freely used infinitesimals in calculus.

JG: Utter bullshit. There is no such thing as an infinitesimal. Although the presenter goes on to show later that he can produce such through ultra-filters, the theory is gibberish and fails under the slightest logic inspection.

1:10 Intuitively, an infinitesimal is an infinitely small number.

JG: No respectable academic should ever use the word "intuitive".

"Intuitively, an infinitely small number is an infinitely small number."

Circular reasoning "works" in mainstream. Chuckle.

There is NO such thing as an "infinitely small number". It is mythology.

1:41 The derivative of x^2 is 2x. If dx is an infinitesimal change in x, ...., then
dy/dx = [(x+dx)^2-x^2]/dx = 2x + dx

Since dx is infinitesimal, we can ignore it and write dy/dx = 2x.

JG: Not only is no such thing as an infinitesimal, but "infinitesimal change" is more shit on top of existing shit. Meaningless nonsense. You simply have to believe that an infinitesimal exists and that you can ignore it, which is pretty strange because if you are just going to ignore it, then why even bother if it exists? LMAO.

2:04 But this argument is nonsense.
If dx = 0, we can't divide dy by dx to get dy/dx
If dx=/= 0, we can't ignore it.
assuming dx is a real number.

JG: The scattered brained idiot got one thing right only: "His argument is nonsense". Then he seems to be unable to make up his mind whether he actually assumed dx is an "infinitesimal" or a "real number" - both non-existent objects in sound mathematics (non-existent means neither has a well-formed definition).

2:17 "Wait, why can't we divide by 0 again?"

JG: LMAO. Because 0 is not a TRUE number, you fucking moron!!!!! ROFLMAO. All the arithmetic operations are first defined GEOMETRICALLY, long before algebra is introduced in Book 7 of Euclid's Elements.

2:17 For numbers p and q, the quotient p/q should be a unique number r such that p=rq.

JG: I could write a book in response to that utter garbage claim showing how much this dimwit misunderstands in mathematics. I'll just touch on a few misconceptions.

1. p/q is a NUMBER. It does not mean "p divided by q".
2. Next, r is any other number that is in proportion or equal to r.
3. p=rq implies that multiplication is already known, but this is nonsense because division comes before multiplication and multiplication is defined using division.

2:51 So it doesn't make sense to define p/0.

JG: It sure doesn't, but not for any of the reasons the dimwit (include yourself here!) imagines to be the case.

3:03 Berkeley calls them "ghosts of departed quantities".

JG: I would have loved to meet this Bishop. Chuckle. Very witty guy indeed..

The idiot presenter continues on ad nauseam.

End of Bullshit.
----------------------------------------------------------------
My geometric theorem is explained here:

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

Fixing the broken mainstream definition of definite integral:

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

Still not as elegant and rigorous as my New Calculus:

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

Eram semper recta wrote:

> If you watch the following video, you will be astounded at the amount of
> bullshit that is propagated in non-standard analysis. Not only do you
> need to know calculus in order to show the non-standard analysis works,
> but you also need a couple of semesters of abstract algebra and group

Thanks. Excerpt: Here’s how they crushed Mayor Sobyanin’s vaccine
passport – and it was pretty simple. Moscow residents simply stopped
frequenting any business that required a vaccine passport.

The really beautiful thing about this was that the vaccinated people
stood in solidarity with the unvaccinated. Business trickled to near zero
at all establishments where the vaccine passport was required.

Moscow residents let their hair grow out, skipped going to bars and
restaurants, didn’t go to the movies, didn’t stay in hotels or do
anything else that required a vaccine passport.

Business owners from all over the city were suddenly calling Mayor
Sobyanin’s office to chew his ear off about the vaccine passports. They
were going broke, and they were mad as hell about it.

Marina Zemskova, the head of a regional hotel and restaurant association
in Russia, said the vaccine passport turned out to be worse for business
than a full lockdown. At least if there was another lockdown, she notes,
businesses “could count on some kind of government support measures.”

There’s no government support coming under a vaccine passport system.
What the not-very-elite elites failed to anticipate about Moscow
residents was they would simply not participate in the scam at all.

The business owners were so infuriated with the mayor that Sobyanin made
a sudden, surprise announcement on July 19th that nobody needs to use a
vaccine passport anymore. He made up a hilarious excuse, claiming that
COVID case rates were all better suddenly, as the reason for lifting the
QR code passports.

But everyone knew the truth. Moscow residents decided that their medical
privacy and their right to travel is more important than whatever the
people in charge were telling them.

It was a massive case of civil disobedience – and they didn’t even have
to go outside and set things on fire in a big protest. All they did was
say, “Any business that wants to see a vaccine passport from me is not
getting any of my money.”

That’s how you do it.

On Sunday, 22 August 2021 at 09:56:04 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> If you watch the following video, you will be astounded at the amount of bullshit that is propagated in non-standard analysis. Not only do you need to know calculus in order to show the non-standard analysis works, but you also need a couple of semesters of abstract algebra and group theory!
>
> Of course it's all bullshit on top of existing bullshit:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArAjEq8uFvA
>
> The parts that stand out:
>
> 0:21 We assume some familiarity with calculus (limit, continuity, derivative) and abstract algebra (ring, field, quotient).
>
> JG: This is typical mainstream modus operandi of self-referential "proofs". Chuckle.
>
> 0:56 In the history of calculus, Leibniz and Newton freely used infinitesimals in calculus.
>
> JG: Utter bullshit. There is no such thing as an infinitesimal. Although the presenter goes on to show later that he can produce such through ultra-filters, the theory is gibberish and fails under the slightest logic inspection.
>
> 1:10 Intuitively, an infinitesimal is an infinitely small number.
>
> JG: No respectable academic should ever use the word "intuitive".
>
> "Intuitively, an infinitely small number is an infinitely small number."
>
> Circular reasoning "works" in mainstream. Chuckle.
>
> There is NO such thing as an "infinitely small number". It is mythology.
>
> 1:41 The derivative of x^2 is 2x. If dx is an infinitesimal change in x, ...., then
> dy/dx = [(x+dx)^2-x^2]/dx = 2x + dx
>
> Since dx is infinitesimal, we can ignore it and write dy/dx = 2x.
>
> JG: Not only is no such thing as an infinitesimal, but "infinitesimal change" is more shit on top of existing shit. Meaningless nonsense. You simply have to believe that an infinitesimal exists and that you can ignore it, which is pretty strange because if you are just going to ignore it, then why even bother if it exists? LMAO.
>
> 2:04 But this argument is nonsense.
> If dx = 0, we can't divide dy by dx to get dy/dx
> If dx=/= 0, we can't ignore it.
> assuming dx is a real number.
>
> JG: The scattered brained idiot got one thing right only: "His argument is nonsense". Then he seems to be unable to make up his mind whether he actually assumed dx is an "infinitesimal" or a "real number" - both non-existent objects in sound mathematics (non-existent means neither has a well-formed definition).
>
> 2:17 "Wait, why can't we divide by 0 again?"
>
> JG: LMAO. Because 0 is not a TRUE number, you fucking moron!!!!! ROFLMAO. All the arithmetic operations are first defined GEOMETRICALLY, long before algebra is introduced in Book 7 of Euclid's Elements.
>
> 2:17 For numbers p and q, the quotient p/q should be a unique number r such that p=rq.
>
> JG: I could write a book in response to that utter garbage claim showing how much this dimwit misunderstands in mathematics. I'll just touch on a few misconceptions.
>
> 1. p/q is a NUMBER. It does not mean "p divided by q".
> 2. Next, r is any other number that is in proportion or equal to r.
> 3. p=rq implies that multiplication is already known, but this is nonsense because division comes before multiplication and multiplication is defined using division.
>
> 2:51 So it doesn't make sense to define p/0.
>
> JG: It sure doesn't, but not for any of the reasons the dimwit (include yourself here!) imagines to be the case.
>
> 3:03 Berkeley calls them "ghosts of departed quantities".
>
> JG: I would have loved to meet this Bishop. Chuckle. Very witty guy indeed.
>
> The idiot presenter continues on ad nauseam.
>
> End of Bullshit.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> My geometric theorem is explained here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> Fixing the broken mainstream definition of definite integral:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
>
> Still not as elegant and rigorous as my New Calculus:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO

Refreshed due to Czech troll activity.

Eram semper recta wrote:

> Refreshed due to Czech troll activity.

Just wondering if they force vaccines on everyone how is that not a
violation of your *basic_human_rights*. Human rights is a thing of the
past.

Citizen Police Force Shuts Down Pro-Vaccine Businesses
https://www.bitchute.com/video/5u0m77qCyUUG/

On Sunday, 22 August 2021 at 09:56:04 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> If you watch the following video, you will be astounded at the amount of bullshit that is propagated in non-standard analysis. Not only do you need to know calculus in order to show the non-standard analysis works, but you also need a couple of semesters of abstract algebra and group theory!
>
> Of course it's all bullshit on top of existing bullshit:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArAjEq8uFvA
>
> The parts that stand out:
>
> 0:21 We assume some familiarity with calculus (limit, continuity, derivative) and abstract algebra (ring, field, quotient).
>
> JG: This is typical mainstream modus operandi of self-referential "proofs". Chuckle.
>
> 0:56 In the history of calculus, Leibniz and Newton freely used infinitesimals in calculus.
>
> JG: Utter bullshit. There is no such thing as an infinitesimal. Although the presenter goes on to show later that he can produce such through ultra-filters, the theory is gibberish and fails under the slightest logic inspection.
>
> 1:10 Intuitively, an infinitesimal is an infinitely small number.
>
> JG: No respectable academic should ever use the word "intuitive".
>
> "Intuitively, an infinitely small number is an infinitely small number."
>
> Circular reasoning "works" in mainstream. Chuckle.
>
> There is NO such thing as an "infinitely small number". It is mythology.
>
> 1:41 The derivative of x^2 is 2x. If dx is an infinitesimal change in x, ...., then
> dy/dx = [(x+dx)^2-x^2]/dx = 2x + dx
>
> Since dx is infinitesimal, we can ignore it and write dy/dx = 2x.
>
> JG: Not only is no such thing as an infinitesimal, but "infinitesimal change" is more shit on top of existing shit. Meaningless nonsense. You simply have to believe that an infinitesimal exists and that you can ignore it, which is pretty strange because if you are just going to ignore it, then why even bother if it exists? LMAO.
>
> 2:04 But this argument is nonsense.
> If dx = 0, we can't divide dy by dx to get dy/dx
> If dx=/= 0, we can't ignore it.
> assuming dx is a real number.
>
> JG: The scattered brained idiot got one thing right only: "His argument is nonsense". Then he seems to be unable to make up his mind whether he actually assumed dx is an "infinitesimal" or a "real number" - both non-existent objects in sound mathematics (non-existent means neither has a well-formed definition).
>
> 2:17 "Wait, why can't we divide by 0 again?"
>
> JG: LMAO. Because 0 is not a TRUE number, you fucking moron!!!!! ROFLMAO. All the arithmetic operations are first defined GEOMETRICALLY, long before algebra is introduced in Book 7 of Euclid's Elements.
>
> 2:17 For numbers p and q, the quotient p/q should be a unique number r such that p=rq.
>
> JG: I could write a book in response to that utter garbage claim showing how much this dimwit misunderstands in mathematics. I'll just touch on a few misconceptions.
>
> 1. p/q is a NUMBER. It does not mean "p divided by q".
> 2. Next, r is any other number that is in proportion or equal to r.
> 3. p=rq implies that multiplication is already known, but this is nonsense because division comes before multiplication and multiplication is defined using division.
>
> 2:51 So it doesn't make sense to define p/0.
>
> JG: It sure doesn't, but not for any of the reasons the dimwit (include yourself here!) imagines to be the case.
>
> 3:03 Berkeley calls them "ghosts of departed quantities".
>
> JG: I would have loved to meet this Bishop. Chuckle. Very witty guy indeed.
>
> The idiot presenter continues on ad nauseam.
>
> End of Bullshit.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> My geometric theorem is explained here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> Fixing the broken mainstream definition of definite integral:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
>
> Still not as elegant and rigorous as my New Calculus:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO

Czech troll at it again.

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of JG's fake math

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 9:56:04 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote...

JG (Troll Boy) 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

The New Calculus is proof that you CAN DO calculus without the use of LIMIT THEORY.

Don't believe me? Study it. You will be pleasantly surprised.

I am a genius and the greatest mathematician alive today.

On Sunday, 22 August 2021 at 09:56:04 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> If you watch the following video, you will be astounded at the amount of bullshit that is propagated in non-standard analysis. Not only do you need to know calculus in order to show the non-standard analysis works, but you also need a couple of semesters of abstract algebra and group theory!
>
> Of course it's all bullshit on top of existing bullshit:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArAjEq8uFvA
>
> The parts that stand out:
>
> 0:21 We assume some familiarity with calculus (limit, continuity, derivative) and abstract algebra (ring, field, quotient).
>
> JG: This is typical mainstream modus operandi of self-referential "proofs". Chuckle.
>
> 0:56 In the history of calculus, Leibniz and Newton freely used infinitesimals in calculus.
>
> JG: Utter bullshit. There is no such thing as an infinitesimal. Although the presenter goes on to show later that he can produce such through ultra-filters, the theory is gibberish and fails under the slightest logic inspection.
>
> 1:10 Intuitively, an infinitesimal is an infinitely small number.
>
> JG: No respectable academic should ever use the word "intuitive".
>
> "Intuitively, an infinitely small number is an infinitely small number."
>
> Circular reasoning "works" in mainstream. Chuckle.
>
> There is NO such thing as an "infinitely small number". It is mythology.
>
> 1:41 The derivative of x^2 is 2x. If dx is an infinitesimal change in x, ...., then
> dy/dx = [(x+dx)^2-x^2]/dx = 2x + dx
>
> Since dx is infinitesimal, we can ignore it and write dy/dx = 2x.
>
> JG: Not only is no such thing as an infinitesimal, but "infinitesimal change" is more shit on top of existing shit. Meaningless nonsense. You simply have to believe that an infinitesimal exists and that you can ignore it, which is pretty strange because if you are just going to ignore it, then why even bother if it exists? LMAO.
>
> 2:04 But this argument is nonsense.
> If dx = 0, we can't divide dy by dx to get dy/dx
> If dx=/= 0, we can't ignore it.
> assuming dx is a real number.
>
> JG: The scattered brained idiot got one thing right only: "His argument is nonsense". Then he seems to be unable to make up his mind whether he actually assumed dx is an "infinitesimal" or a "real number" - both non-existent objects in sound mathematics (non-existent means neither has a well-formed definition).
>
> 2:17 "Wait, why can't we divide by 0 again?"
>
> JG: LMAO. Because 0 is not a TRUE number, you fucking moron!!!!! ROFLMAO. All the arithmetic operations are first defined GEOMETRICALLY, long before algebra is introduced in Book 7 of Euclid's Elements.
>
> 2:17 For numbers p and q, the quotient p/q should be a unique number r such that p=rq.
>
> JG: I could write a book in response to that utter garbage claim showing how much this dimwit misunderstands in mathematics. I'll just touch on a few misconceptions.
>
> 1. p/q is a NUMBER. It does not mean "p divided by q".
> 2. Next, r is any other number that is in proportion or equal to r.
> 3. p=rq implies that multiplication is already known, but this is nonsense because division comes before multiplication and multiplication is defined using division.
>
> 2:51 So it doesn't make sense to define p/0.
>
> JG: It sure doesn't, but not for any of the reasons the dimwit (include yourself here!) imagines to be the case.
>
> 3:03 Berkeley calls them "ghosts of departed quantities".
>
> JG: I would have loved to meet this Bishop. Chuckle. Very witty guy indeed.
>
> The idiot presenter continues on ad nauseam.
>
> End of Bullshit.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> My geometric theorem is explained here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> Fixing the broken mainstream definition of definite integral:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
>
> Still not as elegant and rigorous as my New Calculus:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO

When clever men remain silent, stupidity flourishes.

The most glaring inconsistency in his video is that he calls the "first principles method" a bad argument.

At 2:02 of his video, he says "But this argument is nonsense."

The argument is:

f(x)=x^2 dy/dx = [ (x+dx)^2 - x^2]/dx = 2x + dx

He is referring to the first principles method which is in fact nonsense! His colleagues will skin him alive if they are smart enough to notice this!

As you know, my historic geometric theorem proves the first principles method is flawed.

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of JG's fake math

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 1:11:42 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:

> > "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

On Sunday, 22 August 2021 at 13:12:09 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Sunday, 22 August 2021 at 09:56:04 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > If you watch the following video, you will be astounded at the amount of bullshit that is propagated in non-standard analysis. Not only do you need to know calculus in order to show the non-standard analysis works, but you also need a couple of semesters of abstract algebra and group theory!
> >
> > Of course it's all bullshit on top of existing bullshit:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArAjEq8uFvA
> >
> > The parts that stand out:
> >
> > 0:21 We assume some familiarity with calculus (limit, continuity, derivative) and abstract algebra (ring, field, quotient).
> >
> > JG: This is typical mainstream modus operandi of self-referential "proofs". Chuckle.
> >
> > 0:56 In the history of calculus, Leibniz and Newton freely used infinitesimals in calculus.
> >
> > JG: Utter bullshit. There is no such thing as an infinitesimal. Although the presenter goes on to show later that he can produce such through ultra-filters, the theory is gibberish and fails under the slightest logic inspection.
> >
> > 1:10 Intuitively, an infinitesimal is an infinitely small number.
> >
> > JG: No respectable academic should ever use the word "intuitive".
> >
> > "Intuitively, an infinitely small number is an infinitely small number."
> >
> > Circular reasoning "works" in mainstream. Chuckle.
> >
> > There is NO such thing as an "infinitely small number". It is mythology..
> >
> > 1:41 The derivative of x^2 is 2x. If dx is an infinitesimal change in x, ..., then
> > dy/dx = [(x+dx)^2-x^2]/dx = 2x + dx
> >
> > Since dx is infinitesimal, we can ignore it and write dy/dx = 2x.
> >
> > JG: Not only is no such thing as an infinitesimal, but "infinitesimal change" is more shit on top of existing shit. Meaningless nonsense. You simply have to believe that an infinitesimal exists and that you can ignore it, which is pretty strange because if you are just going to ignore it, then why even bother if it exists? LMAO.
> >
> > 2:04 But this argument is nonsense.
> > If dx = 0, we can't divide dy by dx to get dy/dx
> > If dx=/= 0, we can't ignore it.
> > assuming dx is a real number.
> >
> > JG: The scattered brained idiot got one thing right only: "His argument is nonsense". Then he seems to be unable to make up his mind whether he actually assumed dx is an "infinitesimal" or a "real number" - both non-existent objects in sound mathematics (non-existent means neither has a well-formed definition).
> >
> > 2:17 "Wait, why can't we divide by 0 again?"
> >
> > JG: LMAO. Because 0 is not a TRUE number, you fucking moron!!!!! ROFLMAO. All the arithmetic operations are first defined GEOMETRICALLY, long before algebra is introduced in Book 7 of Euclid's Elements.
> >
> > 2:17 For numbers p and q, the quotient p/q should be a unique number r such that p=rq.
> >
> > JG: I could write a book in response to that utter garbage claim showing how much this dimwit misunderstands in mathematics. I'll just touch on a few misconceptions.
> >
> > 1. p/q is a NUMBER. It does not mean "p divided by q".
> > 2. Next, r is any other number that is in proportion or equal to r.
> > 3. p=rq implies that multiplication is already known, but this is nonsense because division comes before multiplication and multiplication is defined using division.
> >
> > 2:51 So it doesn't make sense to define p/0.
> >
> > JG: It sure doesn't, but not for any of the reasons the dimwit (include yourself here!) imagines to be the case.
> >
> > 3:03 Berkeley calls them "ghosts of departed quantities".
> >
> > JG: I would have loved to meet this Bishop. Chuckle. Very witty guy indeed.
> >
> > The idiot presenter continues on ad nauseam.
> >
> > End of Bullshit.
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > My geometric theorem is explained here:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> >
> > Fixing the broken mainstream definition of definite integral:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
> >
> > Still not as elegant and rigorous as my New Calculus:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
> When clever men remain silent, stupidity flourishes.
>
> The most glaring inconsistency in his video is that he calls the "first principles method" a bad argument.
>
> At 2:02 of his video, he says "But this argument is nonsense."
>
> The argument is:
>
> f(x)=x^2 dy/dx = [ (x+dx)^2 - x^2]/dx = 2x + dx
>
> He is referring to the first principles method which is in fact nonsense! His colleagues will skin him alive if they are smart enough to notice this!
>
> As you know, my historic geometric theorem proves the first principles method is flawed.

Neither Newton nor Leibniz fully understood why their methods worked. No one before me actually had any idea why calculus works because the formulation of mainstream calculus is a flawed.

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of JG's fake math

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 6:14:10 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:
>
> >
> > As you know, my historic geometric theorem proves the first principles method is flawed.

How can a something that simply doesn't work (e.g. your goofy little system) prove anything, Troll Boy? (Hint: It can't.)

> Neither Newton nor Leibniz fully understood why their methods worked.

Unlike your goofy little system, theirs worked and got results. Must be frustrating as hell for you.
Dan

>JG: This is typical mainstream modus operandi of self-referential "proofs".. Chuckle.

Of course, it is perfectly fine to say "We expect you to know these things first before taking this on"

Each course cannot take on everything that came before it.

>JG: Utter bullshit. There is no such thing as an infinitesimal.

Except they did use it back then. They called it "Fluxons" however.

>Although the presenter goes on to show later that he can produce such through ultra-filters, the theory is gibberish and fails under the slightest logic inspection.

This is your empty claim so it can be dismissed.

>JG: No respectable academic should ever use the word "intuitive".

They would because we humans use it and have vague concepts in our minds that we understand and use. The issue is only if you use it in proofs.

>"Intuitively, an infinitely small number is an infinitely small number."
>
>Circular reasoning "works" in mainstream. Chuckle.

Straw man, he says infinitesimal, not phrase is equal to itself.

>There is NO such thing as an "infinitely small number". It is mythology.

Except in hyperreals they manages to construct them.

>JG: Not only is no such thing as an infinitesimal, but "infinitesimal change" is more shit on top of existing shit. Meaningless nonsense. You simply have to believe that an infinitesimal exists and that you can ignore it, which is pretty strange because if you are just going to ignore it, then why even bother if it exists? LMAO.

In hyperreals infinitesimals do exist so tough shit.

The point with hyperreals is to formally construct infinitesimals and it succeeds.

>JG: LMAO. Because 0 is not a TRUE number, you fucking moron!!!!! ROFLMAO. All the arithmetic operations are first defined GEOMETRICALLY, long before algebra is introduced in Book 7 of Euclid's Elements.

It is in Z, Q, R, R* and many others, it is a number and no one cares what Elements says, it is not the bible of mathematics that dictates all.

On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 00:58:12 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >JG: This is typical mainstream modus operandi of self-referential "proofs". Chuckle.
> Of course, it is perfectly fine to say "We expect you to know these things first before taking this on"
>

I was not going to answer this but I will for the sake of those naive enough to believe your bullshit.

> Each course cannot take on everything that came before it.

Er, no. One cannot use that which is being defined in its own definition. This is called circularity.

> >JG: Utter bullshit. There is no such thing as an infinitesimal.
> Except they did use it back then. They called it "Fluxons" however.

No. You're thinking of "Fluxions" (you really should learn to spell!) and it does not mean "infinitesimal" in any sense.

Fluxion: a function corresponding to the rate of change of a variable quantity.

In other words, a **derivative** even though there is no such thing as "rate of change of a variable quantity", the latter being utter bullshit by Newton who did not understand why his flawed first principles method produced the correct answer. It took the great John Gabriel to solve the tangent line problem hundreds of years later.

> >Although the presenter goes on to show later that he can produce such through ultra-filters, the theory is gibberish and fails under the slightest logic inspection.
> This is your empty claim so it can be dismissed.

Apparently not and trust me on this one, no one gives a shit what you care about or "dismiss". LMAO. You are a nobody with ZERO notable works.

> >JG: No respectable academic should ever use the word "intuitive".
> They would because we humans use it and have vague concepts in our minds that we understand and use. The issue is only if you use it in proofs.

Thanks for confirming that you can't ever be respected. You're a fool and will die as such.

> >"Intuitively, an infinitely small number is an infinitely small number."
> >
> >Circular reasoning "works" in mainstream. Chuckle.
> Straw man, he says infinitesimal, not phrase is equal to itself.

Infinitesimal has no formal definition because there is no such thing as an "infinitely small" anything.

> >There is NO such thing as an "infinitely small number". It is mythology.
> Except in hyperreals they manages to construct them.

In your dreams...

> >JG: Not only is no such thing as an infinitesimal, but "infinitesimal change" is more shit on top of existing shit. Meaningless nonsense. You simply have to believe that an infinitesimal exists and that you can ignore it, which is pretty strange because if you are just going to ignore it, then why even bother if it exists? LMAO.
> In hyperreals infinitesimals do exist so tough shit.

Of course they do! There is a tiny subset of (0,1) where they ALL live happily ever after. Only thing is PhDs in mathematics like Arthur Rubin whom I debated while you were still jerking off in high school couldn't say where this interval begins and where it ends. It requires FAITH. LMAO.

<drivel>

> >JG: LMAO. Because 0 is not a TRUE number, you fucking moron!!!!! ROFLMAO.. All the arithmetic operations are first defined GEOMETRICALLY, long before algebra is introduced in Book 7 of Euclid's Elements.

> It is in Z, Q, R, R* and many others, it is a number and no one cares what Elements says, it is not the bible of mathematics that dictates all.

The above is the typical mainstream doctrine which no student cares about anymore. It's irrelevant crap just testifying once again how the mainstream math academics have never understood the concept of number or the foundations, ie, Elements of Euclid whence it came.

Dan Christensen wrote:

> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of JG's fake math
>
> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 1:11:42 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka
> John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:
>
>> > "1/2 not equal to 2/4"
>> Lie. I have NEVER said this.

paraphrasing clauss schwab (anal) I guess

*you_are_nice,_but_are_too_many*

On Monday, August 23, 2021 at 8:13:01 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 00:58:12 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >JG: This is typical mainstream modus operandi of self-referential "proofs". Chuckle.
> > Of course, it is perfectly fine to say "We expect you to know these things first before taking this on"
> >
> I was not going to answer this but I will for the sake of those naive enough to believe your bullshit.
> > Each course cannot take on everything that came before it.
> Er, no. One cannot use that which is being defined in its own definition. This is called circularity.
> > >JG: Utter bullshit. There is no such thing as an infinitesimal.
> > Except they did use it back then. They called it "Fluxons" however.
> No. You're thinking of "Fluxions" (you really should learn to spell!) and it does not mean "infinitesimal" in any sense.
>
> Fluxion: a function corresponding to the rate of change of a variable quantity.
>
> In other words, a **derivative** even though there is no such thing as "rate of change of a variable quantity"...

HA, HA! Troll Boy is pretending to know something about calculus! Using his goofy "definition" of a derivative, he cannot even determine the derivative of a function as simple as f(x)=|x|. Hint: In this case, he should be able to prove that the derivative is -1 for x<0, +1 for x>0 and undefined for x=0. He couldn't, of course. In his frustration, he subsequently banned 0 and negative numbers. What a moron!

Dan

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

On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 14:02:21 UTC-4, Muccio Grande wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> > STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of JG's fake math
> >
> > On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 1:11:42 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka
> > John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:
> >
> >> > "1/2 not equal to 2/4"
> >> Lie. I have NEVER said this.
> paraphrasing clauss schwab (anal) I guess
>
> *you_are_nice,_but_are_too_many*

You are a moron if you believe anything the troll Dan Christensen spews out without fail on this newsgroup, repeatedly - over and over again the same old rot.

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 repeatedly spams my threads with his drivel:

> "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

The New Calculus is proof that you CAN DO calculus without the use of LIMIT THEORY.

Don't believe me? Study it. You will be pleasantly surprised.

I am a genius and the greatest mathematician alive today.

Eram semper recta wrote:

>> > On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 1:11:42 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum
>> > (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:
>> >
>> >> > "1/2 not equal to 2/4"
>> >> Lie. I have NEVER said this.
>> paraphrasing clauss schwab (anal) I guess
>>
>> *you_are_nice,_but_are_too_many*
>
> You are a moron if you believe anything the troll Dan Christensen spews
> out without fail on this newsgroup, repeatedly - over and over again the
> same old rot.

okay, just stay gay if you like it. When the war is coming they fuck gays
too.

>Er, no. One cannot use that which is being defined in its own definition. This is called circularity.

I never said that. I said each course cannot go through everything needed before it. Different thing.

>No. You're thinking of "Fluxions" (you really should learn to spell!) and it does not mean "infinitesimal" in any sense.
>
>Fluxion: a function corresponding to the rate of change of a variable quantity.

I forgot to press the i, big deal.

It is an infinitesimal in todays language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluxion

>Apparently not and trust me on this one, no one gives a shit what you care about or "dismiss". LMAO. You are a nobody with ZERO notable works.

No one cares about yours either and you've done nothing of value either. When you make empty claims they can be dismissed.

>Infinitesimal has no formal definition because there is no such thing as an "infinitely small" anything.

Actually, it does in R*

x is an infinitesimal if for all r e R_+ c R* we have that |x|<r

>In your dreams...

They did, you have failed to show anything about them is contradictory. All we have is your usual "Doesn't fit what I want, so bad"

>Of course they do! There is a tiny subset of (0,1) where they ALL live happily ever after. Only thing is PhDs in mathematics like Arthur Rubin whom I debated while you were still jerking off in high school couldn't say where this interval begins and where it ends. It requires FAITH. LMAO.

it has no first nor last element so it is meaningless to say "where it begins" and "where it ends"

>The above is the typical mainstream doctrine which no student cares about anymore. It's irrelevant crap just testifying once again how the mainstream math academics have never understood the concept of number or the foundations, ie, Elements of Euclid whence it came.

Again, it is an old book of no relevance anymore. Stop holding it up like it is the fucking bible or quaran.

On Tuesday, 24 August 2021 at 01:09:04 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Er, no. One cannot use that which is being defined in its own definition.. This is called circularity.
> I never said that.

You did.

> I said each course cannot go through everything needed before it. Different thing.

That is not what you meant and does not address the topic which is "circularity".

> >No. You're thinking of "Fluxions" (you really should learn to spell!) and it does not mean "infinitesimal" in any sense.
> >
> >Fluxion: a function corresponding to the rate of change of a variable quantity.
> I forgot to press the i, big deal.

It shows that you are a scatterbrained dimwit because you do it a lot.

>
> It is an infinitesimal in todays language.

No. Not at all. It is a **derivative**. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.

> >Apparently not and trust me on this one, no one gives a shit what you care about or "dismiss". LMAO. You are a nobody with ZERO notable works.

> >Infinitesimal has no formal definition because there is no such thing as an "infinitely small" anything.
> Actually, it does in R*

There is no R*, only in dysfunctional minds.

> x is an infinitesimal if for all r e R_+ c R* we have that |x|<r

And there is only 0 that satisfies that condition. Chuckle. In other words, the definition is not only absurd but laughable in every respect. LMAO.

> >In your dreams...
>
> They did, you have failed to show anything about them is contradictory.

Has been done many times:

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

Your only objection is that you don't like it! LMAO.

> >Of course they do! There is a tiny subset of (0,1) where they ALL live happily ever after. Only thing is PhDs in mathematics like Arthur Rubin whom I debated while you were still jerking off in high school couldn't say where this interval begins and where it ends. It requires FAITH. LMAO.

> it has no first nor last element so it is meaningless to say "where it begins" and "where it ends"

Right. Have faith and move mountains? ROFLMAO.

<< meaningless to say "where it begins" and "where it ends">>

That is the refrain of cult members. You mean something like:

"There is nothing south of the south pole, so there was nothing before the BIG BANG" - crippled moron Stephen Hawking who took too long to die.

> >The above is the typical mainstream doctrine which no student cares about anymore. It's irrelevant crap just testifying once again how the mainstream math academics have never understood the concept of number or the foundations, ie, Elements of Euclid whence it came.

> Again, it is an old book of no relevance anymore.

It is of very much relevance and this is why it has stood the test of time. The Elements of Euclid are the TRUE foundations of mathematics, not the gibberish of Set Theory.

> Stop holding it up like it is the fucking bible or quaran.

I hold it up because it is NOT like the fucking bible or the quran.

Your mainstream mythmatics IS LIKE the fucking bible or the quran. :)

Eram semper recta wrote:

>> I said each course cannot go through everything needed before it.
>> Different thing.
>
> That is not what you meant and does not address the topic which is
> "circularity".

if there are 7.8 billion sheep on earth, cabal needs 7.3 billion of them
taking the jab to meet their ga guidestones goal of 500 million left.

Apparently september is the deadline, for some unknown reason. They
openly say and write want over 90% of the populace vaccinated. The
"booster" must be the game over.

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of JG's fake math

On Monday, August 23, 2021 at 3:47:49 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote

> > "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

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

The New Calculus is proof that you CAN DO calculus without the use of LIMIT THEORY.

Don't believe me? Study it. You will be pleasantly surprised.

I am a genius and the greatest mathematician alive today.

>You did.

I didn't

>That is not what you meant and does not address the topic which is "circularity".

How do you know what I meant? You're not fucking telepathic!

You do not know what circularity fucking is.

You do not get that N -> Z -> Q is not circular! You only think it does because you start at Q, but when I DO NOT, it isn't circular!

>No. Not at all. It is a **derivative**. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluxion

Read up on it, it is treated just as infinitesimals are so it is the same concept.

>There is no R*, only in dysfunctional minds.

There is, you make an empty claim that you cannot substantiate. We can prove that R* is constructable

>And there is only 0 that satisfies that condition. Chuckle. In other words, the definition is not only absurd but laughable in every respect. LMAO.

In REAL numbers, only 0 sates it, in HYPERREALS, there are more than 0.

>Your only objection is that you don't like it! LMAO.

Nope, I have pointed out that your supposed "cuts" are not cuts by the definition, making it all invalid.

For it to be a cut (L,U), then L U L^C = Q

None of yours sate this property, ergo not dedekinds cuts.

>Right. Have faith and move mountains? ROFLMAO.

How is that relevant? It is trivial to prove there is no first element or last.

>"There is nothing south of the south pole, so there was nothing before the BIG BANG" - crippled moron Stephen Hawking who took too long to die.

You're being ableist again.

>It is of very much relevance and this is why it has stood the test of time. The Elements of Euclid are the TRUE foundations of mathematics, not the gibberish of Set Theory.

it isn't, it is of historical importance but not mathematical importance. We've gone far ebyond it.

>I hold it up because it is NOT like the fucking bible or the quran.

You hold it up like the fucking bible or quaran thinking it is the end all be all fucking book. It ain't. It is just A book.

>Your mainstream mythmatics IS LIKE the fucking bible or the quran. :)

Nope because none says anything is "the only one" in it.

On Wednesday, 25 August 2021 at 01:16:41 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >You did.
>
> I didn't
> >That is not what you meant and does not address the topic which is "circularity".
> How do you know what I meant? You're not fucking telepathic!

Take a deep breath and relax. :) How do you know I am not telepathic? LMAO.

>
> You do not know what circularity fucking is.

But I do know and it causes big problems for you. Sorry about this.

>
> You do not get that N -> Z -> Q is not circular! You only think it does because you start at Q, but when I DO NOT, it isn't circular!

It is as circular as they get. You do not have N or Z until you have Q. What part of this do you not understand? Just ask.

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

> >No. Not at all. It is a **derivative**. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluxion
>
> Read up on it, it is treated just as infinitesimals are so it is the same concept.

I don't read Wikipedia and you know this, so why do you still quote from that shit pile?

No. Derivatives are not infinitesimals because derivatives exist. Infinitesimals are just a figment of your imagination.

> >There is no R*, only in dysfunctional minds.
> There is, you make an empty claim that you cannot substantiate. We can prove that R* is constructable

Nope. Proof is all here:

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

> >And there is only 0 that satisfies that condition. Chuckle. In other words, the definition is not only absurd but laughable in every respect. LMAO.
> In REAL numbers, only 0 sates it, in HYPERREALS, there are more than 0.

Like I told Arthur Rubin of Wikipedia, I tell you: show me just one such infinitesimal. You can't. You need faith to believe there is this subset of (0,1) where these frisky little buggers live. LMAO.

> >Your only objection is that you don't like it! LMAO.
> Nope, I have pointed out that your supposed "cuts" are not cuts by the definition, making it all invalid.

Rubbish. I use the exact definition of Dedekind Cut and yes, you've been pointing out a lot of rubbish, but you've never proved anything.

>
> For it to be a cut (L,U), then L U L^C = Q

Not even wrong.

>
> None of yours sate this property, ergo not dedekinds cuts.

"sate" is the wrong word.

But of course, "hyperreals" are even more fictitious than Dedekind Cuts.

> >Right. Have faith and move mountains? ROFLMAO.
> How is that relevant? It is trivial to prove there is no first element or last.

Asking that question tells a lot about the way you fail to think properly.

You can't prove anything. All you have are beliefs. Beliefs are not FACTS => axioms are not FACTS.

> >"There is nothing south of the south pole, so there was nothing before the BIG BANG" - crippled moron Stephen Hawking who took too long to die.
> You're being ableist again.

Nope. Not at all. I ridicule Hawking's brain as I do yours. He was crippled, so there is nothing surprising about this. So, you expect me to say "Physically Disabled"? Chuckle. It means the same thing as "crippled". LMAO

> >It is of very much relevance and this is why it has stood the test of time. The Elements of Euclid are the TRUE foundations of mathematics, not the gibberish of Set Theory.
> it isn't, it is of historical importance but not mathematical importance. We've gone far ebyond it.

Who is "we"? The failures of the last 400 years? Chuckle.

> >I hold it up because it is NOT like the fucking bible or the quran.
> You hold it up like the fucking bible or quaran thinking it is the end all be all fucking book. It ain't. It is just A book.

Well, you're wrong because it's NOT a book. It is a work of 13 books and it is the be all and end all.

> >Your mainstream mythmatics IS LIKE the fucking bible or the quran. :)

> Nope because none says anything is "the only one" in it.

You do all the time. Do want examples?

"A crank is one who has different views to the mainstream"

Interpretation: ONLY the mainstream is correct. ONLY the mainstream cannot be wrong.

"Mathematics is not about measure or number" - Zelos Malum

Interpretation: Mathematics is ONLY the drivel Malum considers to be cool.

etc.

>But I do know and it causes big problems for you. Sorry about this.

You do not understand it at all.

>It is as circular as they get. You do not have N or Z until you have Q. What part of this do you not understand? Just ask.

That is YOUR view!

WE, in mathematics, starts with N and we then LATER construct Q, we have N first, Q later. That makes it NOT circular.

>No. Derivatives are not infinitesimals because derivatives exist. Infinitesimals are just a figment of your imagination.

I didn't say derivatives are infinitesimals, I said that Fluxions that newtons and they used are what we call today infinitesimals.

>Like I told Arthur Rubin of Wikipedia, I tell you: show me just one such infinitesimal. You can't. You need faith to believe there is this subset of (0,1) where these frisky little buggers live. LMAO.

h=(1/n)_{n e N}

is the classical example in R*

>Rubbish. I use the exact definition of Dedekind Cut and yes, you've been pointing out a lot of rubbish, but you've never proved anything.

You don't

https://www.math.brown.edu/reschwar/INF/handout3.pdf

>Not even wrong.

Very correct

https://www.math.brown.edu/reschwar/INF/handout3.pdf

>Asking that question tells a lot about the way you fail to think properly.
>
>You can't prove anything. All you have are beliefs. Beliefs are not FACTS => axioms are not FACTS.

I can easily prove there is no first nor last element.

>Nope. Not at all. I ridicule Hawking's brain as I do yours. He was crippled, so there is nothing surprising about this. So, you expect me to say "Physically Disabled"? Chuckle. It means the same thing as "crippled". LMAO

If you weren't ableist you wouldn't even bring up the disability because to what you want, it is 100% irrelevant. It is you trying to mudsling and use it as something to denigrate him.

>Who is "we"? The failures of the last 400 years? Chuckle.

Humanity, the mathematical community, etc.

>Well, you're wrong because it's NOT a book. It is a work of 13 books and it is the be all and end all.

It isn't, it is just a collection of books of historical significance but mathematically, they are outdated as fuck.

>You do all the time. Do want examples?

I do not but go ahead.

>"A crank is one who has different views to the mainstream"
>
>Interpretation: ONLY the mainstream is correct. ONLY the mainstream cannot be wrong.

Your interpretation and a very bad one. It means nothing of the sort nor implies anything like that.

>"Mathematics is not about measure or number" - Zelos Malum
>
>Interpretation: Mathematics is ONLY the drivel Malum considers to be cool.

Your idea and a bad one like all of your.

Mathematics is not about those because we got abstract algebra that deals with algebraic structures which can be numbers, it can be much else also, it can deal with colours and much much much more.

We got functions, sets and much else. It is FAR beyond those things.

So you failed to show where I say "only", I say mathematics is more (so no only), you say it is ONLY those things. The crank one is I cite what people mean with it. Your definition is too fucking broad and means that two people can accuse each other of being cranks and both would be equally correct at their assertion. A person who is correct is equally much a crank then.