Essentially what the Baboons of mainstream academia will have you believe is that:

t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = Lim (h->0)[f(c+h)-f(c)]/h = f'(c) + Q(c,h) and is possible ONLY if Q(c,h)=0, but this happens only in the case of the straight line t(x). It NEVER happens with the finite difference quotients. The mainstream want you to believe that there is some finite difference ratio hovering at infinity which produces f'(c):

t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_1)-f(c)]/h_1 ; [f(c+h_2)-f(c)]/h_2 ; [f(c+h_3)-f(c)]/h_3 ; ... ; [f(c+h_3n-f(c)]/h_n ...; [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo

t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo ?! What?!!! There is no such finite difference. It does not exist! But Baboon mathematics of the mainstream insists there is a limit!

Can you imagine how embarrassed Newton and Leibniz would be at these idiots today?! They knew that they could not solve the tangent line problem - this had to wait for the great John Gabriel. It is I who revealed to the entire world that:

[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)

It usually takes a genius to realise the most simple concepts that escape the syphilitic brains of highly educated idiots in the mainstream.

Read about my historic geometric theorem which proves the formulation of mainstream calculus is fraudulent:

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

On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 7:34:25 AM UTC-4, New Age Prophet (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:
> Essentially what the Baboons of mainstream academia will have you believe is that:
>
> t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = Lim (h->0)[f(c+h)-f(c)]/h

You haven't defined t on the LHS. If the limit exists, the RHS is the derivative of f at c. Unlike your "definition," this one actually works, Troll Boy.

> = f'(c) + Q(c,h)

OK IF you drop the Q(c,h), whatever that is.

> and is possible ONLY if Q(c,h)=0, but this happens only in the case of the straight line t(x). It NEVER happens with the finite difference quotients. The mainstream want you to believe that there is some finite difference ratio hovering at infinity which produces f'(c):
>
> t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_1)-f(c)]/h_1 ; [f(c+h_2)-f(c)]/h_2 ; [f(c+h_3)-f(c)]/h_3 ; ... ; [f(c+h_3n-f(c)]/h_n ...; [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo
>

Still missing the definition of t.

> t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo ?!

h_oo??? Pure gibberish. Needs some serious work, Troll Boy!

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

JG here claims to have a discovered a 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

On 9/1/2021 6:34 AM, New Age Prophet wrote:
>
> Essentially what the Baboons *QUACK* of mainstream academia will have you believe is that:
>
> t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = Lim (h->0)[f(c+h)-f(c)]/h = f'(c) + Q(c,h) *QUACK* and is possible ONLY if Q(c,h)=0, *QUACK* but this happens only in the case of the straight line t(x). It NEVER happens with the finite difference quotients. The mainstream want you to believe that there is some finite difference ratio hovering at infinity which produces f'(c):
>
> t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_1)-f(c)]/h_1 ; [f(c+h_2)-f(c)]/h_2 ; [f(c+h_3)-f(c)]/h_3 ; ... ; [f(c+h_3n-f(c)]/h_n ...; [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo*QUACK*
>
> t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo ?! What?!!! There is no such finite difference. It does not exist! But Baboon *QUACK* mathematics of the mainstream insists there is a limit!
>
> Can you imagine how embarrassed Newton and Leibniz would be at these idiots today?! They knew that they could not solve the tangent line problem - this had to wait for the great John *QUACK* Gabriel. It is I *QUACK* who revealed to the entire *QUACK* world that:
>
> [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)*QUACK*
>
> It usually takes a *QUACK* genius to realise the most simple concepts that escape the syphilitic brains of highly educated idiots in the mainstream.
>
> Read about my *QUACK* historic geometric *QUACK* theorem which proves the formulation of mainstream calculus is fraudulent:
>
> https://drive.google.*QUACK*.com/file/d/1RDulODvgn*QUACK*cItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>

On Wednesday, 1 September 2021 at 11:04:17 UTC-4, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 7:34:25 AM UTC-4, New Age Prophet (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:
> > Essentially what the Baboons of mainstream academia will have you believe is that:
> >
> > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = Lim (h->0)[f(c+h)-f(c)]/h
> You haven't defined t on the LHS. If the limit exists, the RHS is the derivative of f at c. Unlike your "definition," this one actually works, Troll Boy.
> > = f'(c) + Q(c,h)
> OK IF you drop the Q(c,h), whatever that is.
> > and is possible ONLY if Q(c,h)=0, but this happens only in the case of the straight line t(x). It NEVER happens with the finite difference quotients. The mainstream want you to believe that there is some finite difference ratio hovering at infinity which produces f'(c):
> >
> > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_1)-f(c)]/h_1 ; [f(c+h_2)-f(c)]/h_2 ; [f(c+h_3)-f(c)]/h_3 ; ... ; [f(c+h_3n-f(c)]/h_n ...; [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo
> >
> Still missing the definition of t.
> > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo ?!
> h_oo??? Pure gibberish. Needs some serious work, Troll Boy!
>
> *****************************************************************
>
> JG here claims to have a discovered a 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.
>

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

Anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen spammed:

> "There are no points on a line."

Lie. I never said that. What I did say is that a line does not consists of points. When we talk about points on a line, we really mean distances that are indicated much like road signs do for distances travelled along a road.

A line is one of innumerable distances between any two points.
A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.

> "Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"

True. Pi is merely a symbol for an incommensurable magnitude - apparently a concept too advanced for an imbecile like Dan Christensen.

> "1/2 not equal to 2/4"

Lie. I have NEVER said this. What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.

There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4. For example:

_ / _ _
_ _ / _ _ _ _

The length _ is not equal to the length _ _ .

> “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”

True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail:

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

Also, my article on pi not being a number of any kind:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FFg_9XCkIwTZ9N1jbU4oMYfHHHuFHYf3

The true story of how we got numbers:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU

No such thing as a "real number" or a "real number line":

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMHVYcE8xcmRZRnc

There is no valid construction of "real number" - it's a myth:

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

> "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”

True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.

3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4

Actually, there is no "OR" part, so the logical disjunction is invalid.

> "Zero is not a number."

True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w2tt7IgoIu-ychDCoYi-4jOAzToy0ViM

> "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."

Half-truth. While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.

> “There is no such thing as an empty set.”

True. Even the father of all mainstream mathematical cranks rejected the idea of empty set. But let's not go too far ... there isn't even a definition of "set" in set theory!

https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w

https://youtu.be/1CcSsOG0okg

> “3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)

True. These are propositions that are implied by the given equations. For example, my historic geometric identity states:

[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = dy/dx + Q(x,h)

And so, f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)

The theorem:

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

How it provides a rigorous definition of integral for the flawed mainstream calculus:

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

The day will come when this vicious anonymous troll Dan Christensen is convicted in a court of law.

Download for free the most important mathematics book ever written:

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

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.

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

On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 11:13:26 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 September 2021 at 11:04:17 UTC-4, Dan Christensen 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.
>
> 3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4
>

More preciesly, it means that 3 < 4, OR that 3 = 4, which is always truly since 3 < 4. Nothing "invalid" about it, Troll Boy.

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