Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.

But do not despair! I have done it:

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

Preempting anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen who will no doubt spam my threads:

> "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 Monday, September 6, 2021 at 6:18:16 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel (JG), Troll Boy) wrote:

> Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.
>

What YOU yourself have, Troll Boy, is a goofy little system that just doesn't work.

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

måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 12:18:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.
>
> But do not despair! I have done it:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
>
>
> Preempting anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen who will no doubt spam my threads:
>
>
> > "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.

innumerable more like uncountable

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 8:38:01 AM UTC-7, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> innumerable more like uncountable

Copy-pasting more like spam. (Troll more like bum.)

Excuse, Mann kann nur ein Kleiner gesprechern, aber die Anglosich
ist eine grosser Wortschatz.

Mathematics is very geometrical, and it's fair that geometry is
very fundamental, where sets and partitions are fundamental,
categories or types ..., functions, models, and usually according
to "least action" the simple, geometry is both fundamental and
emergent.

With respect to modern mathematics there's a not unusual
classical and even pre-classical notion of a spiral space-filling
curve as a natural continuum, which works out defining geometry
as that Euclid's are emergent properties besides when in a theory
of Euclid's they're axioms.

Then, "calculus as pure geometry" has a meaning and even a
way to formalize, from lesser principles, what's usually arrived
at these days as separately geometry (which is first Euclidean)
and analysis (which is a means of arriving at a model of real
numbers by closing the field with axiomatizing LUB and measure 1.0)
that this sort of model of mathematical primitives arrives at both.

So, at least some modern efforts in foundations, arrive at
more from less, and it's totally usual.

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 3:18:16 AM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.
>
> But do not despair! I have done it:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
>
>
> Preempting anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen who will no doubt spam my threads:
>
>
> > "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.

What does calculus say about round?
What about original measurement?
What does a radius in geometry mean
as calculus?

Mitchell Raemsch

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

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 6:18:16 AM 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.
>
> 3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4
>

Since 3 < 4, it is true that 3 < 4 or 3 = 4 even though 3 =4 is false. 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. Both 0 and negative numbers are required in mathematics.

> 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 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 Monday, 6 September 2021 at 18:38:01 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 12:18:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.
> >
> > But do not despair! I have done it:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
> >
> >
> > Preempting anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen who will no doubt spam my threads:
> >
> >
> > > "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.

> innumerable more like uncountable

Gibberish again?

måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 22:28:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 18:38:01 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 12:18:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.
> > >
> > > But do not despair! I have done it:
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
> > >
> > >
> > > Preempting anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen who will no doubt spam my threads:
> > >
> > >
> > > > "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.
>
> > innumerable more like uncountable
> Gibberish again?

Define "innumerable" in a way that doesn't involve infinity.

>Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.

Given that calculus deals with C^n[A] for A c R^m while geometry deals with R^2 or R^3 they are quite different.

>I am a genius and the greatest mathematician alive today.

And you say shit like

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

Only an idiot says this.

On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 00:03:11 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 22:28:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 18:38:01 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 12:18:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.
> > > >
> > > > But do not despair! I have done it:
> > > >
> > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Preempting anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen who will no doubt spam my threads:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > "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.
> >
> > > innumerable more like uncountable
> > Gibberish again?
> Define "innumerable" in a way that doesn't involve infinity.

<<Cannot be counted.>>

Webster: too many to be counted.

See? And this is why it pays to always consult the dictionary!

<<innumerable>> is the opposite of <<numerable>>.

tisdag 7 september 2021 kl. 08:44:41 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 00:03:11 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 22:28:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 18:38:01 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 12:18:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.
> > > > >
> > > > > But do not despair! I have done it:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Preempting anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen who will no doubt spam my threads:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > "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.
> > >
> > > > innumerable more like uncountable
> > > Gibberish again?
> > Define "innumerable" in a way that doesn't involve infinity.
> <<Cannot be counted.>>
>
> Webster: too many to be counted.
>
> See? And this is why it pays to always consult the dictionary!
>
> <<innumerable>> is the opposite of <<numerable>>.

What an amazing mathematical definition, so clear and perfect /s

tisdag 7 september 2021 kl. 08:44:41 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 00:03:11 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 22:28:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 18:38:01 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 12:18:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.
> > > > >
> > > > > But do not despair! I have done it:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Preempting anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen who will no doubt spam my threads:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > "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.
> > >
> > > > innumerable more like uncountable
> > > Gibberish again?
> > Define "innumerable" in a way that doesn't involve infinity.
> <<Cannot be counted.>>
>
> Webster: too many to be counted.
>
> See? And this is why it pays to always consult the dictionary!
>
> <<innumerable>> is the opposite of <<numerable>>.
What does "too many to be counted" mean?

On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 15:37:50 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 7 september 2021 kl. 08:44:41 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 00:03:11 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 22:28:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 18:38:01 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 12:18:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But do not despair! I have done it:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Preempting anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen who will no doubt spam my threads:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "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.
> > > >
> > > > > innumerable more like uncountable
> > > > Gibberish again?
> > > Define "innumerable" in a way that doesn't involve infinity.
> > <<Cannot be counted.>>
> >
> > Webster: too many to be counted.
> >
> > See? And this is why it pays to always consult the dictionary!
> >
> > <<innumerable>> is the opposite of <<numerable>>.
> What does "too many to be counted" mean?

It means that if you could live forever and do nothing else but count, then you would still never finish.

tisdag 7 september 2021 kl. 20:05:40 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 15:37:50 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > tisdag 7 september 2021 kl. 08:44:41 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 00:03:11 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 22:28:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 18:38:01 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 12:18:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But do not despair! I have done it:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Preempting anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen who will no doubt spam my threads:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "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.
> > > > >
> > > > > > innumerable more like uncountable
> > > > > Gibberish again?
> > > > Define "innumerable" in a way that doesn't involve infinity.
> > > <<Cannot be counted.>>
> > >
> > > Webster: too many to be counted.
> > >
> > > See? And this is why it pays to always consult the dictionary!
> > >
> > > <<innumerable>> is the opposite of <<numerable>>.
> > What does "too many to be counted" mean?
> It means that if you could live forever and do nothing else but count, then you would still never finish.
So your definition is dependent on life existing?

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 10:26:03 PM UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 7 september 2021 kl. 20:05:40 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 15:37:50 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > tisdag 7 september 2021 kl. 08:44:41 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 00:03:11 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 22:28:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 18:38:01 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 12:18:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But do not despair! I have done it:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Preempting anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen who will no doubt spam my threads:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > innumerable more like uncountable
> > > > > > Gibberish again?
> > > > > Define "innumerable" in a way that doesn't involve infinity.
> > > > <<Cannot be counted.>>
> > > >
> > > > Webster: too many to be counted.
> > > >
> > > > See? And this is why it pays to always consult the dictionary!
> > > >
> > > > <<innumerable>> is the opposite of <<numerable>>.
> > > What does "too many to be counted" mean?
> > It means that if you could live forever and do nothing else but count, then you would still never finish.
> So your definition is dependent on life existing?

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 9:15:30 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 8:38:01 AM UTC-7, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > innumerable more like uncountable
>
>
> Copy-pasting more like spam. (Troll more like bum.)
>
> Excuse, Mann kann nur ein Kleiner gesprechern, aber die Anglosich
> ist eine grosser Wortschatz.
>
> Mathematics is very geometrical, and it's fair that geometry is
> very fundamental, where sets and partitions are fundamental,
> categories or types ..., functions, models, and usually according
> to "least action" the simple, geometry is both fundamental and
> emergent.
>
> With respect to modern mathematics there's a not unusual
> classical and even pre-classical notion of a spiral space-filling
> curve as a natural continuum, which works out defining geometry
> as that Euclid's are emergent properties besides when in a theory
> of Euclid's they're axioms.
>
> Then, "calculus as pure geometry" has a meaning and even a
> way to formalize, from lesser principles, what's usually arrived
> at these days as separately geometry (which is first Euclidean)
> and analysis (which is a means of arriving at a model of real
> numbers by closing the field with axiomatizing LUB and measure 1.0)
> that this sort of model of mathematical primitives arrives at both.
>
> So, at least some modern efforts in foundations, arrive at
> more from less, and it's totally usual.

"Geometry is motion".

tisdag 7 september 2021 kl. 22:13:30 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 10:26:03 PM UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > tisdag 7 september 2021 kl. 20:05:40 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 15:37:50 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > tisdag 7 september 2021 kl. 08:44:41 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 00:03:11 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 22:28:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 18:38:01 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 12:18:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But do not despair! I have done it:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Preempting anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen who will no doubt spam my threads:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > innumerable more like uncountable
> > > > > > > Gibberish again?
> > > > > > Define "innumerable" in a way that doesn't involve infinity.
> > > > > <<Cannot be counted.>>
> > > > >
> > > > > Webster: too many to be counted.
> > > > >
> > > > > See? And this is why it pays to always consult the dictionary!
> > > > >
> > > > > <<innumerable>> is the opposite of <<numerable>>.
> > > > What does "too many to be counted" mean?
> > > It means that if you could live forever and do nothing else but count, then you would still never finish.
> > So your definition is dependent on life existing?
> Shut up moron. You are too stupid to continue this discussion. Get an education! Learn how to read English while you're at it.
Why just not answer the question? If something has to count something in order for it exist, wouldn't that make numbers finitely many? How can you ratify anything finitely largely enough if the time, energy and space you will use and experience is finite?

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 11:05:40 AM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 15:37:50 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > tisdag 7 september 2021 kl. 08:44:41 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 00:03:11 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 22:28:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 18:38:01 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 12:18:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But do not despair! I have done it:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Preempting anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen who will no doubt spam my threads:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "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.
> > > > >
> > > > > > innumerable more like uncountable
> > > > > Gibberish again?
> > > > Define "innumerable" in a way that doesn't involve infinity.
> > > <<Cannot be counted.>>
> > >
> > > Webster: too many to be counted.
> > >
> > > See? And this is why it pays to always consult the dictionary!
> > >
> > > <<innumerable>> is the opposite of <<numerable>>.
> > What does "too many to be counted" mean?
> It means that if you could live forever and do nothing else but count, then you would still never finish.

smitchTheVilageIdiot@gmail.com schwrote:
....
> But what if the universe dies like scientists say?
> Religion knows better.

Which one? Why?

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 2:05:40 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 15:37:50 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > > Define "innumerable" in a way that doesn't involve infinity.
> > > <<Cannot be counted.>>
> > >
> > > Webster: too many to be counted.
> > >
> > > See? And this is why it pays to always consult the dictionary!
> > >
> > > <<innumerable>> is the opposite of <<numerable>>.
> > What does "too many to be counted" mean?
> It means that if you could live forever and do nothing else but count, then you would still never finish.

Jeez, yer dumb, Troll Boy. In mathematics, a set X is said to be uncountable (or innumerable) iff there does not does not exist an injective function (Google it) f: X --> N.

You haven't also banned all functions, have you, Troll Boy? (HA, HA, HA!!!)

Dan

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

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 6:27:48 PM UTC-7, Python wrote:
> smitchTheV...@gmail.com schwrote:
> ...
> > But what if the universe dies like scientists say?
> > Religion knows better.
> Which one? Why?

Science says all stars die.
Religion knows God does not end His universe
because of us.

Mitchell Raemsch

tisdag 7 september 2021 kl. 22:13:30 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 10:26:03 PM UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > tisdag 7 september 2021 kl. 20:05:40 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 15:37:50 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > tisdag 7 september 2021 kl. 08:44:41 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 00:03:11 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 22:28:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 18:38:01 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 12:18:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But do not despair! I have done it:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Preempting anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen who will no doubt spam my threads:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > innumerable more like uncountable
> > > > > > > Gibberish again?
> > > > > > Define "innumerable" in a way that doesn't involve infinity.
> > > > > <<Cannot be counted.>>
> > > > >
> > > > > Webster: too many to be counted.
> > > > >
> > > > > See? And this is why it pays to always consult the dictionary!
> > > > >
> > > > > <<innumerable>> is the opposite of <<numerable>>.
> > > > What does "too many to be counted" mean?
> > > It means that if you could live forever and do nothing else but count, then you would still never finish.
> > So your definition is dependent on life existing?
> Shut up moron. You are too stupid to continue this discussion. Get an education! Learn how to read English while you're at it.

On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 08:08:19 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 7 september 2021 kl. 22:13:30 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> > On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 10:26:03 PM UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > tisdag 7 september 2021 kl. 20:05:40 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 15:37:50 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > tisdag 7 september 2021 kl. 08:44:41 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 00:03:11 UTC+3, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > > måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 22:28:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 18:38:01 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 12:18:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But do not despair! I have done it:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Preempting anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen who will no doubt spam my threads:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "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.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > innumerable more like uncountable
> > > > > > > > Gibberish again?
> > > > > > > Define "innumerable" in a way that doesn't involve infinity.
> > > > > > <<Cannot be counted.>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Webster: too many to be counted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See? And this is why it pays to always consult the dictionary!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <<innumerable>> is the opposite of <<numerable>>.
> > > > > What does "too many to be counted" mean?
> > > > It means that if you could live forever and do nothing else but count, then you would still never finish.
> > > So your definition is dependent on life existing?
> > Shut up moron. You are too stupid to continue this discussion. Get an education! Learn how to read English while you're at it.

onsdag 8 september 2021 kl. 14:22:58 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 08:08:19 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > tisdag 7 september 2021 kl. 22:13:30 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> > > On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 10:26:03 PM UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > tisdag 7 september 2021 kl. 20:05:40 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 15:37:50 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > tisdag 7 september 2021 kl. 08:44:41 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 00:03:11 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 22:28:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 18:38:01 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 12:18:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > But do not despair! I have done it:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Preempting anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen who will no doubt spam my threads:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "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.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > innumerable more like uncountable
> > > > > > > > > Gibberish again?
> > > > > > > > Define "innumerable" in a way that doesn't involve infinity..
> > > > > > > <<Cannot be counted.>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Webster: too many to be counted.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See? And this is why it pays to always consult the dictionary!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <<innumerable>> is the opposite of <<numerable>>.
> > > > > > What does "too many to be counted" mean?
> > > > > It means that if you could live forever and do nothing else but count, then you would still never finish.
> > > > So your definition is dependent on life existing?
> > > Shut up moron. You are too stupid to continue this discussion. Get an education! Learn how to read English while you're at it.
>
> > When people ask the "difficult" questions you cannot answer, this is your typical response.
> OH? YOU MEAN LIKE:
> What does "too many to be counted" mean?
> LMAO. You stupid crank!
Yes, please define that rigorously.

onsdag 8 september 2021 kl. 14:22:58 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 08:08:19 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > tisdag 7 september 2021 kl. 22:13:30 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> > > On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 10:26:03 PM UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > tisdag 7 september 2021 kl. 20:05:40 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 15:37:50 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > tisdag 7 september 2021 kl. 08:44:41 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 00:03:11 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 22:28:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 18:38:01 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 12:18:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > But do not despair! I have done it:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Preempting anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen who will no doubt spam my threads:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "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.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > innumerable more like uncountable
> > > > > > > > > Gibberish again?
> > > > > > > > Define "innumerable" in a way that doesn't involve infinity..
> > > > > > > <<Cannot be counted.>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Webster: too many to be counted.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See? And this is why it pays to always consult the dictionary!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <<innumerable>> is the opposite of <<numerable>>.
> > > > > > What does "too many to be counted" mean?
> > > > > It means that if you could live forever and do nothing else but count, then you would still never finish.
> > > > So your definition is dependent on life existing?
> > > Shut up moron. You are too stupid to continue this discussion. Get an education! Learn how to read English while you're at it.
>
> > When people ask the "difficult" questions you cannot answer, this is your typical response.
> OH? YOU MEAN LIKE:
> What does "too many to be counted" mean?
> LMAO. You stupid crank!
see, he asks legitimate questions and because they show your stupidity you refuse to answer.