On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 4:03:49 PM UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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 ...

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

On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 12:06:54 PM UTC-4, New Age Prophet (aka John Gabriel (JG), Troll Boy) wrote:

> The dictionary defines the meaning of innumerable very clearly:
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innumerable
>
> innumerable: too many to be numbered
>
> Now if you cannot understand that, you should probably go back to primary school.
>

Dictionary definitions are a good starting point for informal discussions, but, as you must know by now, they can be quite useless when it comes to mathematical proofs, e.g. using your "definition" of a number, you cannot even prove that 2+2=4. As far as innumerable (or uncountable) sets go, the dictionary definition is useless for proving, for example, that the power set of N is uncountable. You need to know that a set X is uncountable iff there exists no injective function f: X --> N. In other words, there are more elements in X than there are in N. Get it? Didn't think so. Oh, well...

Really, Troll Boy, you are wasting your time here. If you want to continue discussing higher math with grown-ups, you really must at least get that GED. Don't you think, it is time at your age that you accomplished SOMETHING in your life?

Dan

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

onsdag 8 september 2021 kl. 18:06:54 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 4:03:49 PM UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 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 if you bother to look here, I actually graced your fellow idiot with a response even though one was not necessary!
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/ff01YMDONj8/m/MWRXLxdbAAAJ
>
> The dictionary defines the meaning of innumerable very clearly:
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innumerable
>
> innumerable: too many to be numbered
>
> Now if you cannot understand that, you should probably go back to primary school.
>
> <PLONK>
What does "too many to be numbered" mean mathematically?

onsdag 8 september 2021 kl. 18:06:54 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 4:03:49 PM UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 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 if you bother to look here, I actually graced your fellow idiot with a response even though one was not necessary!
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/ff01YMDONj8/m/MWRXLxdbAAAJ
>
> The dictionary defines the meaning of innumerable very clearly:
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innumerable
>
> innumerable: too many to be numbered
>
> Now if you cannot understand that, you should probably go back to primary school.
>
> <PLONK>

On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 21:29:46 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> onsdag 8 september 2021 kl. 18:06:54 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> > On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 4:03:49 PM UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 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 if you bother to look here, I actually graced your fellow idiot with a response even though one was not necessary!
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/ff01YMDONj8/m/MWRXLxdbAAAJ
> >
> > The dictionary defines the meaning of innumerable very clearly:
> >
> > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innumerable
> >
> > innumerable: too many to be numbered
> >
> > Now if you cannot understand that, you should probably go back to primary school.
> >
> > <PLONK>
> What does "too many to be numbered" mean mathematically?

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

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 1:47:28 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel (JG), Troll Boy) wrote:

[snip]

> > What does "too many to be numbered" mean mathematically?
> You see, if you had actually studied Euclid's Elements, you would have known the answer to this question. Hint: n+1
>

If you had actually studied set theory, you would know that a set X is uncountable (or innumerable) iff there exists no injective function f: X --> N. It has nothing to do with Euclid.

Dan

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

>You see, if you had actually studied Euclid's Elements

It is not the end all be all book.

>Get the following into your thick skull MALUM (means crank):

Look up what Malum means :) It does not mean crank. You are a crank.

>IF you cannot express your ideas in natural language, THEN you cannot do the same in mathematics or in any other science.

You can express it clearer, easier and shorter in FOL without the need to ask questions to clearify.

>I've pointed out to you and your fellow idiots, that if I give you a definition #^*$&Y@, then you cannot understand it unless it is well defined using a choice of natural language.

Using natural languages means it is open for ambiguity, FOL has NO ambiguity to it as it is extremely strict.

>You cannot learn or understand anything without the use of natural language.

Humans need to use natural languages to communicate, but there are reasons why we have in technical fields strict rules and precise words among many things to reduce the issues of it. NOL is a written language we have made to be EXTREMELY clear and have NO ambiguity as to avoid the ambiguities of natural languages.

>YES! That's why you need to refer to a dictionary - it usually contains the current meaning of words.

it describes the common usages, that does not always work when it comes to highly technical fields.

>This is why you never understand what is being said because you have so much drivel in your brain that prevents you from thinking clearly.

I know mathematics and many things more than you. You call anything you do not understand drivel.

torsdag 9 september 2021 kl. 07:47:28 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 21:29:46 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > onsdag 8 september 2021 kl. 18:06:54 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> > > On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 4:03:49 PM UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > 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 if you bother to look here, I actually graced your fellow idiot with a response even though one was not necessary!
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/ff01YMDONj8/m/MWRXLxdbAAAJ
> > >
> > > The dictionary defines the meaning of innumerable very clearly:
> > >
> > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innumerable
> > >
> > > innumerable: too many to be numbered
> > >
> > > Now if you cannot understand that, you should probably go back to primary school.
> > >
> > > <PLONK>
> > What does "too many to be numbered" mean mathematically?
> You see, if you had actually studied Euclid's Elements, you would have known the answer to this question. Hint: n+1
>
> You would have also known that it was not Euclid who defined the tangent line, but Apollonius, the author of conics - a work too advanced for even most mainstream math PhDs today.
>
> Do you feel stupid? It's so because you really are stupid. Your ignorance coupled with your arrogance produces a very foul stench.
>
> Malum scribbled:
> " and his point that for example 10^100 fits that because you cannot reach it in a human lifespan or computers can't even time etc.
> Again dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. That is why he asks for you to clearify."
> Get the following into your thick skull MALUM (means crank):
>
> IF you cannot express your ideas in natural language, THEN you cannot do the same in mathematics or in any other science.
>
> This is why people ask: "What does <something> mean"?
>
> I've pointed out to you and your fellow idiots, that if I give you a definition #^*$&Y@, then you cannot understand it unless it is well defined using a choice of natural language. You cannot learn or understand anything without the use of natural language. YES! That's why you need to refer to a dictionary - it usually contains the current meaning of words. This is why you never understand what is being said because you have so much drivel in your brain that prevents you from thinking clearly.
A dictionary contains common day uses of a word, not technical uses of a word. A YouTube video named "funny compilation" most likely doesn't mean anything related to GCC and programming at all. Would it be fair to LOGICALLY DESTROY PROGRAMMING WITH FACTS AND LOGIC using this more common usage of the word "compilation"?

On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 12:21:47 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >You see, if you had actually studied Euclid's Elements
> It is not the end all be all book.

It is very much the end all and be all book. This is why it is still in use today and the bullshit you are propagating is no longer in fashion.

Klyver scribbled:

"A dictionary contains common day uses of a word, not technical uses of a word."

Not at all. A dictionary contains the meaning of words.

"A YouTube video named "funny compilation" most likely doesn't mean anything related to GCC and programming at all. Would it be fair to LOGICALLY DESTROY PROGRAMMING WITH FACTS AND LOGIC using this more common usage of the word "compilation"?"

I see no analogy whatsoever, only a false analogy which you normally use in your "arguments".

>It is very much the end all and be all book.

Maybe to you, but not the rest of the world nor to mathematics. It is just a book with history behind it.

>This is why it is still in use today and the bullshit you are propagating is no longer in fashion.

No university, no school, no one uses it today. People read it to see the historical importance of it but that is all it is today.

What Markus and I say is what is used today at universities.

>Not at all. A dictionary contains the meaning of words.

False, again, it is descriptive of usage by people. It does not mean it contains all the technical stuff

fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 06:55:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 12:21:47 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >You see, if you had actually studied Euclid's Elements
> > It is not the end all be all book.
> It is very much the end all and be all book. This is why it is still in use today and the bullshit you are propagating is no longer in fashion.
>
> Klyver scribbled:
> "A dictionary contains common day uses of a word, not technical uses of a word."
> Not at all. A dictionary contains the meaning of words.
> "A YouTube video named "funny compilation" most likely doesn't mean anything related to GCC and programming at all. Would it be fair to LOGICALLY DESTROY PROGRAMMING WITH FACTS AND LOGIC using this more common usage of the word "compilation"?"
> I see no analogy whatsoever, only a false analogy which you normally use in your "arguments".
That is just wrong. Most dictionaries won't mention programming if you look under "compilation". Why? Because the technical meaning gets left out.

And sometimes dictionaries has some technical words in and leave out others. You won't most likely see a definition of an "open set" in a dictionary.

On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 13:02:55 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 06:55:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 12:21:47 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >You see, if you had actually studied Euclid's Elements
> > > It is not the end all be all book.
> > It is very much the end all and be all book. This is why it is still in use today and the bullshit you are propagating is no longer in fashion.
> >
> > Klyver scribbled:
> > "A dictionary contains common day uses of a word, not technical uses of a word."
> > Not at all. A dictionary contains the meaning of words.
> > "A YouTube video named "funny compilation" most likely doesn't mean anything related to GCC and programming at all. Would it be fair to LOGICALLY DESTROY PROGRAMMING WITH FACTS AND LOGIC using this more common usage of the word "compilation"?"
> > I see no analogy whatsoever, only a false analogy which you normally use in your "arguments".

> That is just wrong.

Nope. But I'll bite in response to your drivel this time....

> Most dictionaries won't mention programming if you look under "compilation".

Because it is not necessary. Compilation is a general noun that can be used in many contexts.

However, a <<compiler>> is a program that converts instructions into a machine-code or lower-level form so that they can be read and executed by a computer. There is a TECHNICAL ENTRY in the dictionary, so once again, you're an ignorant LIAR.

> Why? Because the technical meaning gets left out.

FALSE. See above.

>
> And sometimes dictionaries has some technical words in and leave out others.

FALSE. You having the typical mindset of a Trump supporter, facts don't mean anything to you. You simply dispense false information along with your co-troll and crank Zelos Malum.

> You won't most likely see a definition of an "open set" in a dictionary.

Not surprising, it's a junk concept that is hardly worth mentioning anywhere.

For all intents and purposes, there is nothing remarkable about either of the intervals (p,q) and [p,q]. It makes you feel smart though, doesn't it? LMAO.

fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 12:14:12 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 13:02:55 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 06:55:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 12:21:47 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >You see, if you had actually studied Euclid's Elements
> > > > It is not the end all be all book.
> > > It is very much the end all and be all book. This is why it is still in use today and the bullshit you are propagating is no longer in fashion.
> > >
> > > Klyver scribbled:
> > > "A dictionary contains common day uses of a word, not technical uses of a word."
> > > Not at all. A dictionary contains the meaning of words.
> > > "A YouTube video named "funny compilation" most likely doesn't mean anything related to GCC and programming at all. Would it be fair to LOGICALLY DESTROY PROGRAMMING WITH FACTS AND LOGIC using this more common usage of the word "compilation"?"
> > > I see no analogy whatsoever, only a false analogy which you normally use in your "arguments".
>
>
> > That is just wrong.
> Nope. But I'll bite in response to your drivel this time....
> > Most dictionaries won't mention programming if you look under "compilation".
> Because it is not necessary. Compilation is a general noun that can be used in many contexts.
>
> However, a <<compiler>> is a program that converts instructions into a machine-code or lower-level form so that they can be read and executed by a computer. There is a TECHNICAL ENTRY in the dictionary, so once again, you're an ignorant LIAR.
> > Why? Because the technical meaning gets left out.
> FALSE. See above.
> >
> > And sometimes dictionaries has some technical words in and leave out others.
> FALSE. You having the typical mindset of a Trump supporter, facts don't mean anything to you. You simply dispense false information along with your co-troll and crank Zelos Malum.
> > You won't most likely see a definition of an "open set" in a dictionary..
> Not surprising, it's a junk concept that is hardly worth mentioning anywhere.
>
> For all intents and purposes, there is nothing remarkable about either of the intervals (p,q) and [p,q]. It makes you feel smart though, doesn't it? LMAO.
That's the point, "compilation" has far more wide uses than what a compiler does to programming code, Hence this technical usage of the word won't likely show up in a dictionary, The same is true for many math words. Open sets, derivative, topology, functor, contradiction, limit, ... you name it.

So you can't really expect a dictionary to define these words in a technical sense and it doesn't make sense to "try debunking" math by strawmanning the meaning of words.

You should know better than debating semantics.

On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 17:32:19 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 12:14:12 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 13:02:55 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 06:55:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 12:21:47 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >You see, if you had actually studied Euclid's Elements
> > > > > It is not the end all be all book.
> > > > It is very much the end all and be all book. This is why it is still in use today and the bullshit you are propagating is no longer in fashion..
> > > >
> > > > Klyver scribbled:
> > > > "A dictionary contains common day uses of a word, not technical uses of a word."
> > > > Not at all. A dictionary contains the meaning of words.
> > > > "A YouTube video named "funny compilation" most likely doesn't mean anything related to GCC and programming at all. Would it be fair to LOGICALLY DESTROY PROGRAMMING WITH FACTS AND LOGIC using this more common usage of the word "compilation"?"
> > > > I see no analogy whatsoever, only a false analogy which you normally use in your "arguments".
> >
> >
> > > That is just wrong.
> > Nope. But I'll bite in response to your drivel this time....
> > > Most dictionaries won't mention programming if you look under "compilation".
> > Because it is not necessary. Compilation is a general noun that can be used in many contexts.
> >
> > However, a <<compiler>> is a program that converts instructions into a machine-code or lower-level form so that they can be read and executed by a computer. There is a TECHNICAL ENTRY in the dictionary, so once again, you're an ignorant LIAR.
> > > Why? Because the technical meaning gets left out.
> > FALSE. See above.
> > >
> > > And sometimes dictionaries has some technical words in and leave out others.
> > FALSE. You having the typical mindset of a Trump supporter, facts don't mean anything to you. You simply dispense false information along with your co-troll and crank Zelos Malum.
> > > You won't most likely see a definition of an "open set" in a dictionary.
> > Not surprising, it's a junk concept that is hardly worth mentioning anywhere.
> >
> > For all intents and purposes, there is nothing remarkable about either of the intervals (p,q) and [p,q]. It makes you feel smart though, doesn't it? LMAO.

> That's the point, "compilation" has far more wide uses than what a compiler does to programming code, Hence this technical usage of the word won't likely show up in a dictionary, The same is true for many math words. Open sets, derivative, topology, functor, contradiction, limit, ... you name it.

It does not matter that every word show up in the dictionary. What matters is that you understand the words which ARE IN the dictionary. Evidently you do not!

<drivel>

lördag 11 september 2021 kl. 08:20:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 17:32:19 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 12:14:12 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 13:02:55 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 06:55:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 12:21:47 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >You see, if you had actually studied Euclid's Elements
> > > > > > It is not the end all be all book.
> > > > > It is very much the end all and be all book. This is why it is still in use today and the bullshit you are propagating is no longer in fashion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Klyver scribbled:
> > > > > "A dictionary contains common day uses of a word, not technical uses of a word."
> > > > > Not at all. A dictionary contains the meaning of words.
> > > > > "A YouTube video named "funny compilation" most likely doesn't mean anything related to GCC and programming at all. Would it be fair to LOGICALLY DESTROY PROGRAMMING WITH FACTS AND LOGIC using this more common usage of the word "compilation"?"
> > > > > I see no analogy whatsoever, only a false analogy which you normally use in your "arguments".
> > >
> > >
> > > > That is just wrong.
> > > Nope. But I'll bite in response to your drivel this time....
> > > > Most dictionaries won't mention programming if you look under "compilation".
> > > Because it is not necessary. Compilation is a general noun that can be used in many contexts.
> > >
> > > However, a <<compiler>> is a program that converts instructions into a machine-code or lower-level form so that they can be read and executed by a computer. There is a TECHNICAL ENTRY in the dictionary, so once again, you're an ignorant LIAR.
> > > > Why? Because the technical meaning gets left out.
> > > FALSE. See above.
> > > >
> > > > And sometimes dictionaries has some technical words in and leave out others.
> > > FALSE. You having the typical mindset of a Trump supporter, facts don't mean anything to you. You simply dispense false information along with your co-troll and crank Zelos Malum.
> > > > You won't most likely see a definition of an "open set" in a dictionary.
> > > Not surprising, it's a junk concept that is hardly worth mentioning anywhere.
> > >
> > > For all intents and purposes, there is nothing remarkable about either of the intervals (p,q) and [p,q]. It makes you feel smart though, doesn't it? LMAO.
>
> > That's the point, "compilation" has far more wide uses than what a compiler does to programming code, Hence this technical usage of the word won't likely show up in a dictionary, The same is true for many math words. Open sets, derivative, topology, functor, contradiction, limit, ... you name it..
> It does not matter that every word show up in the dictionary. What matters is that you understand the words which ARE IN the dictionary. Evidently you do not!
>
> <drivel>
It also means a dictionary cannot be an absolute authority on terminology. Ultimately, math words means whatever standard textbokks and the mathematical community want them to mean.

On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:08:53 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> lördag 11 september 2021 kl. 08:20:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 17:32:19 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 12:14:12 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 13:02:55 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 06:55:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 12:21:47 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > > >You see, if you had actually studied Euclid's Elements
> > > > > > > It is not the end all be all book.
> > > > > > It is very much the end all and be all book. This is why it is still in use today and the bullshit you are propagating is no longer in fashion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Klyver scribbled:
> > > > > > "A dictionary contains common day uses of a word, not technical uses of a word."
> > > > > > Not at all. A dictionary contains the meaning of words.
> > > > > > "A YouTube video named "funny compilation" most likely doesn't mean anything related to GCC and programming at all. Would it be fair to LOGICALLY DESTROY PROGRAMMING WITH FACTS AND LOGIC using this more common usage of the word "compilation"?"
> > > > > > I see no analogy whatsoever, only a false analogy which you normally use in your "arguments".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > That is just wrong.
> > > > Nope. But I'll bite in response to your drivel this time....
> > > > > Most dictionaries won't mention programming if you look under "compilation".
> > > > Because it is not necessary. Compilation is a general noun that can be used in many contexts.
> > > >
> > > > However, a <<compiler>> is a program that converts instructions into a machine-code or lower-level form so that they can be read and executed by a computer. There is a TECHNICAL ENTRY in the dictionary, so once again, you're an ignorant LIAR.
> > > > > Why? Because the technical meaning gets left out.
> > > > FALSE. See above.
> > > > >
> > > > > And sometimes dictionaries has some technical words in and leave out others.
> > > > FALSE. You having the typical mindset of a Trump supporter, facts don't mean anything to you. You simply dispense false information along with your co-troll and crank Zelos Malum.
> > > > > You won't most likely see a definition of an "open set" in a dictionary.
> > > > Not surprising, it's a junk concept that is hardly worth mentioning anywhere.
> > > >
> > > > For all intents and purposes, there is nothing remarkable about either of the intervals (p,q) and [p,q]. It makes you feel smart though, doesn't it? LMAO.
> >
> > > That's the point, "compilation" has far more wide uses than what a compiler does to programming code, Hence this technical usage of the word won't likely show up in a dictionary, The same is true for many math words. Open sets, derivative, topology, functor, contradiction, limit, ... you name it.
> > It does not matter that every word show up in the dictionary. What matters is that you understand the words which ARE IN the dictionary. Evidently you do not!
> >
> > <drivel>
> It also means a dictionary cannot be an absolute authority on terminology..

I am the ultimate authority of course, but as a first step, the dictionary is always best.

> Ultimately, math words means whatever standard textbokks and the mathematical community want them to mean.

Nonsense.

söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:32:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:08:53 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > lördag 11 september 2021 kl. 08:20:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 17:32:19 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 12:14:12 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 13:02:55 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 06:55:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 12:21:47 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > >You see, if you had actually studied Euclid's Elements
> > > > > > > > It is not the end all be all book.
> > > > > > > It is very much the end all and be all book. This is why it is still in use today and the bullshit you are propagating is no longer in fashion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Klyver scribbled:
> > > > > > > "A dictionary contains common day uses of a word, not technical uses of a word."
> > > > > > > Not at all. A dictionary contains the meaning of words.
> > > > > > > "A YouTube video named "funny compilation" most likely doesn't mean anything related to GCC and programming at all. Would it be fair to LOGICALLY DESTROY PROGRAMMING WITH FACTS AND LOGIC using this more common usage of the word "compilation"?"
> > > > > > > I see no analogy whatsoever, only a false analogy which you normally use in your "arguments".
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > That is just wrong.
> > > > > Nope. But I'll bite in response to your drivel this time....
> > > > > > Most dictionaries won't mention programming if you look under "compilation".
> > > > > Because it is not necessary. Compilation is a general noun that can be used in many contexts.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, a <<compiler>> is a program that converts instructions into a machine-code or lower-level form so that they can be read and executed by a computer. There is a TECHNICAL ENTRY in the dictionary, so once again, you're an ignorant LIAR.
> > > > > > Why? Because the technical meaning gets left out.
> > > > > FALSE. See above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And sometimes dictionaries has some technical words in and leave out others.
> > > > > FALSE. You having the typical mindset of a Trump supporter, facts don't mean anything to you. You simply dispense false information along with your co-troll and crank Zelos Malum.
> > > > > > You won't most likely see a definition of an "open set" in a dictionary.
> > > > > Not surprising, it's a junk concept that is hardly worth mentioning anywhere.
> > > > >
> > > > > For all intents and purposes, there is nothing remarkable about either of the intervals (p,q) and [p,q]. It makes you feel smart though, doesn't it? LMAO.
> > >
> > > > That's the point, "compilation" has far more wide uses than what a compiler does to programming code, Hence this technical usage of the word won't likely show up in a dictionary, The same is true for many math words. Open sets, derivative, topology, functor, contradiction, limit, ... you name it.
> > > It does not matter that every word show up in the dictionary. What matters is that you understand the words which ARE IN the dictionary. Evidently you do not!
> > >
> > > <drivel>
> > It also means a dictionary cannot be an absolute authority on terminology.
> I am the ultimate authority of course, but as a first step, the dictionary is always best.
> > Ultimately, math words means whatever standard textbokks and the mathematical community want them to mean.
> Nonsense.
Of course, you are right and everyone else is wrong.

The Dunning–Kruger effect in action.

söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:32:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:08:53 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > lördag 11 september 2021 kl. 08:20:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 17:32:19 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 12:14:12 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 13:02:55 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 06:55:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 12:21:47 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > >You see, if you had actually studied Euclid's Elements
> > > > > > > > It is not the end all be all book.
> > > > > > > It is very much the end all and be all book. This is why it is still in use today and the bullshit you are propagating is no longer in fashion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Klyver scribbled:
> > > > > > > "A dictionary contains common day uses of a word, not technical uses of a word."
> > > > > > > Not at all. A dictionary contains the meaning of words.
> > > > > > > "A YouTube video named "funny compilation" most likely doesn't mean anything related to GCC and programming at all. Would it be fair to LOGICALLY DESTROY PROGRAMMING WITH FACTS AND LOGIC using this more common usage of the word "compilation"?"
> > > > > > > I see no analogy whatsoever, only a false analogy which you normally use in your "arguments".
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > That is just wrong.
> > > > > Nope. But I'll bite in response to your drivel this time....
> > > > > > Most dictionaries won't mention programming if you look under "compilation".
> > > > > Because it is not necessary. Compilation is a general noun that can be used in many contexts.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, a <<compiler>> is a program that converts instructions into a machine-code or lower-level form so that they can be read and executed by a computer. There is a TECHNICAL ENTRY in the dictionary, so once again, you're an ignorant LIAR.
> > > > > > Why? Because the technical meaning gets left out.
> > > > > FALSE. See above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And sometimes dictionaries has some technical words in and leave out others.
> > > > > FALSE. You having the typical mindset of a Trump supporter, facts don't mean anything to you. You simply dispense false information along with your co-troll and crank Zelos Malum.
> > > > > > You won't most likely see a definition of an "open set" in a dictionary.
> > > > > Not surprising, it's a junk concept that is hardly worth mentioning anywhere.
> > > > >
> > > > > For all intents and purposes, there is nothing remarkable about either of the intervals (p,q) and [p,q]. It makes you feel smart though, doesn't it? LMAO.
> > >
> > > > That's the point, "compilation" has far more wide uses than what a compiler does to programming code, Hence this technical usage of the word won't likely show up in a dictionary, The same is true for many math words. Open sets, derivative, topology, functor, contradiction, limit, ... you name it.
> > > It does not matter that every word show up in the dictionary. What matters is that you understand the words which ARE IN the dictionary. Evidently you do not!
> > >
> > > <drivel>
> > It also means a dictionary cannot be an absolute authority on terminology.
> I am the ultimate authority of course, but as a first step, the dictionary is always best.
> > Ultimately, math words means whatever standard textbokks and the mathematical community want them to mean.
> Nonsense.

You are not the authority on what words mean in mathematics. You are no authority in mathematics

tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:52:44 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:11:32 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:32:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:08:53 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > lördag 11 september 2021 kl. 08:20:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 17:32:19 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 12:14:12 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 13:02:55 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 06:55:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 12:21:47 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >You see, if you had actually studied Euclid's Elements
> > > > > > > > > > It is not the end all be all book.
> > > > > > > > > It is very much the end all and be all book. This is why it is still in use today and the bullshit you are propagating is no longer in fashion.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Klyver scribbled:
> > > > > > > > > "A dictionary contains common day uses of a word, not technical uses of a word."
> > > > > > > > > Not at all. A dictionary contains the meaning of words.
> > > > > > > > > "A YouTube video named "funny compilation" most likely doesn't mean anything related to GCC and programming at all. Would it be fair to LOGICALLY DESTROY PROGRAMMING WITH FACTS AND LOGIC using this more common usage of the word "compilation"?"
> > > > > > > > > I see no analogy whatsoever, only a false analogy which you normally use in your "arguments".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That is just wrong.
> > > > > > > Nope. But I'll bite in response to your drivel this time....
> > > > > > > > Most dictionaries won't mention programming if you look under "compilation".
> > > > > > > Because it is not necessary. Compilation is a general noun that can be used in many contexts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, a <<compiler>> is a program that converts instructions into a machine-code or lower-level form so that they can be read and executed by a computer. There is a TECHNICAL ENTRY in the dictionary, so once again, you're an ignorant LIAR.
> > > > > > > > Why? Because the technical meaning gets left out.
> > > > > > > FALSE. See above.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And sometimes dictionaries has some technical words in and leave out others.
> > > > > > > FALSE. You having the typical mindset of a Trump supporter, facts don't mean anything to you. You simply dispense false information along with your co-troll and crank Zelos Malum.
> > > > > > > > You won't most likely see a definition of an "open set" in a dictionary.
> > > > > > > Not surprising, it's a junk concept that is hardly worth mentioning anywhere.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For all intents and purposes, there is nothing remarkable about either of the intervals (p,q) and [p,q]. It makes you feel smart though, doesn't it? LMAO.
> > > > >
> > > > > > That's the point, "compilation" has far more wide uses than what a compiler does to programming code, Hence this technical usage of the word won't likely show up in a dictionary, The same is true for many math words. Open sets, derivative, topology, functor, contradiction, limit, ... you name it.
> > > > > It does not matter that every word show up in the dictionary. What matters is that you understand the words which ARE IN the dictionary. Evidently you do not!
> > > > >
> > > > > <drivel>
> > > > It also means a dictionary cannot be an absolute authority on terminology.
> > > I am the ultimate authority of course, but as a first step, the dictionary is always best.
> > > > Ultimately, math words means whatever standard textbokks and the mathematical community want them to mean.
> > > Nonsense.
> > Of course, you are right and everyone else is wrong.
> The ONLY correct statement you've made in all your shit posts.
> >
> > The Dunning–Kruger effect in action.
> An unscientific study that was conducted on 50 undergrad psychology students at one university alone and won the IgNobel awards.
>
> Do you even actually research the bullshit that is written on Wikipedia Moronica? LMAO.
>
> On the other hand, a scientific study conducted on cranks like you:
>
> www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

When you think everyone else is always wrong, and you are always right, 99% of the time, you are in fact wrong.

The studies on Dunning-kruger effect has been plenty and many and it shows up over and over again. Idiots like you overestimate your abilities significantly while knowledgable people like Marcus and I underestimate our abilities.

On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:11:32 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:32:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:08:53 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > lördag 11 september 2021 kl. 08:20:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 17:32:19 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 12:14:12 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 13:02:55 UTC+3, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 06:55:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 12:21:47 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >You see, if you had actually studied Euclid's Elements
> > > > > > > > > It is not the end all be all book.
> > > > > > > > It is very much the end all and be all book. This is why it is still in use today and the bullshit you are propagating is no longer in fashion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Klyver scribbled:
> > > > > > > > "A dictionary contains common day uses of a word, not technical uses of a word."
> > > > > > > > Not at all. A dictionary contains the meaning of words.
> > > > > > > > "A YouTube video named "funny compilation" most likely doesn't mean anything related to GCC and programming at all. Would it be fair to LOGICALLY DESTROY PROGRAMMING WITH FACTS AND LOGIC using this more common usage of the word "compilation"?"
> > > > > > > > I see no analogy whatsoever, only a false analogy which you normally use in your "arguments".
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is just wrong.
> > > > > > Nope. But I'll bite in response to your drivel this time....
> > > > > > > Most dictionaries won't mention programming if you look under "compilation".
> > > > > > Because it is not necessary. Compilation is a general noun that can be used in many contexts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, a <<compiler>> is a program that converts instructions into a machine-code or lower-level form so that they can be read and executed by a computer. There is a TECHNICAL ENTRY in the dictionary, so once again, you're an ignorant LIAR.
> > > > > > > Why? Because the technical meaning gets left out.
> > > > > > FALSE. See above.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And sometimes dictionaries has some technical words in and leave out others.
> > > > > > FALSE. You having the typical mindset of a Trump supporter, facts don't mean anything to you. You simply dispense false information along with your co-troll and crank Zelos Malum.
> > > > > > > You won't most likely see a definition of an "open set" in a dictionary.
> > > > > > Not surprising, it's a junk concept that is hardly worth mentioning anywhere.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For all intents and purposes, there is nothing remarkable about either of the intervals (p,q) and [p,q]. It makes you feel smart though, doesn't it? LMAO.
> > > >
> > > > > That's the point, "compilation" has far more wide uses than what a compiler does to programming code, Hence this technical usage of the word won't likely show up in a dictionary, The same is true for many math words.. Open sets, derivative, topology, functor, contradiction, limit, ... you name it.
> > > > It does not matter that every word show up in the dictionary. What matters is that you understand the words which ARE IN the dictionary. Evidently you do not!
> > > >
> > > > <drivel>
> > > It also means a dictionary cannot be an absolute authority on terminology.
> > I am the ultimate authority of course, but as a first step, the dictionary is always best.
> > > Ultimately, math words means whatever standard textbokks and the mathematical community want them to mean.
> > Nonsense.
> Of course, you are right and everyone else is wrong.

The ONLY correct statement you've made in all your shit posts.

>
> The Dunning–Kruger effect in action.

An unscientific study that was conducted on 50 undergrad psychology students at one university alone and won the IgNobel awards.

Do you even actually research the bullshit that is written on Wikipedia Moronica? LMAO.

On the other hand, a scientific study conducted on cranks like you:

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

On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 08:52:44 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:11:32 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:32:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:08:53 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > lördag 11 september 2021 kl. 08:20:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 17:32:19 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 12:14:12 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 13:02:55 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 06:55:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 12:21:47 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >You see, if you had actually studied Euclid's Elements
> > > > > > > > > > It is not the end all be all book.
> > > > > > > > > It is very much the end all and be all book. This is why it is still in use today and the bullshit you are propagating is no longer in fashion.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Klyver scribbled:
> > > > > > > > > "A dictionary contains common day uses of a word, not technical uses of a word."
> > > > > > > > > Not at all. A dictionary contains the meaning of words.
> > > > > > > > > "A YouTube video named "funny compilation" most likely doesn't mean anything related to GCC and programming at all. Would it be fair to LOGICALLY DESTROY PROGRAMMING WITH FACTS AND LOGIC using this more common usage of the word "compilation"?"
> > > > > > > > > I see no analogy whatsoever, only a false analogy which you normally use in your "arguments".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That is just wrong.
> > > > > > > Nope. But I'll bite in response to your drivel this time....
> > > > > > > > Most dictionaries won't mention programming if you look under "compilation".
> > > > > > > Because it is not necessary. Compilation is a general noun that can be used in many contexts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, a <<compiler>> is a program that converts instructions into a machine-code or lower-level form so that they can be read and executed by a computer. There is a TECHNICAL ENTRY in the dictionary, so once again, you're an ignorant LIAR.
> > > > > > > > Why? Because the technical meaning gets left out.
> > > > > > > FALSE. See above.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And sometimes dictionaries has some technical words in and leave out others.
> > > > > > > FALSE. You having the typical mindset of a Trump supporter, facts don't mean anything to you. You simply dispense false information along with your co-troll and crank Zelos Malum.
> > > > > > > > You won't most likely see a definition of an "open set" in a dictionary.
> > > > > > > Not surprising, it's a junk concept that is hardly worth mentioning anywhere.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For all intents and purposes, there is nothing remarkable about either of the intervals (p,q) and [p,q]. It makes you feel smart though, doesn't it? LMAO.
> > > > >
> > > > > > That's the point, "compilation" has far more wide uses than what a compiler does to programming code, Hence this technical usage of the word won't likely show up in a dictionary, The same is true for many math words. Open sets, derivative, topology, functor, contradiction, limit, ... you name it.
> > > > > It does not matter that every word show up in the dictionary. What matters is that you understand the words which ARE IN the dictionary. Evidently you do not!
> > > > >
> > > > > <drivel>
> > > > It also means a dictionary cannot be an absolute authority on terminology.
> > > I am the ultimate authority of course, but as a first step, the dictionary is always best.
> > > > Ultimately, math words means whatever standard textbokks and the mathematical community want them to mean.
> > > Nonsense.
> > Of course, you are right and everyone else is wrong.
> The ONLY correct statement you've made in all your shit posts.
> >
> > The Dunning–Kruger effect in action.
> An unscientific study that was conducted on 50 undergrad psychology students at one university alone and won the IgNobel awards.
>
> Do you even actually research the bullshit that is written on Wikipedia Moronica? LMAO.
>
> On the other hand, a scientific study conducted on cranks like you:
>
> www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

Confirmation bias is the most serious problem where mainstream math academics are concerned.

onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 08:25:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 08:52:44 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:11:32 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:32:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:08:53 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > lördag 11 september 2021 kl. 08:20:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 17:32:19 UTC+3, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 12:14:12 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 13:02:55 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 06:55:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 12:21:47 UTC+3, zelos....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >You see, if you had actually studied Euclid's Elements
> > > > > > > > > > > It is not the end all be all book.
> > > > > > > > > > It is very much the end all and be all book. This is why it is still in use today and the bullshit you are propagating is no longer in fashion.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Klyver scribbled:
> > > > > > > > > > "A dictionary contains common day uses of a word, not technical uses of a word."
> > > > > > > > > > Not at all. A dictionary contains the meaning of words.
> > > > > > > > > > "A YouTube video named "funny compilation" most likely doesn't mean anything related to GCC and programming at all. Would it be fair to LOGICALLY DESTROY PROGRAMMING WITH FACTS AND LOGIC using this more common usage of the word "compilation"?"
> > > > > > > > > > I see no analogy whatsoever, only a false analogy which you normally use in your "arguments".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That is just wrong.
> > > > > > > > Nope. But I'll bite in response to your drivel this time.....
> > > > > > > > > Most dictionaries won't mention programming if you look under "compilation".
> > > > > > > > Because it is not necessary. Compilation is a general noun that can be used in many contexts.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > However, a <<compiler>> is a program that converts instructions into a machine-code or lower-level form so that they can be read and executed by a computer. There is a TECHNICAL ENTRY in the dictionary, so once again, you're an ignorant LIAR.
> > > > > > > > > Why? Because the technical meaning gets left out.
> > > > > > > > FALSE. See above.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And sometimes dictionaries has some technical words in and leave out others.
> > > > > > > > FALSE. You having the typical mindset of a Trump supporter, facts don't mean anything to you. You simply dispense false information along with your co-troll and crank Zelos Malum.
> > > > > > > > > You won't most likely see a definition of an "open set" in a dictionary.
> > > > > > > > Not surprising, it's a junk concept that is hardly worth mentioning anywhere.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For all intents and purposes, there is nothing remarkable about either of the intervals (p,q) and [p,q]. It makes you feel smart though, doesn't it? LMAO.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's the point, "compilation" has far more wide uses than what a compiler does to programming code, Hence this technical usage of the word won't likely show up in a dictionary, The same is true for many math words. Open sets, derivative, topology, functor, contradiction, limit, ... you name it.
> > > > > > It does not matter that every word show up in the dictionary. What matters is that you understand the words which ARE IN the dictionary. Evidently you do not!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <drivel>
> > > > > It also means a dictionary cannot be an absolute authority on terminology.
> > > > I am the ultimate authority of course, but as a first step, the dictionary is always best.
> > > > > Ultimately, math words means whatever standard textbokks and the mathematical community want them to mean.
> > > > Nonsense.
> > > Of course, you are right and everyone else is wrong.
> > The ONLY correct statement you've made in all your shit posts.
> > >
> > > The Dunning–Kruger effect in action.
> > An unscientific study that was conducted on 50 undergrad psychology students at one university alone and won the IgNobel awards.
> >
> > Do you even actually research the bullshit that is written on Wikipedia Moronica? LMAO.
> >
> > On the other hand, a scientific study conducted on cranks like you:
> >
> > www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds
> Confirmation bias is the most serious problem where mainstream math academics are concerned.

Especially for cranks like you

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 2:37:50 PM UTC+2, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Webster: too many to be counted.
> >
> What does "too many to be counted" mean?

In JG's case, more than three.

Can you do real analysis with your calculus. Lets say I want
lim x->a f(x), abstractly as an operator. But you give me

only abstractly as an operator derivative g'(x). When I have derivate
operator, can I also perform limit operation somehow by

means of the derivate operator?

Eram semper recta schrieb am Montag, 6. September 2021 um 12:18:16 UTC+2:
> 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.

Lets give it a try, what does g'(x) traditionally mean:

g(x+h) - g(x)
g'(x) = lim h->0 -------------------
h

Lets try g(x) = f(x)*(x-a), then we have:

f(a+h)*h - 0
g'(a) = lim h->0 -------------------
h

= lim h->0 f(a+h)

= lim x->a f(x)

Cool!

P.S.: The product rule is imprecise here:

(f(x)*(x-a))' = f'(x)*(x-a) + f(x)

The above only holds where f(x) is defined,
we can then plugin a, and do get:

(f(x)*(x-a))' where x=a

= f'(a)*(a-a) + f(a)

= f(a)

Where f(x) is undefined, you need the limit.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 15. September 2021 um 14:56:20 UTC+2:
> Can you do real analysis with your calculus. Lets say I want
> lim x->a f(x), abstractly as an operator. But you give me
>
> only abstractly as an operator derivative g'(x). When I have derivate
> operator, can I also perform limit operation somehow by
>
> means of the derivate operator?
> Eram semper recta schrieb am Montag, 6. September 2021 um 12:18:16 UTC+2:
> > 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.