Still have not received an apology from Redmond for claiming erroneously that my theorem was known before I revealed it.

Link to where Prof. Don Redmond (redmond@siu.edu) claims my theorem was known:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/LYEhpApA0sg/m/dM-GuQW0CAAJ

My historic geometric theorem:

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

How it fixes the bogus mainstream definition of integral:

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

Labarre's Intermediate Analysis:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aABeT9e57630Bq90R6pJaCN8wBaNvuup

On page 118, Labarre makes his first attempt at defining "differentiability" using "neighbourhoods". What idiot mainstream math academics still haven't come to terms with, is that you can't prove differentiability without assuming it. In 6.2, the fool Labarre uses a Taylor expansion. To say "Let f be differentiable" is absolutely circular. There he writes:

f(p) = f(q) + f'(q)(p-q) + a(q,p)(p-q)

=> [f(p)-f(q)]/(p-q) = f'(q) + a(q,p)

If we let p=x+h and q=x then:

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

which is decidedly NOT the same as my identity:

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

since x =/= x+h.

But small details aside (which mainstream academics normally miss because they do not pay attention to detail!), Labarre's text is full of errors of circularity. That Labarre noticed the extra term is the difference in slope was pure accident because if he realised its importance, he would have made the connection to the definite integral. He did not! This is the thing about monkeys (mainstream math academics) recognising patterns - it makes them believe they are geniuses. LMAO.

Important: You CANNOT use ANY of the methods of calculus without assuming a SMOOTH function, meaning there that over any given interval, we call a function smooth IF AND ONLY IF, it is possible to produce no more than one tangent line at any point in the given interval, where tangent line is defined sensibly (and not circularly as in the mainstream) as a line that meets in one point, extends to both sides and NEVER crosses a curve at the point of intersection.

On page 145, Labarre makes no connection between [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x)+Q(x,h) and his definition of definite integral in terms of limit theory.

In spite of all this, Labarre proved NOTHING through the use of geometry as I do in my historic theorem (link above) for general derivative.

YES, I do know better. I am greater than Newton or Leibniz or any of the morons who came after them. I am the Great John Gabriel, discoverer of the New Calculus which by the way, does not use this geometric theorem or its redefinition of definite integral for fixing mainstream formulation, but provides rigorous definitions of both derivative and integral without the use of ill-formed concepts such as limits, infinity and infinitesimals.

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

On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 5:04:43 AM UTC-4, New Age Prophet (aka John Gabriel (JG), Troll Boy) wrote:
> Still have not received an apology from Redmond for claiming erroneously that my theorem was known before I revealed it.
>

The fact remains that your derivative "theorem" was and remains utter unproven nonsense, Troll Boy.

JG here claims to have a discovered a shortcut to mastering calculus without using limits. Unfortunately for him, this means he has no workable a definition of the derivative of a function. It blows up for functions as simple f(x)=|x|. Or even f(x)=0. As a result, he has had to ban 0, negative numbers and instantaneous rates of change rendering his goofy little system quite useless. What a moron!

Forget calculus. JG has also banned all axioms because he cannot even derive the most elementary results of basic arithmetic, e.g. 2+2=4. Such results require the use of axioms, so he must figure he's now off the hook. Again, what a moron!

Even at his advanced age (60+?), John Gabriel is STILL struggling with basic, elementary-school arithmetic. As he has repeatedly posted here:

"There are no points on a line."
--April 12, 2021

"Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
--July 10, 2020

"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017

“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015

"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
--October 28, 2017

"Zero is not a number."
-- Dec. 2, 2019

"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017

“There is no such thing as an empty set.”
--Oct. 4, 2019

“3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
--Oct. 22, 2019

No math genius our JG, though he actually lists his job title as “mathematician” at Linkedin.com. Apparently, they do not verify your credentials.

Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated March 10, 2020) at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ

Dan

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

lördag 11 september 2021 kl. 11:04:43 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> Still have not received an apology from Redmond for claiming erroneously that my theorem was known before I revealed it.
>
> Link to where Prof. Don Redmond (red...@siu.edu) claims my theorem was known:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/LYEhpApA0sg/m/dM-GuQW0CAAJ
>
> My historic geometric theorem:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> How it fixes the bogus mainstream definition of integral:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
>
>
> Labarre's Intermediate Analysis:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aABeT9e57630Bq90R6pJaCN8wBaNvuup
>
> On page 118, Labarre makes his first attempt at defining "differentiability" using "neighbourhoods". What idiot mainstream math academics still haven't come to terms with, is that you can't prove differentiability without assuming it. In 6.2, the fool Labarre uses a Taylor expansion. To say "Let f be differentiable" is absolutely circular. There he writes:
>
> f(p) = f(q) + f'(q)(p-q) + a(q,p)(p-q)
>
> => [f(p)-f(q)]/(p-q) = f'(q) + a(q,p)
>
> If we let p=x+h and q=x then:
>
> [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + a(x,x+h)
>
> which is decidedly NOT the same as my identity:
>
> [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
>
> since x =/= x+h.
>
> But small details aside (which mainstream academics normally miss because they do not pay attention to detail!), Labarre's text is full of errors of circularity. That Labarre noticed the extra term is the difference in slope was pure accident because if he realised its importance, he would have made the connection to the definite integral. He did not! This is the thing about monkeys (mainstream math academics) recognising patterns - it makes them believe they are geniuses. LMAO.
>
> Important: You CANNOT use ANY of the methods of calculus without assuming a SMOOTH function, meaning there that over any given interval, we call a function smooth IF AND ONLY IF, it is possible to produce no more than one tangent line at any point in the given interval, where tangent line is defined sensibly (and not circularly as in the mainstream) as a line that meets in one point, extends to both sides and NEVER crosses a curve at the point of intersection.
>
> On page 145, Labarre makes no connection between [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x)+Q(x,h) and his definition of definite integral in terms of limit theory.
>
> In spite of all this, Labarre proved NOTHING through the use of geometry as I do in my historic theorem (link above) for general derivative.
>
> YES, I do know better. I am greater than Newton or Leibniz or any of the morons who came after them. I am the Great John Gabriel, discoverer of the New Calculus which by the way, does not use this geometric theorem or its redefinition of definite integral for fixing mainstream formulation, but provides rigorous definitions of both derivative and integral without the use of ill-formed concepts such as limits, infinity and infinitesimals.
If you bothered to read, you would realise it's a theorem and not a definition. Also a(x, x+h) and a(x, h) is the exact same thing. Just a change of variables.

Dan Christensen wrote:

> JG here claims to have a discovered a shortcut to mastering calculus
> without using limits. Unfortunately for him, this means he has no
> workable a definition of the derivative of a function. It blows up for
> functions as simple f(x)=|x|. Or even f(x)=0. As a result, he has had to
> ban 0, negative numbers and instantaneous rates of change rendering his
> goofy little system quite useless. What a moron!

amazing they can push the lie for so long:

Biden lays a wreath in Shanksville after VP Harris called for a
'united America' during her 9/11 speech and Bush slammed
'violent extremists': Clinton and Obama earlier joined Biden
at Ground Zero
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9980269/Biden-arrives-Ground-Zero-mark-20th-anniversary-9-11.html

On 9/11/2021 4:04 AM, New Age Prophet wrote:
> Still have not received an apology from Redmond for claiming erroneously that my theorem was known before I revealed it.
>

>
> which is decidedly NOT the same as my FLAWED identity:
>
> [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)

Q(x,h) is the QUACK function => simply an error term to correct bad math.

On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 22:38:37 UTC+3, Serg io wrote:
<snip shit>

You're just a stupid Slav idiot.