söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >
> > > My theorem [bla]
> > >
> > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> >
> > You mean
> >
> > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> >
> > - published many years ago?
> >
> > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
>
> It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
"Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
-- John Gabriel

On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >
> > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > >
> > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > >
> > > You mean
> > >
> > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > >
> > > - published many years ago?
> > >
> > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> >
> > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> -- John Gabriel

Your point? I see, nothing as usual.

söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > >
> > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > >
> > > > You mean
> > > >
> > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > >
> > > > - published many years ago?
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > >
> > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > -- John Gabriel
> Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.

söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > >
> > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > >
> > > > You mean
> > > >
> > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > >
> > > > - published many years ago?
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > >
> > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > -- John Gabriel
> Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
That means like Evangelical Christians, you refuse to ever acknowledge you are wrong.

You are just like them

On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean
> > > > >
> > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > >
> > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > -- John Gabriel
> > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.

I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.

You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.

tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You mean
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > >
> > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.
> I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
>
> You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.

Having another way to define derivatives, which yours don't, does not in anyway demonstrate the previous ones are wrong or were bogus. It just adds one more to the list of many ways to define derivative and build calculus, yawn.

Is this derived from your "only one" mentality?

On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 09:02:09 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You mean
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx..pdf
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.
> > I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
> >
> > You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
> Having another way to define derivatives,

There is no other way to define a derivative because a derivative by definition is an expression that indicates the slope of a special kind of straight line, one called a <tangent line>. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.

onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 08:19:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 09:02:09 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You mean
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > > > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.
> > > I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
> > >
> > > You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
> > Having another way to define derivatives,
> There is no other way to define a derivative because a derivative by definition is an expression that indicates the slope of a special kind of straight line, one called a <tangent line>. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.

Here we have have your "only one" mentality again. The derivative can be defined in many ways for various purposes that gives us slightly different capabilities. There are more than one way to skin a cat.

We have the classical way to define it.
We have the non-standard way
We have measure theory way to define it.
We have an algebraic way to define it
There are many ways because derivative and integral are about functions, not lines.

tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You mean
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > >
> > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.
> I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
>
> You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
I don'y hate it. I just think it's wrong.

On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:19:44 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You mean
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx..pdf
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.
> > I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
> >
> > You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.

> I don'y hate it. I just think it's wrong.

You hate it because you know you're wrong.

onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:12:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:19:44 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You mean
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > > > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.
> > > I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
> > >
> > > You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
>
> > I don'y hate it. I just think it's wrong.
> You hate it because you know you're wrong.
That's not it, chief.

On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:25:42 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:12:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:19:44 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You mean
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > > > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > > > > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.
> > > > I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
> > > >
> > > > You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
> >
> > > I don'y hate it. I just think it's wrong.
> > You hate it because you know you're wrong.
> That's not it, chief.

"h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)

"π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)

:-)))))

torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:37:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:25:42 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:12:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:19:44 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You mean
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > > > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > > > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > > > > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > > > > > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.
> > > > > I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
> > > > >
> > > > > You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
> > >
> > > > I don'y hate it. I just think it's wrong.
> > > You hate it because you know you're wrong.
> > That's not it, chief.
> "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
>
> "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
>
> :-)))))
As real numbers, yes. The reals has only one non-unit element.

On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:25:48 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:37:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:25:42 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:12:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:19:44 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You mean
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > > > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > > > > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > > > > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > > > > > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > > > > > > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.
> > > > > > I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
> > > >
> > > > > I don'y hate it. I just think it's wrong.
> > > > You hate it because you know you're wrong.
> > > That's not it, chief.
> > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> >
> > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> >
> > :-)))))
> As real numbers, yes.

NO. Pi is NEVER a factor of 6.

A factor k of any p, can only be a factor of p IF k divides p without remainder. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.

Time for you to go back to primary school.

fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:04:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:25:48 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:37:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:25:42 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:12:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:19:44 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You mean
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > > > > > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > > > > > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > > > > > > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > > > > > > > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.
> > > > > > > I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I don'y hate it. I just think it's wrong.
> > > > > You hate it because you know you're wrong.
> > > > That's not it, chief.
> > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > >
> > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > >
> > > :-)))))
> > As real numbers, yes.
> NO. Pi is NEVER a factor of 6.
>
> A factor k of any p, can only be a factor of p IF k divides p without remainder. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
>
> Time for you to go back to primary school.
there are no remainders in a field, that is what makes htem a field.

You are conflating an integral domain with a field again showing again you do not fucking understand mathematics.

On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 12:49:10 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:04:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:25:48 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:37:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:25:42 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:12:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:19:44 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > > > > > > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > > > > > > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > > > > > > > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > > > > > > > > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.
> > > > > > > > I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don'y hate it. I just think it's wrong.
> > > > > > You hate it because you know you're wrong.
> > > > > That's not it, chief.
> > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > >
> > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > >
> > > > :-)))))
> > > As real numbers, yes.
> > NO. Pi is NEVER a factor of 6.
> >
> > A factor k of any p, can only be a factor of p IF k divides p without remainder. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> >
> > Time for you to go back to primary school.
> there are no remainders in a field,

Irrelevant, because a field is irrelevant.

What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>. How embarrassing!

A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.

LMAO.

lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:10:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 12:49:10 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:04:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:25:48 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:37:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:25:42 UTC+3, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:12:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:19:44 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > > > > > > > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > > > > > > > > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > > > > > > > > > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.
> > > > > > > > > I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don'y hate it. I just think it's wrong.
> > > > > > > You hate it because you know you're wrong.
> > > > > > That's not it, chief.
> > > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > >
> > > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > >
> > > > > :-)))))
> > > > As real numbers, yes.
> > > NO. Pi is NEVER a factor of 6.
> > >
> > > A factor k of any p, can only be a factor of p IF k divides p without remainder. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > >
> > > Time for you to go back to primary school.
> > there are no remainders in a field,
> Irrelevant, because a field is irrelevant.
>
> What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>. How embarrassing!
>
> A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
>
> LMAO.
integral domains and fields work differently. One has factor being meaningful, the other doesn't.

Fields are relevant because that is what makes factorization adn remainders useless concepts. That is why no one speaks of "factorization" of 5.3, 3.9, pi, phi etc in real numbers.

On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 08:04:31 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:10:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 12:49:10 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:04:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:25:48 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:37:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:25:42 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:12:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:19:44 UTC+3, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > > > > > > > > > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > > > > > > > > > > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics..
> > > > > > > > > > I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don'y hate it. I just think it's wrong.
> > > > > > > > You hate it because you know you're wrong.
> > > > > > > That's not it, chief.
> > > > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > :-)))))
> > > > > As real numbers, yes.
> > > > NO. Pi is NEVER a factor of 6.
> > > >
> > > > A factor k of any p, can only be a factor of p IF k divides p without remainder. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > >
> > > > Time for you to go back to primary school.
> > > there are no remainders in a field,
> > Irrelevant, because a field is irrelevant.
> >
> > What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>. How embarrassing!
> >
> > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> >
> > LMAO.
> integral domains and fields work differently. One has factor being meaningful, the other doesn't.
>
> Fields are relevant because that is what makes factorization adn remainders useless concepts. That is why no one speaks of "factorization" of 5.3, 3..9, pi, phi etc in real numbers.

Also irrelevant. You're just trying to make your narrative seem like the right one, but the facts are clear that you are a bullshitter who knows nothing about mathematics.

No. Fields have ZERO relevance.

To makes a statement like "integral domains and fields work differently" only shows that once again you are trying to pull the authority card. Chuckle.. Poor Malum, it must be so embarrassing for you:

"h*f(x)/h means that h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)

Therefore by the "brilliant" logic of these two math master graduates, we arrive at the stunning result:

"pi*f(x)/pi means that pi is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)

Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk.

A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.

This has nothing to do with your bullshit of fields, rings, etc. LMAO.

måndag 20 september 2021 kl. 10:46:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 08:04:31 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:10:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 12:49:10 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:04:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:25:48 UTC+3, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:37:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:25:42 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:12:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:19:44 UTC+3, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > > > > > > > > > > > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.
> > > > > > > > > > > I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I don'y hate it. I just think it's wrong.
> > > > > > > > > You hate it because you know you're wrong.
> > > > > > > > That's not it, chief.
> > > > > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > :-)))))
> > > > > > As real numbers, yes.
> > > > > NO. Pi is NEVER a factor of 6.
> > > > >
> > > > > A factor k of any p, can only be a factor of p IF k divides p without remainder. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > >
> > > > > Time for you to go back to primary school.
> > > > there are no remainders in a field,
> > > Irrelevant, because a field is irrelevant.
> > >
> > > What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>. How embarrassing!
> > >
> > > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> > >
> > > LMAO.
> > integral domains and fields work differently. One has factor being meaningful, the other doesn't.
> >
> > Fields are relevant because that is what makes factorization adn remainders useless concepts. That is why no one speaks of "factorization" of 5.3, 3.9, pi, phi etc in real numbers.
> Also irrelevant. You're just trying to make your narrative seem like the right one, but the facts are clear that you are a bullshitter who knows nothing about mathematics.
>
> No. Fields have ZERO relevance.
>
> To makes a statement like "integral domains and fields work differently" only shows that once again you are trying to pull the authority card. Chuckle. Poor Malum, it must be so embarrassing for you:
>
> "h*f(x)/h means that h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
>
> Therefore by the "brilliant" logic of these two math master graduates, we arrive at the stunning result:
>
> "pi*f(x)/pi means that pi is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
>
> Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk.
> A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> This has nothing to do with your bullshit of fields, rings, etc. LMAO.
>Clearly you have no clue what it means for a "set " to be countable.

I do, again, a set is countable if it is in bijection with a subset of N

>It has EVERYTHING to do with indexing.

No it doesn't, given an index set can be any set so it is entirely worthless.

>A set is countable IF AND ONLY IF it can be indexed. When one talks about bijection between imaginary "real sets", there is nothing about countbility there, only that one set is scaled to another. Flags do not imply equinumerosity.

Sorry to inform you but it is about bijection with subset of N, not indexing because any set, even 2^N, can be used for indexing and 2^N is not countable.

>rrelevant. You're just trying to make your narrative seem like the right one, but the facts are clear that you are a bullshitter who knows nothing about mathematics.

Very relevant. The fact is still you do not understand the difference between fields and integral domains and that is the major issue for you.

I know mathematics much better than you :) I can cite sources you can only cite your own garbage.

>To makes a statement like "integral domains and fields work differently" only shows that once again you are trying to pull the authority card. Chuckle. Poor Malum, it must be so embarrassing for you:

I pulled no authority on it. I can DEMONSTRATE they work differently based on definitions. There is no authority on it.

>Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk.

Indeed tsk tsk tsk, you still fail to understand that integral domains and fields do work differently and factorization is only a relevant property in one of them.

On Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 08:29:17 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 20 september 2021 kl. 10:46:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 08:04:31 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:10:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 12:49:10 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:04:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:25:48 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:37:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:25:42 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:12:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:19:44 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I don'y hate it. I just think it's wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > You hate it because you know you're wrong.
> > > > > > > > > That's not it, chief.
> > > > > > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > :-)))))
> > > > > > > As real numbers, yes.
> > > > > > NO. Pi is NEVER a factor of 6.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A factor k of any p, can only be a factor of p IF k divides p without remainder. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Time for you to go back to primary school.
> > > > > there are no remainders in a field,
> > > > Irrelevant, because a field is irrelevant.
> > > >
> > > > What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>. How embarrassing!
> > > >
> > > > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> > > >
> > > > LMAO.
> > > integral domains and fields work differently. One has factor being meaningful, the other doesn't.
> > >
> > > Fields are relevant because that is what makes factorization adn remainders useless concepts. That is why no one speaks of "factorization" of 5.3, 3.9, pi, phi etc in real numbers.
> > Also irrelevant. You're just trying to make your narrative seem like the right one, but the facts are clear that you are a bullshitter who knows nothing about mathematics.
> >
> > No. Fields have ZERO relevance.
> >
> > To makes a statement like "integral domains and fields work differently" only shows that once again you are trying to pull the authority card. Chuckle. Poor Malum, it must be so embarrassing for you:
> >
> > "h*f(x)/h means that h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
> >
> > Therefore by the "brilliant" logic of these two math master graduates, we arrive at the stunning result:
> >
> > "pi*f(x)/pi means that pi is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
> >
> > Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk.
> > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> > This has nothing to do with your bullshit of fields, rings, etc. LMAO.
> >Clearly you have no clue what it means for a "set " to be countable.
>
> a set is countable if it is in bijection with a subset of N

That is an indirect reason of the fact that elements of N can be listed systematically. In fact, you haven't even memorised the definition you were brainwashed to use correctly:

A set is countable if it can be placed into a bijection with N or a subset of N.

You're a super CRANK.

<drivel>

"h*f(x)/h means that h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)

Therefore by the "brilliant" logic of these two math master graduates, we arrive at the stunning result:

"pi*f(x)/pi means that pi is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)

tisdag 21 september 2021 kl. 09:17:59 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 08:29:17 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > måndag 20 september 2021 kl. 10:46:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 08:04:31 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:10:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 12:49:10 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:04:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:25:48 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:37:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:25:42 UTC+3, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:12:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:19:44 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I don'y hate it. I just think it's wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > You hate it because you know you're wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > That's not it, chief.
> > > > > > > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > :-)))))
> > > > > > > > As real numbers, yes.
> > > > > > > NO. Pi is NEVER a factor of 6.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A factor k of any p, can only be a factor of p IF k divides p without remainder. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Time for you to go back to primary school.
> > > > > > there are no remainders in a field,
> > > > > Irrelevant, because a field is irrelevant.
> > > > >
> > > > > What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>. How embarrassing!
> > > > >
> > > > > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> > > > >
> > > > > LMAO.
> > > > integral domains and fields work differently. One has factor being meaningful, the other doesn't.
> > > >
> > > > Fields are relevant because that is what makes factorization adn remainders useless concepts. That is why no one speaks of "factorization" of 5.3, 3.9, pi, phi etc in real numbers.
> > > Also irrelevant. You're just trying to make your narrative seem like the right one, but the facts are clear that you are a bullshitter who knows nothing about mathematics.
> > >
> > > No. Fields have ZERO relevance.
> > >
> > > To makes a statement like "integral domains and fields work differently" only shows that once again you are trying to pull the authority card. Chuckle. Poor Malum, it must be so embarrassing for you:
> > >
> > > "h*f(x)/h means that h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
> > >
> > > Therefore by the "brilliant" logic of these two math master graduates, we arrive at the stunning result:
> > >
> > > "pi*f(x)/pi means that pi is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
> > >
> > > Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk.
> > > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> > > This has nothing to do with your bullshit of fields, rings, etc. LMAO..
> > >Clearly you have no clue what it means for a "set " to be countable.
> >
> > a set is countable if it is in bijection with a subset of N
> That is an indirect reason of the fact that elements of N can be listed systematically. In fact, you haven't even memorised the definition you were brainwashed to use correctly:
>
> A set is countable if it can be placed into a bijection with N or a subset of N.
>
> You're a super CRANK.
>
> <drivel>
> "h*f(x)/h means that h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
>
> Therefore by the "brilliant" logic of these two math master graduates, we arrive at the stunning result:
>
> "pi*f(x)/pi means that pi is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
N is a subset of N you imbecile

On Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 13:49:20 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 21 september 2021 kl. 09:17:59 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 08:29:17 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > måndag 20 september 2021 kl. 10:46:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 08:04:31 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:10:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 12:49:10 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:04:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:25:48 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:37:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:25:42 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:12:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:19:44 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I don'y hate it. I just think it's wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > You hate it because you know you're wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > That's not it, chief.
> > > > > > > > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > :-)))))
> > > > > > > > > As real numbers, yes.
> > > > > > > > NO. Pi is NEVER a factor of 6.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A factor k of any p, can only be a factor of p IF k divides p without remainder. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Time for you to go back to primary school.
> > > > > > > there are no remainders in a field,
> > > > > > Irrelevant, because a field is irrelevant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>. How embarrassing!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LMAO.
> > > > > integral domains and fields work differently. One has factor being meaningful, the other doesn't.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fields are relevant because that is what makes factorization adn remainders useless concepts. That is why no one speaks of "factorization" of 5.3, 3.9, pi, phi etc in real numbers.
> > > > Also irrelevant. You're just trying to make your narrative seem like the right one, but the facts are clear that you are a bullshitter who knows nothing about mathematics.
> > > >
> > > > No. Fields have ZERO relevance.
> > > >
> > > > To makes a statement like "integral domains and fields work differently" only shows that once again you are trying to pull the authority card. Chuckle. Poor Malum, it must be so embarrassing for you:
> > > >
> > > > "h*f(x)/h means that h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
> > > >
> > > > Therefore by the "brilliant" logic of these two math master graduates, we arrive at the stunning result:
> > > >
> > > > "pi*f(x)/pi means that pi is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
> > > >
> > > > Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk.
> > > > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> > > > This has nothing to do with your bullshit of fields, rings, etc. LMAO.
> > > >Clearly you have no clue what it means for a "set " to be countable.
> > >
> > > a set is countable if it is in bijection with a subset of N
> > That is an indirect reason of the fact that elements of N can be listed systematically. In fact, you haven't even memorised the definition you were brainwashed to use correctly:
> >
> > A set is countable if it can be placed into a bijection with N or a subset of N.
> >
> > You're a super CRANK.
> >
> > <drivel>
> > "h*f(x)/h means that h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
> >
> > Therefore by the "brilliant" logic of these two math master graduates, we arrive at the stunning result:
> >
> > "pi*f(x)/pi means that pi is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
> N is a subset of N you imbecile
>
> https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Definition:Subset

tisdag 21 september 2021 kl. 13:44:07 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 13:49:20 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > tisdag 21 september 2021 kl. 09:17:59 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 08:29:17 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > måndag 20 september 2021 kl. 10:46:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 08:04:31 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:10:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 12:49:10 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:04:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:25:48 UTC+3, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:37:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:25:42 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:12:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:19:44 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don'y hate it. I just think it's wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You hate it because you know you're wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > That's not it, chief.
> > > > > > > > > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > :-)))))
> > > > > > > > > > As real numbers, yes.
> > > > > > > > > NO. Pi is NEVER a factor of 6.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A factor k of any p, can only be a factor of p IF k divides p without remainder. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Time for you to go back to primary school.
> > > > > > > > there are no remainders in a field,
> > > > > > > Irrelevant, because a field is irrelevant.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>. How embarrassing!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > LMAO.
> > > > > > integral domains and fields work differently. One has factor being meaningful, the other doesn't.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fields are relevant because that is what makes factorization adn remainders useless concepts. That is why no one speaks of "factorization" of 5.3, 3.9, pi, phi etc in real numbers.
> > > > > Also irrelevant. You're just trying to make your narrative seem like the right one, but the facts are clear that you are a bullshitter who knows nothing about mathematics.
> > > > >
> > > > > No. Fields have ZERO relevance.
> > > > >
> > > > > To makes a statement like "integral domains and fields work differently" only shows that once again you are trying to pull the authority card. Chuckle. Poor Malum, it must be so embarrassing for you:
> > > > >
> > > > > "h*f(x)/h means that h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore by the "brilliant" logic of these two math master graduates, we arrive at the stunning result:
> > > > >
> > > > > "pi*f(x)/pi means that pi is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
> > > > >
> > > > > Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk.
> > > > > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> > > > > This has nothing to do with your bullshit of fields, rings, etc. LMAO.
> > > > >Clearly you have no clue what it means for a "set " to be countable.
> > > >
> > > > a set is countable if it is in bijection with a subset of N
> > > That is an indirect reason of the fact that elements of N can be listed systematically. In fact, you haven't even memorised the definition you were brainwashed to use correctly:
> > >
> > > A set is countable if it can be placed into a bijection with N or a subset of N.
> > >
> > > You're a super CRANK.
> > >
> > > <drivel>
> > > "h*f(x)/h means that h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
> > >
> > > Therefore by the "brilliant" logic of these two math master graduates, we arrive at the stunning result:
> > >
> > > "pi*f(x)/pi means that pi is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
> > N is a subset of N you imbecile
> >
> > https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Definition:Subset
> From the MIT website:
>
> "A set is said to be countable, if you can make a list of its members. By a list we mean that you can find a first member, a second one, and so on, and eventually assign to each member an integer of its own, perhaps going on forever."
>
> http://www-math.mit.edu/~djk/calculus_beginners/chapter01/section04.html
> "h*f(x)/h means that h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
>
> Therefore by the "brilliant" logic of these two math master graduates, we arrive at the stunning result:
>
> "pi*f(x)/pi means that pi is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)
> You should really listen to your Abel Prize winner Karen Uhlenbeck who calls your Wikipedia Moronica by the name of Wackopedia!
>
> LMAO.
>I don't read Wikipedia. It's a shit site.

lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:10:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 12:49:10 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:04:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:25:48 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:37:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:25:42 UTC+3, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:12:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:19:44 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > > > > > > > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > > > > > > > > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > > > > > > > > > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.
> > > > > > > > > I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don'y hate it. I just think it's wrong.
> > > > > > > You hate it because you know you're wrong.
> > > > > > That's not it, chief.
> > > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > >
> > > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > >
> > > > > :-)))))
> > > > As real numbers, yes.
> > > NO. Pi is NEVER a factor of 6.
> > >
> > > A factor k of any p, can only be a factor of p IF k divides p without remainder. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > >
> > > Time for you to go back to primary school.
> > there are no remainders in a field,
> Irrelevant, because a field is irrelevant.
>
> What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>. How embarrassing!
>
> A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
>
> LMAO.
A factorisation of some element a is a=b*c. You can do this for any field.. Let a be non-negative. Then a=b*(a/b), so any non-negative b is a factor of a.

måndag 20 september 2021 kl. 07:04:31 UTC+2 skrev zelos...@gmail.com:
> lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:10:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 12:49:10 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:04:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:25:48 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:37:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:25:42 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:12:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:19:44 UTC+3, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > > > > > > > > > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > > > > > > > > > > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics..
> > > > > > > > > > I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don'y hate it. I just think it's wrong.
> > > > > > > > You hate it because you know you're wrong.
> > > > > > > That's not it, chief.
> > > > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > :-)))))
> > > > > As real numbers, yes.
> > > > NO. Pi is NEVER a factor of 6.
> > > >
> > > > A factor k of any p, can only be a factor of p IF k divides p without remainder. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > >
> > > > Time for you to go back to primary school.
> > > there are no remainders in a field,
> > Irrelevant, because a field is irrelevant.
> >
> > What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>. How embarrassing!
> >
> > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> >
> > LMAO.
> integral domains and fields work differently. One has factor being meaningful, the other doesn't.
>
> Fields are relevant because that is what makes factorization adn remainders useless concepts. That is why no one speaks of "factorization" of 5.3, 3..9, pi, phi etc in real numbers.
It's not so much they are not meaningful as they are trivial. You can factorise 5.3 as a real number in infinitely many ways.