fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 12:34:22 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 01:07:21 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > torsdag 26 augusti 2021 kl. 12:09:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 01:20:53 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > onsdag 25 augusti 2021 kl. 17:33:51 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Wednesday, 25 August 2021 at 07:54:14 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > tisdag 24 augusti 2021 kl. 14:50:17 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, 24 August 2021 at 01:16:03 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > måndag 23 augusti 2021 kl. 15:42:33 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 08:24:09 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:06:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:00:07 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:52:18 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 01:16:18 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 16:49:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 00:55:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:35:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 00:54:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And as we have pointed out, it is r=Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who is "we"? LMAO. You mean yourself idiot!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can point out many things which are products of your illogical thoughts. That does not mean you are correct.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact you cannot even get this right shows how badly you understand things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean the fact that I don't agree with your drivel means I don't understand? Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The we are many people...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And ALL of them CRANKS like you.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The crank is you because we agree with mainstream, you're the one that don't and check all the boxes of crank behavior.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > There is only ONE checkbox to check:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > All else is drivel.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > That applies to you Gerbil
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > And you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > "Nah Uh" is your typical response because you have no arguments and you're a retard with the maturity level of a 1 yr old.
> > > > > > > > > > Yet you do the same :) So your maturity is no better.
> > > > > > > > > I've explained to you very clearly that your definition may not hold in all cases, but mine does! :)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Your "Nah Uh" response simply confirms you're an idiot.
> > > > > > > > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > > > > > > > Holds unconditionally.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ****Crank is a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.****
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Is conditional. Do you understand the difference? Ask, if you don't.
> > > > > > > > You keep bitching like a toddler but the crank is you and only you
> > > > > > > Try to answer the question instead of throwing a toddler tantrum. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > That is the decree of the Church of Academia which is a cult.
> > > > > > > > We can check all the criterias on how a crank behaves.
> > > > > > > Criteria does not have an "s" at the end. Oops-Allah? (Uppsala university?)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Come on man, English is not my native language and I am a terrible writer. If I can do it, why can't you?
> > > > > > > Oh wait, you are a crank!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tsk, tsk.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You want to? I got the list :)
> > > > > > > We know the only criterion:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ****A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.****
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE is the ONLY criterion.
> > > > > > We know
> > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > The rest is you attempting to perform ad hominems here :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But there is a list of common things cranks do with it, we can go through it. You and I, shall we?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
> > > > > > Most definitely you, you do this all the time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
> > > > > > Yes, you. Your book is "soooo important"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
> > > > > > This is you, with the whole Lim S=S thing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.
> > > > > > Can't say this, lets leave it blank to be nice to you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
> > > > > > Definitely you, you do not understand set theory, standard calculus, dedekinds, cauchy or really anything!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone shows that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
> > > > > > You
> > > > > >
> > > > > > compare themselves with luminaries in their chosen field (often Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or Georg Cantor),[citation needed] implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is not good reason for it to be dismissed,
> > > > > > Yepp, you and archimedes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically backed up by conspiracy theories invoking intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
> > > > > > Definitely you, this is where you anti-semitism always pop up cause you constantly say they are jewish.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.
> > > > > > Most definitely you.
> > > > > > exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
> > > > > > You, you cannot make a proper proof.
> > > > > > misunderstand or not use standard notation and terminology,
> > > > > > Again from before, you. Lim S=S is classical amongst many other things.
> > > > > > ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
> > > > > > Again, you.
> > > > > I know:
> > > > > A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > It describes you very well indeed! :)
> > > >
> > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false
> > > > Both describes you very well :)
> > >
> > > "A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence."
> > > It's YOU.
> > Nope, again, I agree with mainstream. You are the crank.
> Can anything get more cranky than claiming that "if c=f+g then g=c-f is circular" ? LMAO
>
> You went along with that delusional psychopath Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python).
>
> That is what YOU said! You are a crank! Here it is again with link following:
>
> ***************************************************************
> > > He think that stuff you point out is circular
> > >
> > > if c=f+g
> > > then g=c-f
> > > so circular!
> ***************************************************************
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/QMhqLZH1434/m/vAEmniRtBwAJ
I pointed out that is how YOU think. Not that I think it you dishonest lying sack of shit :)

On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 5:26:04 AM UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 12:34:22 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 01:07:21 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > torsdag 26 augusti 2021 kl. 12:09:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 01:20:53 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > onsdag 25 augusti 2021 kl. 17:33:51 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, 25 August 2021 at 07:54:14 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > tisdag 24 augusti 2021 kl. 14:50:17 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 24 August 2021 at 01:16:03 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > måndag 23 augusti 2021 kl. 15:42:33 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 08:24:09 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:06:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:00:07 UTC-4, zelos....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:52:18 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 01:16:18 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 16:49:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 00:55:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:35:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 00:54:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And as we have pointed out, it is r=Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who is "we"? LMAO. You mean yourself idiot!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can point out many things which are products of your illogical thoughts. That does not mean you are correct.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact you cannot even get this right shows how badly you understand things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean the fact that I don't agree with your drivel means I don't understand? Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The we are many people...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And ALL of them CRANKS like you.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The crank is you because we agree with mainstream, you're the one that don't and check all the boxes of crank behavior.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is only ONE checkbox to check:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > All else is drivel.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That applies to you Gerbil
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Nah Uh" is your typical response because you have no arguments and you're a retard with the maturity level of a 1 yr old.
> > > > > > > > > > > Yet you do the same :) So your maturity is no better.
> > > > > > > > > > I've explained to you very clearly that your definition may not hold in all cases, but mine does! :)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Your "Nah Uh" response simply confirms you're an idiot.
> > > > > > > > > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > > > > > > > > Holds unconditionally.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ****Crank is a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.****
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Is conditional. Do you understand the difference? Ask, if you don't.
> > > > > > > > > You keep bitching like a toddler but the crank is you and only you
> > > > > > > > Try to answer the question instead of throwing a toddler tantrum. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > That is the decree of the Church of Academia which is a cult.
> > > > > > > > > We can check all the criterias on how a crank behaves.
> > > > > > > > Criteria does not have an "s" at the end. Oops-Allah? (Uppsala university?)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Come on man, English is not my native language and I am a terrible writer. If I can do it, why can't you?
> > > > > > > > Oh wait, you are a crank!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tsk, tsk.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You want to? I got the list :)
> > > > > > > > We know the only criterion:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ****A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.****
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE is the ONLY criterion.
> > > > > > > We know
> > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > The rest is you attempting to perform ad hominems here :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But there is a list of common things cranks do with it, we can go through it. You and I, shall we?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
> > > > > > > Most definitely you, you do this all the time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
> > > > > > > Yes, you. Your book is "soooo important"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
> > > > > > > This is you, with the whole Lim S=S thing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.
> > > > > > > Can't say this, lets leave it blank to be nice to you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
> > > > > > > Definitely you, you do not understand set theory, standard calculus, dedekinds, cauchy or really anything!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone shows that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
> > > > > > > You
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > compare themselves with luminaries in their chosen field (often Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or Georg Cantor),[citation needed] implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is not good reason for it to be dismissed,
> > > > > > > Yepp, you and archimedes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically backed up by conspiracy theories invoking intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
> > > > > > > Definitely you, this is where you anti-semitism always pop up cause you constantly say they are jewish.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.
> > > > > > > Most definitely you.
> > > > > > > exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
> > > > > > > You, you cannot make a proper proof.
> > > > > > > misunderstand or not use standard notation and terminology,
> > > > > > > Again from before, you. Lim S=S is classical amongst many other things.
> > > > > > > ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
> > > > > > > Again, you.
> > > > > > I know:
> > > > > > A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > It describes you very well indeed! :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false
> > > > > Both describes you very well :)
> > > >
> > > > "A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence."
> > > > It's YOU.
> > > Nope, again, I agree with mainstream. You are the crank.
> > Can anything get more cranky than claiming that "if c=f+g then g=c-f is circular" ? LMAO
> >
> > You went along with that delusional psychopath Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python).
> >
> > That is what YOU said! You are a crank! Here it is again with link following:
> >
> > ***************************************************************
> > > > He think that stuff you point out is circular
> > > >
> > > > if c=f+g
> > > > then g=c-f
> > > > so circular!
> > ***************************************************************
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/QMhqLZH1434/m/vAEmniRtBwAJ
> I pointed out that is how YOU think. Not that I think it you dishonest lying sack of shit :)

måndag 30 augusti 2021 kl. 13:31:48 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 5:26:04 AM UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 12:34:22 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 01:07:21 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > torsdag 26 augusti 2021 kl. 12:09:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 01:20:53 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > onsdag 25 augusti 2021 kl. 17:33:51 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, 25 August 2021 at 07:54:14 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > tisdag 24 augusti 2021 kl. 14:50:17 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 24 August 2021 at 01:16:03 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > måndag 23 augusti 2021 kl. 15:42:33 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 08:24:09 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:06:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:00:07 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:52:18 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 01:16:18 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 16:49:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 00:55:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:35:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 00:54:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And as we have pointed out, it is r=Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who is "we"? LMAO. You mean yourself idiot!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can point out many things which are products of your illogical thoughts. That does not mean you are correct.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact you cannot even get this right shows how badly you understand things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean the fact that I don't agree with your drivel means I don't understand? Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The we are many people...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And ALL of them CRANKS like you.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The crank is you because we agree with mainstream, you're the one that don't and check all the boxes of crank behavior..
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is only ONE checkbox to check:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All else is drivel.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That applies to you Gerbil
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "Nah Uh" is your typical response because you have no arguments and you're a retard with the maturity level of a 1 yr old.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yet you do the same :) So your maturity is no better.
> > > > > > > > > > > I've explained to you very clearly that your definition may not hold in all cases, but mine does! :)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Your "Nah Uh" response simply confirms you're an idiot.
> > > > > > > > > > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > > > > > > > > > Holds unconditionally.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ****Crank is a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.****
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Is conditional. Do you understand the difference? Ask, if you don't.
> > > > > > > > > > You keep bitching like a toddler but the crank is you and only you
> > > > > > > > > Try to answer the question instead of throwing a toddler tantrum. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false..
> > > > > > > > > That is the decree of the Church of Academia which is a cult.
> > > > > > > > > > We can check all the criterias on how a crank behaves.
> > > > > > > > > Criteria does not have an "s" at the end. Oops-Allah? (Uppsala university?)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Come on man, English is not my native language and I am a terrible writer. If I can do it, why can't you?
> > > > > > > > > Oh wait, you are a crank!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Tsk, tsk.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You want to? I got the list :)
> > > > > > > > > We know the only criterion:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ****A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.****
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE is the ONLY criterion.
> > > > > > > > We know
> > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > The rest is you attempting to perform ad hominems here :)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But there is a list of common things cranks do with it, we can go through it. You and I, shall we?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
> > > > > > > > Most definitely you, you do this all the time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
> > > > > > > > Yes, you. Your book is "soooo important"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
> > > > > > > > This is you, with the whole Lim S=S thing.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.
> > > > > > > > Can't say this, lets leave it blank to be nice to you.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
> > > > > > > > Definitely you, you do not understand set theory, standard calculus, dedekinds, cauchy or really anything!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone shows that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
> > > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > compare themselves with luminaries in their chosen field (often Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or Georg Cantor),[citation needed] implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is not good reason for it to be dismissed,
> > > > > > > > Yepp, you and archimedes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically backed up by conspiracy theories invoking intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
> > > > > > > > Definitely you, this is where you anti-semitism always pop up cause you constantly say they are jewish.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.
> > > > > > > > Most definitely you.
> > > > > > > > exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
> > > > > > > > You, you cannot make a proper proof.
> > > > > > > > misunderstand or not use standard notation and terminology,
> > > > > > > > Again from before, you. Lim S=S is classical amongst many other things.
> > > > > > > > ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
> > > > > > > > Again, you.
> > > > > > > I know:
> > > > > > > A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > It describes you very well indeed! :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false
> > > > > > Both describes you very well :)
> > > > >
> > > > > "A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence."
> > > > > It's YOU.
> > > > Nope, again, I agree with mainstream. You are the crank.
> > > Can anything get more cranky than claiming that "if c=f+g then g=c-f is circular" ? LMAO
> > >
> > > You went along with that delusional psychopath Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python).
> > >
> > > That is what YOU said! You are a crank! Here it is again with link following:
> > >
> > > ***************************************************************
> > > > > He think that stuff you point out is circular
> > > > >
> > > > > if c=f+g
> > > > > then g=c-f
> > > > > so circular!
> > > ***************************************************************
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/QMhqLZH1434/m/vAEmniRtBwAJ
> > I pointed out that is how YOU think. Not that I think it you dishonest lying sack of shit :)
> The lying sack of SHIT is YOU, you vile bastard.
>
> I said the exact opposite of what you and Python were saying.
>
> IF [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) THEN f'(x)= [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - Q(x,h)
>
> and then the two fucking morons (YOU and Python) tried to insinuate that it was circular. LMAO.
>
> You're the world's greatest mainstream crank!
You did when we discussed D and T, derivative and tangent, functions.

On Tuesday, 31 August 2021 at 01:02:54 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 30 augusti 2021 kl. 13:31:48 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> > On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 5:26:04 AM UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 12:34:22 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 01:07:21 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > torsdag 26 augusti 2021 kl. 12:09:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 01:20:53 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > onsdag 25 augusti 2021 kl. 17:33:51 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 25 August 2021 at 07:54:14 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > tisdag 24 augusti 2021 kl. 14:50:17 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 24 August 2021 at 01:16:03 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > måndag 23 augusti 2021 kl. 15:42:33 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 08:24:09 UTC-4, zelos....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:06:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:00:07 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:52:18 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 01:16:18 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 16:49:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 00:55:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:35:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 00:54:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And as we have pointed out, it is r=Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who is "we"? LMAO. You mean yourself idiot!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can point out many things which are products of your illogical thoughts. That does not mean you are correct.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact you cannot even get this right shows how badly you understand things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean the fact that I don't agree with your drivel means I don't understand? Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The we are many people...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And ALL of them CRANKS like you.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The crank is you because we agree with mainstream, you're the one that don't and check all the boxes of crank behavior.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is only ONE checkbox to check:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All else is drivel.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That applies to you Gerbil
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Nah Uh" is your typical response because you have no arguments and you're a retard with the maturity level of a 1 yr old.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet you do the same :) So your maturity is no better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've explained to you very clearly that your definition may not hold in all cases, but mine does! :)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Your "Nah Uh" response simply confirms you're an idiot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > > > > > > > > > > Holds unconditionally.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ****Crank is a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.****
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Is conditional. Do you understand the difference? Ask, if you don't.
> > > > > > > > > > > You keep bitching like a toddler but the crank is you and only you
> > > > > > > > > > Try to answer the question instead of throwing a toddler tantrum. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > That is the decree of the Church of Academia which is a cult.
> > > > > > > > > > > We can check all the criterias on how a crank behaves..
> > > > > > > > > > Criteria does not have an "s" at the end. Oops-Allah? (Uppsala university?)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Come on man, English is not my native language and I am a terrible writer. If I can do it, why can't you?
> > > > > > > > > > Oh wait, you are a crank!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Tsk, tsk.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You want to? I got the list :)
> > > > > > > > > > We know the only criterion:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ****A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.****
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE is the ONLY criterion.
> > > > > > > > > We know
> > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > The rest is you attempting to perform ad hominems here :)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But there is a list of common things cranks do with it, we can go through it. You and I, shall we?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
> > > > > > > > > Most definitely you, you do this all the time.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
> > > > > > > > > Yes, you. Your book is "soooo important"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
> > > > > > > > > This is you, with the whole Lim S=S thing.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.
> > > > > > > > > Can't say this, lets leave it blank to be nice to you.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
> > > > > > > > > Definitely you, you do not understand set theory, standard calculus, dedekinds, cauchy or really anything!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone shows that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
> > > > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > compare themselves with luminaries in their chosen field (often Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or Georg Cantor),[citation needed] implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is not good reason for it to be dismissed,
> > > > > > > > > Yepp, you and archimedes.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically backed up by conspiracy theories invoking intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
> > > > > > > > > Definitely you, this is where you anti-semitism always pop up cause you constantly say they are jewish.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.
> > > > > > > > > Most definitely you.
> > > > > > > > > exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
> > > > > > > > > You, you cannot make a proper proof.
> > > > > > > > > misunderstand or not use standard notation and terminology,
> > > > > > > > > Again from before, you. Lim S=S is classical amongst many other things.
> > > > > > > > > ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
> > > > > > > > > Again, you.
> > > > > > > > I know:
> > > > > > > > A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > It describes you very well indeed! :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false
> > > > > > > Both describes you very well :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence."
> > > > > > It's YOU.
> > > > > Nope, again, I agree with mainstream. You are the crank.
> > > > Can anything get more cranky than claiming that "if c=f+g then g=c-f is circular" ? LMAO
> > > >
> > > > You went along with that delusional psychopath Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python).
> > > >
> > > > That is what YOU said! You are a crank! Here it is again with link following:
> > > >
> > > > ***************************************************************
> > > > > > He think that stuff you point out is circular
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if c=f+g
> > > > > > then g=c-f
> > > > > > so circular!
> > > > ***************************************************************
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/QMhqLZH1434/m/vAEmniRtBwAJ
> > > I pointed out that is how YOU think. Not that I think it you dishonest lying sack of shit :)
> > The lying sack of SHIT is YOU, you vile bastard.
> >
> > I said the exact opposite of what you and Python were saying.
> >
> > IF [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) THEN f'(x)= [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - Q(x,h)
> >
> > and then the two fucking morons (YOU and Python) tried to insinuate that it was circular. LMAO.
> >
> > You're the world's greatest mainstream crank!
> You did when we discussed D and T, derivative and tangent, functions.

tisdag 31 augusti 2021 kl. 13:49:47 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 31 August 2021 at 01:02:54 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > måndag 30 augusti 2021 kl. 13:31:48 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> > > On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 5:26:04 AM UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > fredag 27 augusti 2021 kl. 12:34:22 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 01:07:21 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > torsdag 26 augusti 2021 kl. 12:09:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 01:20:53 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > > > onsdag 25 augusti 2021 kl. 17:33:51 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 25 August 2021 at 07:54:14 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > tisdag 24 augusti 2021 kl. 14:50:17 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 24 August 2021 at 01:16:03 UTC-4, zelos....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > måndag 23 augusti 2021 kl. 15:42:33 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 08:24:09 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:06:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:00:07 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:52:18 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 01:16:18 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 16:49:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 00:55:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:35:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 00:54:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And as we have pointed out, it is r=Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who is "we"? LMAO. You mean yourself idiot!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can point out many things which are products of your illogical thoughts. That does not mean you are correct.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact you cannot even get this right shows how badly you understand things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean the fact that I don't agree with your drivel means I don't understand? Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The we are many people...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And ALL of them CRANKS like you.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The crank is you because we agree with mainstream, you're the one that don't and check all the boxes of crank behavior.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is only ONE checkbox to check:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All else is drivel.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That applies to you Gerbil
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Nah Uh" is your typical response because you have no arguments and you're a retard with the maturity level of a 1 yr old.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet you do the same :) So your maturity is no better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've explained to you very clearly that your definition may not hold in all cases, but mine does! :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Your "Nah Uh" response simply confirms you're an idiot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Holds unconditionally.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ****Crank is a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.****
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Is conditional. Do you understand the difference? Ask, if you don't.
> > > > > > > > > > > > You keep bitching like a toddler but the crank is you and only you
> > > > > > > > > > > Try to answer the question instead of throwing a toddler tantrum. Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > > > > > > > That is the decree of the Church of Academia which is a cult.
> > > > > > > > > > > > We can check all the criterias on how a crank behaves.
> > > > > > > > > > > Criteria does not have an "s" at the end. Oops-Allah? (Uppsala university?)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Come on man, English is not my native language and I am a terrible writer. If I can do it, why can't you?
> > > > > > > > > > > Oh wait, you are a crank!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Tsk, tsk.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You want to? I got the list :)
> > > > > > > > > > > We know the only criterion:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ****A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.****
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE is the ONLY criterion.
> > > > > > > > > > We know
> > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false..
> > > > > > > > > > The rest is you attempting to perform ad hominems here :)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But there is a list of common things cranks do with it, we can go through it. You and I, shall we?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
> > > > > > > > > > Most definitely you, you do this all the time.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, you. Your book is "soooo important"
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
> > > > > > > > > > This is you, with the whole Lim S=S thing.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.
> > > > > > > > > > Can't say this, lets leave it blank to be nice to you.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
> > > > > > > > > > Definitely you, you do not understand set theory, standard calculus, dedekinds, cauchy or really anything!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone shows that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
> > > > > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > compare themselves with luminaries in their chosen field (often Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or Georg Cantor),[citation needed] implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is not good reason for it to be dismissed,
> > > > > > > > > > Yepp, you and archimedes.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically backed up by conspiracy theories invoking intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
> > > > > > > > > > Definitely you, this is where you anti-semitism always pop up cause you constantly say they are jewish.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.
> > > > > > > > > > Most definitely you.
> > > > > > > > > > exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
> > > > > > > > > > You, you cannot make a proper proof.
> > > > > > > > > > misunderstand or not use standard notation and terminology,
> > > > > > > > > > Again from before, you. Lim S=S is classical amongst many other things.
> > > > > > > > > > ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
> > > > > > > > > > Again, you.
> > > > > > > > > I know:
> > > > > > > > > A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > > > > > > > It describes you very well indeed! :)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false
> > > > > > > > Both describes you very well :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence."
> > > > > > > It's YOU.
> > > > > > Nope, again, I agree with mainstream. You are the crank.
> > > > > Can anything get more cranky than claiming that "if c=f+g then g=c-f is circular" ? LMAO
> > > > >
> > > > > You went along with that delusional psychopath Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python).
> > > > >
> > > > > That is what YOU said! You are a crank! Here it is again with link following:
> > > > >
> > > > > ***************************************************************
> > > > > > > He think that stuff you point out is circular
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > if c=f+g
> > > > > > > then g=c-f
> > > > > > > so circular!
> > > > > ***************************************************************
> > > > >
> > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/QMhqLZH1434/m/vAEmniRtBwAJ
> > > > I pointed out that is how YOU think. Not that I think it you dishonest lying sack of shit :)
> > > The lying sack of SHIT is YOU, you vile bastard.
> > >
> > > I said the exact opposite of what you and Python were saying.
> > >
> > > IF [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) THEN f'(x)= [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - Q(x,h)
> > >
> > > and then the two fucking morons (YOU and Python) tried to insinuate that it was circular. LMAO.
> > >
> > > You're the world's greatest mainstream crank!
> > You did when we discussed D and T, derivative and tangent, functions.
> Lying again, crank? Nowhere did I say this. Provide the link, you vile bastard!
> >
> > D was defined in terms of limit
> I have NEVER defined the derivative in terms of a limit. Newsflash: I do not use the bullshit of limit theory in my historic geometric theorem. It is 100% geometry:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> > T was defined in terms of D
> That's EXACTLY what YOU do in your bullshit MAINSTREAM calculus and it is CIRCULAR.
> >
> > yet you claim it was circular because D uses T after some re-arrangement. Just like the illustration I gave.
> Your drivel was nothing of the sort. You imagined that you were agreeing with your fellow asswipe Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python) and I made a fool of you yet again! LMAO.

On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 1:26:10 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S. Now I focus on the contradictory contents of his Elements of Algibberish.
>
> Euler said it! Not me! From his Elements of Al-gibberish , the following:
>
> 82. To express this idea, according to the sense of it above-mentioned, we make use of the sign ∞, which consequently indicates a number infinitely great; and we may therefore say that this fraction 1/∞ is in reality nothing; because a fraction cannot be reduced to nothing, until the denominator has been increased to infinity.
>
> 83. It is the more necessary to pay attention to this idea of infinity, as it is derived from the first elements of our knowledge, and as it will be of the greatest importance in the following part of this treatise.
>
> We may here deduce from it a few consequences that are extremely curious, and worthy of attention. The fraction 1/∞ represents the quotient resulting from the division of the dividend 1 by the divisor ∞. Now, we know that if we divide the dividend 1 by the quotient 1/∞, which is equal to nothing, we obtain again the divisor ∞: hence we acquire a new idea of infinity; and learn that it arises from the division of 1 by 0; so that we are thence authorised in saying that 1 divided by 0 expresses a number infinitely great, or ∞.
>
> 84. It may be necessary also, in this place, to correct the mistake of those who assert that a number infinitely great is not susceptible of increase. This opinion is inconsistent with the just principles which we have laid down; for 10 signifying a number infinitely great, and 20 being incontestably the double of 10, it is evident that a number, though infinitely great, may still become twice, thrice, or any number of times greater.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The above claims are wild compared to the first few claims in his book which if there wasn't so much garbage in it, might still have been one of the best algebra text books ever published:
>
> Chapter I – Of Mathematics in general
>
> 1. Whatever is capable of increase or diminution is called magnitude, or quantity. A sum of money therefore is a quantity, since we may increase it or diminish it. It is the same with a weight, and other things of this nature.
>
> JG: In other words, a magnitude is simply the concept of size, dimension or extent.
>
> 2. From this definition, it is evident that the different kinds of magnitude must be so various, as to render it difficult to enumerate them: and this is the origin of the different branches of the Mathematics, each being employed on a particular kind of magnitude.
>
> * Mathematics, in general, is the science of quantity; or, the science which investigates the means of measuring quantity. *
>
> JG: Euler almost got this one right even though the local idiot Malum does not agree:
>
> JG: Mathematics is the science of measure and quantity.
> JG: What Euler appears to have missed is that in order to enumerate anything, the concept of number and all its machinery must already be in place.
>
> 3. Now, we cannot measure or determine any quantity, except by considering some other quantity of the same kind as known, and pointing out their mutual relation. If it were proposed, for example, to determine the quantity of a sum of money, we should take some known piece of money, as a louis, a crown, a ducat, or some other coin, and show how many of these pieces are contained in the given sum. In the same manner, if it were proposed to determine the quantity of a weight, we should take a certain known weight; for example, a pound, an ounce, etc. and then show how many times one of these weights is contained in that which we are endeavouring to ascertain. If we wished to measure any length or extension, we should make use of some known length, such as a foot.
>
> JG: In other words, we need a ratio which is the first kind of (qualitative) measure. In my free article, I explain how all this is done:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
>
> 4. So that the determination, or the measure of magnitude of all kinds, is reduced to this: fix at pleasure upon any one known magnitude of the same species with that which is to be determined, and consider it as the measure or unit; then, determine the proportion of the proposed magnitude to this known measure. This proportion is always expressed by numbers; so that a number is nothing but the proportion of one magnitude to another arbitrarily assumed as the unit.
>
> JG: Euler did not quite fully understand that a number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size. He focused more on a physical unit. Also, Euler did not make the connection between ratio and number.
>
> 5. From this it appears that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers; and that the foundation of all the Mathematical Sciences must be laid in a complete treatise on the science of Numbers, and in an accurate examination of the different possible methods of calculation. This fundamental part of mathematics is called Analysis, or Algebra.
>
> JG: It is untrue that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers. Moreover, Euler did not fully realise that algebra is a weaker form of geometry in which measures are performed in terms of an abstract unit (whose size is irrelevant) rather than a chosen physical unit. The properties using physical units are transferred to algebra with the introduction of incommensurable magnitudes such as pi, e, sqrt(2), etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you dont know limit, consult YT:

(x) is not calculated at a, when lim x->a f(x) = b
lim is a game!
My move is epsilon, your move is some delta.

CalcGREEN 1 : Ch. 7.1 : Limit Intuition & Definition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dYJ-DvDVf0

Prof G spot of calculus! LoL

Eram semper recta schrieb am Freitag, 13. August 2021 um 19:26:10 UTC+2:
> I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S. Now I focus on the contradictory contents of his Elements of Algibberish.
>
> Euler said it! Not me! From his Elements of Al-gibberish , the following:
>
> 82. To express this idea, according to the sense of it above-mentioned, we make use of the sign ∞, which consequently indicates a number infinitely great; and we may therefore say that this fraction 1/∞ is in reality nothing; because a fraction cannot be reduced to nothing, until the denominator has been increased to infinity.
>
> 83. It is the more necessary to pay attention to this idea of infinity, as it is derived from the first elements of our knowledge, and as it will be of the greatest importance in the following part of this treatise.
>
> We may here deduce from it a few consequences that are extremely curious, and worthy of attention. The fraction 1/∞ represents the quotient resulting from the division of the dividend 1 by the divisor ∞. Now, we know that if we divide the dividend 1 by the quotient 1/∞, which is equal to nothing, we obtain again the divisor ∞: hence we acquire a new idea of infinity; and learn that it arises from the division of 1 by 0; so that we are thence authorised in saying that 1 divided by 0 expresses a number infinitely great, or ∞.
>
> 84. It may be necessary also, in this place, to correct the mistake of those who assert that a number infinitely great is not susceptible of increase. This opinion is inconsistent with the just principles which we have laid down; for 10 signifying a number infinitely great, and 20 being incontestably the double of 10, it is evident that a number, though infinitely great, may still become twice, thrice, or any number of times greater.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The above claims are wild compared to the first few claims in his book which if there wasn't so much garbage in it, might still have been one of the best algebra text books ever published:
>
> Chapter I – Of Mathematics in general
>
> 1. Whatever is capable of increase or diminution is called magnitude, or quantity. A sum of money therefore is a quantity, since we may increase it or diminish it. It is the same with a weight, and other things of this nature.
>
> JG: In other words, a magnitude is simply the concept of size, dimension or extent.
>
> 2. From this definition, it is evident that the different kinds of magnitude must be so various, as to render it difficult to enumerate them: and this is the origin of the different branches of the Mathematics, each being employed on a particular kind of magnitude.
>
> * Mathematics, in general, is the science of quantity; or, the science which investigates the means of measuring quantity. *
>
> JG: Euler almost got this one right even though the local idiot Malum does not agree:
>
> JG: Mathematics is the science of measure and quantity.
> JG: What Euler appears to have missed is that in order to enumerate anything, the concept of number and all its machinery must already be in place.
>
> 3. Now, we cannot measure or determine any quantity, except by considering some other quantity of the same kind as known, and pointing out their mutual relation. If it were proposed, for example, to determine the quantity of a sum of money, we should take some known piece of money, as a louis, a crown, a ducat, or some other coin, and show how many of these pieces are contained in the given sum. In the same manner, if it were proposed to determine the quantity of a weight, we should take a certain known weight; for example, a pound, an ounce, etc. and then show how many times one of these weights is contained in that which we are endeavouring to ascertain. If we wished to measure any length or extension, we should make use of some known length, such as a foot.
>
> JG: In other words, we need a ratio which is the first kind of (qualitative) measure. In my free article, I explain how all this is done:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
>
> 4. So that the determination, or the measure of magnitude of all kinds, is reduced to this: fix at pleasure upon any one known magnitude of the same species with that which is to be determined, and consider it as the measure or unit; then, determine the proportion of the proposed magnitude to this known measure. This proportion is always expressed by numbers; so that a number is nothing but the proportion of one magnitude to another arbitrarily assumed as the unit.
>
> JG: Euler did not quite fully understand that a number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size. He focused more on a physical unit. Also, Euler did not make the connection between ratio and number.
>
> 5. From this it appears that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers; and that the foundation of all the Mathematical Sciences must be laid in a complete treatise on the science of Numbers, and in an accurate examination of the different possible methods of calculation. This fundamental part of mathematics is called Analysis, or Algebra.
>
> JG: It is untrue that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers. Moreover, Euler did not fully realise that algebra is a weaker form of geometry in which measures are performed in terms of an abstract unit (whose size is irrelevant) rather than a chosen physical unit. The properties using physical units are transferred to algebra with the introduction of incommensurable magnitudes such as pi, e, sqrt(2), etc.

onsdag 1 september 2021 kl. 13:31:07 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 1:26:10 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S. Now I focus on the contradictory contents of his Elements of Algibberish.
> >
> > Euler said it! Not me! From his Elements of Al-gibberish , the following:
> >
> > 82. To express this idea, according to the sense of it above-mentioned, we make use of the sign ∞, which consequently indicates a number infinitely great; and we may therefore say that this fraction 1/∞ is in reality nothing; because a fraction cannot be reduced to nothing, until the denominator has been increased to infinity.
> >
> > 83. It is the more necessary to pay attention to this idea of infinity, as it is derived from the first elements of our knowledge, and as it will be of the greatest importance in the following part of this treatise.
> >
> > We may here deduce from it a few consequences that are extremely curious, and worthy of attention. The fraction 1/∞ represents the quotient resulting from the division of the dividend 1 by the divisor ∞. Now, we know that if we divide the dividend 1 by the quotient 1/∞, which is equal to nothing, we obtain again the divisor ∞: hence we acquire a new idea of infinity; and learn that it arises from the division of 1 by 0; so that we are thence authorised in saying that 1 divided by 0 expresses a number infinitely great, or ∞.
> >
> > 84. It may be necessary also, in this place, to correct the mistake of those who assert that a number infinitely great is not susceptible of increase. This opinion is inconsistent with the just principles which we have laid down; for 10 signifying a number infinitely great, and 20 being incontestably the double of 10, it is evident that a number, though infinitely great, may still become twice, thrice, or any number of times greater.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > The above claims are wild compared to the first few claims in his book which if there wasn't so much garbage in it, might still have been one of the best algebra text books ever published:
> >
> > Chapter I – Of Mathematics in general
> >
> > 1. Whatever is capable of increase or diminution is called magnitude, or quantity. A sum of money therefore is a quantity, since we may increase it or diminish it. It is the same with a weight, and other things of this nature.
> >
> > JG: In other words, a magnitude is simply the concept of size, dimension or extent.
> >
> > 2. From this definition, it is evident that the different kinds of magnitude must be so various, as to render it difficult to enumerate them: and this is the origin of the different branches of the Mathematics, each being employed on a particular kind of magnitude.
> >
> > * Mathematics, in general, is the science of quantity; or, the science which investigates the means of measuring quantity. *
> >
> > JG: Euler almost got this one right even though the local idiot Malum does not agree:
> >
> > JG: Mathematics is the science of measure and quantity.
> > JG: What Euler appears to have missed is that in order to enumerate anything, the concept of number and all its machinery must already be in place..
> >
> > 3. Now, we cannot measure or determine any quantity, except by considering some other quantity of the same kind as known, and pointing out their mutual relation. If it were proposed, for example, to determine the quantity of a sum of money, we should take some known piece of money, as a louis, a crown, a ducat, or some other coin, and show how many of these pieces are contained in the given sum. In the same manner, if it were proposed to determine the quantity of a weight, we should take a certain known weight; for example, a pound, an ounce, etc. and then show how many times one of these weights is contained in that which we are endeavouring to ascertain. If we wished to measure any length or extension, we should make use of some known length, such as a foot.
> >
> > JG: In other words, we need a ratio which is the first kind of (qualitative) measure. In my free article, I explain how all this is done:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> >
> > 4. So that the determination, or the measure of magnitude of all kinds, is reduced to this: fix at pleasure upon any one known magnitude of the same species with that which is to be determined, and consider it as the measure or unit; then, determine the proportion of the proposed magnitude to this known measure. This proportion is always expressed by numbers; so that a number is nothing but the proportion of one magnitude to another arbitrarily assumed as the unit.
> >
> > JG: Euler did not quite fully understand that a number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size. He focused more on a physical unit. Also, Euler did not make the connection between ratio and number.
> >
> > 5. From this it appears that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers; and that the foundation of all the Mathematical Sciences must be laid in a complete treatise on the science of Numbers, and in an accurate examination of the different possible methods of calculation. This fundamental part of mathematics is called Analysis, or Algebra.
> >
> > JG: It is untrue that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers. Moreover, Euler did not fully realise that algebra is a weaker form of geometry in which measures are performed in terms of an abstract unit (whose size is irrelevant) rather than a chosen physical unit. The properties using physical units are transferred to algebra with the introduction of incommensurable magnitudes such as pi, e, sqrt(2), etc.
>
>
> Essentially what the Baboons of mainstream academia will have you believe is that:
>
> t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = Lim (h->0)[f(c+h)-f(c)]/h = f'(c) + Q(c,h) and is possible ONLY if Q(c,h)=0, but this happens only in the case of the straight line t(x). It NEVER happens with the finite difference quotients. The mainstream want you to believe that there is some finite difference ratio hovering at infinity which produces f'(c):
>
> t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_1)-f(c)]/h_1 ; [f(c+h_2)-f(c)]/h_2 ; [f(c+h_3)-f(c)]/h_3 ; ... ; [f(c+h_3n-f(c)]/h_n ...; [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo
>
> t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo ?! What?!!! There is no such finite difference. It does not exist! But Baboon mathematics of the mainstream insists there is a limit!
>
> Can you imagine how embarrassed Newton and Leibniz would be at these idiots today?! They knew that they could not solve the tangent line problem - this had to wait for the great John Gabriel. It is I who revealed to the entire world that:
> [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> It usually takes a genius to realise the most simple concepts that escape the syphilitic brains of highly educated idiots in the mainstream.
I would suggest you learning limits.

On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 21:53:05 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> onsdag 1 september 2021 kl. 13:31:07 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> > On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 1:26:10 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S. Now I focus on the contradictory contents of his Elements of Algibberish.
> > >
> > > Euler said it! Not me! From his Elements of Al-gibberish , the following:
> > >
> > > 82. To express this idea, according to the sense of it above-mentioned, we make use of the sign ∞, which consequently indicates a number infinitely great; and we may therefore say that this fraction 1/∞ is in reality nothing; because a fraction cannot be reduced to nothing, until the denominator has been increased to infinity.
> > >
> > > 83. It is the more necessary to pay attention to this idea of infinity, as it is derived from the first elements of our knowledge, and as it will be of the greatest importance in the following part of this treatise.
> > >
> > > We may here deduce from it a few consequences that are extremely curious, and worthy of attention. The fraction 1/∞ represents the quotient resulting from the division of the dividend 1 by the divisor ∞. Now, we know that if we divide the dividend 1 by the quotient 1/∞, which is equal to nothing, we obtain again the divisor ∞: hence we acquire a new idea of infinity; and learn that it arises from the division of 1 by 0; so that we are thence authorised in saying that 1 divided by 0 expresses a number infinitely great, or ∞.
> > >
> > > 84. It may be necessary also, in this place, to correct the mistake of those who assert that a number infinitely great is not susceptible of increase. This opinion is inconsistent with the just principles which we have laid down; for 10 signifying a number infinitely great, and 20 being incontestably the double of 10, it is evident that a number, though infinitely great, may still become twice, thrice, or any number of times greater.
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > The above claims are wild compared to the first few claims in his book which if there wasn't so much garbage in it, might still have been one of the best algebra text books ever published:
> > >
> > > Chapter I – Of Mathematics in general
> > >
> > > 1. Whatever is capable of increase or diminution is called magnitude, or quantity. A sum of money therefore is a quantity, since we may increase it or diminish it. It is the same with a weight, and other things of this nature.
> > >
> > > JG: In other words, a magnitude is simply the concept of size, dimension or extent.
> > >
> > > 2. From this definition, it is evident that the different kinds of magnitude must be so various, as to render it difficult to enumerate them: and this is the origin of the different branches of the Mathematics, each being employed on a particular kind of magnitude.
> > >
> > > * Mathematics, in general, is the science of quantity; or, the science which investigates the means of measuring quantity. *
> > >
> > > JG: Euler almost got this one right even though the local idiot Malum does not agree:
> > >
> > > JG: Mathematics is the science of measure and quantity.
> > > JG: What Euler appears to have missed is that in order to enumerate anything, the concept of number and all its machinery must already be in place.
> > >
> > > 3. Now, we cannot measure or determine any quantity, except by considering some other quantity of the same kind as known, and pointing out their mutual relation. If it were proposed, for example, to determine the quantity of a sum of money, we should take some known piece of money, as a louis, a crown, a ducat, or some other coin, and show how many of these pieces are contained in the given sum. In the same manner, if it were proposed to determine the quantity of a weight, we should take a certain known weight; for example, a pound, an ounce, etc. and then show how many times one of these weights is contained in that which we are endeavouring to ascertain. If we wished to measure any length or extension, we should make use of some known length, such as a foot.
> > >
> > > JG: In other words, we need a ratio which is the first kind of (qualitative) measure. In my free article, I explain how all this is done:
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > >
> > > 4. So that the determination, or the measure of magnitude of all kinds, is reduced to this: fix at pleasure upon any one known magnitude of the same species with that which is to be determined, and consider it as the measure or unit; then, determine the proportion of the proposed magnitude to this known measure. This proportion is always expressed by numbers; so that a number is nothing but the proportion of one magnitude to another arbitrarily assumed as the unit.
> > >
> > > JG: Euler did not quite fully understand that a number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size. He focused more on a physical unit. Also, Euler did not make the connection between ratio and number.
> > >
> > > 5. From this it appears that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers; and that the foundation of all the Mathematical Sciences must be laid in a complete treatise on the science of Numbers, and in an accurate examination of the different possible methods of calculation. This fundamental part of mathematics is called Analysis, or Algebra.
> > >
> > > JG: It is untrue that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers. Moreover, Euler did not fully realise that algebra is a weaker form of geometry in which measures are performed in terms of an abstract unit (whose size is irrelevant) rather than a chosen physical unit. The properties using physical units are transferred to algebra with the introduction of incommensurable magnitudes such as pi, e, sqrt(2), etc.
> >
> >
> > Essentially what the Baboons of mainstream academia will have you believe is that:
> >
> > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = Lim (h->0)[f(c+h)-f(c)]/h = f'(c) + Q(c,h) and is possible ONLY if Q(c,h)=0, but this happens only in the case of the straight line t(x). It NEVER happens with the finite difference quotients. The mainstream want you to believe that there is some finite difference ratio hovering at infinity which produces f'(c):
> >
> > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_1)-f(c)]/h_1 ; [f(c+h_2)-f(c)]/h_2 ; [f(c+h_3)-f(c)]/h_3 ; ... ; [f(c+h_3n-f(c)]/h_n ...; [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo
> >
> > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo ?! What?!!! There is no such finite difference. It does not exist! But Baboon mathematics of the mainstream insists there is a limit!
> >
> > Can you imagine how embarrassed Newton and Leibniz would be at these idiots today?! They knew that they could not solve the tangent line problem - this had to wait for the great John Gabriel. It is I who revealed to the entire world that:
> > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > It usually takes a genius to realise the most simple concepts that escape the syphilitic brains of highly educated idiots in the mainstream.

> I should try to understand limit theory.

Indeed!

onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:02:59 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 21:53:05 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > onsdag 1 september 2021 kl. 13:31:07 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> > > On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 1:26:10 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S. Now I focus on the contradictory contents of his Elements of Algibberish.
> > > >
> > > > Euler said it! Not me! From his Elements of Al-gibberish , the following:
> > > >
> > > > 82. To express this idea, according to the sense of it above-mentioned, we make use of the sign ∞, which consequently indicates a number infinitely great; and we may therefore say that this fraction 1/∞ is in reality nothing; because a fraction cannot be reduced to nothing, until the denominator has been increased to infinity.
> > > >
> > > > 83. It is the more necessary to pay attention to this idea of infinity, as it is derived from the first elements of our knowledge, and as it will be of the greatest importance in the following part of this treatise.
> > > >
> > > > We may here deduce from it a few consequences that are extremely curious, and worthy of attention. The fraction 1/∞ represents the quotient resulting from the division of the dividend 1 by the divisor ∞. Now, we know that if we divide the dividend 1 by the quotient 1/∞, which is equal to nothing, we obtain again the divisor ∞: hence we acquire a new idea of infinity; and learn that it arises from the division of 1 by 0; so that we are thence authorised in saying that 1 divided by 0 expresses a number infinitely great, or ∞.
> > > >
> > > > 84. It may be necessary also, in this place, to correct the mistake of those who assert that a number infinitely great is not susceptible of increase. This opinion is inconsistent with the just principles which we have laid down; for 10 signifying a number infinitely great, and 20 being incontestably the double of 10, it is evident that a number, though infinitely great, may still become twice, thrice, or any number of times greater.
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > The above claims are wild compared to the first few claims in his book which if there wasn't so much garbage in it, might still have been one of the best algebra text books ever published:
> > > >
> > > > Chapter I – Of Mathematics in general
> > > >
> > > > 1. Whatever is capable of increase or diminution is called magnitude, or quantity. A sum of money therefore is a quantity, since we may increase it or diminish it. It is the same with a weight, and other things of this nature.
> > > >
> > > > JG: In other words, a magnitude is simply the concept of size, dimension or extent.
> > > >
> > > > 2. From this definition, it is evident that the different kinds of magnitude must be so various, as to render it difficult to enumerate them: and this is the origin of the different branches of the Mathematics, each being employed on a particular kind of magnitude.
> > > >
> > > > * Mathematics, in general, is the science of quantity; or, the science which investigates the means of measuring quantity. *
> > > >
> > > > JG: Euler almost got this one right even though the local idiot Malum does not agree:
> > > >
> > > > JG: Mathematics is the science of measure and quantity.
> > > > JG: What Euler appears to have missed is that in order to enumerate anything, the concept of number and all its machinery must already be in place.
> > > >
> > > > 3. Now, we cannot measure or determine any quantity, except by considering some other quantity of the same kind as known, and pointing out their mutual relation. If it were proposed, for example, to determine the quantity of a sum of money, we should take some known piece of money, as a louis, a crown, a ducat, or some other coin, and show how many of these pieces are contained in the given sum. In the same manner, if it were proposed to determine the quantity of a weight, we should take a certain known weight; for example, a pound, an ounce, etc. and then show how many times one of these weights is contained in that which we are endeavouring to ascertain. If we wished to measure any length or extension, we should make use of some known length, such as a foot.
> > > >
> > > > JG: In other words, we need a ratio which is the first kind of (qualitative) measure. In my free article, I explain how all this is done:
> > > >
> > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > >
> > > > 4. So that the determination, or the measure of magnitude of all kinds, is reduced to this: fix at pleasure upon any one known magnitude of the same species with that which is to be determined, and consider it as the measure or unit; then, determine the proportion of the proposed magnitude to this known measure. This proportion is always expressed by numbers; so that a number is nothing but the proportion of one magnitude to another arbitrarily assumed as the unit.
> > > >
> > > > JG: Euler did not quite fully understand that a number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size. He focused more on a physical unit. Also, Euler did not make the connection between ratio and number.
> > > >
> > > > 5. From this it appears that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers; and that the foundation of all the Mathematical Sciences must be laid in a complete treatise on the science of Numbers, and in an accurate examination of the different possible methods of calculation. This fundamental part of mathematics is called Analysis, or Algebra.
> > > >
> > > > JG: It is untrue that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers. Moreover, Euler did not fully realise that algebra is a weaker form of geometry in which measures are performed in terms of an abstract unit (whose size is irrelevant) rather than a chosen physical unit. The properties using physical units are transferred to algebra with the introduction of incommensurable magnitudes such as pi, e, sqrt(2), etc.
> > >
> > >
> > > Essentially what the Baboons of mainstream academia will have you believe is that:
> > >
> > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = Lim (h->0)[f(c+h)-f(c)]/h = f'(c) + Q(c,h) and is possible ONLY if Q(c,h)=0, but this happens only in the case of the straight line t(x). It NEVER happens with the finite difference quotients. The mainstream want you to believe that there is some finite difference ratio hovering at infinity which produces f'(c):
> > >
> > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_1)-f(c)]/h_1 ; [f(c+h_2)-f(c)]/h_2 ; [f(c+h_3)-f(c)]/h_3 ; ... ; [f(c+h_3n-f(c)]/h_n ...; [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo
> > >
> > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo ?! What?!!! There is no such finite difference. It does not exist! But Baboon mathematics of the mainstream insists there is a limit!
> > >
> > > Can you imagine how embarrassed Newton and Leibniz would be at these idiots today?! They knew that they could not solve the tangent line problem - this had to wait for the great John Gabriel. It is I who revealed to the entire world that:
> > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > It usually takes a genius to realise the most simple concepts that escape the syphilitic brains of highly educated idiots in the mainstream.
> > I should try to understand limit theory.
>
> Indeed!
Then pick up Rudin

onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:02:59 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 21:53:05 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > onsdag 1 september 2021 kl. 13:31:07 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> > > On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 1:26:10 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S. Now I focus on the contradictory contents of his Elements of Algibberish.
> > > >
> > > > Euler said it! Not me! From his Elements of Al-gibberish , the following:
> > > >
> > > > 82. To express this idea, according to the sense of it above-mentioned, we make use of the sign ∞, which consequently indicates a number infinitely great; and we may therefore say that this fraction 1/∞ is in reality nothing; because a fraction cannot be reduced to nothing, until the denominator has been increased to infinity.
> > > >
> > > > 83. It is the more necessary to pay attention to this idea of infinity, as it is derived from the first elements of our knowledge, and as it will be of the greatest importance in the following part of this treatise.
> > > >
> > > > We may here deduce from it a few consequences that are extremely curious, and worthy of attention. The fraction 1/∞ represents the quotient resulting from the division of the dividend 1 by the divisor ∞. Now, we know that if we divide the dividend 1 by the quotient 1/∞, which is equal to nothing, we obtain again the divisor ∞: hence we acquire a new idea of infinity; and learn that it arises from the division of 1 by 0; so that we are thence authorised in saying that 1 divided by 0 expresses a number infinitely great, or ∞.
> > > >
> > > > 84. It may be necessary also, in this place, to correct the mistake of those who assert that a number infinitely great is not susceptible of increase. This opinion is inconsistent with the just principles which we have laid down; for 10 signifying a number infinitely great, and 20 being incontestably the double of 10, it is evident that a number, though infinitely great, may still become twice, thrice, or any number of times greater.
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > The above claims are wild compared to the first few claims in his book which if there wasn't so much garbage in it, might still have been one of the best algebra text books ever published:
> > > >
> > > > Chapter I – Of Mathematics in general
> > > >
> > > > 1. Whatever is capable of increase or diminution is called magnitude, or quantity. A sum of money therefore is a quantity, since we may increase it or diminish it. It is the same with a weight, and other things of this nature.
> > > >
> > > > JG: In other words, a magnitude is simply the concept of size, dimension or extent.
> > > >
> > > > 2. From this definition, it is evident that the different kinds of magnitude must be so various, as to render it difficult to enumerate them: and this is the origin of the different branches of the Mathematics, each being employed on a particular kind of magnitude.
> > > >
> > > > * Mathematics, in general, is the science of quantity; or, the science which investigates the means of measuring quantity. *
> > > >
> > > > JG: Euler almost got this one right even though the local idiot Malum does not agree:
> > > >
> > > > JG: Mathematics is the science of measure and quantity.
> > > > JG: What Euler appears to have missed is that in order to enumerate anything, the concept of number and all its machinery must already be in place.
> > > >
> > > > 3. Now, we cannot measure or determine any quantity, except by considering some other quantity of the same kind as known, and pointing out their mutual relation. If it were proposed, for example, to determine the quantity of a sum of money, we should take some known piece of money, as a louis, a crown, a ducat, or some other coin, and show how many of these pieces are contained in the given sum. In the same manner, if it were proposed to determine the quantity of a weight, we should take a certain known weight; for example, a pound, an ounce, etc. and then show how many times one of these weights is contained in that which we are endeavouring to ascertain. If we wished to measure any length or extension, we should make use of some known length, such as a foot.
> > > >
> > > > JG: In other words, we need a ratio which is the first kind of (qualitative) measure. In my free article, I explain how all this is done:
> > > >
> > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > >
> > > > 4. So that the determination, or the measure of magnitude of all kinds, is reduced to this: fix at pleasure upon any one known magnitude of the same species with that which is to be determined, and consider it as the measure or unit; then, determine the proportion of the proposed magnitude to this known measure. This proportion is always expressed by numbers; so that a number is nothing but the proportion of one magnitude to another arbitrarily assumed as the unit.
> > > >
> > > > JG: Euler did not quite fully understand that a number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size. He focused more on a physical unit. Also, Euler did not make the connection between ratio and number.
> > > >
> > > > 5. From this it appears that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers; and that the foundation of all the Mathematical Sciences must be laid in a complete treatise on the science of Numbers, and in an accurate examination of the different possible methods of calculation. This fundamental part of mathematics is called Analysis, or Algebra.
> > > >
> > > > JG: It is untrue that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers. Moreover, Euler did not fully realise that algebra is a weaker form of geometry in which measures are performed in terms of an abstract unit (whose size is irrelevant) rather than a chosen physical unit. The properties using physical units are transferred to algebra with the introduction of incommensurable magnitudes such as pi, e, sqrt(2), etc.
> > >
> > >
> > > Essentially what the Baboons of mainstream academia will have you believe is that:
> > >
> > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = Lim (h->0)[f(c+h)-f(c)]/h = f'(c) + Q(c,h) and is possible ONLY if Q(c,h)=0, but this happens only in the case of the straight line t(x). It NEVER happens with the finite difference quotients. The mainstream want you to believe that there is some finite difference ratio hovering at infinity which produces f'(c):
> > >
> > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_1)-f(c)]/h_1 ; [f(c+h_2)-f(c)]/h_2 ; [f(c+h_3)-f(c)]/h_3 ; ... ; [f(c+h_3n-f(c)]/h_n ...; [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo
> > >
> > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo ?! What?!!! There is no such finite difference. It does not exist! But Baboon mathematics of the mainstream insists there is a limit!
> > >
> > > Can you imagine how embarrassed Newton and Leibniz would be at these idiots today?! They knew that they could not solve the tangent line problem - this had to wait for the great John Gabriel. It is I who revealed to the entire world that:
> > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > It usually takes a genius to realise the most simple concepts that escape the syphilitic brains of highly educated idiots in the mainstream.
> > I should try to understand limit theory.
>
> Indeed!
you are so juvenile to change what people say. Grow up

On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 23:26:04 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:02:59 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 21:53:05 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > onsdag 1 september 2021 kl. 13:31:07 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> > > > On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 1:26:10 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S. Now I focus on the contradictory contents of his Elements of Algibberish.
> > > > >
> > > > > Euler said it! Not me! From his Elements of Al-gibberish , the following:
> > > > >
> > > > > 82. To express this idea, according to the sense of it above-mentioned, we make use of the sign ∞, which consequently indicates a number infinitely great; and we may therefore say that this fraction 1/∞ is in reality nothing; because a fraction cannot be reduced to nothing, until the denominator has been increased to infinity.
> > > > >
> > > > > 83. It is the more necessary to pay attention to this idea of infinity, as it is derived from the first elements of our knowledge, and as it will be of the greatest importance in the following part of this treatise.
> > > > >
> > > > > We may here deduce from it a few consequences that are extremely curious, and worthy of attention. The fraction 1/∞ represents the quotient resulting from the division of the dividend 1 by the divisor ∞. Now, we know that if we divide the dividend 1 by the quotient 1/∞, which is equal to nothing, we obtain again the divisor ∞: hence we acquire a new idea of infinity; and learn that it arises from the division of 1 by 0; so that we are thence authorised in saying that 1 divided by 0 expresses a number infinitely great, or ∞.
> > > > >
> > > > > 84. It may be necessary also, in this place, to correct the mistake of those who assert that a number infinitely great is not susceptible of increase. This opinion is inconsistent with the just principles which we have laid down; for 10 signifying a number infinitely great, and 20 being incontestably the double of 10, it is evident that a number, though infinitely great, may still become twice, thrice, or any number of times greater.
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > The above claims are wild compared to the first few claims in his book which if there wasn't so much garbage in it, might still have been one of the best algebra text books ever published:
> > > > >
> > > > > Chapter I – Of Mathematics in general
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Whatever is capable of increase or diminution is called magnitude, or quantity. A sum of money therefore is a quantity, since we may increase it or diminish it. It is the same with a weight, and other things of this nature.
> > > > >
> > > > > JG: In other words, a magnitude is simply the concept of size, dimension or extent.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. From this definition, it is evident that the different kinds of magnitude must be so various, as to render it difficult to enumerate them: and this is the origin of the different branches of the Mathematics, each being employed on a particular kind of magnitude.
> > > > >
> > > > > * Mathematics, in general, is the science of quantity; or, the science which investigates the means of measuring quantity. *
> > > > >
> > > > > JG: Euler almost got this one right even though the local idiot Malum does not agree:
> > > > >
> > > > > JG: Mathematics is the science of measure and quantity.
> > > > > JG: What Euler appears to have missed is that in order to enumerate anything, the concept of number and all its machinery must already be in place.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Now, we cannot measure or determine any quantity, except by considering some other quantity of the same kind as known, and pointing out their mutual relation. If it were proposed, for example, to determine the quantity of a sum of money, we should take some known piece of money, as a louis, a crown, a ducat, or some other coin, and show how many of these pieces are contained in the given sum. In the same manner, if it were proposed to determine the quantity of a weight, we should take a certain known weight; for example, a pound, an ounce, etc. and then show how many times one of these weights is contained in that which we are endeavouring to ascertain. If we wished to measure any length or extension, we should make use of some known length, such as a foot.
> > > > >
> > > > > JG: In other words, we need a ratio which is the first kind of (qualitative) measure. In my free article, I explain how all this is done:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. So that the determination, or the measure of magnitude of all kinds, is reduced to this: fix at pleasure upon any one known magnitude of the same species with that which is to be determined, and consider it as the measure or unit; then, determine the proportion of the proposed magnitude to this known measure. This proportion is always expressed by numbers; so that a number is nothing but the proportion of one magnitude to another arbitrarily assumed as the unit.
> > > > >
> > > > > JG: Euler did not quite fully understand that a number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size. He focused more on a physical unit. Also, Euler did not make the connection between ratio and number.
> > > > >
> > > > > 5. From this it appears that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers; and that the foundation of all the Mathematical Sciences must be laid in a complete treatise on the science of Numbers, and in an accurate examination of the different possible methods of calculation. This fundamental part of mathematics is called Analysis, or Algebra.
> > > > >
> > > > > JG: It is untrue that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers. Moreover, Euler did not fully realise that algebra is a weaker form of geometry in which measures are performed in terms of an abstract unit (whose size is irrelevant) rather than a chosen physical unit. The properties using physical units are transferred to algebra with the introduction of incommensurable magnitudes such as pi, e, sqrt(2), etc.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Essentially what the Baboons of mainstream academia will have you believe is that:
> > > >
> > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = Lim (h->0)[f(c+h)-f(c)]/h = f'(c) + Q(c,h) and is possible ONLY if Q(c,h)=0, but this happens only in the case of the straight line t(x). It NEVER happens with the finite difference quotients. The mainstream want you to believe that there is some finite difference ratio hovering at infinity which produces f'(c):
> > > >
> > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_1)-f(c)]/h_1 ; [f(c+h_2)-f(c)]/h_2 ; [f(c+h_3)-f(c)]/h_3 ; ... ; [f(c+h_3n-f(c)]/h_n ...; [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo
> > > >
> > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo ?! What?!!! There is no such finite difference. It does not exist! But Baboon mathematics of the mainstream insists there is a limit!
> > > >
> > > > Can you imagine how embarrassed Newton and Leibniz would be at these idiots today?! They knew that they could not solve the tangent line problem - this had to wait for the great John Gabriel. It is I who revealed to the entire world that:
> > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > It usually takes a genius to realise the most simple concepts that escape the syphilitic brains of highly educated idiots in the mainstream.
> > > I should try to understand limit theory.
> >
> > Indeed!

> Then pick up Rudin

Little moron, I studied Rudin before you were conceived. LMAO.

You're just a stupid, defiant, spoiled Swede brat who will keep saying "Nah Uh" in the face of overwhelming evidence. You were once thinking correctly until you succumbed to the bullshit of your orangutan math lecturers.

"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. 08:07:09 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 23:26:04 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:02:59 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 21:53:05 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > onsdag 1 september 2021 kl. 13:31:07 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> > > > > On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 1:26:10 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S. Now I focus on the contradictory contents of his Elements of Algibberish.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Euler said it! Not me! From his Elements of Al-gibberish , the following:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 82. To express this idea, according to the sense of it above-mentioned, we make use of the sign ∞, which consequently indicates a number infinitely great; and we may therefore say that this fraction 1/∞ is in reality nothing; because a fraction cannot be reduced to nothing, until the denominator has been increased to infinity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 83. It is the more necessary to pay attention to this idea of infinity, as it is derived from the first elements of our knowledge, and as it will be of the greatest importance in the following part of this treatise.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We may here deduce from it a few consequences that are extremely curious, and worthy of attention. The fraction 1/∞ represents the quotient resulting from the division of the dividend 1 by the divisor ∞. Now, we know that if we divide the dividend 1 by the quotient 1/∞, which is equal to nothing, we obtain again the divisor ∞: hence we acquire a new idea of infinity; and learn that it arises from the division of 1 by 0; so that we are thence authorised in saying that 1 divided by 0 expresses a number infinitely great, or ∞.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 84. It may be necessary also, in this place, to correct the mistake of those who assert that a number infinitely great is not susceptible of increase. This opinion is inconsistent with the just principles which we have laid down; for 10 signifying a number infinitely great, and 20 being incontestably the double of 10, it is evident that a number, though infinitely great, may still become twice, thrice, or any number of times greater.
> > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The above claims are wild compared to the first few claims in his book which if there wasn't so much garbage in it, might still have been one of the best algebra text books ever published:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chapter I – Of Mathematics in general
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Whatever is capable of increase or diminution is called magnitude, or quantity. A sum of money therefore is a quantity, since we may increase it or diminish it. It is the same with a weight, and other things of this nature.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JG: In other words, a magnitude is simply the concept of size, dimension or extent.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. From this definition, it is evident that the different kinds of magnitude must be so various, as to render it difficult to enumerate them: and this is the origin of the different branches of the Mathematics, each being employed on a particular kind of magnitude.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Mathematics, in general, is the science of quantity; or, the science which investigates the means of measuring quantity. *
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JG: Euler almost got this one right even though the local idiot Malum does not agree:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JG: Mathematics is the science of measure and quantity.
> > > > > > JG: What Euler appears to have missed is that in order to enumerate anything, the concept of number and all its machinery must already be in place.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. Now, we cannot measure or determine any quantity, except by considering some other quantity of the same kind as known, and pointing out their mutual relation. If it were proposed, for example, to determine the quantity of a sum of money, we should take some known piece of money, as a louis, a crown, a ducat, or some other coin, and show how many of these pieces are contained in the given sum. In the same manner, if it were proposed to determine the quantity of a weight, we should take a certain known weight; for example, a pound, an ounce, etc. and then show how many times one of these weights is contained in that which we are endeavouring to ascertain.. If we wished to measure any length or extension, we should make use of some known length, such as a foot.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JG: In other words, we need a ratio which is the first kind of (qualitative) measure. In my free article, I explain how all this is done:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4. So that the determination, or the measure of magnitude of all kinds, is reduced to this: fix at pleasure upon any one known magnitude of the same species with that which is to be determined, and consider it as the measure or unit; then, determine the proportion of the proposed magnitude to this known measure. This proportion is always expressed by numbers; so that a number is nothing but the proportion of one magnitude to another arbitrarily assumed as the unit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JG: Euler did not quite fully understand that a number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size. He focused more on a physical unit. Also, Euler did not make the connection between ratio and number.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 5. From this it appears that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers; and that the foundation of all the Mathematical Sciences must be laid in a complete treatise on the science of Numbers, and in an accurate examination of the different possible methods of calculation. This fundamental part of mathematics is called Analysis, or Algebra.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JG: It is untrue that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers. Moreover, Euler did not fully realise that algebra is a weaker form of geometry in which measures are performed in terms of an abstract unit (whose size is irrelevant) rather than a chosen physical unit. The properties using physical units are transferred to algebra with the introduction of incommensurable magnitudes such as pi, e, sqrt(2), etc.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Essentially what the Baboons of mainstream academia will have you believe is that:
> > > > >
> > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = Lim (h->0)[f(c+h)-f(c)]/h = f'(c) + Q(c,h) and is possible ONLY if Q(c,h)=0, but this happens only in the case of the straight line t(x). It NEVER happens with the finite difference quotients. The mainstream want you to believe that there is some finite difference ratio hovering at infinity which produces f'(c):
> > > > >
> > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_1)-f(c)]/h_1 ; [f(c+h_2)-f(c)]/h_2 ; [f(c+h_3)-f(c)]/h_3 ; ... ; [f(c+h_3n-f(c)]/h_n ...; [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo
> > > > >
> > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo ?! What?!!! There is no such finite difference. It does not exist! But Baboon mathematics of the mainstream insists there is a limit!
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you imagine how embarrassed Newton and Leibniz would be at these idiots today?! They knew that they could not solve the tangent line problem - this had to wait for the great John Gabriel. It is I who revealed to the entire world that:
> > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > It usually takes a genius to realise the most simple concepts that escape the syphilitic brains of highly educated idiots in the mainstream.
> > > > I should try to understand limit theory.
> > >
> > > Indeed!
>
> > Then pick up Rudin
> Little moron, I studied Rudin before you were conceived. LMAO.
>
> You're just a stupid, defiant, spoiled Swede brat who will keep saying "Nah Uh" in the face of overwhelming evidence. You were once thinking correctly until you succumbed to the bullshit of your orangutan math lecturers.
>
> "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)
>
> :-)))))

You might have "studied" it but you never understood what it says because you get EVERYTHING wrong.

torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 08:07:09 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 23:26:04 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:02:59 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 21:53:05 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > onsdag 1 september 2021 kl. 13:31:07 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> > > > > On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 1:26:10 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S. Now I focus on the contradictory contents of his Elements of Algibberish.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Euler said it! Not me! From his Elements of Al-gibberish , the following:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 82. To express this idea, according to the sense of it above-mentioned, we make use of the sign ∞, which consequently indicates a number infinitely great; and we may therefore say that this fraction 1/∞ is in reality nothing; because a fraction cannot be reduced to nothing, until the denominator has been increased to infinity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 83. It is the more necessary to pay attention to this idea of infinity, as it is derived from the first elements of our knowledge, and as it will be of the greatest importance in the following part of this treatise.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We may here deduce from it a few consequences that are extremely curious, and worthy of attention. The fraction 1/∞ represents the quotient resulting from the division of the dividend 1 by the divisor ∞. Now, we know that if we divide the dividend 1 by the quotient 1/∞, which is equal to nothing, we obtain again the divisor ∞: hence we acquire a new idea of infinity; and learn that it arises from the division of 1 by 0; so that we are thence authorised in saying that 1 divided by 0 expresses a number infinitely great, or ∞.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 84. It may be necessary also, in this place, to correct the mistake of those who assert that a number infinitely great is not susceptible of increase. This opinion is inconsistent with the just principles which we have laid down; for 10 signifying a number infinitely great, and 20 being incontestably the double of 10, it is evident that a number, though infinitely great, may still become twice, thrice, or any number of times greater.
> > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The above claims are wild compared to the first few claims in his book which if there wasn't so much garbage in it, might still have been one of the best algebra text books ever published:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chapter I – Of Mathematics in general
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Whatever is capable of increase or diminution is called magnitude, or quantity. A sum of money therefore is a quantity, since we may increase it or diminish it. It is the same with a weight, and other things of this nature.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JG: In other words, a magnitude is simply the concept of size, dimension or extent.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. From this definition, it is evident that the different kinds of magnitude must be so various, as to render it difficult to enumerate them: and this is the origin of the different branches of the Mathematics, each being employed on a particular kind of magnitude.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Mathematics, in general, is the science of quantity; or, the science which investigates the means of measuring quantity. *
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JG: Euler almost got this one right even though the local idiot Malum does not agree:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JG: Mathematics is the science of measure and quantity.
> > > > > > JG: What Euler appears to have missed is that in order to enumerate anything, the concept of number and all its machinery must already be in place.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. Now, we cannot measure or determine any quantity, except by considering some other quantity of the same kind as known, and pointing out their mutual relation. If it were proposed, for example, to determine the quantity of a sum of money, we should take some known piece of money, as a louis, a crown, a ducat, or some other coin, and show how many of these pieces are contained in the given sum. In the same manner, if it were proposed to determine the quantity of a weight, we should take a certain known weight; for example, a pound, an ounce, etc. and then show how many times one of these weights is contained in that which we are endeavouring to ascertain.. If we wished to measure any length or extension, we should make use of some known length, such as a foot.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JG: In other words, we need a ratio which is the first kind of (qualitative) measure. In my free article, I explain how all this is done:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4. So that the determination, or the measure of magnitude of all kinds, is reduced to this: fix at pleasure upon any one known magnitude of the same species with that which is to be determined, and consider it as the measure or unit; then, determine the proportion of the proposed magnitude to this known measure. This proportion is always expressed by numbers; so that a number is nothing but the proportion of one magnitude to another arbitrarily assumed as the unit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JG: Euler did not quite fully understand that a number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size. He focused more on a physical unit. Also, Euler did not make the connection between ratio and number.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 5. From this it appears that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers; and that the foundation of all the Mathematical Sciences must be laid in a complete treatise on the science of Numbers, and in an accurate examination of the different possible methods of calculation. This fundamental part of mathematics is called Analysis, or Algebra.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JG: It is untrue that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers. Moreover, Euler did not fully realise that algebra is a weaker form of geometry in which measures are performed in terms of an abstract unit (whose size is irrelevant) rather than a chosen physical unit. The properties using physical units are transferred to algebra with the introduction of incommensurable magnitudes such as pi, e, sqrt(2), etc.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Essentially what the Baboons of mainstream academia will have you believe is that:
> > > > >
> > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = Lim (h->0)[f(c+h)-f(c)]/h = f'(c) + Q(c,h) and is possible ONLY if Q(c,h)=0, but this happens only in the case of the straight line t(x). It NEVER happens with the finite difference quotients. The mainstream want you to believe that there is some finite difference ratio hovering at infinity which produces f'(c):
> > > > >
> > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_1)-f(c)]/h_1 ; [f(c+h_2)-f(c)]/h_2 ; [f(c+h_3)-f(c)]/h_3 ; ... ; [f(c+h_3n-f(c)]/h_n ...; [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo
> > > > >
> > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo ?! What?!!! There is no such finite difference. It does not exist! But Baboon mathematics of the mainstream insists there is a limit!
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you imagine how embarrassed Newton and Leibniz would be at these idiots today?! They knew that they could not solve the tangent line problem - this had to wait for the great John Gabriel. It is I who revealed to the entire world that:
> > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > It usually takes a genius to realise the most simple concepts that escape the syphilitic brains of highly educated idiots in the mainstream.
> > > > I should try to understand limit theory.
> > >
> > > Indeed!
>
> > Then pick up Rudin
> Little moron, I studied Rudin before you were conceived. LMAO.
>
> You're just a stupid, defiant, spoiled Swede brat who will keep saying "Nah Uh" in the face of overwhelming evidence. You were once thinking correctly until you succumbed to the bullshit of your orangutan math lecturers.
>
> "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)
>
> :-)))))
Can you say you have studied something when you clearly haven't understood the content?

On 8/30/2021 6:31 AM, New Age Prophet wrote:

<snip crap>

Q(x,h) = QUACK FUNCTION!!!

>>>
>>> ***************************************************************
>>>>> He think that stuff you point out is circular
>>>>>
>>>>> if c=f+g
>>>>> then g=c-f
>>>>> so circular!
>>> ***************************************************************
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/QMhqLZH1434/m/vAEmniRtBwAJ
>> I pointed out that is how YOU think. Not that I think it you dishonest lying sack of shit :)
>
> The lying sack of SHIT is YOU, you vile bastard.
>
> I said the exact opposite of what you and Python were saying.
>
> IF [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)

QUACK ! Q(x,h) = QUACK FUNCTION!!!

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

Q(x,h) = QUACK FUNCTION!!!

>
> and then the two fucking morons (YOU and Python) tried to insinuate that it was circular. LMAO.
>
> You're the world's greatest mainstream crank!
>

Q(x,h) = QUACK FUNCTION!!! is error term to fix Mr Rectum's Fake Math

On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 20:27:28 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 08:07:09 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 23:26:04 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:02:59 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 21:53:05 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > onsdag 1 september 2021 kl. 13:31:07 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> > > > > > On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 1:26:10 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S. Now I focus on the contradictory contents of his Elements of Algibberish.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Euler said it! Not me! From his Elements of Al-gibberish , the following:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 82. To express this idea, according to the sense of it above-mentioned, we make use of the sign ∞, which consequently indicates a number infinitely great; and we may therefore say that this fraction 1/∞ is in reality nothing; because a fraction cannot be reduced to nothing, until the denominator has been increased to infinity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 83. It is the more necessary to pay attention to this idea of infinity, as it is derived from the first elements of our knowledge, and as it will be of the greatest importance in the following part of this treatise.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We may here deduce from it a few consequences that are extremely curious, and worthy of attention. The fraction 1/∞ represents the quotient resulting from the division of the dividend 1 by the divisor ∞. Now, we know that if we divide the dividend 1 by the quotient 1/∞, which is equal to nothing, we obtain again the divisor ∞: hence we acquire a new idea of infinity; and learn that it arises from the division of 1 by 0; so that we are thence authorised in saying that 1 divided by 0 expresses a number infinitely great, or ∞.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 84. It may be necessary also, in this place, to correct the mistake of those who assert that a number infinitely great is not susceptible of increase. This opinion is inconsistent with the just principles which we have laid down; for 10 signifying a number infinitely great, and 20 being incontestably the double of 10, it is evident that a number, though infinitely great, may still become twice, thrice, or any number of times greater..
> > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The above claims are wild compared to the first few claims in his book which if there wasn't so much garbage in it, might still have been one of the best algebra text books ever published:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Chapter I – Of Mathematics in general
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Whatever is capable of increase or diminution is called magnitude, or quantity. A sum of money therefore is a quantity, since we may increase it or diminish it. It is the same with a weight, and other things of this nature.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > JG: In other words, a magnitude is simply the concept of size, dimension or extent.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. From this definition, it is evident that the different kinds of magnitude must be so various, as to render it difficult to enumerate them: and this is the origin of the different branches of the Mathematics, each being employed on a particular kind of magnitude.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * Mathematics, in general, is the science of quantity; or, the science which investigates the means of measuring quantity. *
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > JG: Euler almost got this one right even though the local idiot Malum does not agree:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > JG: Mathematics is the science of measure and quantity.
> > > > > > > JG: What Euler appears to have missed is that in order to enumerate anything, the concept of number and all its machinery must already be in place.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3. Now, we cannot measure or determine any quantity, except by considering some other quantity of the same kind as known, and pointing out their mutual relation. If it were proposed, for example, to determine the quantity of a sum of money, we should take some known piece of money, as a louis, a crown, a ducat, or some other coin, and show how many of these pieces are contained in the given sum. In the same manner, if it were proposed to determine the quantity of a weight, we should take a certain known weight; for example, a pound, an ounce, etc. and then show how many times one of these weights is contained in that which we are endeavouring to ascertain. If we wished to measure any length or extension, we should make use of some known length, such as a foot.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > JG: In other words, we need a ratio which is the first kind of (qualitative) measure. In my free article, I explain how all this is done:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 4. So that the determination, or the measure of magnitude of all kinds, is reduced to this: fix at pleasure upon any one known magnitude of the same species with that which is to be determined, and consider it as the measure or unit; then, determine the proportion of the proposed magnitude to this known measure. This proportion is always expressed by numbers; so that a number is nothing but the proportion of one magnitude to another arbitrarily assumed as the unit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > JG: Euler did not quite fully understand that a number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size. He focused more on a physical unit. Also, Euler did not make the connection between ratio and number.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 5. From this it appears that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers; and that the foundation of all the Mathematical Sciences must be laid in a complete treatise on the science of Numbers, and in an accurate examination of the different possible methods of calculation. This fundamental part of mathematics is called Analysis, or Algebra.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > JG: It is untrue that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers. Moreover, Euler did not fully realise that algebra is a weaker form of geometry in which measures are performed in terms of an abstract unit (whose size is irrelevant) rather than a chosen physical unit. The properties using physical units are transferred to algebra with the introduction of incommensurable magnitudes such as pi, e, sqrt(2), etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Essentially what the Baboons of mainstream academia will have you believe is that:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = Lim (h->0)[f(c+h)-f(c)]/h = f'(c) + Q(c,h) and is possible ONLY if Q(c,h)=0, but this happens only in the case of the straight line t(x). It NEVER happens with the finite difference quotients. The mainstream want you to believe that there is some finite difference ratio hovering at infinity which produces f'(c):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_1)-f(c)]/h_1 ; [f(c+h_2)-f(c)]/h_2 ; [f(c+h_3)-f(c)]/h_3 ; ... ; [f(c+h_3n-f(c)]/h_n ...; [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo
> > > > > >
> > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo ?! What?!!! There is no such finite difference. It does not exist! But Baboon mathematics of the mainstream insists there is a limit!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you imagine how embarrassed Newton and Leibniz would be at these idiots today?! They knew that they could not solve the tangent line problem - this had to wait for the great John Gabriel. It is I who revealed to the entire world that:
> > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > It usually takes a genius to realise the most simple concepts that escape the syphilitic brains of highly educated idiots in the mainstream.
> > > > > I should try to understand limit theory.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed!
> >
> > > Then pick up Rudin
> > Little moron, I studied Rudin before you were conceived. LMAO.
> >
> > You're just a stupid, defiant, spoiled Swede brat who will keep saying "Nah Uh" in the face of overwhelming evidence. You were once thinking correctly until you succumbed to the bullshit of your orangutan math lecturers.
> >
> > "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)
> >
> > :-)))))

fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 07:41:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 20:27:28 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 08:07:09 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 23:26:04 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:02:59 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 21:53:05 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > onsdag 1 september 2021 kl. 13:31:07 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> > > > > > > On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 1:26:10 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S. Now I focus on the contradictory contents of his Elements of Algibberish..
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Euler said it! Not me! From his Elements of Al-gibberish , the following:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 82. To express this idea, according to the sense of it above-mentioned, we make use of the sign ∞, which consequently indicates a number infinitely great; and we may therefore say that this fraction 1/∞ is in reality nothing; because a fraction cannot be reduced to nothing, until the denominator has been increased to infinity.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 83. It is the more necessary to pay attention to this idea of infinity, as it is derived from the first elements of our knowledge, and as it will be of the greatest importance in the following part of this treatise.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We may here deduce from it a few consequences that are extremely curious, and worthy of attention. The fraction 1/∞ represents the quotient resulting from the division of the dividend 1 by the divisor ∞. Now, we know that if we divide the dividend 1 by the quotient 1/∞, which is equal to nothing, we obtain again the divisor ∞: hence we acquire a new idea of infinity; and learn that it arises from the division of 1 by 0; so that we are thence authorised in saying that 1 divided by 0 expresses a number infinitely great, or ∞.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 84. It may be necessary also, in this place, to correct the mistake of those who assert that a number infinitely great is not susceptible of increase. This opinion is inconsistent with the just principles which we have laid down; for 10 signifying a number infinitely great, and 20 being incontestably the double of 10, it is evident that a number, though infinitely great, may still become twice, thrice, or any number of times greater.
> > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The above claims are wild compared to the first few claims in his book which if there wasn't so much garbage in it, might still have been one of the best algebra text books ever published:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Chapter I – Of Mathematics in general
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. Whatever is capable of increase or diminution is called magnitude, or quantity. A sum of money therefore is a quantity, since we may increase it or diminish it. It is the same with a weight, and other things of this nature.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > JG: In other words, a magnitude is simply the concept of size, dimension or extent.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2. From this definition, it is evident that the different kinds of magnitude must be so various, as to render it difficult to enumerate them: and this is the origin of the different branches of the Mathematics, each being employed on a particular kind of magnitude.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * Mathematics, in general, is the science of quantity; or, the science which investigates the means of measuring quantity. *
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > JG: Euler almost got this one right even though the local idiot Malum does not agree:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > JG: Mathematics is the science of measure and quantity.
> > > > > > > > JG: What Euler appears to have missed is that in order to enumerate anything, the concept of number and all its machinery must already be in place.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 3. Now, we cannot measure or determine any quantity, except by considering some other quantity of the same kind as known, and pointing out their mutual relation. If it were proposed, for example, to determine the quantity of a sum of money, we should take some known piece of money, as a louis, a crown, a ducat, or some other coin, and show how many of these pieces are contained in the given sum. In the same manner, if it were proposed to determine the quantity of a weight, we should take a certain known weight; for example, a pound, an ounce, etc. and then show how many times one of these weights is contained in that which we are endeavouring to ascertain. If we wished to measure any length or extension, we should make use of some known length, such as a foot.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > JG: In other words, we need a ratio which is the first kind of (qualitative) measure. In my free article, I explain how all this is done:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 4. So that the determination, or the measure of magnitude of all kinds, is reduced to this: fix at pleasure upon any one known magnitude of the same species with that which is to be determined, and consider it as the measure or unit; then, determine the proportion of the proposed magnitude to this known measure. This proportion is always expressed by numbers; so that a number is nothing but the proportion of one magnitude to another arbitrarily assumed as the unit.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > JG: Euler did not quite fully understand that a number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size. He focused more on a physical unit. Also, Euler did not make the connection between ratio and number.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 5. From this it appears that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers; and that the foundation of all the Mathematical Sciences must be laid in a complete treatise on the science of Numbers, and in an accurate examination of the different possible methods of calculation. This fundamental part of mathematics is called Analysis, or Algebra.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > JG: It is untrue that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers. Moreover, Euler did not fully realise that algebra is a weaker form of geometry in which measures are performed in terms of an abstract unit (whose size is irrelevant) rather than a chosen physical unit. The properties using physical units are transferred to algebra with the introduction of incommensurable magnitudes such as pi, e, sqrt(2), etc.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Essentially what the Baboons of mainstream academia will have you believe is that:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = Lim (h->0)[f(c+h)-f(c)]/h = f'(c) + Q(c,h) and is possible ONLY if Q(c,h)=0, but this happens only in the case of the straight line t(x). It NEVER happens with the finite difference quotients. The mainstream want you to believe that there is some finite difference ratio hovering at infinity which produces f'(c):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_1)-f(c)]/h_1 ; [f(c+h_2)-f(c)]/h_2 ; [f(c+h_3)-f(c)]/h_3 ; ... ; [f(c+h_3n-f(c)]/h_n ...; [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo ?! What?!!! There is no such finite difference. It does not exist! But Baboon mathematics of the mainstream insists there is a limit!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can you imagine how embarrassed Newton and Leibniz would be at these idiots today?! They knew that they could not solve the tangent line problem - this had to wait for the great John Gabriel. It is I who revealed to the entire world that:
> > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > It usually takes a genius to realise the most simple concepts that escape the syphilitic brains of highly educated idiots in the mainstream.
> > > > > > I should try to understand limit theory.
> > > > >
> > > > > Indeed!
> > >
> > > > Then pick up Rudin
> > > Little moron, I studied Rudin before you were conceived. LMAO.
> > >
> > > You're just a stupid, defiant, spoiled Swede brat who will keep saying "Nah Uh" in the face of overwhelming evidence. You were once thinking correctly until you succumbed to the bullshit of your orangutan math lecturers..
> > >
> > > "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)
> > >
> > > :-)))))
>
> > Can you say you have studied something when you clearly haven't understood the content?
> Yes. I look at you and Malum and that statement becomes very clear! :)
>
> Still think that "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" ? Unbelievable stupidity. Can't you see the whole world is laughing at you?
>
> Now Dan Christensen is no doubt the most stupid crank on sci.math, but I somehow think even he would be laughing at you!
You sitll do not understand how factorizations and fields work so you clearly do not understand things.

On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 08:45:10 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 07:41:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 20:27:28 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 08:07:09 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 23:26:04 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:02:59 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 21:53:05 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > onsdag 1 september 2021 kl. 13:31:07 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 1:26:10 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S. Now I focus on the contradictory contents of his Elements of Algibberish.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Euler said it! Not me! From his Elements of Al-gibberish , the following:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 82. To express this idea, according to the sense of it above-mentioned, we make use of the sign ∞, which consequently indicates a number infinitely great; and we may therefore say that this fraction 1/∞ is in reality nothing; because a fraction cannot be reduced to nothing, until the denominator has been increased to infinity.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 83. It is the more necessary to pay attention to this idea of infinity, as it is derived from the first elements of our knowledge, and as it will be of the greatest importance in the following part of this treatise.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We may here deduce from it a few consequences that are extremely curious, and worthy of attention. The fraction 1/∞ represents the quotient resulting from the division of the dividend 1 by the divisor ∞. Now, we know that if we divide the dividend 1 by the quotient 1/∞, which is equal to nothing, we obtain again the divisor ∞: hence we acquire a new idea of infinity; and learn that it arises from the division of 1 by 0; so that we are thence authorised in saying that 1 divided by 0 expresses a number infinitely great, or ∞.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 84. It may be necessary also, in this place, to correct the mistake of those who assert that a number infinitely great is not susceptible of increase. This opinion is inconsistent with the just principles which we have laid down; for 10 signifying a number infinitely great, and 20 being incontestably the double of 10, it is evident that a number, though infinitely great, may still become twice, thrice, or any number of times greater.
> > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The above claims are wild compared to the first few claims in his book which if there wasn't so much garbage in it, might still have been one of the best algebra text books ever published:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Chapter I – Of Mathematics in general
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever is capable of increase or diminution is called magnitude, or quantity. A sum of money therefore is a quantity, since we may increase it or diminish it. It is the same with a weight, and other things of this nature.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > JG: In other words, a magnitude is simply the concept of size, dimension or extent.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2. From this definition, it is evident that the different kinds of magnitude must be so various, as to render it difficult to enumerate them: and this is the origin of the different branches of the Mathematics, each being employed on a particular kind of magnitude.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > * Mathematics, in general, is the science of quantity; or, the science which investigates the means of measuring quantity. *
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > JG: Euler almost got this one right even though the local idiot Malum does not agree:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > JG: Mathematics is the science of measure and quantity.
> > > > > > > > > JG: What Euler appears to have missed is that in order to enumerate anything, the concept of number and all its machinery must already be in place.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 3. Now, we cannot measure or determine any quantity, except by considering some other quantity of the same kind as known, and pointing out their mutual relation. If it were proposed, for example, to determine the quantity of a sum of money, we should take some known piece of money, as a louis, a crown, a ducat, or some other coin, and show how many of these pieces are contained in the given sum. In the same manner, if it were proposed to determine the quantity of a weight, we should take a certain known weight; for example, a pound, an ounce, etc. and then show how many times one of these weights is contained in that which we are endeavouring to ascertain. If we wished to measure any length or extension, we should make use of some known length, such as a foot.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > JG: In other words, we need a ratio which is the first kind of (qualitative) measure. In my free article, I explain how all this is done:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 4. So that the determination, or the measure of magnitude of all kinds, is reduced to this: fix at pleasure upon any one known magnitude of the same species with that which is to be determined, and consider it as the measure or unit; then, determine the proportion of the proposed magnitude to this known measure. This proportion is always expressed by numbers; so that a number is nothing but the proportion of one magnitude to another arbitrarily assumed as the unit.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > JG: Euler did not quite fully understand that a number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size. He focused more on a physical unit. Also, Euler did not make the connection between ratio and number.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 5. From this it appears that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers; and that the foundation of all the Mathematical Sciences must be laid in a complete treatise on the science of Numbers, and in an accurate examination of the different possible methods of calculation. This fundamental part of mathematics is called Analysis, or Algebra.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > JG: It is untrue that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers. Moreover, Euler did not fully realise that algebra is a weaker form of geometry in which measures are performed in terms of an abstract unit (whose size is irrelevant) rather than a chosen physical unit. The properties using physical units are transferred to algebra with the introduction of incommensurable magnitudes such as pi, e, sqrt(2), etc.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Essentially what the Baboons of mainstream academia will have you believe is that:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = Lim (h->0)[f(c+h)-f(c)]/h = f'(c) + Q(c,h) and is possible ONLY if Q(c,h)=0, but this happens only in the case of the straight line t(x). It NEVER happens with the finite difference quotients. The mainstream want you to believe that there is some finite difference ratio hovering at infinity which produces f'(c):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_1)-f(c)]/h_1 ; [f(c+h_2)-f(c)]/h_2 ; [f(c+h_3)-f(c)]/h_3 ; ... ; [f(c+h_3n-f(c)]/h_n ...; [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo ?! What?!!! There is no such finite difference. It does not exist! But Baboon mathematics of the mainstream insists there is a limit!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can you imagine how embarrassed Newton and Leibniz would be at these idiots today?! They knew that they could not solve the tangent line problem - this had to wait for the great John Gabriel. It is I who revealed to the entire world that:
> > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > It usually takes a genius to realise the most simple concepts that escape the syphilitic brains of highly educated idiots in the mainstream.
> > > > > > > I should try to understand limit theory.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Indeed!
> > > >
> > > > > Then pick up Rudin
> > > > Little moron, I studied Rudin before you were conceived. LMAO.
> > > >
> > > > You're just a stupid, defiant, spoiled Swede brat who will keep saying "Nah Uh" in the face of overwhelming evidence. You were once thinking correctly until you succumbed to the bullshit of your orangutan math lecturers.
> > > >
> > > > "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)
> > > >
> > > > :-)))))
> >
> > > Can you say you have studied something when you clearly haven't understood the content?
> > Yes. I look at you and Malum and that statement becomes very clear! :)
> >
> > Still think that "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" ? Unbelievable stupidity. Can't you see the whole world is laughing at you?
> >
> > Now Dan Christensen is no doubt the most stupid crank on sci.math, but I somehow think even he would be laughing at you!
> You sitll do not understand how factorizations and fields work so you clearly do not understand things.

lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:10:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 08:45:10 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 07:41:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 20:27:28 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 08:07:09 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 23:26:04 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:02:59 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 21:53:05 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > onsdag 1 september 2021 kl. 13:31:07 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 1:26:10 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S. Now I focus on the contradictory contents of his Elements of Algibberish.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Euler said it! Not me! From his Elements of Al-gibberish , the following:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 82. To express this idea, according to the sense of it above-mentioned, we make use of the sign ∞, which consequently indicates a number infinitely great; and we may therefore say that this fraction 1/∞ is in reality nothing; because a fraction cannot be reduced to nothing, until the denominator has been increased to infinity.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 83. It is the more necessary to pay attention to this idea of infinity, as it is derived from the first elements of our knowledge, and as it will be of the greatest importance in the following part of this treatise.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We may here deduce from it a few consequences that are extremely curious, and worthy of attention. The fraction 1/∞ represents the quotient resulting from the division of the dividend 1 by the divisor ∞. Now, we know that if we divide the dividend 1 by the quotient 1/∞, which is equal to nothing, we obtain again the divisor ∞: hence we acquire a new idea of infinity; and learn that it arises from the division of 1 by 0; so that we are thence authorised in saying that 1 divided by 0 expresses a number infinitely great, or ∞.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 84. It may be necessary also, in this place, to correct the mistake of those who assert that a number infinitely great is not susceptible of increase. This opinion is inconsistent with the just principles which we have laid down; for 10 signifying a number infinitely great, and 20 being incontestably the double of 10, it is evident that a number, though infinitely great, may still become twice, thrice, or any number of times greater.
> > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The above claims are wild compared to the first few claims in his book which if there wasn't so much garbage in it, might still have been one of the best algebra text books ever published:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Chapter I – Of Mathematics in general
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever is capable of increase or diminution is called magnitude, or quantity. A sum of money therefore is a quantity, since we may increase it or diminish it. It is the same with a weight, and other things of this nature.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > JG: In other words, a magnitude is simply the concept of size, dimension or extent.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2. From this definition, it is evident that the different kinds of magnitude must be so various, as to render it difficult to enumerate them: and this is the origin of the different branches of the Mathematics, each being employed on a particular kind of magnitude.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > * Mathematics, in general, is the science of quantity; or, the science which investigates the means of measuring quantity. *
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > JG: Euler almost got this one right even though the local idiot Malum does not agree:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > JG: Mathematics is the science of measure and quantity.
> > > > > > > > > > JG: What Euler appears to have missed is that in order to enumerate anything, the concept of number and all its machinery must already be in place.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 3. Now, we cannot measure or determine any quantity, except by considering some other quantity of the same kind as known, and pointing out their mutual relation. If it were proposed, for example, to determine the quantity of a sum of money, we should take some known piece of money, as a louis, a crown, a ducat, or some other coin, and show how many of these pieces are contained in the given sum. In the same manner, if it were proposed to determine the quantity of a weight, we should take a certain known weight; for example, a pound, an ounce, etc. and then show how many times one of these weights is contained in that which we are endeavouring to ascertain. If we wished to measure any length or extension, we should make use of some known length, such as a foot.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > JG: In other words, we need a ratio which is the first kind of (qualitative) measure. In my free article, I explain how all this is done:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 4. So that the determination, or the measure of magnitude of all kinds, is reduced to this: fix at pleasure upon any one known magnitude of the same species with that which is to be determined, and consider it as the measure or unit; then, determine the proportion of the proposed magnitude to this known measure. This proportion is always expressed by numbers; so that a number is nothing but the proportion of one magnitude to another arbitrarily assumed as the unit.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > JG: Euler did not quite fully understand that a number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size. He focused more on a physical unit. Also, Euler did not make the connection between ratio and number.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 5. From this it appears that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers; and that the foundation of all the Mathematical Sciences must be laid in a complete treatise on the science of Numbers, and in an accurate examination of the different possible methods of calculation. This fundamental part of mathematics is called Analysis, or Algebra.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > JG: It is untrue that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers. Moreover, Euler did not fully realise that algebra is a weaker form of geometry in which measures are performed in terms of an abstract unit (whose size is irrelevant) rather than a chosen physical unit. The properties using physical units are transferred to algebra with the introduction of incommensurable magnitudes such as pi, e, sqrt(2), etc.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Essentially what the Baboons of mainstream academia will have you believe is that:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = Lim (h->0)[f(c+h)-f(c)]/h = f'(c) + Q(c,h) and is possible ONLY if Q(c,h)=0, but this happens only in the case of the straight line t(x). It NEVER happens with the finite difference quotients. The mainstream want you to believe that there is some finite difference ratio hovering at infinity which produces f'(c):
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_1)-f(c)]/h_1 ; [f(c+h_2)-f(c)]/h_2 ; [f(c+h_3)-f(c)]/h_3 ; ... ; [f(c+h_3n-f(c)]/h_n ...; [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo ?! What?!!! There is no such finite difference. It does not exist! But Baboon mathematics of the mainstream insists there is a limit!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Can you imagine how embarrassed Newton and Leibniz would be at these idiots today?! They knew that they could not solve the tangent line problem - this had to wait for the great John Gabriel. It is I who revealed to the entire world that:
> > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > It usually takes a genius to realise the most simple concepts that escape the syphilitic brains of highly educated idiots in the mainstream.
> > > > > > > > I should try to understand limit theory.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Indeed!
> > > > >
> > > > > > Then pick up Rudin
> > > > > Little moron, I studied Rudin before you were conceived. LMAO.
> > > > >
> > > > > You're just a stupid, defiant, spoiled Swede brat who will keep saying "Nah Uh" in the face of overwhelming evidence. You were once thinking correctly until you succumbed to the bullshit of your orangutan math lecturers.
> > > > >
> > > > > "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)
> > > > >
> > > > > :-)))))
> > >
> > > > Can you say you have studied something when you clearly haven't understood the content?
> > > Yes. I look at you and Malum and that statement becomes very clear! :)
> > >
> > > Still think that "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" ? Unbelievable stupidity. Can't you see the whole world is laughing at you?
> > >
> > > Now Dan Christensen is no doubt the most stupid crank on sci.math, but I somehow think even he would be laughing at you!
> > You sitll do not understand how factorizations and fields work so you clearly do not understand things.
> 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.

On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 08:03:31 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:10:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 08:45:10 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 07:41:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 20:27:28 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 08:07:09 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 23:26:04 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:02:59 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 21:53:05 UTC+3, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > onsdag 1 september 2021 kl. 13:31:07 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 1:26:10 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S. Now I focus on the contradictory contents of his Elements of Algibberish.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Euler said it! Not me! From his Elements of Al-gibberish , the following:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 82. To express this idea, according to the sense of it above-mentioned, we make use of the sign ∞, which consequently indicates a number infinitely great; and we may therefore say that this fraction 1/∞ is in reality nothing; because a fraction cannot be reduced to nothing, until the denominator has been increased to infinity.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 83. It is the more necessary to pay attention to this idea of infinity, as it is derived from the first elements of our knowledge, and as it will be of the greatest importance in the following part of this treatise.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We may here deduce from it a few consequences that are extremely curious, and worthy of attention. The fraction 1/∞ represents the quotient resulting from the division of the dividend 1 by the divisor ∞. Now, we know that if we divide the dividend 1 by the quotient 1/∞, which is equal to nothing, we obtain again the divisor ∞: hence we acquire a new idea of infinity; and learn that it arises from the division of 1 by 0; so that we are thence authorised in saying that 1 divided by 0 expresses a number infinitely great, or ∞.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 84. It may be necessary also, in this place, to correct the mistake of those who assert that a number infinitely great is not susceptible of increase. This opinion is inconsistent with the just principles which we have laid down; for 10 signifying a number infinitely great, and 20 being incontestably the double of 10, it is evident that a number, though infinitely great, may still become twice, thrice, or any number of times greater.
> > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The above claims are wild compared to the first few claims in his book which if there wasn't so much garbage in it, might still have been one of the best algebra text books ever published:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Chapter I – Of Mathematics in general
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever is capable of increase or diminution is called magnitude, or quantity. A sum of money therefore is a quantity, since we may increase it or diminish it. It is the same with a weight, and other things of this nature.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > JG: In other words, a magnitude is simply the concept of size, dimension or extent.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. From this definition, it is evident that the different kinds of magnitude must be so various, as to render it difficult to enumerate them: and this is the origin of the different branches of the Mathematics, each being employed on a particular kind of magnitude.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > * Mathematics, in general, is the science of quantity; or, the science which investigates the means of measuring quantity. *
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > JG: Euler almost got this one right even though the local idiot Malum does not agree:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > JG: Mathematics is the science of measure and quantity.
> > > > > > > > > > > JG: What Euler appears to have missed is that in order to enumerate anything, the concept of number and all its machinery must already be in place.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 3. Now, we cannot measure or determine any quantity, except by considering some other quantity of the same kind as known, and pointing out their mutual relation. If it were proposed, for example, to determine the quantity of a sum of money, we should take some known piece of money, as a louis, a crown, a ducat, or some other coin, and show how many of these pieces are contained in the given sum. In the same manner, if it were proposed to determine the quantity of a weight, we should take a certain known weight; for example, a pound, an ounce, etc. and then show how many times one of these weights is contained in that which we are endeavouring to ascertain. If we wished to measure any length or extension, we should make use of some known length, such as a foot.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > JG: In other words, we need a ratio which is the first kind of (qualitative) measure. In my free article, I explain how all this is done:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 4. So that the determination, or the measure of magnitude of all kinds, is reduced to this: fix at pleasure upon any one known magnitude of the same species with that which is to be determined, and consider it as the measure or unit; then, determine the proportion of the proposed magnitude to this known measure. This proportion is always expressed by numbers; so that a number is nothing but the proportion of one magnitude to another arbitrarily assumed as the unit.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > JG: Euler did not quite fully understand that a number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size. He focused more on a physical unit. Also, Euler did not make the connection between ratio and number.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 5. From this it appears that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers; and that the foundation of all the Mathematical Sciences must be laid in a complete treatise on the science of Numbers, and in an accurate examination of the different possible methods of calculation. This fundamental part of mathematics is called Analysis, or Algebra.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > JG: It is untrue that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers. Moreover, Euler did not fully realise that algebra is a weaker form of geometry in which measures are performed in terms of an abstract unit (whose size is irrelevant) rather than a chosen physical unit. The properties using physical units are transferred to algebra with the introduction of incommensurable magnitudes such as pi, e, sqrt(2), etc.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Essentially what the Baboons of mainstream academia will have you believe is that:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = Lim (h->0)[f(c+h)-f(c)]/h = f'(c) + Q(c,h) and is possible ONLY if Q(c,h)=0, but this happens only in the case of the straight line t(x). It NEVER happens with the finite difference quotients. The mainstream want you to believe that there is some finite difference ratio hovering at infinity which produces f'(c):
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_1)-f(c)]/h_1 ; [f(c+h_2)-f(c)]/h_2 ; [f(c+h_3)-f(c)]/h_3 ; ... ; [f(c+h_3n-f(c)]/h_n ...; [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo ?! What?!!! There is no such finite difference. It does not exist! But Baboon mathematics of the mainstream insists there is a limit!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Can you imagine how embarrassed Newton and Leibniz would be at these idiots today?! They knew that they could not solve the tangent line problem - this had to wait for the great John Gabriel. It is I who revealed to the entire world that:
> > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > > It usually takes a genius to realise the most simple concepts that escape the syphilitic brains of highly educated idiots in the mainstream.
> > > > > > > > > I should try to understand limit theory.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Indeed!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then pick up Rudin
> > > > > > Little moron, I studied Rudin before you were conceived. LMAO.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're just a stupid, defiant, spoiled Swede brat who will keep saying "Nah Uh" in the face of overwhelming evidence. You were once thinking correctly until you succumbed to the bullshit of your orangutan math lecturers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "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)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > :-)))))
> > > >
> > > > > Can you say you have studied something when you clearly haven't understood the content?
> > > > Yes. I look at you and Malum and that statement becomes very clear! :)
> > > >
> > > > Still think that "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" ? Unbelievable stupidity. Can't you see the whole world is laughing at you?
> > > >
> > > > Now Dan Christensen is no doubt the most stupid crank on sci.math, but I somehow think even he would be laughing at you!
> > > You sitll do not understand how factorizations and fields work so you clearly do not understand things.
> > 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.

måndag 20 september 2021 kl. 10:46:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 08:03:31 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:10:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 08:45:10 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 07:41:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 20:27:28 UTC+3, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 08:07:09 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 23:26:04 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:02:59 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 21:53:05 UTC+3, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > onsdag 1 september 2021 kl. 13:31:07 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 1:26:10 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S. Now I focus on the contradictory contents of his Elements of Algibberish.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Euler said it! Not me! From his Elements of Al-gibberish , the following:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 82. To express this idea, according to the sense of it above-mentioned, we make use of the sign ∞, which consequently indicates a number infinitely great; and we may therefore say that this fraction 1/∞ is in reality nothing; because a fraction cannot be reduced to nothing, until the denominator has been increased to infinity.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 83. It is the more necessary to pay attention to this idea of infinity, as it is derived from the first elements of our knowledge, and as it will be of the greatest importance in the following part of this treatise.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > We may here deduce from it a few consequences that are extremely curious, and worthy of attention. The fraction 1/∞ represents the quotient resulting from the division of the dividend 1 by the divisor ∞. Now, we know that if we divide the dividend 1 by the quotient 1/∞, which is equal to nothing, we obtain again the divisor ∞: hence we acquire a new idea of infinity; and learn that it arises from the division of 1 by 0; so that we are thence authorised in saying that 1 divided by 0 expresses a number infinitely great, or ∞.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 84. It may be necessary also, in this place, to correct the mistake of those who assert that a number infinitely great is not susceptible of increase. This opinion is inconsistent with the just principles which we have laid down; for 10 signifying a number infinitely great, and 20 being incontestably the double of 10, it is evident that a number, though infinitely great, may still become twice, thrice, or any number of times greater.
> > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The above claims are wild compared to the first few claims in his book which if there wasn't so much garbage in it, might still have been one of the best algebra text books ever published:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Chapter I – Of Mathematics in general
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever is capable of increase or diminution is called magnitude, or quantity. A sum of money therefore is a quantity, since we may increase it or diminish it. It is the same with a weight, and other things of this nature.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > JG: In other words, a magnitude is simply the concept of size, dimension or extent.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2. From this definition, it is evident that the different kinds of magnitude must be so various, as to render it difficult to enumerate them: and this is the origin of the different branches of the Mathematics, each being employed on a particular kind of magnitude.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Mathematics, in general, is the science of quantity; or, the science which investigates the means of measuring quantity. *
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > JG: Euler almost got this one right even though the local idiot Malum does not agree:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > JG: Mathematics is the science of measure and quantity.
> > > > > > > > > > > > JG: What Euler appears to have missed is that in order to enumerate anything, the concept of number and all its machinery must already be in place.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Now, we cannot measure or determine any quantity, except by considering some other quantity of the same kind as known, and pointing out their mutual relation. If it were proposed, for example, to determine the quantity of a sum of money, we should take some known piece of money, as a louis, a crown, a ducat, or some other coin, and show how many of these pieces are contained in the given sum. In the same manner, if it were proposed to determine the quantity of a weight, we should take a certain known weight; for example, a pound, an ounce, etc. and then show how many times one of these weights is contained in that which we are endeavouring to ascertain. If we wished to measure any length or extension, we should make use of some known length, such as a foot.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > JG: In other words, we need a ratio which is the first kind of (qualitative) measure. In my free article, I explain how all this is done:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 4. So that the determination, or the measure of magnitude of all kinds, is reduced to this: fix at pleasure upon any one known magnitude of the same species with that which is to be determined, and consider it as the measure or unit; then, determine the proportion of the proposed magnitude to this known measure. This proportion is always expressed by numbers; so that a number is nothing but the proportion of one magnitude to another arbitrarily assumed as the unit.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > JG: Euler did not quite fully understand that a number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size. He focused more on a physical unit. Also, Euler did not make the connection between ratio and number.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 5. From this it appears that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers; and that the foundation of all the Mathematical Sciences must be laid in a complete treatise on the science of Numbers, and in an accurate examination of the different possible methods of calculation. This fundamental part of mathematics is called Analysis, or Algebra.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > JG: It is untrue that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers. Moreover, Euler did not fully realise that algebra is a weaker form of geometry in which measures are performed in terms of an abstract unit (whose size is irrelevant) rather than a chosen physical unit. The properties using physical units are transferred to algebra with the introduction of incommensurable magnitudes such as pi, e, sqrt(2), etc.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Essentially what the Baboons of mainstream academia will have you believe is that:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = Lim (h->0)[f(c+h)-f(c)]/h = f'(c) + Q(c,h) and is possible ONLY if Q(c,h)=0, but this happens only in the case of the straight line t(x). It NEVER happens with the finite difference quotients. The mainstream want you to believe that there is some finite difference ratio hovering at infinity which produces f'(c):
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_1)-f(c)]/h_1 ; [f(c+h_2)-f(c)]/h_2 ; [f(c+h_3)-f(c)]/h_3 ; ... ; [f(c+h_3n-f(c)]/h_n ...; [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo ?! What?!!! There is no such finite difference. It does not exist! But Baboon mathematics of the mainstream insists there is a limit!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Can you imagine how embarrassed Newton and Leibniz would be at these idiots today?! They knew that they could not solve the tangent line problem - this had to wait for the great John Gabriel. It is I who revealed to the entire world that:
> > > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > > > It usually takes a genius to realise the most simple concepts that escape the syphilitic brains of highly educated idiots in the mainstream.
> > > > > > > > > > I should try to understand limit theory.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Indeed!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Then pick up Rudin
> > > > > > > Little moron, I studied Rudin before you were conceived. LMAO..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You're just a stupid, defiant, spoiled Swede brat who will keep saying "Nah Uh" in the face of overwhelming evidence. You were once thinking correctly until you succumbed to the bullshit of your orangutan math lecturers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "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)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > :-)))))
> > > > >
> > > > > > Can you say you have studied something when you clearly haven't understood the content?
> > > > > Yes. I look at you and Malum and that statement becomes very clear! :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Still think that "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" ? Unbelievable stupidity. Can't you see the whole world is laughing at you?
> > > > >
> > > > > Now Dan Christensen is no doubt the most stupid crank on sci.math, but I somehow think even he would be laughing at you!
> > > > You sitll do not understand how factorizations and fields work so you clearly do not understand things.
> > > 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.
> 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.
>
> 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.

On Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 08:29:02 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 20 september 2021 kl. 10:46:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 08:03:31 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:10:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 08:45:10 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 07:41:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 20:27:28 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 08:07:09 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 23:26:04 UTC+3, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:02:59 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 21:53:05 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 1 september 2021 kl. 13:31:07 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 1:26:10 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S. Now I focus on the contradictory contents of his Elements of Algibberish.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Euler said it! Not me! From his Elements of Al-gibberish , the following:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 82. To express this idea, according to the sense of it above-mentioned, we make use of the sign ∞, which consequently indicates a number infinitely great; and we may therefore say that this fraction 1/∞ is in reality nothing; because a fraction cannot be reduced to nothing, until the denominator has been increased to infinity.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 83. It is the more necessary to pay attention to this idea of infinity, as it is derived from the first elements of our knowledge, and as it will be of the greatest importance in the following part of this treatise.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > We may here deduce from it a few consequences that are extremely curious, and worthy of attention. The fraction 1/∞ represents the quotient resulting from the division of the dividend 1 by the divisor ∞. Now, we know that if we divide the dividend 1 by the quotient 1/∞, which is equal to nothing, we obtain again the divisor ∞: hence we acquire a new idea of infinity; and learn that it arises from the division of 1 by 0; so that we are thence authorised in saying that 1 divided by 0 expresses a number infinitely great, or ∞.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 84. It may be necessary also, in this place, to correct the mistake of those who assert that a number infinitely great is not susceptible of increase. This opinion is inconsistent with the just principles which we have laid down; for 10 signifying a number infinitely great, and 20 being incontestably the double of 10, it is evident that a number, though infinitely great, may still become twice, thrice, or any number of times greater.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The above claims are wild compared to the first few claims in his book which if there wasn't so much garbage in it, might still have been one of the best algebra text books ever published:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chapter I – Of Mathematics in general
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever is capable of increase or diminution is called magnitude, or quantity. A sum of money therefore is a quantity, since we may increase it or diminish it. It is the same with a weight, and other things of this nature.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: In other words, a magnitude is simply the concept of size, dimension or extent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. From this definition, it is evident that the different kinds of magnitude must be so various, as to render it difficult to enumerate them: and this is the origin of the different branches of the Mathematics, each being employed on a particular kind of magnitude.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * Mathematics, in general, is the science of quantity; or, the science which investigates the means of measuring quantity. *
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: Euler almost got this one right even though the local idiot Malum does not agree:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: Mathematics is the science of measure and quantity.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: What Euler appears to have missed is that in order to enumerate anything, the concept of number and all its machinery must already be in place.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Now, we cannot measure or determine any quantity, except by considering some other quantity of the same kind as known, and pointing out their mutual relation. If it were proposed, for example, to determine the quantity of a sum of money, we should take some known piece of money, as a louis, a crown, a ducat, or some other coin, and show how many of these pieces are contained in the given sum. In the same manner, if it were proposed to determine the quantity of a weight, we should take a certain known weight; for example, a pound, an ounce, etc. and then show how many times one of these weights is contained in that which we are endeavouring to ascertain. If we wished to measure any length or extension, we should make use of some known length, such as a foot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: In other words, we need a ratio which is the first kind of (qualitative) measure. In my free article, I explain how all this is done:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. So that the determination, or the measure of magnitude of all kinds, is reduced to this: fix at pleasure upon any one known magnitude of the same species with that which is to be determined, and consider it as the measure or unit; then, determine the proportion of the proposed magnitude to this known measure. This proportion is always expressed by numbers; so that a number is nothing but the proportion of one magnitude to another arbitrarily assumed as the unit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: Euler did not quite fully understand that a number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size. He focused more on a physical unit. Also, Euler did not make the connection between ratio and number.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. From this it appears that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers; and that the foundation of all the Mathematical Sciences must be laid in a complete treatise on the science of Numbers, and in an accurate examination of the different possible methods of calculation. This fundamental part of mathematics is called Analysis, or Algebra.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: It is untrue that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers. Moreover, Euler did not fully realise that algebra is a weaker form of geometry in which measures are performed in terms of an abstract unit (whose size is irrelevant) rather than a chosen physical unit. The properties using physical units are transferred to algebra with the introduction of incommensurable magnitudes such as pi, e, sqrt(2), etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Essentially what the Baboons of mainstream academia will have you believe is that:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = Lim (h->0)[f(c+h)-f(c)]/h = f'(c) + Q(c,h) and is possible ONLY if Q(c,h)=0, but this happens only in the case of the straight line t(x). It NEVER happens with the finite difference quotients. The mainstream want you to believe that there is some finite difference ratio hovering at infinity which produces f'(c):
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_1)-f(c)]/h_1 ; [f(c+h_2)-f(c)]/h_2 ; [f(c+h_3)-f(c)]/h_3 ; ... ; [f(c+h_3n-f(c)]/h_n ...; [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo ?! What?!!! There is no such finite difference. It does not exist! But Baboon mathematics of the mainstream insists there is a limit!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Can you imagine how embarrassed Newton and Leibniz would be at these idiots today?! They knew that they could not solve the tangent line problem - this had to wait for the great John Gabriel. It is I who revealed to the entire world that:
> > > > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > > > > It usually takes a genius to realise the most simple concepts that escape the syphilitic brains of highly educated idiots in the mainstream.
> > > > > > > > > > > I should try to understand limit theory.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Indeed!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Then pick up Rudin
> > > > > > > > Little moron, I studied Rudin before you were conceived. LMAO.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You're just a stupid, defiant, spoiled Swede brat who will keep saying "Nah Uh" in the face of overwhelming evidence. You were once thinking correctly until you succumbed to the bullshit of your orangutan math lecturers.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "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)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > :-)))))
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can you say you have studied something when you clearly haven't understood the content?
> > > > > > Yes. I look at you and Malum and that statement becomes very clear! :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Still think that "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" ? Unbelievable stupidity. Can't you see the whole world is laughing at you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now Dan Christensen is no doubt the most stupid crank on sci.math, but I somehow think even he would be laughing at you!
> > > > > You sitll do not understand how factorizations and fields work so you clearly do not understand things.
> > > > 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.
> > 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.
> >
> > 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

tisdag 21 september 2021 kl. 09:18:22 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 08:29:02 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > måndag 20 september 2021 kl. 10:46:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 08:03:31 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:10:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 08:45:10 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 07:41:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 20:27:28 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 08:07:09 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 23:26:04 UTC+3, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:02:59 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 21:53:05 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 1 september 2021 kl. 13:31:07 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 1:26:10 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S. Now I focus on the contradictory contents of his Elements of Algibberish.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Euler said it! Not me! From his Elements of Al-gibberish , the following:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 82. To express this idea, according to the sense of it above-mentioned, we make use of the sign ∞, which consequently indicates a number infinitely great; and we may therefore say that this fraction 1/∞ is in reality nothing; because a fraction cannot be reduced to nothing, until the denominator has been increased to infinity.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 83. It is the more necessary to pay attention to this idea of infinity, as it is derived from the first elements of our knowledge, and as it will be of the greatest importance in the following part of this treatise.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > We may here deduce from it a few consequences that are extremely curious, and worthy of attention. The fraction 1/∞ represents the quotient resulting from the division of the dividend 1 by the divisor ∞. Now, we know that if we divide the dividend 1 by the quotient 1/∞, which is equal to nothing, we obtain again the divisor ∞: hence we acquire a new idea of infinity; and learn that it arises from the division of 1 by 0; so that we are thence authorised in saying that 1 divided by 0 expresses a number infinitely great, or ∞.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 84. It may be necessary also, in this place, to correct the mistake of those who assert that a number infinitely great is not susceptible of increase. This opinion is inconsistent with the just principles which we have laid down; for 10 signifying a number infinitely great, and 20 being incontestably the double of 10, it is evident that a number, though infinitely great, may still become twice, thrice, or any number of times greater.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above claims are wild compared to the first few claims in his book which if there wasn't so much garbage in it, might still have been one of the best algebra text books ever published:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chapter I – Of Mathematics in general
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever is capable of increase or diminution is called magnitude, or quantity. A sum of money therefore is a quantity, since we may increase it or diminish it. It is the same with a weight, and other things of this nature.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: In other words, a magnitude is simply the concept of size, dimension or extent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. From this definition, it is evident that the different kinds of magnitude must be so various, as to render it difficult to enumerate them: and this is the origin of the different branches of the Mathematics, each being employed on a particular kind of magnitude.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Mathematics, in general, is the science of quantity; or, the science which investigates the means of measuring quantity. *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: Euler almost got this one right even though the local idiot Malum does not agree:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: Mathematics is the science of measure and quantity.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: What Euler appears to have missed is that in order to enumerate anything, the concept of number and all its machinery must already be in place.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Now, we cannot measure or determine any quantity, except by considering some other quantity of the same kind as known, and pointing out their mutual relation. If it were proposed, for example, to determine the quantity of a sum of money, we should take some known piece of money, as a louis, a crown, a ducat, or some other coin, and show how many of these pieces are contained in the given sum. In the same manner, if it were proposed to determine the quantity of a weight, we should take a certain known weight; for example, a pound, an ounce, etc. and then show how many times one of these weights is contained in that which we are endeavouring to ascertain. If we wished to measure any length or extension, we should make use of some known length, such as a foot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: In other words, we need a ratio which is the first kind of (qualitative) measure. In my free article, I explain how all this is done:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. So that the determination, or the measure of magnitude of all kinds, is reduced to this: fix at pleasure upon any one known magnitude of the same species with that which is to be determined, and consider it as the measure or unit; then, determine the proportion of the proposed magnitude to this known measure. This proportion is always expressed by numbers; so that a number is nothing but the proportion of one magnitude to another arbitrarily assumed as the unit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: Euler did not quite fully understand that a number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size. He focused more on a physical unit. Also, Euler did not make the connection between ratio and number.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. From this it appears that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers; and that the foundation of all the Mathematical Sciences must be laid in a complete treatise on the science of Numbers, and in an accurate examination of the different possible methods of calculation.. This fundamental part of mathematics is called Analysis, or Algebra.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: It is untrue that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers. Moreover, Euler did not fully realise that algebra is a weaker form of geometry in which measures are performed in terms of an abstract unit (whose size is irrelevant) rather than a chosen physical unit. The properties using physical units are transferred to algebra with the introduction of incommensurable magnitudes such as pi, e, sqrt(2), etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Essentially what the Baboons of mainstream academia will have you believe is that:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = Lim (h->0)[f(c+h)-f(c)]/h = f'(c) + Q(c,h) and is possible ONLY if Q(c,h)=0, but this happens only in the case of the straight line t(x). It NEVER happens with the finite difference quotients. The mainstream want you to believe that there is some finite difference ratio hovering at infinity which produces f'(c):
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_1)-f(c)]/h_1 ; [f(c+h_2)-f(c)]/h_2 ; [f(c+h_3)-f(c)]/h_3 ; ... ; [f(c+h_3n-f(c)]/h_n ...; [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo ?! What?!!! There is no such finite difference. It does not exist! But Baboon mathematics of the mainstream insists there is a limit!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you imagine how embarrassed Newton and Leibniz would be at these idiots today?! They knew that they could not solve the tangent line problem - this had to wait for the great John Gabriel. It is I who revealed to the entire world that:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It usually takes a genius to realise the most simple concepts that escape the syphilitic brains of highly educated idiots in the mainstream.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I should try to understand limit theory.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Indeed!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Then pick up Rudin
> > > > > > > > > Little moron, I studied Rudin before you were conceived. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You're just a stupid, defiant, spoiled Swede brat who will keep saying "Nah Uh" in the face of overwhelming evidence. You were once thinking correctly until you succumbed to the bullshit of your orangutan math lecturers.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "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)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > :-)))))
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can you say you have studied something when you clearly haven't understood the content?
> > > > > > > Yes. I look at you and Malum and that statement becomes very clear! :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Still think that "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" ? Unbelievable stupidity. Can't you see the whole world is laughing at you?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now Dan Christensen is no doubt the most stupid crank on sci.math, but I somehow think even he would be laughing at you!
> > > > > > You sitll do not understand how factorizations and fields work so you clearly do not understand things.
> > > > > 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.
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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 13:49:09 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 21 september 2021 kl. 09:18:22 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 08:29:02 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > måndag 20 september 2021 kl. 10:46:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 08:03:31 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:10:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 08:45:10 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 07:41:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 20:27:28 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 08:07:09 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 23:26:04 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:02:59 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 21:53:05 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 1 september 2021 kl. 13:31:07 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 1:26:10 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S. Now I focus on the contradictory contents of his Elements of Algibberish.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Euler said it! Not me! From his Elements of Al-gibberish , the following:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 82. To express this idea, according to the sense of it above-mentioned, we make use of the sign ∞, which consequently indicates a number infinitely great; and we may therefore say that this fraction 1/∞ is in reality nothing; because a fraction cannot be reduced to nothing, until the denominator has been increased to infinity.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 83. It is the more necessary to pay attention to this idea of infinity, as it is derived from the first elements of our knowledge, and as it will be of the greatest importance in the following part of this treatise.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We may here deduce from it a few consequences that are extremely curious, and worthy of attention. The fraction 1/∞ represents the quotient resulting from the division of the dividend 1 by the divisor ∞. Now, we know that if we divide the dividend 1 by the quotient 1/∞, which is equal to nothing, we obtain again the divisor ∞: hence we acquire a new idea of infinity; and learn that it arises from the division of 1 by 0; so that we are thence authorised in saying that 1 divided by 0 expresses a number infinitely great, or ∞.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 84. It may be necessary also, in this place, to correct the mistake of those who assert that a number infinitely great is not susceptible of increase. This opinion is inconsistent with the just principles which we have laid down; for 10 signifying a number infinitely great, and 20 being incontestably the double of 10, it is evident that a number, though infinitely great, may still become twice, thrice, or any number of times greater.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above claims are wild compared to the first few claims in his book which if there wasn't so much garbage in it, might still have been one of the best algebra text books ever published:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chapter I – Of Mathematics in general
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever is capable of increase or diminution is called magnitude, or quantity. A sum of money therefore is a quantity, since we may increase it or diminish it. It is the same with a weight, and other things of this nature.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: In other words, a magnitude is simply the concept of size, dimension or extent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. From this definition, it is evident that the different kinds of magnitude must be so various, as to render it difficult to enumerate them: and this is the origin of the different branches of the Mathematics, each being employed on a particular kind of magnitude.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Mathematics, in general, is the science of quantity; or, the science which investigates the means of measuring quantity. *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: Euler almost got this one right even though the local idiot Malum does not agree:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: Mathematics is the science of measure and quantity.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: What Euler appears to have missed is that in order to enumerate anything, the concept of number and all its machinery must already be in place.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Now, we cannot measure or determine any quantity, except by considering some other quantity of the same kind as known, and pointing out their mutual relation. If it were proposed, for example, to determine the quantity of a sum of money, we should take some known piece of money, as a louis, a crown, a ducat, or some other coin, and show how many of these pieces are contained in the given sum. In the same manner, if it were proposed to determine the quantity of a weight, we should take a certain known weight; for example, a pound, an ounce, etc. and then show how many times one of these weights is contained in that which we are endeavouring to ascertain. If we wished to measure any length or extension, we should make use of some known length, such as a foot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: In other words, we need a ratio which is the first kind of (qualitative) measure. In my free article, I explain how all this is done:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. So that the determination, or the measure of magnitude of all kinds, is reduced to this: fix at pleasure upon any one known magnitude of the same species with that which is to be determined, and consider it as the measure or unit; then, determine the proportion of the proposed magnitude to this known measure. This proportion is always expressed by numbers; so that a number is nothing but the proportion of one magnitude to another arbitrarily assumed as the unit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: Euler did not quite fully understand that a number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size. He focused more on a physical unit. Also, Euler did not make the connection between ratio and number.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. From this it appears that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers; and that the foundation of all the Mathematical Sciences must be laid in a complete treatise on the science of Numbers, and in an accurate examination of the different possible methods of calculation. This fundamental part of mathematics is called Analysis, or Algebra.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: It is untrue that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers. Moreover, Euler did not fully realise that algebra is a weaker form of geometry in which measures are performed in terms of an abstract unit (whose size is irrelevant) rather than a chosen physical unit. The properties using physical units are transferred to algebra with the introduction of incommensurable magnitudes such as pi, e, sqrt(2), etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Essentially what the Baboons of mainstream academia will have you believe is that:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = Lim (h->0)[f(c+h)-f(c)]/h = f'(c) + Q(c,h) and is possible ONLY if Q(c,h)=0, but this happens only in the case of the straight line t(x). It NEVER happens with the finite difference quotients. The mainstream want you to believe that there is some finite difference ratio hovering at infinity which produces f'(c):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_1)-f(c)]/h_1 ; [f(c+h_2)-f(c)]/h_2 ; [f(c+h_3)-f(c)]/h_3 ; ... ; [f(c+h_3n-f(c)]/h_n ...; [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo ?! What?!!! There is no such finite difference. It does not exist! But Baboon mathematics of the mainstream insists there is a limit!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you imagine how embarrassed Newton and Leibniz would be at these idiots today?! They knew that they could not solve the tangent line problem - this had to wait for the great John Gabriel. It is I who revealed to the entire world that:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It usually takes a genius to realise the most simple concepts that escape the syphilitic brains of highly educated idiots in the mainstream.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I should try to understand limit theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Then pick up Rudin
> > > > > > > > > > Little moron, I studied Rudin before you were conceived.. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You're just a stupid, defiant, spoiled Swede brat who will keep saying "Nah Uh" in the face of overwhelming evidence. You were once thinking correctly until you succumbed to the bullshit of your orangutan math lecturers.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "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)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > :-)))))
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Can you say you have studied something when you clearly haven't understood the content?
> > > > > > > > Yes. I look at you and Malum and that statement becomes very clear! :)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Still think that "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" ? Unbelievable stupidity. Can't you see the whole world is laughing at you?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now Dan Christensen is no doubt the most stupid crank on sci.math, but I somehow think even he would be laughing at you!
> > > > > > > You sitll do not understand how factorizations and fields work so you clearly do not understand things.
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > 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. 13:43:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 13:49:09 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > tisdag 21 september 2021 kl. 09:18:22 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 08:29:02 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > måndag 20 september 2021 kl. 10:46:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 08:03:31 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:10:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 08:45:10 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 07:41:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 20:27:28 UTC+3, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 08:07:09 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 23:26:04 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:02:59 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 21:53:05 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 1 september 2021 kl. 13:31:07 UTC+2 skrev New Age Prophet:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 1:26:10 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S. Now I focus on the contradictory contents of his Elements of Algibberish.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Euler said it! Not me! From his Elements of Al-gibberish , the following:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 82. To express this idea, according to the sense of it above-mentioned, we make use of the sign ∞, which consequently indicates a number infinitely great; and we may therefore say that this fraction 1/∞ is in reality nothing; because a fraction cannot be reduced to nothing, until the denominator has been increased to infinity..
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 83. It is the more necessary to pay attention to this idea of infinity, as it is derived from the first elements of our knowledge, and as it will be of the greatest importance in the following part of this treatise.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We may here deduce from it a few consequences that are extremely curious, and worthy of attention. The fraction 1/∞ represents the quotient resulting from the division of the dividend 1 by the divisor ∞. Now, we know that if we divide the dividend 1 by the quotient 1/∞, which is equal to nothing, we obtain again the divisor ∞: hence we acquire a new idea of infinity; and learn that it arises from the division of 1 by 0; so that we are thence authorised in saying that 1 divided by 0 expresses a number infinitely great, or ∞.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 84. It may be necessary also, in this place, to correct the mistake of those who assert that a number infinitely great is not susceptible of increase. This opinion is inconsistent with the just principles which we have laid down; for 10 signifying a number infinitely great, and 20 being incontestably the double of 10, it is evident that a number, though infinitely great, may still become twice, thrice, or any number of times greater.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above claims are wild compared to the first few claims in his book which if there wasn't so much garbage in it, might still have been one of the best algebra text books ever published:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chapter I – Of Mathematics in general
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever is capable of increase or diminution is called magnitude, or quantity. A sum of money therefore is a quantity, since we may increase it or diminish it. It is the same with a weight, and other things of this nature.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: In other words, a magnitude is simply the concept of size, dimension or extent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. From this definition, it is evident that the different kinds of magnitude must be so various, as to render it difficult to enumerate them: and this is the origin of the different branches of the Mathematics, each being employed on a particular kind of magnitude.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Mathematics, in general, is the science of quantity; or, the science which investigates the means of measuring quantity. *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: Euler almost got this one right even though the local idiot Malum does not agree:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: Mathematics is the science of measure and quantity.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: What Euler appears to have missed is that in order to enumerate anything, the concept of number and all its machinery must already be in place.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Now, we cannot measure or determine any quantity, except by considering some other quantity of the same kind as known, and pointing out their mutual relation. If it were proposed, for example, to determine the quantity of a sum of money, we should take some known piece of money, as a louis, a crown, a ducat, or some other coin, and show how many of these pieces are contained in the given sum. In the same manner, if it were proposed to determine the quantity of a weight, we should take a certain known weight; for example, a pound, an ounce, etc. and then show how many times one of these weights is contained in that which we are endeavouring to ascertain. If we wished to measure any length or extension, we should make use of some known length, such as a foot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: In other words, we need a ratio which is the first kind of (qualitative) measure. In my free article, I explain how all this is done:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. So that the determination, or the measure of magnitude of all kinds, is reduced to this: fix at pleasure upon any one known magnitude of the same species with that which is to be determined, and consider it as the measure or unit; then, determine the proportion of the proposed magnitude to this known measure. This proportion is always expressed by numbers; so that a number is nothing but the proportion of one magnitude to another arbitrarily assumed as the unit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: Euler did not quite fully understand that a number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.. He focused more on a physical unit. Also, Euler did not make the connection between ratio and number.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. From this it appears that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers; and that the foundation of all the Mathematical Sciences must be laid in a complete treatise on the science of Numbers, and in an accurate examination of the different possible methods of calculation. This fundamental part of mathematics is called Analysis, or Algebra.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JG: It is untrue that all magnitudes may be expressed by numbers. Moreover, Euler did not fully realise that algebra is a weaker form of geometry in which measures are performed in terms of an abstract unit (whose size is irrelevant) rather than a chosen physical unit.. The properties using physical units are transferred to algebra with the introduction of incommensurable magnitudes such as pi, e, sqrt(2), etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Essentially what the Baboons of mainstream academia will have you believe is that:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = Lim (h->0)[f(c+h)-f(c)]/h = f'(c) + Q(c,h) and is possible ONLY if Q(c,h)=0, but this happens only in the case of the straight line t(x). It NEVER happens with the finite difference quotients. The mainstream want you to believe that there is some finite difference ratio hovering at infinity which produces f'(c):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_1)-f(c)]/h_1 ; [f(c+h_2)-f(c)]/h_2 ; [f(c+h_3)-f(c)]/h_3 ; ... ; [f(c+h_3n-f(c)]/h_n ...; [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo ?! What?!!! There is no such finite difference. It does not exist! But Baboon mathematics of the mainstream insists there is a limit!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you imagine how embarrassed Newton and Leibniz would be at these idiots today?! They knew that they could not solve the tangent line problem - this had to wait for the great John Gabriel. It is I who revealed to the entire world that:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It usually takes a genius to realise the most simple concepts that escape the syphilitic brains of highly educated idiots in the mainstream.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I should try to understand limit theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Then pick up Rudin
> > > > > > > > > > > Little moron, I studied Rudin before you were conceived. LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You're just a stupid, defiant, spoiled Swede brat who will keep saying "Nah Uh" in the face of overwhelming evidence. You were once thinking correctly until you succumbed to the bullshit of your orangutan math lecturers.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "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)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > :-)))))
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Can you say you have studied something when you clearly haven't understood the content?
> > > > > > > > > Yes. I look at you and Malum and that statement becomes very clear! :)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Still think that "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" ? Unbelievable stupidity. Can't you see the whole world is laughing at you?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Now Dan Christensen is no doubt the most stupid crank on sci.math, but I somehow think even he would be laughing at you!
> > > > > > > > You sitll do not understand how factorizations and fields work so you clearly do not understand things.
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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)