Lets do an example, what is:

sin x
lim x->0 ----- = ?
x

So we take the derivative of sin(x)/x*(x-0).
Should be the same derivative as of sin(x),
because a few singularities do not change

the derivative. And the derivative of
sin(x), is the following:

sin(x)' = cos(x)

So we have:

cos(x) where x=0 = 1

Therefore:

sin x
lim x->0 ----- = 1
x

Mostowski Collapse schrieb:
> Lets give it a try, what does g'(x) traditionally mean:
>
> g(x+h) - g(x)
> g'(x) = lim h->0 -------------------
> h
>
> Lets try g(x) = f(x)*(x-a), then we have:
>
> f(a+h)*h - 0
> g'(a) = lim h->0 -------------------
> h
>
> = lim h->0 f(a+h)
>
> = lim x->a f(x)
>
> Cool!
>
> P.S.: The product rule is imprecise here:
>
> (f(x)*(x-a))' = f'(x)*(x-a) + f(x)
>
> The above only holds where f(x) is defined,
> we can then plugin a, and do get:
>
> (f(x)*(x-a))' where x=a
>
> = f'(a)*(a-a) + f(a)
>
> = f(a)
>
> Where f(x) is undefined, you need the limit.
>
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 15. September 2021 um 14:56:20 UTC+2:
>> Can you do real analysis with your calculus. Lets say I want
>> lim x->a f(x), abstractly as an operator. But you give me
>>
>> only abstractly as an operator derivative g'(x). When I have derivate
>> operator, can I also perform limit operation somehow by
>>
>> means of the derivate operator?
>> Eram semper recta schrieb am Montag, 6. September 2021 um 12:18:16 UTC+2:
>>> Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.

Mostowski Collapse wrote:

> Can you do real analysis with your calculus. Lets say I want lim x->a
> f(x), abstractly as an operator. But you give me
>
> only abstractly as an operator derivative g'(x). When I have derivate
> operator, can I also perform limit operation somehow by
>
> means of the derivate operator?

Young fit healthy man gets vaxxed then goes to the gym a few days later
and has a heart attack! Kiss my dirty ass.

Is that you micro penis? What do you do in a gym?

Gale Binz schrieb am Mittwoch, 15. September 2021 um 16:27:29 UTC+2:
> Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>
> > Can you do real analysis with your calculus. Lets say I want lim x->a
> > f(x), abstractly as an operator. But you give me
> >
> > only abstractly as an operator derivative g'(x). When I have derivate
> > operator, can I also perform limit operation somehow by
> >
> > means of the derivate operator?
> Young fit healthy man gets vaxxed then goes to the gym a few days later
> and has a heart attack! Kiss my dirty ass.

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

Of course, you are right and everyone else is wrong. Everyone else is a vile Jewish homosexual mainstream infinitist.

On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:15:36 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:52:44 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:11:32 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:32:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:08:53 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > lördag 11 september 2021 kl. 08:20:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 17:32:19 UTC+3, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 12:14:12 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 13:02:55 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 06:55:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 12:21:47 UTC+3, zelos....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >You see, if you had actually studied Euclid's Elements
> > > > > > > > > > > It is not the end all be all book.
> > > > > > > > > > It is very much the end all and be all book. This is why it is still in use today and the bullshit you are propagating is no longer in fashion.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Klyver scribbled:
> > > > > > > > > > "A dictionary contains common day uses of a word, not technical uses of a word."
> > > > > > > > > > Not at all. A dictionary contains the meaning of words.
> > > > > > > > > > "A YouTube video named "funny compilation" most likely doesn't mean anything related to GCC and programming at all. Would it be fair to LOGICALLY DESTROY PROGRAMMING WITH FACTS AND LOGIC using this more common usage of the word "compilation"?"
> > > > > > > > > > I see no analogy whatsoever, only a false analogy which you normally use in your "arguments".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That is just wrong.
> > > > > > > > Nope. But I'll bite in response to your drivel this time.....
> > > > > > > > > Most dictionaries won't mention programming if you look under "compilation".
> > > > > > > > Because it is not necessary. Compilation is a general noun that can be used in many contexts.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > However, a <<compiler>> is a program that converts instructions into a machine-code or lower-level form so that they can be read and executed by a computer. There is a TECHNICAL ENTRY in the dictionary, so once again, you're an ignorant LIAR.
> > > > > > > > > Why? Because the technical meaning gets left out.
> > > > > > > > FALSE. See above.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And sometimes dictionaries has some technical words in and leave out others.
> > > > > > > > FALSE. You having the typical mindset of a Trump supporter, facts don't mean anything to you. You simply dispense false information along with your co-troll and crank Zelos Malum.
> > > > > > > > > You won't most likely see a definition of an "open set" in a dictionary.
> > > > > > > > Not surprising, it's a junk concept that is hardly worth mentioning anywhere.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For all intents and purposes, there is nothing remarkable about either of the intervals (p,q) and [p,q]. It makes you feel smart though, doesn't it? LMAO.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's the point, "compilation" has far more wide uses than what a compiler does to programming code, Hence this technical usage of the word won't likely show up in a dictionary, The same is true for many math words. Open sets, derivative, topology, functor, contradiction, limit, ... you name it.
> > > > > > It does not matter that every word show up in the dictionary. What matters is that you understand the words which ARE IN the dictionary. Evidently you do not!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <drivel>
> > > > > It also means a dictionary cannot be an absolute authority on terminology.
> > > > I am the ultimate authority of course, but as a first step, the dictionary is always best.
> > > > > Ultimately, math words means whatever standard textbokks and the mathematical community want them to mean.
> > > > Nonsense.
> > > Of course, you are right and everyone else is wrong.
> > The ONLY correct statement you've made in all your shit posts.
> > >
> > > The Dunning–Kruger effect in action.
> > An unscientific study that was conducted on 50 undergrad psychology students at one university alone and won the IgNobel awards.
> >
> > Do you even actually research the bullshit that is written on Wikipedia Moronica? LMAO.
> >
> > On the other hand, a scientific study conducted on cranks like you:
> >
> > www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

> Of course, you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Exactly. I am right and everyone else in the mainstream math community is wrong. This is FACT. I am smarter than anyone I know and yes, I do know better. This is not arrogance. It's the truth. I am a genius and the world's greatest living mathematician.

> Everyone else is a vile Jewish homosexual mainstream infinitist.

LMAO. No, just a lot of the cunts on this newsgroup.

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 9:21:43 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:
"I am smarter than anyone I know and yes, I do know better. This is not arrogance. It's the truth. I am a genius and the world's greatest living mathematician."

Oh dear, some important lessons have yet to be learned by JG 115, such as this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_Jbk6gqRfo

We keep hearing big talk (from JG 115) about him being a genius, but so far when asked for proof (like a Mensa test result) it always seems to be lost down the back of the sofa, or the dog ate his homework or something. Strange that. Some of us have the guts to take IQ tests, and some of us don't it seems. I wonder why....

QB

onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:21:43 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:15:36 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:52:44 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:11:32 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:32:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:08:53 UTC+3, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > lördag 11 september 2021 kl. 08:20:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 17:32:19 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 12:14:12 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 13:02:55 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 06:55:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 12:21:47 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >You see, if you had actually studied Euclid's Elements
> > > > > > > > > > > > It is not the end all be all book.
> > > > > > > > > > > It is very much the end all and be all book. This is why it is still in use today and the bullshit you are propagating is no longer in fashion.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Klyver scribbled:
> > > > > > > > > > > "A dictionary contains common day uses of a word, not technical uses of a word."
> > > > > > > > > > > Not at all. A dictionary contains the meaning of words.
> > > > > > > > > > > "A YouTube video named "funny compilation" most likely doesn't mean anything related to GCC and programming at all. Would it be fair to LOGICALLY DESTROY PROGRAMMING WITH FACTS AND LOGIC using this more common usage of the word "compilation"?"
> > > > > > > > > > > I see no analogy whatsoever, only a false analogy which you normally use in your "arguments".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That is just wrong.
> > > > > > > > > Nope. But I'll bite in response to your drivel this time.....
> > > > > > > > > > Most dictionaries won't mention programming if you look under "compilation".
> > > > > > > > > Because it is not necessary. Compilation is a general noun that can be used in many contexts.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > However, a <<compiler>> is a program that converts instructions into a machine-code or lower-level form so that they can be read and executed by a computer. There is a TECHNICAL ENTRY in the dictionary, so once again, you're an ignorant LIAR.
> > > > > > > > > > Why? Because the technical meaning gets left out.
> > > > > > > > > FALSE. See above.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And sometimes dictionaries has some technical words in and leave out others.
> > > > > > > > > FALSE. You having the typical mindset of a Trump supporter, facts don't mean anything to you. You simply dispense false information along with your co-troll and crank Zelos Malum.
> > > > > > > > > > You won't most likely see a definition of an "open set" in a dictionary.
> > > > > > > > > Not surprising, it's a junk concept that is hardly worth mentioning anywhere.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For all intents and purposes, there is nothing remarkable about either of the intervals (p,q) and [p,q]. It makes you feel smart though, doesn't it? LMAO.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's the point, "compilation" has far more wide uses than what a compiler does to programming code, Hence this technical usage of the word won't likely show up in a dictionary, The same is true for many math words. Open sets, derivative, topology, functor, contradiction, limit, ... you name it.
> > > > > > > It does not matter that every word show up in the dictionary. What matters is that you understand the words which ARE IN the dictionary. Evidently you do not!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <drivel>
> > > > > > It also means a dictionary cannot be an absolute authority on terminology.
> > > > > I am the ultimate authority of course, but as a first step, the dictionary is always best.
> > > > > > Ultimately, math words means whatever standard textbokks and the mathematical community want them to mean.
> > > > > Nonsense.
> > > > Of course, you are right and everyone else is wrong.
> > > The ONLY correct statement you've made in all your shit posts.
> > > >
> > > > The Dunning–Kruger effect in action.
> > > An unscientific study that was conducted on 50 undergrad psychology students at one university alone and won the IgNobel awards.
> > >
> > > Do you even actually research the bullshit that is written on Wikipedia Moronica? LMAO.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, a scientific study conducted on cranks like you:
> > >
> > > www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds
>
> > Of course, you are right and everyone else is wrong.
> Exactly. I am right and everyone else in the mainstream math community is wrong. This is FACT. I am smarter than anyone I know and yes, I do know better. This is not arrogance. It's the truth. I am a genius and the world's greatest living mathematician.
> > Everyone else is a vile Jewish homosexual mainstream infinitist.
> LMAO. No, just a lot of the cunts on this newsgroup.
You're a genius, so much of a genius you misunderstand undergraduate mathematics.

Gale Binz wrote :
> Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>
>> Can you do real analysis with your calculus. Lets say I want lim x->a
>> f(x), abstractly as an operator. But you give me
>>
>> only abstractly as an operator derivative g'(x). When I have derivate
>> operator, can I also perform limit operation somehow by
>>
>> means of the derivate operator?
>
> Young fit healthy man gets vaxxed then goes to the gym a few days later
> and has a heart attack! Kiss my dirty ass.

Yep, them gyms'll kill ya.

onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:21:43 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:15:36 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:52:44 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:11:32 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:32:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:08:53 UTC+3, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > lördag 11 september 2021 kl. 08:20:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 17:32:19 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 12:14:12 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 13:02:55 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 06:55:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 12:21:47 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >You see, if you had actually studied Euclid's Elements
> > > > > > > > > > > > It is not the end all be all book.
> > > > > > > > > > > It is very much the end all and be all book. This is why it is still in use today and the bullshit you are propagating is no longer in fashion.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Klyver scribbled:
> > > > > > > > > > > "A dictionary contains common day uses of a word, not technical uses of a word."
> > > > > > > > > > > Not at all. A dictionary contains the meaning of words.
> > > > > > > > > > > "A YouTube video named "funny compilation" most likely doesn't mean anything related to GCC and programming at all. Would it be fair to LOGICALLY DESTROY PROGRAMMING WITH FACTS AND LOGIC using this more common usage of the word "compilation"?"
> > > > > > > > > > > I see no analogy whatsoever, only a false analogy which you normally use in your "arguments".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That is just wrong.
> > > > > > > > > Nope. But I'll bite in response to your drivel this time.....
> > > > > > > > > > Most dictionaries won't mention programming if you look under "compilation".
> > > > > > > > > Because it is not necessary. Compilation is a general noun that can be used in many contexts.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > However, a <<compiler>> is a program that converts instructions into a machine-code or lower-level form so that they can be read and executed by a computer. There is a TECHNICAL ENTRY in the dictionary, so once again, you're an ignorant LIAR.
> > > > > > > > > > Why? Because the technical meaning gets left out.
> > > > > > > > > FALSE. See above.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And sometimes dictionaries has some technical words in and leave out others.
> > > > > > > > > FALSE. You having the typical mindset of a Trump supporter, facts don't mean anything to you. You simply dispense false information along with your co-troll and crank Zelos Malum.
> > > > > > > > > > You won't most likely see a definition of an "open set" in a dictionary.
> > > > > > > > > Not surprising, it's a junk concept that is hardly worth mentioning anywhere.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For all intents and purposes, there is nothing remarkable about either of the intervals (p,q) and [p,q]. It makes you feel smart though, doesn't it? LMAO.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's the point, "compilation" has far more wide uses than what a compiler does to programming code, Hence this technical usage of the word won't likely show up in a dictionary, The same is true for many math words. Open sets, derivative, topology, functor, contradiction, limit, ... you name it.
> > > > > > > It does not matter that every word show up in the dictionary. What matters is that you understand the words which ARE IN the dictionary. Evidently you do not!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <drivel>
> > > > > > It also means a dictionary cannot be an absolute authority on terminology.
> > > > > I am the ultimate authority of course, but as a first step, the dictionary is always best.
> > > > > > Ultimately, math words means whatever standard textbokks and the mathematical community want them to mean.
> > > > > Nonsense.
> > > > Of course, you are right and everyone else is wrong.
> > > The ONLY correct statement you've made in all your shit posts.
> > > >
> > > > The Dunning–Kruger effect in action.
> > > An unscientific study that was conducted on 50 undergrad psychology students at one university alone and won the IgNobel awards.
> > >
> > > Do you even actually research the bullshit that is written on Wikipedia Moronica? LMAO.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, a scientific study conducted on cranks like you:
> > >
> > > www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds
>
> > Of course, you are right and everyone else is wrong.
> Exactly. I am right and everyone else in the mainstream math community is wrong. This is FACT. I am smarter than anyone I know and yes, I do know better. This is not arrogance. It's the truth. I am a genius and the world's greatest living mathematician.
> > Everyone else is a vile Jewish homosexual mainstream infinitist.
> LMAO. No, just a lot of the cunts on this newsgroup.
it is arrogance because we can point out where you get things wrong.

On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 08:08:48 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:21:43 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:15:36 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:52:44 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:11:32 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:32:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:08:53 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > lördag 11 september 2021 kl. 08:20:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 17:32:19 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 12:14:12 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 13:02:55 UTC+3, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 06:55:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 12:21:47 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >You see, if you had actually studied Euclid's Elements
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not the end all be all book.
> > > > > > > > > > > > It is very much the end all and be all book. This is why it is still in use today and the bullshit you are propagating is no longer in fashion.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Klyver scribbled:
> > > > > > > > > > > > "A dictionary contains common day uses of a word, not technical uses of a word."
> > > > > > > > > > > > Not at all. A dictionary contains the meaning of words.
> > > > > > > > > > > > "A YouTube video named "funny compilation" most likely doesn't mean anything related to GCC and programming at all. Would it be fair to LOGICALLY DESTROY PROGRAMMING WITH FACTS AND LOGIC using this more common usage of the word "compilation"?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > I see no analogy whatsoever, only a false analogy which you normally use in your "arguments".
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That is just wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > Nope. But I'll bite in response to your drivel this time....
> > > > > > > > > > > Most dictionaries won't mention programming if you look under "compilation".
> > > > > > > > > > Because it is not necessary. Compilation is a general noun that can be used in many contexts.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > However, a <<compiler>> is a program that converts instructions into a machine-code or lower-level form so that they can be read and executed by a computer. There is a TECHNICAL ENTRY in the dictionary, so once again, you're an ignorant LIAR.
> > > > > > > > > > > Why? Because the technical meaning gets left out.
> > > > > > > > > > FALSE. See above.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And sometimes dictionaries has some technical words in and leave out others.
> > > > > > > > > > FALSE. You having the typical mindset of a Trump supporter, facts don't mean anything to you. You simply dispense false information along with your co-troll and crank Zelos Malum.
> > > > > > > > > > > You won't most likely see a definition of an "open set" in a dictionary.
> > > > > > > > > > Not surprising, it's a junk concept that is hardly worth mentioning anywhere.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > For all intents and purposes, there is nothing remarkable about either of the intervals (p,q) and [p,q]. It makes you feel smart though, doesn't it? LMAO.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That's the point, "compilation" has far more wide uses than what a compiler does to programming code, Hence this technical usage of the word won't likely show up in a dictionary, The same is true for many math words. Open sets, derivative, topology, functor, contradiction, limit, .... you name it.
> > > > > > > > It does not matter that every word show up in the dictionary. What matters is that you understand the words which ARE IN the dictionary. Evidently you do not!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <drivel>
> > > > > > > It also means a dictionary cannot be an absolute authority on terminology.
> > > > > > I am the ultimate authority of course, but as a first step, the dictionary is always best.
> > > > > > > Ultimately, math words means whatever standard textbokks and the mathematical community want them to mean.
> > > > > > Nonsense.
> > > > > Of course, you are right and everyone else is wrong.
> > > > The ONLY correct statement you've made in all your shit posts.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Dunning–Kruger effect in action.
> > > > An unscientific study that was conducted on 50 undergrad psychology students at one university alone and won the IgNobel awards.
> > > >
> > > > Do you even actually research the bullshit that is written on Wikipedia Moronica? LMAO.
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand, a scientific study conducted on cranks like you:
> > > >
> > > > www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds
> >
> > > Of course, you are right and everyone else is wrong.
> > Exactly. I am right and everyone else in the mainstream math community is wrong. This is FACT. I am smarter than anyone I know and yes, I do know better. This is not arrogance. It's the truth. I am a genius and the world's greatest living mathematician.
> > > Everyone else is a vile Jewish homosexual mainstream infinitist.
> > LMAO. No, just a lot of the cunts on this newsgroup.
> it is arrogance because we can point out where you get things wrong.

You aren't able to point out anything, because in order to do this, you require understanding and intelligence - you have neither.

You object because it's your incorrect opinion that makes object.

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 6:49:25 AM UTC-7, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> Lets do an example, what is:
>
> sin x
> lim x->0 ----- = ?
> x
>
> So we take the derivative of sin(x)/x*(x-0).
> Should be the same derivative as of sin(x),
> because a few singularities do not change
>
> the derivative. And the derivative of
> sin(x), is the following:
>
> sin(x)' = cos(x)
>
> So we have:
>
> cos(x) where x=0 = 1
>
> Therefore:
>
> sin x
> lim x->0 ----- = 1
> x
>
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb:
> > Lets give it a try, what does g'(x) traditionally mean:
> >
> > g(x+h) - g(x)
> > g'(x) = lim h->0 -------------------
> > h
> >
> > Lets try g(x) = f(x)*(x-a), then we have:
> >
> > f(a+h)*h - 0
> > g'(a) = lim h->0 -------------------
> > h
> >
> > = lim h->0 f(a+h)
> >
> > = lim x->a f(x)
> >
> > Cool!
> >
> > P.S.: The product rule is imprecise here:
> >
> > (f(x)*(x-a))' = f'(x)*(x-a) + f(x)
> >
> > The above only holds where f(x) is defined,
> > we can then plugin a, and do get:
> >
> > (f(x)*(x-a))' where x=a
> >
> > = f'(a)*(a-a) + f(a)
> >
> > = f(a)
> >
> > Where f(x) is undefined, you need the limit.
> >
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 15. September 2021 um 14:56:20 UTC+2:
> >> Can you do real analysis with your calculus. Lets say I want
> >> lim x->a f(x), abstractly as an operator. But you give me
> >>
> >> only abstractly as an operator derivative g'(x). When I have derivate
> >> operator, can I also perform limit operation somehow by
> >>
> >> means of the derivate operator?
> >> Eram semper recta schrieb am Montag, 6. September 2021 um 12:18:16 UTC+2:
> >>> Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.

Linearization / small-angle approximation.

torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:35:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 08:08:48 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:21:43 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:15:36 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:52:44 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:11:32 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:32:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:08:53 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > lördag 11 september 2021 kl. 08:20:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 17:32:19 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 12:14:12 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 13:02:55 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 06:55:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 12:21:47 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You see, if you had actually studied Euclid's Elements
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not the end all be all book.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It is very much the end all and be all book. This is why it is still in use today and the bullshit you are propagating is no longer in fashion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Klyver scribbled:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "A dictionary contains common day uses of a word, not technical uses of a word."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Not at all. A dictionary contains the meaning of words.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "A YouTube video named "funny compilation" most likely doesn't mean anything related to GCC and programming at all. Would it be fair to LOGICALLY DESTROY PROGRAMMING WITH FACTS AND LOGIC using this more common usage of the word "compilation"?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I see no analogy whatsoever, only a false analogy which you normally use in your "arguments".
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > That is just wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > Nope. But I'll bite in response to your drivel this time....
> > > > > > > > > > > > Most dictionaries won't mention programming if you look under "compilation".
> > > > > > > > > > > Because it is not necessary. Compilation is a general noun that can be used in many contexts.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > However, a <<compiler>> is a program that converts instructions into a machine-code or lower-level form so that they can be read and executed by a computer. There is a TECHNICAL ENTRY in the dictionary, so once again, you're an ignorant LIAR.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Why? Because the technical meaning gets left out.
> > > > > > > > > > > FALSE. See above.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > And sometimes dictionaries has some technical words in and leave out others.
> > > > > > > > > > > FALSE. You having the typical mindset of a Trump supporter, facts don't mean anything to you. You simply dispense false information along with your co-troll and crank Zelos Malum.
> > > > > > > > > > > > You won't most likely see a definition of an "open set" in a dictionary.
> > > > > > > > > > > Not surprising, it's a junk concept that is hardly worth mentioning anywhere.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > For all intents and purposes, there is nothing remarkable about either of the intervals (p,q) and [p,q]. It makes you feel smart though, doesn't it? LMAO.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That's the point, "compilation" has far more wide uses than what a compiler does to programming code, Hence this technical usage of the word won't likely show up in a dictionary, The same is true for many math words. Open sets, derivative, topology, functor, contradiction, limit, ... you name it.
> > > > > > > > > It does not matter that every word show up in the dictionary. What matters is that you understand the words which ARE IN the dictionary. Evidently you do not!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <drivel>
> > > > > > > > It also means a dictionary cannot be an absolute authority on terminology.
> > > > > > > I am the ultimate authority of course, but as a first step, the dictionary is always best.
> > > > > > > > Ultimately, math words means whatever standard textbokks and the mathematical community want them to mean.
> > > > > > > Nonsense.
> > > > > > Of course, you are right and everyone else is wrong.
> > > > > The ONLY correct statement you've made in all your shit posts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Dunning–Kruger effect in action.
> > > > > An unscientific study that was conducted on 50 undergrad psychology students at one university alone and won the IgNobel awards.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you even actually research the bullshit that is written on Wikipedia Moronica? LMAO.
> > > > >
> > > > > On the other hand, a scientific study conducted on cranks like you:
> > > > >
> > > > > www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds
> > >
> > > > Of course, you are right and everyone else is wrong.
> > > Exactly. I am right and everyone else in the mainstream math community is wrong. This is FACT. I am smarter than anyone I know and yes, I do know better. This is not arrogance. It's the truth. I am a genius and the world's greatest living mathematician.
> > > > Everyone else is a vile Jewish homosexual mainstream infinitist.
> > > LMAO. No, just a lot of the cunts on this newsgroup.
> > it is arrogance because we can point out where you get things wrong.
> You aren't able to point out anything, because in order to do this, you require understanding and intelligence - you have neither.
>
> You object because it's your incorrect opinion that makes object.

I understand mathematics far better than you :)

For example a simple understanding of dedekinds cuts show that you CANNOT have finite sets as cuts! And it takes little intelligence to understand it yet you fail!

On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 07:59:45 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:35:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 08:08:48 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:21:43 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:15:36 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:52:44 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:11:32 UTC+3, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:32:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:08:53 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > lördag 11 september 2021 kl. 08:20:25 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 17:32:19 UTC+3, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 12:14:12 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 13:02:55 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fredag 10 september 2021 kl. 06:55:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 12:21:47 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You see, if you had actually studied Euclid's Elements
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not the end all be all book.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is very much the end all and be all book. This is why it is still in use today and the bullshit you are propagating is no longer in fashion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Klyver scribbled:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "A dictionary contains common day uses of a word, not technical uses of a word."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not at all. A dictionary contains the meaning of words.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "A YouTube video named "funny compilation" most likely doesn't mean anything related to GCC and programming at all. Would it be fair to LOGICALLY DESTROY PROGRAMMING WITH FACTS AND LOGIC using this more common usage of the word "compilation"?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see no analogy whatsoever, only a false analogy which you normally use in your "arguments".
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That is just wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Nope. But I'll bite in response to your drivel this time....
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Most dictionaries won't mention programming if you look under "compilation".
> > > > > > > > > > > > Because it is not necessary. Compilation is a general noun that can be used in many contexts.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > However, a <<compiler>> is a program that converts instructions into a machine-code or lower-level form so that they can be read and executed by a computer. There is a TECHNICAL ENTRY in the dictionary, so once again, you're an ignorant LIAR.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Why? Because the technical meaning gets left out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > FALSE. See above.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And sometimes dictionaries has some technical words in and leave out others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > FALSE. You having the typical mindset of a Trump supporter, facts don't mean anything to you. You simply dispense false information along with your co-troll and crank Zelos Malum.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You won't most likely see a definition of an "open set" in a dictionary.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Not surprising, it's a junk concept that is hardly worth mentioning anywhere.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > For all intents and purposes, there is nothing remarkable about either of the intervals (p,q) and [p,q]. It makes you feel smart though, doesn't it? LMAO.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That's the point, "compilation" has far more wide uses than what a compiler does to programming code, Hence this technical usage of the word won't likely show up in a dictionary, The same is true for many math words. Open sets, derivative, topology, functor, contradiction, limit, ... you name it.
> > > > > > > > > > It does not matter that every word show up in the dictionary. What matters is that you understand the words which ARE IN the dictionary. Evidently you do not!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > <drivel>
> > > > > > > > > It also means a dictionary cannot be an absolute authority on terminology.
> > > > > > > > I am the ultimate authority of course, but as a first step, the dictionary is always best.
> > > > > > > > > Ultimately, math words means whatever standard textbokks and the mathematical community want them to mean.
> > > > > > > > Nonsense.
> > > > > > > Of course, you are right and everyone else is wrong.
> > > > > > The ONLY correct statement you've made in all your shit posts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Dunning–Kruger effect in action.
> > > > > > An unscientific study that was conducted on 50 undergrad psychology students at one university alone and won the IgNobel awards.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you even actually research the bullshit that is written on Wikipedia Moronica? LMAO.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On the other hand, a scientific study conducted on cranks like you:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds
> > > >
> > > > > Of course, you are right and everyone else is wrong.
> > > > Exactly. I am right and everyone else in the mainstream math community is wrong. This is FACT. I am smarter than anyone I know and yes, I do know better. This is not arrogance. It's the truth. I am a genius and the world's greatest living mathematician.
> > > > > Everyone else is a vile Jewish homosexual mainstream infinitist.
> > > > LMAO. No, just a lot of the cunts on this newsgroup.
> > > it is arrogance because we can point out where you get things wrong.
> > You aren't able to point out anything, because in order to do this, you require understanding and intelligence - you have neither.
> >
> > You object because it's your incorrect opinion that makes object.
> I understand mathematics far better than you :)

LMAO. You've never learned any mathematics at Oops-Allah (Uppsala) university.

>
> For example a simple understanding of dedekinds cuts show that you CANNOT have finite sets as cuts!

A simple understanding also shows that you can't have "infinite set" because there is no such thing. ROFLMAO.

> And it takes little intelligence to understand it yet you fail!

It takes even less intelligence to know you are an idiot.

>LMAO. You've never learned any mathematics at Oops-Allah (Uppsala) university.

I learned a lot at Uppsala :)Much more than you know!

>A simple understanding also shows that you can't have "infinite set" because there is no such thing.

In ZFC you can and do have such sets so you are wrong. You have subscribed to finitism but there is nothing in mathematics that says infinite sets do not work. Infact we know axiom of infinity is independent of the rest meaning it does not add contradictions.

>It takes even less intelligence to know you are an idiot.

Yet I know more than you :)

Eram semper recta <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 07:59:45 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
>> torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:35:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:

[ .... ]

>> > You object because it's your incorrect opinion that makes object.
>> I understand mathematics far better than you :)

> LMAO. You've never learned any mathematics at Oops-Allah (Uppsala)
> university.

>> For example a simple understanding of dedekinds cuts show that you
>> CANNOT have finite sets as cuts!

> A simple understanding also shows that you can't have "infinite set"
> because there is no such thing. ROFLMAO.

John, you're doing it again. Remember, you don't understand what it
means for something mathematical to exist or not, therefore you're not
in any position to state infinite sets don't exist. They do, actually.

>> And it takes little intelligence to understand it yet you fail!

> It takes even less intelligence to know you are an idiot.

Oh, the erudition! ;-(

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 08:40:43 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >LMAO. You've never learned any mathematics at Oops-Allah (Uppsala) university.
> I learned a <drivel>

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.

On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 08:06:17 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 09:52:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 08:40:43 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >LMAO. You've never learned any mathematics at Oops-Allah (Uppsala) university.
> > > I learned a <drivel>
> >
> > 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.

måndag 20 september 2021 kl. 10:44:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 08:06:17 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 09:52:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 08:40:43 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >LMAO. You've never learned any mathematics at Oops-Allah (Uppsala) university.
> > > > I learned a <drivel>
> > >
> > > 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.

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

>It has EVERYTHING to do with indexing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk.

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

On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 13:18:16 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.
>
> But do not despair! I have done it:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
>
>
> Preempting anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen who will no doubt spam my threads:
>
>
> > "There are no points on a line."
>
> Lie. I never said that. What I did say is that a line does not consists of points. When we talk about points on a line, we really mean distances that are indicated much like road signs do for distances travelled along a road.
>
> A line is one of innumerable distances between any two points.
> A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.
>
>
> > "Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
>
> True. Pi is merely a symbol for an incommensurable magnitude - apparently a concept too advanced for an imbecile like Dan Christensen.
>
> > "1/2 not equal to 2/4"
>
> Lie. I have NEVER said this. What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
> What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
> 2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.
>
> There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4. For example:
>
> _ / _ _
> _ _ / _ _ _ _
>
> The length _ is not equal to the length _ _ .
>
> > “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
>
> True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
>
> Also, my article on pi not being a number of any kind:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FFg_9XCkIwTZ9N1jbU4oMYfHHHuFHYf3
>
> The true story of how we got numbers:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
>
> No such thing as a "real number" or a "real number line":
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMHVYcE8xcmRZRnc
>
> There is no valid construction of "real number" - it's a myth:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU
>
>
> > "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
>
> True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.
>
> 3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4
>
> Actually, there is no "OR" part, so the logical disjunction is invalid.
>
> > "Zero is not a number."
>
> True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w2tt7IgoIu-ychDCoYi-4jOAzToy0ViM
>
> > "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
>
> Half-truth. While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.
>
> > “There is no such thing as an empty set.”
>
> True. Even the father of all mainstream mathematical cranks rejected the idea of empty set. But let's not go too far ... there isn't even a definition of "set" in set theory!
>
> https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w
>
> https://youtu.be/1CcSsOG0okg
>
> > “3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
>
> True. These are propositions that are implied by the given equations. For example, my historic geometric identity states:
>
> [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = dy/dx + Q(x,h)
>
> And so, f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)
>
> The theorem:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> How it provides a rigorous definition of integral for the flawed mainstream calculus:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
>
> The day will come when this vicious anonymous troll Dan Christensen is convicted in a court of law.
>
> Download for free the most important mathematics book ever written:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view
>
> The New Calculus is proof that you CAN DO calculus without the use of LIMIT THEORY.
>
> Don't believe me? Study it. You will be pleasantly surprised.
>
> I am a genius and the greatest mathematician alive today.

Refreshed due to troll activity.

tisdag 21 september 2021 kl. 20:30:48 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 13:18:16 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.
> >
> > But do not despair! I have done it:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
> >
> >
> > Preempting anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen who will no doubt spam my threads:
> >
> >
> > > "There are no points on a line."
> >
> > Lie. I never said that. What I did say is that a line does not consists of points. When we talk about points on a line, we really mean distances that are indicated much like road signs do for distances travelled along a road.
> >
> > A line is one of innumerable distances between any two points.
> > A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.
> >
> >
> > > "Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
> >
> > True. Pi is merely a symbol for an incommensurable magnitude - apparently a concept too advanced for an imbecile like Dan Christensen.
> >
> > > "1/2 not equal to 2/4"
> >
> > Lie. I have NEVER said this. What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
> > What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
> > 2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.
> >
> > There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4.. For example:
> >
> > _ / _ _
> > _ _ / _ _ _ _
> >
> > The length _ is not equal to the length _ _ .
> >
> > > “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
> >
> > True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> >
> > Also, my article on pi not being a number of any kind:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FFg_9XCkIwTZ9N1jbU4oMYfHHHuFHYf3
> >
> > The true story of how we got numbers:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> >
> > No such thing as a "real number" or a "real number line":
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMHVYcE8xcmRZRnc
> >
> > There is no valid construction of "real number" - it's a myth:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU
> >
> >
> > > "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
> >
> > True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.
> >
> > 3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4
> >
> > Actually, there is no "OR" part, so the logical disjunction is invalid.
> >
> > > "Zero is not a number."
> >
> > True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w2tt7IgoIu-ychDCoYi-4jOAzToy0ViM
> >
> > > "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
> >
> > Half-truth. While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.
> >
> > > “There is no such thing as an empty set.”
> >
> > True. Even the father of all mainstream mathematical cranks rejected the idea of empty set. But let's not go too far ... there isn't even a definition of "set" in set theory!
> >
> > https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w
> >
> > https://youtu.be/1CcSsOG0okg
> >
> > > “3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
> >
> > True. These are propositions that are implied by the given equations. For example, my historic geometric identity states:
> >
> > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = dy/dx + Q(x,h)
> >
> > And so, f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)
> >
> > The theorem:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> >
> > How it provides a rigorous definition of integral for the flawed mainstream calculus:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
> >
> > The day will come when this vicious anonymous troll Dan Christensen is convicted in a court of law.
> >
> > Download for free the most important mathematics book ever written:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view
> >
> > The New Calculus is proof that you CAN DO calculus without the use of LIMIT THEORY.
> >
> > Don't believe me? Study it. You will be pleasantly surprised.
> >
> > I am a genius and the greatest mathematician alive today.
>
> Refreshed due to troll activity.
pointing out where you're wrong is not trolling.

On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 13:18:16 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.
>
> But do not despair! I have done it:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
>
>
> Preempting anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen who will no doubt spam my threads:
>
>
> > "There are no points on a line."
>
> Lie. I never said that. What I did say is that a line does not consists of points. When we talk about points on a line, we really mean distances that are indicated much like road signs do for distances travelled along a road.
>
> A line is one of innumerable distances between any two points.
> A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.
>
>
> > "Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
>
> True. Pi is merely a symbol for an incommensurable magnitude - apparently a concept too advanced for an imbecile like Dan Christensen.
>
> > "1/2 not equal to 2/4"
>
> Lie. I have NEVER said this. What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
> What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
> 2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.
>
> There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4. For example:
>
> _ / _ _
> _ _ / _ _ _ _
>
> The length _ is not equal to the length _ _ .
>
> > “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
>
> True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
>
> Also, my article on pi not being a number of any kind:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FFg_9XCkIwTZ9N1jbU4oMYfHHHuFHYf3
>
> The true story of how we got numbers:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
>
> No such thing as a "real number" or a "real number line":
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMHVYcE8xcmRZRnc
>
> There is no valid construction of "real number" - it's a myth:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU
>
>
> > "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
>
> True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.
>
> 3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4
>
> Actually, there is no "OR" part, so the logical disjunction is invalid.
>
> > "Zero is not a number."
>
> True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w2tt7IgoIu-ychDCoYi-4jOAzToy0ViM
>
> > "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
>
> Half-truth. While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.
>
> > “There is no such thing as an empty set.”
>
> True. Even the father of all mainstream mathematical cranks rejected the idea of empty set. But let's not go too far ... there isn't even a definition of "set" in set theory!
>
> https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w
>
> https://youtu.be/1CcSsOG0okg
>
> > “3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
>
> True. These are propositions that are implied by the given equations. For example, my historic geometric identity states:
>
> [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = dy/dx + Q(x,h)
>
> And so, f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)
>
> The theorem:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> How it provides a rigorous definition of integral for the flawed mainstream calculus:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
>
> The day will come when this vicious anonymous troll Dan Christensen is convicted in a court of law.
>
> Download for free the most important mathematics book ever written:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view
>
> The New Calculus is proof that you CAN DO calculus without the use of LIMIT THEORY.
>
> Don't believe me? Study it. You will be pleasantly surprised.
>
> I am a genius and the greatest mathematician alive today.

Malum: "pi is a factor of 6 and I am only pointing out where you are wrong." LMAO

Trolls love to talk about set theory because they don't understand the OP and know that it is much easier to bullshit using set theory or topology than it is to discuss sound mathematics.

Stick to the topic please! No one is interested in your drivel.

onsdag 22 september 2021 kl. 08:37:28 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 13:18:16 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.
> >
> > But do not despair! I have done it:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
> >
> >
> > Preempting anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen who will no doubt spam my threads:
> >
> >
> > > "There are no points on a line."
> >
> > Lie. I never said that. What I did say is that a line does not consists of points. When we talk about points on a line, we really mean distances that are indicated much like road signs do for distances travelled along a road.
> >
> > A line is one of innumerable distances between any two points.
> > A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.
> >
> >
> > > "Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
> >
> > True. Pi is merely a symbol for an incommensurable magnitude - apparently a concept too advanced for an imbecile like Dan Christensen.
> >
> > > "1/2 not equal to 2/4"
> >
> > Lie. I have NEVER said this. What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
> > What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
> > 2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.
> >
> > There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4.. For example:
> >
> > _ / _ _
> > _ _ / _ _ _ _
> >
> > The length _ is not equal to the length _ _ .
> >
> > > “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
> >
> > True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> >
> > Also, my article on pi not being a number of any kind:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FFg_9XCkIwTZ9N1jbU4oMYfHHHuFHYf3
> >
> > The true story of how we got numbers:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> >
> > No such thing as a "real number" or a "real number line":
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMHVYcE8xcmRZRnc
> >
> > There is no valid construction of "real number" - it's a myth:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU
> >
> >
> > > "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
> >
> > True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.
> >
> > 3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4
> >
> > Actually, there is no "OR" part, so the logical disjunction is invalid.
> >
> > > "Zero is not a number."
> >
> > True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w2tt7IgoIu-ychDCoYi-4jOAzToy0ViM
> >
> > > "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
> >
> > Half-truth. While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.
> >
> > > “There is no such thing as an empty set.”
> >
> > True. Even the father of all mainstream mathematical cranks rejected the idea of empty set. But let's not go too far ... there isn't even a definition of "set" in set theory!
> >
> > https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w
> >
> > https://youtu.be/1CcSsOG0okg
> >
> > > “3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
> >
> > True. These are propositions that are implied by the given equations. For example, my historic geometric identity states:
> >
> > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = dy/dx + Q(x,h)
> >
> > And so, f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)
> >
> > The theorem:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> >
> > How it provides a rigorous definition of integral for the flawed mainstream calculus:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
> >
> > The day will come when this vicious anonymous troll Dan Christensen is convicted in a court of law.
> >
> > Download for free the most important mathematics book ever written:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view
> >
> > The New Calculus is proof that you CAN DO calculus without the use of LIMIT THEORY.
> >
> > Don't believe me? Study it. You will be pleasantly surprised.
> >
> > I am a genius and the greatest mathematician alive today.
> Malum: "pi is a factor of 6 and I am only pointing out where you are wrong." LMAO
>
> Trolls love to talk about set theory because they don't understand the OP and know that it is much easier to bullshit using set theory or topology than it is to discuss sound mathematics.
>
> Stick to the topic please! No one is interested in your drivel.

Why when you fail? :)

No one is trolling you. As I have pointed out, "factor" is pointless in fields, it is only in integral domains and such they are relevant.

No one is bullshitting. The issue you have with advanced math is that
1: You do not understand them worth a damn.
2: They make you look and feel as stupid as you are
3: They demonstrate all things wrong with you.
4: They are rigorous and strict so you cannot bullshit.

No one bullshits in set theory or the likes, the issue is YOU do not understand it!

You cannot understand the difference between "subset of" and "member of"

On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 13:18:16 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.
>
> But do not despair! I have done it:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
>
>
> Preempting anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen who will no doubt spam my threads:
>
>
> > "There are no points on a line."
>
> Lie. I never said that. What I did say is that a line does not consists of points. When we talk about points on a line, we really mean distances that are indicated much like road signs do for distances travelled along a road.
>
> A line is one of innumerable distances between any two points.
> A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.
>
>
> > "Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
>
> True. Pi is merely a symbol for an incommensurable magnitude - apparently a concept too advanced for an imbecile like Dan Christensen.
>
> > "1/2 not equal to 2/4"
>
> Lie. I have NEVER said this. What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
> What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
> 2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.
>
> There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4. For example:
>
> _ / _ _
> _ _ / _ _ _ _
>
> The length _ is not equal to the length _ _ .
>
> > “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
>
> True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
>
> Also, my article on pi not being a number of any kind:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FFg_9XCkIwTZ9N1jbU4oMYfHHHuFHYf3
>
> The true story of how we got numbers:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
>
> No such thing as a "real number" or a "real number line":
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMHVYcE8xcmRZRnc
>
> There is no valid construction of "real number" - it's a myth:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU
>
>
> > "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
>
> True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.
>
> 3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4
>
> Actually, there is no "OR" part, so the logical disjunction is invalid.
>
> > "Zero is not a number."
>
> True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w2tt7IgoIu-ychDCoYi-4jOAzToy0ViM
>
> > "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
>
> Half-truth. While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.
>
> > “There is no such thing as an empty set.”
>
> True. Even the father of all mainstream mathematical cranks rejected the idea of empty set. But let's not go too far ... there isn't even a definition of "set" in set theory!
>
> https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w
>
> https://youtu.be/1CcSsOG0okg
>
> > “3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
>
> True. These are propositions that are implied by the given equations. For example, my historic geometric identity states:
>
> [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = dy/dx + Q(x,h)
>
> And so, f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)
>
> The theorem:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> How it provides a rigorous definition of integral for the flawed mainstream calculus:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
>
> The day will come when this vicious anonymous troll Dan Christensen is convicted in a court of law.
>
> Download for free the most important mathematics book ever written:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view
>
> The New Calculus is proof that you CAN DO calculus without the use of LIMIT THEORY.
>
> Don't believe me? Study it. You will be pleasantly surprised.
>
> I am a genius and the greatest mathematician alive today.

Refreshed due to troll activity.

torsdag 23 september 2021 kl. 08:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 13:18:16 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.
> >
> > But do not despair! I have done it:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
> >
> >
> > Preempting anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen who will no doubt spam my threads:
> >
> >
> > > "There are no points on a line."
> >
> > Lie. I never said that. What I did say is that a line does not consists of points. When we talk about points on a line, we really mean distances that are indicated much like road signs do for distances travelled along a road.
> >
> > A line is one of innumerable distances between any two points.
> > A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.
> >
> >
> > > "Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
> >
> > True. Pi is merely a symbol for an incommensurable magnitude - apparently a concept too advanced for an imbecile like Dan Christensen.
> >
> > > "1/2 not equal to 2/4"
> >
> > Lie. I have NEVER said this. What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
> > What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
> > 2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.
> >
> > There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4.. For example:
> >
> > _ / _ _
> > _ _ / _ _ _ _
> >
> > The length _ is not equal to the length _ _ .
> >
> > > “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
> >
> > True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> >
> > Also, my article on pi not being a number of any kind:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FFg_9XCkIwTZ9N1jbU4oMYfHHHuFHYf3
> >
> > The true story of how we got numbers:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> >
> > No such thing as a "real number" or a "real number line":
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMHVYcE8xcmRZRnc
> >
> > There is no valid construction of "real number" - it's a myth:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU
> >
> >
> > > "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
> >
> > True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.
> >
> > 3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4
> >
> > Actually, there is no "OR" part, so the logical disjunction is invalid.
> >
> > > "Zero is not a number."
> >
> > True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w2tt7IgoIu-ychDCoYi-4jOAzToy0ViM
> >
> > > "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
> >
> > Half-truth. While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.
> >
> > > “There is no such thing as an empty set.”
> >
> > True. Even the father of all mainstream mathematical cranks rejected the idea of empty set. But let's not go too far ... there isn't even a definition of "set" in set theory!
> >
> > https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w
> >
> > https://youtu.be/1CcSsOG0okg
> >
> > > “3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
> >
> > True. These are propositions that are implied by the given equations. For example, my historic geometric identity states:
> >
> > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = dy/dx + Q(x,h)
> >
> > And so, f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)
> >
> > The theorem:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> >
> > How it provides a rigorous definition of integral for the flawed mainstream calculus:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
> >
> > The day will come when this vicious anonymous troll Dan Christensen is convicted in a court of law.
> >
> > Download for free the most important mathematics book ever written:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view
> >
> > The New Calculus is proof that you CAN DO calculus without the use of LIMIT THEORY.
> >
> > Don't believe me? Study it. You will be pleasantly surprised.
> >
> > I am a genius and the greatest mathematician alive today.
> Refreshed due to troll activity.
It isn't trolling pointing out where you're wrong.

On Thursday, 23 September 2021 at 11:12:28 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> torsdag 23 september 2021 kl. 08:13:16 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 13:18:16 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > Calculus is 100% pure geometry. What you have in mainstream calculus is the result of centuries of inability and incompetence to produce a rigorous formulation.
> > >
> > > But do not despair! I have done it:
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
> > >
> > >
> > > Preempting anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen who will no doubt spam my threads:
> > >
> > >
> > > > "There are no points on a line."
> > >
> > > Lie. I never said that. What I did say is that a line does not consists of points. When we talk about points on a line, we really mean distances that are indicated much like road signs do for distances travelled along a road.
> > >
> > > A line is one of innumerable distances between any two points.
> > > A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.
> > >
> > >
> > > > "Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
> > >
> > > True. Pi is merely a symbol for an incommensurable magnitude - apparently a concept too advanced for an imbecile like Dan Christensen.
> > >
> > > > "1/2 not equal to 2/4"
> > >
> > > Lie. I have NEVER said this. What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
> > > What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
> > > 2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.
> > >
> > > There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4. For example:
> > >
> > > _ / _ _
> > > _ _ / _ _ _ _
> > >
> > > The length _ is not equal to the length _ _ .
> > >
> > > > “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
> > >
> > > True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail:
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > >
> > > Also, my article on pi not being a number of any kind:
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FFg_9XCkIwTZ9N1jbU4oMYfHHHuFHYf3
> > >
> > > The true story of how we got numbers:
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> > >
> > > No such thing as a "real number" or a "real number line":
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMHVYcE8xcmRZRnc
> > >
> > > There is no valid construction of "real number" - it's a myth:
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU
> > >
> > >
> > > > "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
> > >
> > > True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.
> > >
> > > 3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4
> > >
> > > Actually, there is no "OR" part, so the logical disjunction is invalid.
> > >
> > > > "Zero is not a number."
> > >
> > > True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w2tt7IgoIu-ychDCoYi-4jOAzToy0ViM
> > >
> > > > "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
> > >
> > > Half-truth. While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.
> > >
> > > > “There is no such thing as an empty set.”
> > >
> > > True. Even the father of all mainstream mathematical cranks rejected the idea of empty set. But let's not go too far ... there isn't even a definition of "set" in set theory!
> > >
> > > https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w
> > >
> > > https://youtu.be/1CcSsOG0okg
> > >
> > > > “3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
> > >
> > > True. These are propositions that are implied by the given equations. For example, my historic geometric identity states:
> > >
> > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = dy/dx + Q(x,h)
> > >
> > > And so, f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)
> > >
> > > The theorem:
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> > >
> > > How it provides a rigorous definition of integral for the flawed mainstream calculus:
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
> > >
> > > The day will come when this vicious anonymous troll Dan Christensen is convicted in a court of law.
> > >
> > > Download for free the most important mathematics book ever written:
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view
> > >
> > > The New Calculus is proof that you CAN DO calculus without the use of LIMIT THEORY.
> > >
> > > Don't believe me? Study it. You will be pleasantly surprised.
> > >
> > > I am a genius and the greatest mathematician alive today.
> > Refreshed due to troll activity.
> It isn't trolling pointing out where you're wrong.

It is trolling when you confirm with your every comment that you are a troll and that's what you do. I mean even the infamous troll Dan Christensen seems to have mellowed compared to you. Now that's a poke in your eye. LMAO.

If you have nothing to say, the best practice is to abstain from taking a dump on the thread by repeating your drivel over and over again - so typical of a troll.