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.

fredag 24 september 2021 kl. 11:12:02 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> 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.
To be a troll I have to say things for the purpsoe of antagonizing people. I have no intent of antagonizing anyone. My intent is correcting you where you're wrong and boy there are many places where you are!

You repeat your drivel, so by your definition, you are a troll!

You are quite the hypocrite!

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.

All we have are troll comments and nothing of substance.

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.
Factors are defined for commutative rings.

On Saturday, 25 September 2021 at 20:11:27 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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.
> Factors are defined for commutative rings.

Spoiler Alert: This topic is NOT about factors.

söndag 26 september 2021 kl. 07:48:33 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Saturday, 25 September 2021 at 20:11:27 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 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..
> > Factors are defined for commutative rings.
> Spoiler Alert: This topic is NOT about factors.
Well, you claim that factors define your function Q... so yes. I'm pointing out your definition of Q doesn't make sense.

we don't know the area inside a circle accurately
because we cannot measure PI to much accuracy...
it has a natural measurement limit.
If there is a formula it could never be verified
by what would be required.

Mitchell Raemsch

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> we don't know the area inside a circle accurately because we cannot
> measure PI to much accuracy... it has a natural measurement limit. If
> there is a formula it could never be verified by what would be required.

nonsense. It's easy to draw a circle, the task is to find its center.