novaBBS - sci.math - Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven constructively before I proved it constructively?

Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven constructively before I proved it constructively?

<sintai$cqg$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=77568&group=sci.math#77568

copy link Newsgroups: sci.math

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: erra...@nomail.afraid.org (FromTheRafters)
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven constructively before I proved it constructively?
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 15:29:07 -0400
Organization: Peripheral Visions
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <sintai$cqg$1@dont-email.me>
References: <a31df82a-6b10-4baa-acb7-c1280e9292f0@googlegroups.com> <6bc3dc32-94a4-4637-a2ad-70eb0010a409@googlegroups.com> <0bf88397-63e9-4294-a5d1-b4e8280130d5@googlegroups.com> <e28c6135-1d4b-41e7-b567-ff72fb3b704b@googlegroups.com> <3875b00e-0854-4b8a-97bc-0fc873f38d36n@googlegroups.com> <c280eb2a-f509-4531-a86f-58fc0971633bn@googlegroups.com> <1c8b6e01-446c-4c5a-9452-e7ea6ed4bb4bn@googlegroups.com> <1ee9b2d4-313d-409b-8014-6ab5fbdcddcdn@googlegroups.com> <6c77035d-e81b-4841-a0c1-97096d26bc2cn@googlegroups.com> <b184277c-26fb-41c0-934e-66ba39d5cc44n@googlegroups.com> <a99b488b-703e-4cec-a8ca-baba84bcedb7n@googlegroups.com> <14da93e5-2c75-481a-a4cf-76c2750f20b5n@googlegroups.com> <30e86265-07e3-4593-aadb-7b8aa3188a9en@googlegroups.com> <54938b17-f0d9-4ba3-a223-00dfbadad611n@googlegroups.com> <b76d3db3-69b4-4fea-bdeb-55fcc7cd2d21n@googlegroups.com> <dcce27c0-c628-424d-8487-33eaeafc94e0n@googlegroups.com> <94ac7ba9-8735-48c1-9c9a-1122c0f179adn@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: erratic.howard@gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:29:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e0009d94be6ee3fc556125ba8b329c81";
logging-data="13136"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+pvlES7H7StMo7Cbnwgg1bnHNtBo3qaAo="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:C5MsNp2NDHnhmgA2ojMduF7B1qk=
X-Newsreader: MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
X-ICQ: 1701145376

by: FromTheRafters - Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:29 UTC

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

Am I wrong in thinking that you meant positve rather than non-negative
with respect to b?

Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven constructively before I proved it constructively?

<a3b32bc4-bdeb-4359-8147-29ee99a49272n@googlegroups.com>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=77626&group=sci.math#77626

copy link Newsgroups: sci.math

X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:5ca:: with SMTP id d10mr12088137qtb.197.1632624155309;
Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:42:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:c3c7:: with SMTP id t190mr6759976ybf.377.1632624155100;
Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:42:35 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <sintai$cqg$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.225.32.185; posting-account=wiRvHAoAAABfPDgWKAHj9ss0MiPpqfE2
NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.225.32.185
References: <a31df82a-6b10-4baa-acb7-c1280e9292f0@googlegroups.com>
<6bc3dc32-94a4-4637-a2ad-70eb0010a409@googlegroups.com> <0bf88397-63e9-4294-a5d1-b4e8280130d5@googlegroups.com>
<e28c6135-1d4b-41e7-b567-ff72fb3b704b@googlegroups.com> <3875b00e-0854-4b8a-97bc-0fc873f38d36n@googlegroups.com>
<c280eb2a-f509-4531-a86f-58fc0971633bn@googlegroups.com> <1c8b6e01-446c-4c5a-9452-e7ea6ed4bb4bn@googlegroups.com>
<1ee9b2d4-313d-409b-8014-6ab5fbdcddcdn@googlegroups.com> <6c77035d-e81b-4841-a0c1-97096d26bc2cn@googlegroups.com>
<b184277c-26fb-41c0-934e-66ba39d5cc44n@googlegroups.com> <a99b488b-703e-4cec-a8ca-baba84bcedb7n@googlegroups.com>
<14da93e5-2c75-481a-a4cf-76c2750f20b5n@googlegroups.com> <30e86265-07e3-4593-aadb-7b8aa3188a9en@googlegroups.com>
<54938b17-f0d9-4ba3-a223-00dfbadad611n@googlegroups.com> <b76d3db3-69b4-4fea-bdeb-55fcc7cd2d21n@googlegroups.com>
<dcce27c0-c628-424d-8487-33eaeafc94e0n@googlegroups.com> <94ac7ba9-8735-48c1-9c9a-1122c0f179adn@googlegroups.com>
<sintai$cqg$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <a3b32bc4-bdeb-4359-8147-29ee99a49272n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven
constructively before I proved it constructively?
From: markuskl...@gmail.com (markus...@gmail.com)
Injection-Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 02:42:35 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 125

by: markus...@gmail.com - Sun, 26 Sep 2021 02:42 UTC

lördag 25 september 2021 kl. 21:29:27 UTC+2 skrev FromTheRafters:
> markus...@gmail.com expressed precisely :
> > lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:10:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> >> On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 12:49:10 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:04:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> >>>> On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:25:48 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:37:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:25:42 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:12:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:19:44 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper
> >>>>>>>>>>> recta:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My theorem [bla]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - published many years ago?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from, has been around over 35 years.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Messager eh?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- John Gabriel
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> >>>>>>>>>>> The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you
> >>>>>>>>>>> insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in
> >>>>>>>>>>> fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream
> >>>>>>>>>>> mathematics.
> >>>>>>>>>> I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond
> >>>>>>>>>> tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is
> >>>>>>>>>> outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity,
> >>>>>>>>>> not even close.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem
> >>>>>>>>>> because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of
> >>>>>>>>>> calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you
> >>>>>>>>>> because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
> >>>>>>>>> I don'y hate it. I just think it's wrong.
> >>>>>>>> You hate it because you know you're wrong.
> >>>>>>> That's not it, chief.
> >>>>>> "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers
> >>>>>> University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers
> >>>>>> University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> :-)))))
> >>>>> As real numbers, yes.
> >>>> NO. Pi is NEVER a factor of 6.
> >>>>
> >>>> A factor k of any p, can only be a factor of p IF k divides p without
> >>>> remainder. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> >>>>
> >>>> Time for you to go back to primary school.
> >>> there are no remainders in a field,
> >> Irrelevant, because a field is irrelevant.
> >>
> >> What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand
> >> at all what is a <factor>. How embarrassing!
> >>
> >> A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo)
> >> another exactly.
> >>
> >> LMAO.
> > A factorisation of some element a is a=b*c. You can do this for any field.
> > Let a be non-negative. Then a=b*(a/b), so any non-negative b is a factor of
> > a.
> Am I wrong in thinking that you meant positve rather than non-negative
> with respect to b?
I actually meant non-zero, but thanks for the correction. You don't need to have an ordering in a ring.

Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven constructively before I proved it constructively?

<3d471374-6ec7-433f-955e-5ee2945792d0n@googlegroups.com>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=77630&group=sci.math#77630

copy link Newsgroups: sci.math

X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:209:: with SMTP id b9mr1251qtx.28.1632632228601; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 21:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:c011:: with SMTP id c17mr21012029ybf.291.1632632228241; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 21:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 21:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <94ac7ba9-8735-48c1-9c9a-1122c0f179adn@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a02:587:b428:1d00:c983:a3e1:cd1e:9c60; posting-account=I6O9nAoAAABb1i1LpKMPS-CPmVJHIbyE
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a02:587:b428:1d00:c983:a3e1:cd1e:9c60
References: <a31df82a-6b10-4baa-acb7-c1280e9292f0@googlegroups.com> <6bc3dc32-94a4-4637-a2ad-70eb0010a409@googlegroups.com> <0bf88397-63e9-4294-a5d1-b4e8280130d5@googlegroups.com> <e28c6135-1d4b-41e7-b567-ff72fb3b704b@googlegroups.com> <3875b00e-0854-4b8a-97bc-0fc873f38d36n@googlegroups.com> <c280eb2a-f509-4531-a86f-58fc0971633bn@googlegroups.com> <1c8b6e01-446c-4c5a-9452-e7ea6ed4bb4bn@googlegroups.com> <1ee9b2d4-313d-409b-8014-6ab5fbdcddcdn@googlegroups.com> <6c77035d-e81b-4841-a0c1-97096d26bc2cn@googlegroups.com> <b184277c-26fb-41c0-934e-66ba39d5cc44n@googlegroups.com> <a99b488b-703e-4cec-a8ca-baba84bcedb7n@googlegroups.com> <14da93e5-2c75-481a-a4cf-76c2750f20b5n@googlegroups.com> <30e86265-07e3-4593-aadb-7b8aa3188a9en@googlegroups.com> <54938b17-f0d9-4ba3-a223-00dfbadad611n@googlegroups.com> <b76d3db3-69b4-4fea-bdeb-55fcc7cd2d21n@googlegroups.com> <dcce27c0-c628-424d-8487-33eaeafc94e0n@googlegroups.com> <94ac7ba9-8735-48c1-9c9a-1122c0f179adn@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <3d471374-6ec7-433f-955e-5ee2945792d0n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven constructively before I proved it constructively?
From: thenewca...@gmail.com (Eram semper recta)
Injection-Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 04:57:08 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 119

by: Eram semper recta - Sun, 26 Sep 2021 04:57 UTC

On Saturday, 25 September 2021 at 20:18:03 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:10:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 12:49:10 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:04:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:25:48 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:37:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:25:42 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:12:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:19:44 UTC+3, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > > > > > > > > > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > > > > > > > > > > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics..
> > > > > > > > > > I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don'y hate it. I just think it's wrong.
> > > > > > > > You hate it because you know you're wrong.
> > > > > > > That's not it, chief.
> > > > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > :-)))))
> > > > > As real numbers, yes.
> > > > NO. Pi is NEVER a factor of 6.
> > > >
> > > > A factor k of any p, can only be a factor of p IF k divides p without remainder. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > >
> > > > Time for you to go back to primary school.
> > > there are no remainders in a field,
> > Irrelevant, because a field is irrelevant.
> >
> > What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>. How embarrassing!
> >
> > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> >
> > LMAO.
> A factorisation of some element a is a=b*c.

We are not talking about the garbage of elements or set theory but well-formed concepts such as numbers and magnitudes.

I do not subscribe to your bullshit.

> You can do this for any field.

In your Alice-In-Wonderland, your imagination can run wild, but in mathematics, we talk about measure and number. Nothing else.

> Let a be non-negative. Then a=b*(a/b), so any non-negative b is a factor of a.

Nonsense! Unbelievable what a crank you are!

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

You have yet to admit that you made a grave error and are a disgrace to the institution (Chambers in Sweden) where you claim to study.

Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven constructively before I proved it constructively?

<6cb441e6-994a-4c8e-8f1a-8325010b8ab9n@googlegroups.com>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=77735&group=sci.math#77735

copy link Newsgroups: sci.math

X-Received: by 2002:a37:a40e:: with SMTP id n14mr23037445qke.81.1632718823909;
Sun, 26 Sep 2021 22:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a5b:507:: with SMTP id o7mr25295987ybp.491.1632718823707;
Sun, 26 Sep 2021 22:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 22:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <3d471374-6ec7-433f-955e-5ee2945792d0n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=79.136.72.131; posting-account=9KdpAQoAAAAHk6UQCkS1dsKOLsVDFEUN
NNTP-Posting-Host: 79.136.72.131
References: <a31df82a-6b10-4baa-acb7-c1280e9292f0@googlegroups.com>
<6bc3dc32-94a4-4637-a2ad-70eb0010a409@googlegroups.com> <0bf88397-63e9-4294-a5d1-b4e8280130d5@googlegroups.com>
<e28c6135-1d4b-41e7-b567-ff72fb3b704b@googlegroups.com> <3875b00e-0854-4b8a-97bc-0fc873f38d36n@googlegroups.com>
<c280eb2a-f509-4531-a86f-58fc0971633bn@googlegroups.com> <1c8b6e01-446c-4c5a-9452-e7ea6ed4bb4bn@googlegroups.com>
<1ee9b2d4-313d-409b-8014-6ab5fbdcddcdn@googlegroups.com> <6c77035d-e81b-4841-a0c1-97096d26bc2cn@googlegroups.com>
<b184277c-26fb-41c0-934e-66ba39d5cc44n@googlegroups.com> <a99b488b-703e-4cec-a8ca-baba84bcedb7n@googlegroups.com>
<14da93e5-2c75-481a-a4cf-76c2750f20b5n@googlegroups.com> <30e86265-07e3-4593-aadb-7b8aa3188a9en@googlegroups.com>
<54938b17-f0d9-4ba3-a223-00dfbadad611n@googlegroups.com> <b76d3db3-69b4-4fea-bdeb-55fcc7cd2d21n@googlegroups.com>
<dcce27c0-c628-424d-8487-33eaeafc94e0n@googlegroups.com> <94ac7ba9-8735-48c1-9c9a-1122c0f179adn@googlegroups.com>
<3d471374-6ec7-433f-955e-5ee2945792d0n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <6cb441e6-994a-4c8e-8f1a-8325010b8ab9n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven
constructively before I proved it constructively?
From: zelos.ma...@gmail.com (zelos...@gmail.com)
Injection-Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:00:23 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 116

by: zelos...@gmail.com - Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:00 UTC

söndag 26 september 2021 kl. 06:57:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Saturday, 25 September 2021 at 20:18:03 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:10:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 12:49:10 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:04:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:25:48 UTC+3, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:37:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:25:42 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:12:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:19:44 UTC+3, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > > > > > > > > > > > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.
> > > > > > > > > > > I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I don'y hate it. I just think it's wrong.
> > > > > > > > > You hate it because you know you're wrong.
> > > > > > > > That's not it, chief.
> > > > > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > :-)))))
> > > > > > As real numbers, yes.
> > > > > NO. Pi is NEVER a factor of 6.
> > > > >
> > > > > A factor k of any p, can only be a factor of p IF k divides p without remainder. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > >
> > > > > Time for you to go back to primary school.
> > > > there are no remainders in a field,
> > > Irrelevant, because a field is irrelevant.
> > >
> > > What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>. How embarrassing!
> > >
> > > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> > >
> > > LMAO.
> > A factorisation of some element a is a=b*c.
> We are not talking about the garbage of elements or set theory but well-formed concepts such as numbers and magnitudes.
>
> I do not subscribe to your bullshit.
> > You can do this for any field.
> In your Alice-In-Wonderland, your imagination can run wild, but in mathematics, we talk about measure and number. Nothing else.
> > Let a be non-negative. Then a=b*(a/b), so any non-negative b is a factor of a.
> Nonsense! Unbelievable what a crank you are!
> "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
>
> "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> You have yet to admit that you made a grave error and are a disgrace to the institution (Chambers in Sweden) where you claim to study.

Mathematics is not about your idea of "measure" and it is not focused on "numbers", especially not your idea of it. It is far bigger than that.

Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven constructively before I proved it constructively?

<dc5ebd9a-514c-43e6-b14e-43d76fcecd19n@googlegroups.com>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=77739&group=sci.math#77739

copy link Newsgroups: sci.math

X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4111:: with SMTP id q17mr16958398qtl.264.1632721156158;
Sun, 26 Sep 2021 22:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:c3c7:: with SMTP id t190mr12902384ybf.377.1632721155975;
Sun, 26 Sep 2021 22:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 22:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6cb441e6-994a-4c8e-8f1a-8325010b8ab9n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a02:587:b429:aa00:253e:cc16:6b97:6d8d;
posting-account=I6O9nAoAAABb1i1LpKMPS-CPmVJHIbyE
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a02:587:b429:aa00:253e:cc16:6b97:6d8d
References: <a31df82a-6b10-4baa-acb7-c1280e9292f0@googlegroups.com>
<6bc3dc32-94a4-4637-a2ad-70eb0010a409@googlegroups.com> <0bf88397-63e9-4294-a5d1-b4e8280130d5@googlegroups.com>
<e28c6135-1d4b-41e7-b567-ff72fb3b704b@googlegroups.com> <3875b00e-0854-4b8a-97bc-0fc873f38d36n@googlegroups.com>
<c280eb2a-f509-4531-a86f-58fc0971633bn@googlegroups.com> <1c8b6e01-446c-4c5a-9452-e7ea6ed4bb4bn@googlegroups.com>
<1ee9b2d4-313d-409b-8014-6ab5fbdcddcdn@googlegroups.com> <6c77035d-e81b-4841-a0c1-97096d26bc2cn@googlegroups.com>
<b184277c-26fb-41c0-934e-66ba39d5cc44n@googlegroups.com> <a99b488b-703e-4cec-a8ca-baba84bcedb7n@googlegroups.com>
<14da93e5-2c75-481a-a4cf-76c2750f20b5n@googlegroups.com> <30e86265-07e3-4593-aadb-7b8aa3188a9en@googlegroups.com>
<54938b17-f0d9-4ba3-a223-00dfbadad611n@googlegroups.com> <b76d3db3-69b4-4fea-bdeb-55fcc7cd2d21n@googlegroups.com>
<dcce27c0-c628-424d-8487-33eaeafc94e0n@googlegroups.com> <94ac7ba9-8735-48c1-9c9a-1122c0f179adn@googlegroups.com>
<3d471374-6ec7-433f-955e-5ee2945792d0n@googlegroups.com> <6cb441e6-994a-4c8e-8f1a-8325010b8ab9n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <dc5ebd9a-514c-43e6-b14e-43d76fcecd19n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven
constructively before I proved it constructively?
From: thenewca...@gmail.com (Eram semper recta)
Injection-Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:39:16 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 136

by: Eram semper recta - Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:39 UTC

On Monday, 27 September 2021 at 08:00:30 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> söndag 26 september 2021 kl. 06:57:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Saturday, 25 September 2021 at 20:18:03 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:10:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 12:49:10 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:04:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:25:48 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:37:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:25:42 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:12:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:19:44 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I don'y hate it. I just think it's wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > You hate it because you know you're wrong.
> > > > > > > > > That's not it, chief.
> > > > > > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > :-)))))
> > > > > > > As real numbers, yes.
> > > > > > NO. Pi is NEVER a factor of 6.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A factor k of any p, can only be a factor of p IF k divides p without remainder. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Time for you to go back to primary school.
> > > > > there are no remainders in a field,
> > > > Irrelevant, because a field is irrelevant.
> > > >
> > > > What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>. How embarrassing!
> > > >
> > > > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> > > >
> > > > LMAO.
> > > A factorisation of some element a is a=b*c.
> > We are not talking about the garbage of elements or set theory but well-formed concepts such as numbers and magnitudes.
> >
> > I do not subscribe to your bullshit.
> > > You can do this for any field.
> > In your Alice-In-Wonderland, your imagination can run wild, but in mathematics, we talk about measure and number. Nothing else.
> > > Let a be non-negative. Then a=b*(a/b), so any non-negative b is a factor of a.
> > Nonsense! Unbelievable what a crank you are!
> > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> >
> > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > You have yet to admit that you made a grave error and are a disgrace to the institution (Chambers in Sweden) where you claim to study.
> Mathematics is not about your idea of "measure"

It's not my idea. Mathematics is the science of measure and number.

Since you love citations:

mathematics, the science of structure, order, and relation that has evolved from elemental practices of counting, measuring, and describing the shapes of objects. - https://www.britannica.com/science/mathematics

: the science of numbers and their operations - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mathematics

Let me know if you need more. LMAO.

> and it is not focused on "numbers", especially not your idea of it. It is far bigger than that.

The most important concept in mathematics is *NUMBER* and it can only be derived flawlessly using the theory of the ELEMENTS of EUCLID, the one and ONLY true foundation of mathematics.

Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven constructively before I proved it constructively?

<5ac8ef9b-6f7f-465d-9200-9b9a86ba6197n@googlegroups.com>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=77766&group=sci.math#77766

copy link Newsgroups: sci.math

X-Received: by 2002:a0c:e381:: with SMTP id a1mr22808184qvl.42.1632734639360;
Mon, 27 Sep 2021 02:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:254b:: with SMTP id l72mr1078939ybl.291.1632734639164;
Mon, 27 Sep 2021 02:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 02:23:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <dc5ebd9a-514c-43e6-b14e-43d76fcecd19n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=79.136.72.131; posting-account=9KdpAQoAAAAHk6UQCkS1dsKOLsVDFEUN
NNTP-Posting-Host: 79.136.72.131
References: <a31df82a-6b10-4baa-acb7-c1280e9292f0@googlegroups.com>
<6bc3dc32-94a4-4637-a2ad-70eb0010a409@googlegroups.com> <0bf88397-63e9-4294-a5d1-b4e8280130d5@googlegroups.com>
<e28c6135-1d4b-41e7-b567-ff72fb3b704b@googlegroups.com> <3875b00e-0854-4b8a-97bc-0fc873f38d36n@googlegroups.com>
<c280eb2a-f509-4531-a86f-58fc0971633bn@googlegroups.com> <1c8b6e01-446c-4c5a-9452-e7ea6ed4bb4bn@googlegroups.com>
<1ee9b2d4-313d-409b-8014-6ab5fbdcddcdn@googlegroups.com> <6c77035d-e81b-4841-a0c1-97096d26bc2cn@googlegroups.com>
<b184277c-26fb-41c0-934e-66ba39d5cc44n@googlegroups.com> <a99b488b-703e-4cec-a8ca-baba84bcedb7n@googlegroups.com>
<14da93e5-2c75-481a-a4cf-76c2750f20b5n@googlegroups.com> <30e86265-07e3-4593-aadb-7b8aa3188a9en@googlegroups.com>
<54938b17-f0d9-4ba3-a223-00dfbadad611n@googlegroups.com> <b76d3db3-69b4-4fea-bdeb-55fcc7cd2d21n@googlegroups.com>
<dcce27c0-c628-424d-8487-33eaeafc94e0n@googlegroups.com> <94ac7ba9-8735-48c1-9c9a-1122c0f179adn@googlegroups.com>
<3d471374-6ec7-433f-955e-5ee2945792d0n@googlegroups.com> <6cb441e6-994a-4c8e-8f1a-8325010b8ab9n@googlegroups.com>
<dc5ebd9a-514c-43e6-b14e-43d76fcecd19n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <5ac8ef9b-6f7f-465d-9200-9b9a86ba6197n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven
constructively before I proved it constructively?
From: zelos.ma...@gmail.com (zelos...@gmail.com)
Injection-Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 09:23:59 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 138

by: zelos...@gmail.com - Mon, 27 Sep 2021 09:23 UTC

måndag 27 september 2021 kl. 07:39:22 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 27 September 2021 at 08:00:30 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > söndag 26 september 2021 kl. 06:57:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Saturday, 25 September 2021 at 20:18:03 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:10:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 12:49:10 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:04:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:25:48 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:37:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:25:42 UTC+3, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:12:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:19:44 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I don'y hate it. I just think it's wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > You hate it because you know you're wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > That's not it, chief.
> > > > > > > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > :-)))))
> > > > > > > > As real numbers, yes.
> > > > > > > NO. Pi is NEVER a factor of 6.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A factor k of any p, can only be a factor of p IF k divides p without remainder. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Time for you to go back to primary school.
> > > > > > there are no remainders in a field,
> > > > > Irrelevant, because a field is irrelevant.
> > > > >
> > > > > What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>. How embarrassing!
> > > > >
> > > > > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> > > > >
> > > > > LMAO.
> > > > A factorisation of some element a is a=b*c.
> > > We are not talking about the garbage of elements or set theory but well-formed concepts such as numbers and magnitudes.
> > >
> > > I do not subscribe to your bullshit.
> > > > You can do this for any field.
> > > In your Alice-In-Wonderland, your imagination can run wild, but in mathematics, we talk about measure and number. Nothing else.
> > > > Let a be non-negative. Then a=b*(a/b), so any non-negative b is a factor of a.
> > > Nonsense! Unbelievable what a crank you are!
> > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > >
> > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > You have yet to admit that you made a grave error and are a disgrace to the institution (Chambers in Sweden) where you claim to study.
> > Mathematics is not about your idea of "measure"
> It's not my idea. Mathematics is the science of measure and number.
>
> Since you love citations:
>
> mathematics, the science of structure, order, and relation that has evolved from elemental practices of counting, measuring, and describing the shapes of objects. - https://www.britannica.com/science/mathematics
>
> : the science of numbers and their operations - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mathematics
>
> Let me know if you need more. LMAO.
> > and it is not focused on "numbers", especially not your idea of it. It is far bigger than that.
> The most important concept in mathematics is *NUMBER* and it can only be derived flawlessly using the theory of the ELEMENTS of EUCLID, the one and ONLY true foundation of mathematics.

notice they say STRUCTURE, ORDER, ANDER RELATIONS that has EVOLVED from...
so even your citation says it is MORE than what you want it to be.

Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven constructively before I proved it constructively?

<fc50d326-3045-4652-9f78-451a6e58ae06n@googlegroups.com>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=77778&group=sci.math#77778

copy link Newsgroups: sci.math

X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7594:: with SMTP id s20mr17497988qtq.158.1632745617480;
Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:1243:: with SMTP id t3mr30871646ybu.135.1632745617271;
Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5ac8ef9b-6f7f-465d-9200-9b9a86ba6197n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a02:587:b429:aa00:4102:62f:e7a6:5177;
posting-account=I6O9nAoAAABb1i1LpKMPS-CPmVJHIbyE
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a02:587:b429:aa00:4102:62f:e7a6:5177
References: <a31df82a-6b10-4baa-acb7-c1280e9292f0@googlegroups.com>
<6bc3dc32-94a4-4637-a2ad-70eb0010a409@googlegroups.com> <0bf88397-63e9-4294-a5d1-b4e8280130d5@googlegroups.com>
<e28c6135-1d4b-41e7-b567-ff72fb3b704b@googlegroups.com> <3875b00e-0854-4b8a-97bc-0fc873f38d36n@googlegroups.com>
<c280eb2a-f509-4531-a86f-58fc0971633bn@googlegroups.com> <1c8b6e01-446c-4c5a-9452-e7ea6ed4bb4bn@googlegroups.com>
<1ee9b2d4-313d-409b-8014-6ab5fbdcddcdn@googlegroups.com> <6c77035d-e81b-4841-a0c1-97096d26bc2cn@googlegroups.com>
<b184277c-26fb-41c0-934e-66ba39d5cc44n@googlegroups.com> <a99b488b-703e-4cec-a8ca-baba84bcedb7n@googlegroups.com>
<14da93e5-2c75-481a-a4cf-76c2750f20b5n@googlegroups.com> <30e86265-07e3-4593-aadb-7b8aa3188a9en@googlegroups.com>
<54938b17-f0d9-4ba3-a223-00dfbadad611n@googlegroups.com> <b76d3db3-69b4-4fea-bdeb-55fcc7cd2d21n@googlegroups.com>
<dcce27c0-c628-424d-8487-33eaeafc94e0n@googlegroups.com> <94ac7ba9-8735-48c1-9c9a-1122c0f179adn@googlegroups.com>
<3d471374-6ec7-433f-955e-5ee2945792d0n@googlegroups.com> <6cb441e6-994a-4c8e-8f1a-8325010b8ab9n@googlegroups.com>
<dc5ebd9a-514c-43e6-b14e-43d76fcecd19n@googlegroups.com> <5ac8ef9b-6f7f-465d-9200-9b9a86ba6197n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <fc50d326-3045-4652-9f78-451a6e58ae06n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven
constructively before I proved it constructively?
From: thenewca...@gmail.com (Eram semper recta)
Injection-Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 12:26:57 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 152

by: Eram semper recta - Mon, 27 Sep 2021 12:26 UTC

On Monday, 27 September 2021 at 12:24:05 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 27 september 2021 kl. 07:39:22 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Monday, 27 September 2021 at 08:00:30 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > söndag 26 september 2021 kl. 06:57:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Saturday, 25 September 2021 at 20:18:03 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:10:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 12:49:10 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:04:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:25:48 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:37:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:25:42 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:12:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:19:44 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I don'y hate it. I just think it's wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > You hate it because you know you're wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > That's not it, chief.
> > > > > > > > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > :-)))))
> > > > > > > > > As real numbers, yes.
> > > > > > > > NO. Pi is NEVER a factor of 6.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A factor k of any p, can only be a factor of p IF k divides p without remainder. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Time for you to go back to primary school.
> > > > > > > there are no remainders in a field,
> > > > > > Irrelevant, because a field is irrelevant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>. How embarrassing!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LMAO.
> > > > > A factorisation of some element a is a=b*c.
> > > > We are not talking about the garbage of elements or set theory but well-formed concepts such as numbers and magnitudes.
> > > >
> > > > I do not subscribe to your bullshit.
> > > > > You can do this for any field.
> > > > In your Alice-In-Wonderland, your imagination can run wild, but in mathematics, we talk about measure and number. Nothing else.
> > > > > Let a be non-negative. Then a=b*(a/b), so any non-negative b is a factor of a.
> > > > Nonsense! Unbelievable what a crank you are!
> > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > >
> > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > You have yet to admit that you made a grave error and are a disgrace to the institution (Chambers in Sweden) where you claim to study.
> > > Mathematics is not about your idea of "measure"
> > It's not my idea. Mathematics is the science of measure and number.
> >
> > Since you love citations:
> >
> > mathematics, the science of structure, order, and relation that has evolved from elemental practices of counting, measuring, and describing the shapes of objects. - https://www.britannica.com/science/mathematics
> >
> > : the science of numbers and their operations - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mathematics
> >
> > Let me know if you need more. LMAO.
> > > and it is not focused on "numbers", especially not your idea of it. It is far bigger than that.
> > The most important concept in mathematics is *NUMBER* and it can only be derived flawlessly using the theory of the ELEMENTS of EUCLID, the one and ONLY true foundation of mathematics.
> notice they say STRUCTURE, ORDER, ANDER RELATIONS that has EVOLVED from....
> so even your citation says it is MORE than what you want it to be.

Click here to read the complete article

Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven constructively before I proved it constructively?

<77379d3a-1782-4c17-ba46-dfe22a25c0f2n@googlegroups.com>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=77797&group=sci.math#77797

copy link Newsgroups: sci.math

X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4547:: with SMTP id z7mr523060qtn.131.1632757691995;
Mon, 27 Sep 2021 08:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:9004:: with SMTP id s4mr544150ybl.545.1632757691781;
Mon, 27 Sep 2021 08:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 08:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <3d471374-6ec7-433f-955e-5ee2945792d0n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.225.32.185; posting-account=wiRvHAoAAABfPDgWKAHj9ss0MiPpqfE2
NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.225.32.185
References: <a31df82a-6b10-4baa-acb7-c1280e9292f0@googlegroups.com>
<6bc3dc32-94a4-4637-a2ad-70eb0010a409@googlegroups.com> <0bf88397-63e9-4294-a5d1-b4e8280130d5@googlegroups.com>
<e28c6135-1d4b-41e7-b567-ff72fb3b704b@googlegroups.com> <3875b00e-0854-4b8a-97bc-0fc873f38d36n@googlegroups.com>
<c280eb2a-f509-4531-a86f-58fc0971633bn@googlegroups.com> <1c8b6e01-446c-4c5a-9452-e7ea6ed4bb4bn@googlegroups.com>
<1ee9b2d4-313d-409b-8014-6ab5fbdcddcdn@googlegroups.com> <6c77035d-e81b-4841-a0c1-97096d26bc2cn@googlegroups.com>
<b184277c-26fb-41c0-934e-66ba39d5cc44n@googlegroups.com> <a99b488b-703e-4cec-a8ca-baba84bcedb7n@googlegroups.com>
<14da93e5-2c75-481a-a4cf-76c2750f20b5n@googlegroups.com> <30e86265-07e3-4593-aadb-7b8aa3188a9en@googlegroups.com>
<54938b17-f0d9-4ba3-a223-00dfbadad611n@googlegroups.com> <b76d3db3-69b4-4fea-bdeb-55fcc7cd2d21n@googlegroups.com>
<dcce27c0-c628-424d-8487-33eaeafc94e0n@googlegroups.com> <94ac7ba9-8735-48c1-9c9a-1122c0f179adn@googlegroups.com>
<3d471374-6ec7-433f-955e-5ee2945792d0n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <77379d3a-1782-4c17-ba46-dfe22a25c0f2n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven
constructively before I proved it constructively?
From: markuskl...@gmail.com (markus...@gmail.com)
Injection-Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 15:48:11 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 117

by: markus...@gmail.com - Mon, 27 Sep 2021 15:48 UTC

Should I point out your misspelling of my university?

Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven constructively before I proved it constructively?

<9f0c64d2-403c-4ec3-895b-6003a6944a40n@googlegroups.com>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=77798&group=sci.math#77798

copy link Newsgroups: sci.math

X-Received: by 2002:ad4:4689:: with SMTP id bq9mr417755qvb.48.1632757977753;
Mon, 27 Sep 2021 08:52:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a5b:507:: with SMTP id o7mr543253ybp.491.1632757977404;
Mon, 27 Sep 2021 08:52:57 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 08:52:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <dc5ebd9a-514c-43e6-b14e-43d76fcecd19n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.225.32.185; posting-account=wiRvHAoAAABfPDgWKAHj9ss0MiPpqfE2
NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.225.32.185
References: <a31df82a-6b10-4baa-acb7-c1280e9292f0@googlegroups.com>
<6bc3dc32-94a4-4637-a2ad-70eb0010a409@googlegroups.com> <0bf88397-63e9-4294-a5d1-b4e8280130d5@googlegroups.com>
<e28c6135-1d4b-41e7-b567-ff72fb3b704b@googlegroups.com> <3875b00e-0854-4b8a-97bc-0fc873f38d36n@googlegroups.com>
<c280eb2a-f509-4531-a86f-58fc0971633bn@googlegroups.com> <1c8b6e01-446c-4c5a-9452-e7ea6ed4bb4bn@googlegroups.com>
<1ee9b2d4-313d-409b-8014-6ab5fbdcddcdn@googlegroups.com> <6c77035d-e81b-4841-a0c1-97096d26bc2cn@googlegroups.com>
<b184277c-26fb-41c0-934e-66ba39d5cc44n@googlegroups.com> <a99b488b-703e-4cec-a8ca-baba84bcedb7n@googlegroups.com>
<14da93e5-2c75-481a-a4cf-76c2750f20b5n@googlegroups.com> <30e86265-07e3-4593-aadb-7b8aa3188a9en@googlegroups.com>
<54938b17-f0d9-4ba3-a223-00dfbadad611n@googlegroups.com> <b76d3db3-69b4-4fea-bdeb-55fcc7cd2d21n@googlegroups.com>
<dcce27c0-c628-424d-8487-33eaeafc94e0n@googlegroups.com> <94ac7ba9-8735-48c1-9c9a-1122c0f179adn@googlegroups.com>
<3d471374-6ec7-433f-955e-5ee2945792d0n@googlegroups.com> <6cb441e6-994a-4c8e-8f1a-8325010b8ab9n@googlegroups.com>
<dc5ebd9a-514c-43e6-b14e-43d76fcecd19n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <9f0c64d2-403c-4ec3-895b-6003a6944a40n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven
constructively before I proved it constructively?
From: markuskl...@gmail.com (markus...@gmail.com)
Injection-Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 15:52:57 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 141

by: markus...@gmail.com - Mon, 27 Sep 2021 15:52 UTC

While mathematics has its origins in (read: evolved from) counting and shapes, that's nowhere near a complete description of what mathematics is today..

Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven constructively before I proved it constructively?

<12bad4c1-8e41-4417-a229-b790019d3ec1n@googlegroups.com>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=77930&group=sci.math#77930

copy link Newsgroups: sci.math

X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:610:: with SMTP id z16mr3808102qta.101.1632805444985; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 22:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:1243:: with SMTP id t3mr4607747ybu.135.1632805444689; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 22:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 22:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <fc50d326-3045-4652-9f78-451a6e58ae06n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=79.136.72.131; posting-account=9KdpAQoAAAAHk6UQCkS1dsKOLsVDFEUN
NNTP-Posting-Host: 79.136.72.131
References: <a31df82a-6b10-4baa-acb7-c1280e9292f0@googlegroups.com> <6bc3dc32-94a4-4637-a2ad-70eb0010a409@googlegroups.com> <0bf88397-63e9-4294-a5d1-b4e8280130d5@googlegroups.com> <e28c6135-1d4b-41e7-b567-ff72fb3b704b@googlegroups.com> <3875b00e-0854-4b8a-97bc-0fc873f38d36n@googlegroups.com> <c280eb2a-f509-4531-a86f-58fc0971633bn@googlegroups.com> <1c8b6e01-446c-4c5a-9452-e7ea6ed4bb4bn@googlegroups.com> <1ee9b2d4-313d-409b-8014-6ab5fbdcddcdn@googlegroups.com> <6c77035d-e81b-4841-a0c1-97096d26bc2cn@googlegroups.com> <b184277c-26fb-41c0-934e-66ba39d5cc44n@googlegroups.com> <a99b488b-703e-4cec-a8ca-baba84bcedb7n@googlegroups.com> <14da93e5-2c75-481a-a4cf-76c2750f20b5n@googlegroups.com> <30e86265-07e3-4593-aadb-7b8aa3188a9en@googlegroups.com> <54938b17-f0d9-4ba3-a223-00dfbadad611n@googlegroups.com> <b76d3db3-69b4-4fea-bdeb-55fcc7cd2d21n@googlegroups.com> <dcce27c0-c628-424d-8487-33eaeafc94e0n@googlegroups.com> <94ac7ba9-8735-48c1-9c9a-1122c0f179adn@googlegroups.com> <3d471374-6ec7-433f-955e-5ee2945792d0n@googlegroups.com> <6cb441e6-994a-4c8e-8f1a-8325010b8ab9n@googlegroups.com> <dc5ebd9a-514c-43e6-b14e-43d76fcecd19n@googlegroups.com> <5ac8ef9b-6f7f-465d-9200-9b9a86ba6197n@googlegroups
.com> <fc50d326-3045-4652-9f78-451a6e58ae06n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <12bad4c1-8e41-4417-a229-b790019d3ec1n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven constructively before I proved it constructively?
From: zelos.ma...@gmail.com (zelos...@gmail.com)
Injection-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 05:04:04 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 165

by: zelos...@gmail.com - Tue, 28 Sep 2021 05:04 UTC

måndag 27 september 2021 kl. 14:27:02 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 27 September 2021 at 12:24:05 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > måndag 27 september 2021 kl. 07:39:22 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Monday, 27 September 2021 at 08:00:30 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > söndag 26 september 2021 kl. 06:57:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Saturday, 25 September 2021 at 20:18:03 UTC+3, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:10:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 12:49:10 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:04:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:25:48 UTC+3, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:37:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:25:42 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:12:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:19:44 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don'y hate it. I just think it's wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You hate it because you know you're wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > That's not it, chief.
> > > > > > > > > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > :-)))))
> > > > > > > > > > As real numbers, yes.
> > > > > > > > > NO. Pi is NEVER a factor of 6.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A factor k of any p, can only be a factor of p IF k divides p without remainder. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Time for you to go back to primary school.
> > > > > > > > there are no remainders in a field,
> > > > > > > Irrelevant, because a field is irrelevant.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>. How embarrassing!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > LMAO.
> > > > > > A factorisation of some element a is a=b*c.
> > > > > We are not talking about the garbage of elements or set theory but well-formed concepts such as numbers and magnitudes.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do not subscribe to your bullshit.
> > > > > > You can do this for any field.
> > > > > In your Alice-In-Wonderland, your imagination can run wild, but in mathematics, we talk about measure and number. Nothing else.
> > > > > > Let a be non-negative. Then a=b*(a/b), so any non-negative b is a factor of a.
> > > > > Nonsense! Unbelievable what a crank you are!
> > > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > >
> > > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > You have yet to admit that you made a grave error and are a disgrace to the institution (Chambers in Sweden) where you claim to study.
> > > > Mathematics is not about your idea of "measure"
> > > It's not my idea. Mathematics is the science of measure and number.
> > >
> > > Since you love citations:
> > >
> > > mathematics, the science of structure, order, and relation that has evolved from elemental practices of counting, measuring, and describing the shapes of objects. - https://www.britannica.com/science/mathematics
> > >
> > > : the science of numbers and their operations - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mathematics
> > >
> > > Let me know if you need more. LMAO.
> > > > and it is not focused on "numbers", especially not your idea of it. It is far bigger than that.
> > > The most important concept in mathematics is *NUMBER* and it can only be derived flawlessly using the theory of the ELEMENTS of EUCLID, the one and ONLY true foundation of mathematics.
> > notice they say STRUCTURE, ORDER, ANDER RELATIONS that has EVOLVED from....
> > so even your citation says it is MORE than what you want it to be.
> Exactly, and none of those mean what you think, ie, groups, fields, etc.
>
> Evolution is an idea. The mathematics of the Ancient Greeks has NOT evolved at all.
>
> Till this day, when you multiply p/q by r/s, the result is exactly the same as it was 2400 years ago, ie pr/qs.
>
> Dumbo is what you will always be.

Click here to read the complete article

Round Numbers are always false. -- Samuel Johnson

tech / sci.math / Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven constructively before I proved it constructively?

Subject	Author
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	markus...@gmail.com
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	Eram semper recta
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	markus...@gmail.com
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	Eram semper recta
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	zelos...@gmail.com
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	Eram semper recta
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	zelos...@gmail.com
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	markus...@gmail.com
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	Eram semper recta
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	markus...@gmail.com
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	Eram semper recta
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	markus...@gmail.com
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven constructive	Eram semper recta
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	zelos...@gmail.com
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	Eram semper recta
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	zelos...@gmail.com
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	Eram semper recta
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	zelos...@gmail.com
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	Eram semper recta
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	zelos...@gmail.com
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	Eram semper recta
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	zelos...@gmail.com
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	markus...@gmail.com
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven constructive	FromTheRafters
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	markus...@gmail.com
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	zelos...@gmail.com
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	Eram semper recta
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	zelos...@gmail.com
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	Eram semper recta
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	markus...@gmail.com
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	markus...@gmail.com
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven constructive	markus...@gmail.com
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven constructive	Eram semper recta
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven constructive	zelos...@gmail.com
Re: Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven	zelos...@gmail.com