First learn how my historic geometric identity of January 2020 proves your mainstream formulation of calculus is an elaborate fraud:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

Seeing is believing, so download the following applet and watch how my historic geometric theorem works for any given function:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ON1GQ7b6UNpZSEEsbG14eAFCPv8p03pv

There are no viruses or spy software in my applets and to my knowledge most browsers will warn you before you download any malicious code in applets. Don't waste your time on the fraudulent mainstream formulation of calculus which cannot be understood because it is anti-mathematical nonsense. Download my applet now and gain understanding and knowledge you couldn't find at school or university!

Second, learn how it fixes the mainstream bogus definition of definite integral:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y

Third, study my free eBook because not only your mathematical future depends on it but also your sanity!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO

Lastly, ignore all the trolls and cranks such as Dan Christensen, Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python aka YBM aka JPM), Jan Burse, Michael MORONey, QB, Earle, Jens Stuckelberger, Jan Bilawski, Zelos Malum, Markus Klyver, Alan McKenzie, Ludwig Poehlman (certified crank aka Archimedes Plutonium) etc. These fools have nothing to say about my work. All they know is how to throw shade because they are ignorant, arrogant, incompetent and incorrigibly stupid.

I shall not respond to any of them again.

At times it's good to laugh at the stupidity and dishonesty of mainstream academics. However, the situation is dire when religion trumps common sense:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9

This comment will be periodically reposted for the sake of new visitors.

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of JG's fake math

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 12:12:03 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel (JG), Troll Boy) wrote:
> First learn of my historic ignorance...

JG here claims to have a discovered a shortcut to mastering calculus without using limits. Unfortunately for him, this means he has no workable a definition of the derivative of a function. It blows up for functions as simple f(x)=|x|. Or even f(x)=0. As a result, he has had to ban 0, negative numbers and instantaneous rates of change rendering his goofy little system quite useless. What a moron!

Forget calculus. JG has also banned all axioms because he cannot even derive the most elementary results of basic arithmetic, e.g. 2+2=4. Such results require the use of axioms, so he must figure he's now off the hook. Again, what a moron!

Even at his advanced age (60+?), John Gabriel is STILL struggling with basic, elementary-school arithmetic. As he has repeatedly posted here:

"There are no points on a line."
--April 12, 2021

"Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
--July 10, 2020

"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017

“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015

"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
--October 28, 2017

"Zero is not a number."
-- Dec. 2, 2019

"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017

“There is no such thing as an empty set.”
--Oct. 4, 2019

“3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
--Oct. 22, 2019

No math genius our JG, though he actually lists his job title as “mathematician” at Linkedin.com. Apparently, they do not verify your credentials.

Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated March 10, 2020) at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog a http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

måndag 4 oktober 2021 kl. 06:12:03 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> First learn how my historic geometric identity of January 2020 proves your mainstream formulation of calculus is an elaborate fraud:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> Seeing is believing, so download the following applet and watch how my historic geometric theorem works for any given function:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ON1GQ7b6UNpZSEEsbG14eAFCPv8p03pv
>
> There are no viruses or spy software in my applets and to my knowledge most browsers will warn you before you download any malicious code in applets.. Don't waste your time on the fraudulent mainstream formulation of calculus which cannot be understood because it is anti-mathematical nonsense. Download my applet now and gain understanding and knowledge you couldn't find at school or university!
>
> Second, learn how it fixes the mainstream bogus definition of definite integral:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
>
> Third, study my free eBook because not only your mathematical future depends on it but also your sanity!
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
>
> Lastly, ignore all the trolls and cranks such as Dan Christensen, Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python aka YBM aka JPM), Jan Burse, Michael MORONey, QB, Earle, Jens Stuckelberger, Jan Bilawski, Zelos Malum, Markus Klyver, Alan McKenzie, Ludwig Poehlman (certified crank aka Archimedes Plutonium) etc. These fools have nothing to say about my work. All they know is how to throw shade because they are ignorant, arrogant, incompetent and incorrigibly stupid.
>
> I shall not respond to any of them again.
>
> At times it's good to laugh at the stupidity and dishonesty of mainstream academics. However, the situation is dire when religion trumps common sense:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9
>
> This comment will be periodically reposted for the sake of new visitors.
So you admit you intend to spam

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 1:30:41 AM UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 4 oktober 2021 kl. 06:12:03 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:

> > This comment will be periodically reposted for the sake of new visitors..
> So you admit you intend to spam

John Gabriel's New Year's Resolution for 2017:

"I'll just keep spamming!"
-- Dec. 25, 2016

He can't win any debates here, but he sure can spam!

Also don't trust Dan-O-Matik, he now claims that:

ALL(x):[ALL(y):[K(x) <=> y=x] => B(x)]

Says "the one present king of France is bald".

Can you spot the error?

Dan Christensen schrieb am Montag, 4. Oktober 2021 um 17:33:59 UTC+2:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 1:30:41 AM UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > måndag 4 oktober 2021 kl. 06:12:03 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
>
> > > This comment will be periodically reposted for the sake of new visitors.
> > So you admit you intend to spam
> John Gabriel's New Year's Resolution for 2017:
>
> "I'll just keep spamming!"
> -- Dec. 25, 2016
>
> He can't win any debates here, but he sure can spam!

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-4, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> Also don't trust Dan-O-Matik, he now claims that:
>
> ALL(x):[ALL(y):[K(x) <=> y=x] => B(x)]
>
> Says "the one present king of France is bald".
>

Some trolls here do not understand the notion of vacuous truth. And they refuse to be educated. You can't fix stupid.

Dan

Well if there are two or more kings the results should be
false and not true. But now one can prove with your take
of "the X is Y"_2 (Danish):

Just enter:

∃x∃y(Kx ∧ Ky ∧ ¬(x=y)) → ∀x(∀y(Ky ↔ y=x) → Bx)
https://www.umsu.de/trees/

And you will get:
∃x∃y(Kx ∧ (Ky ∧ ¬x=y)) → ∀x(∀y(Ky ↔ y=x) → Bx) is valid.

Dan Christensen schrieb am Montag, 4. Oktober 2021 um 17:53:09 UTC+2:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-4, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > Also don't trust Dan-O-Matik, he now claims that:
> >
> > ALL(x):[ALL(y):[K(x) <=> y=x] => B(x)]
> >
> > Says "the one present king of France is bald".
> >
> Some trolls here do not understand the notion of vacuous truth. And they refuse to be educated. You can't fix stupid.
>
> Dan

Just imagine you were robbed at gun point,
and you report to the police:

the thief was female and had blue eyes

With "the X is Y"_2 (Danish) translation, the
police report would be also satisfied by

Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, all male
and with brown eyes.

LMAO!

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Montag, 4. Oktober 2021 um 18:01:54 UTC+2:
> Well if there are two or more kings the results should be
> false and not true. But now one can prove with your take
> of "the X is Y"_2 (Danish):
>
> Just enter:
>
> ∃x∃y(Kx ∧ Ky ∧ ¬(x=y)) → ∀x(∀y(Ky ↔ y=x) → Bx)
> https://www.umsu.de/trees/
>
> And you will get:
> ∃x∃y(Kx ∧ (Ky ∧ ¬x=y)) → ∀x(∀y(Ky ↔ y=x) → Bx) is valid.
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Montag, 4. Oktober 2021 um 17:53:09 UTC+2:
> > On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-4, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > > Also don't trust Dan-O-Matik, he now claims that:
> > >
> > > ALL(x):[ALL(y):[K(x) <=> y=x] => B(x)]
> > >
> > > Says "the one present king of France is bald".
> > >
> > Some trolls here do not understand the notion of vacuous truth. And they refuse to be educated. You can't fix stupid.
> >
> > Dan

Ha Ha, is so much more fun to use https://www.umsu.de/trees/
than DC Proof. Finally a system with a tactic, the tactic is

give me anything and I will do my best. And its even online!!!
Now I wonder why I dont have Collected Works Of Larry Wos

at home. Too heavy for my ikea book shelf?

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Montag, 4. Oktober 2021 um 18:33:59 UTC+2:
> Just imagine you were robbed at gun point,
> and you report to the police:
>
> the thief was female and had blue eyes
>
> With "the X is Y"_2 (Danish) translation, the
> police report would be also satisfied by
>
> Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, all male
> and with brown eyes.
>
> LMAO!
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Montag, 4. Oktober 2021 um 18:01:54 UTC+2:
> > Well if there are two or more kings the results should be
> > false and not true. But now one can prove with your take
> > of "the X is Y"_2 (Danish):
> >
> > Just enter:
> >
> > ∃x∃y(Kx ∧ Ky ∧ ¬(x=y)) → ∀x(∀y(Ky ↔ y=x) → Bx)
> > https://www.umsu.de/trees/
> >
> > And you will get:
> > ∃x∃y(Kx ∧ (Ky ∧ ¬x=y)) → ∀x(∀y(Ky ↔ y=x) → Bx) is valid.
> > Dan Christensen schrieb am Montag, 4. Oktober 2021 um 17:53:09 UTC+2:
> > > On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-4, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > > > Also don't trust Dan-O-Matik, he now claims that:
> > > >
> > > > ALL(x):[ALL(y):[K(x) <=> y=x] => B(x)]
> > > >
> > > > Says "the one present king of France is bald".
> > > >
> > > Some trolls here do not understand the notion of vacuous truth. And they refuse to be educated. You can't fix stupid.
> > >
> > > Dan

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 12:01:54 PM UTC-4, Mostowski Collapse wrote:

> Dan Christensen schrieb am Montag, 4. Oktober 2021 um 17:53:09 UTC+2:
> > On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-4, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > > Also don't trust Dan-O-Matik, he now claims that:
> > >
> > > ALL(x):[ALL(y):[K(x) <=> y=x] => B(x)]
> > >
> > > Says "the one present king of France is bald".
> > >
> > Some trolls here do not understand the notion of vacuous truth. And they refuse to be educated. You can't fix stupid.
> >

> Well if there are two or more kings the results should be
> false and not true.

Here we go again!

In a proof, if you assume there are no kings, and then assume there ARE some king(s), what can you infer, Jan Burse?

Dan

I do nowhere assume there is no king. I only proved:
Just enter:

∃x∃y(Kx ∧ Ky ∧ ¬(x=y)) → ∀x(∀y(Ky ↔ y=x) → Bx)
https://www.umsu.de/trees/

Why would I assume no king? The "is X the Y" translation
should also work outside of France. Also your no king argument
doesn't make any sense. Just imagine you were robbed at

gun point, and you report to the police:

- the thief was female and had blue eyes.

With "the X is Y"_2 (Danish) translation, the police report would be also satisfied by

- Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, all mal and with brown eyes.
- No robber at all.

LoL!

Dan Christensen schrieb am Montag, 4. Oktober 2021 um 19:19:48 UTC+2:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 12:01:54 PM UTC-4, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>
> > Dan Christensen schrieb am Montag, 4. Oktober 2021 um 17:53:09 UTC+2:
> > > On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-4, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > > > Also don't trust Dan-O-Matik, he now claims that:
> > > >
> > > > ALL(x):[ALL(y):[K(x) <=> y=x] => B(x)]
> > > >
> > > > Says "the one present king of France is bald".
> > > >
> > > Some trolls here do not understand the notion of vacuous truth. And they refuse to be educated. You can't fix stupid.
> > >
> > Well if there are two or more kings the results should be
> > false and not true.
> Here we go again!
>
> In a proof, if you assume there are no kings, and then assume there ARE some king(s), what can you infer, Jan Burse?
>
> Dan

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 1:29:01 PM UTC-4, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> I do nowhere assume there is no king.

That's why you are getting all the wrong answers, saying things are false when they are actually vacuously true.

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com