I first made contact with the flawed mainstream formulation of calculus in the encyclopedia Britannica. It was on page 600 of that edition. In the following article I give you a glimpse into my genius mind and share some of my thoughts with lesser mortals such as you.

https://www.academia.edu/61998111/My_First_Contact_with_the_flawed_mainstream_calculus

Some excerpts:

As you can see, it was called the “Calculus of Differences”, which is somewhat of a misnomer. This raised the first red flag in my mind. It’s not as if the “Calculus of Variations” is a different kind of calculus at all. The latter is optimisation using calculus. Karen Uhlenbeck(who in her silly Abel prize winner speech claimed that it is not just about optimisation clearly never understood calculus), the Abel prize laureate was recognised for her “work” in this respect. So, both these expressions are extraneous verbiage. The name is simply “Calculus”.

For starters, the mainstream morons of math academia(BIG STUPID incorrigible apes) obfuscated these definitions even further while claiming they had rigorised calculus. The use of omega (w) was dropped for h.
Next, they added the flawed concept of limit, not realising that the expression called a finite difference is stated as an equation using my historic geometric identity of January2020:

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

In effect, what the buffoons of mainstream math academia had done was to take the limit of a constant, ie, Q(x,h), which even in their theory cannot change, but in the limit definition, it goes to ZERO!

If it is not zero, the RHS is no longer equal to the LHS. The baboons reason as follows:

lim_{h->0} [ f(x+h)-f(x) ] / h = f'(x) + lim_{h->0} Q(x,h)

There are so many things wrong with what the orangutans did.

1. The limit of a constant is the constant itself.
2. They assume that only f'(x) remains constant.
3. The limit definition itself is circular, because as an MIT master graduate (an imbecile called Anders Kaesorg) once said:

"The definition of the derivative in standard calculus is
f'(x) is the number m, iff it exists) such that for all epsilon > 0, there exists a delta > 0, such that for all h =/= 0, with |h|<delta, | f(x+h)-f(x) ] / h -m | < epsilon."

Dunno about you, but isn't the derivative m used in its own definition?
m is the derivative which is used in the verifinition (portmanteau of verification and definition). In other words, this was all magic! Chuckle.

Until my historic geometric theorem, the apes of mainstream academia had no valid systematic way of computing the derivative, never mind the definite integral!

In another comment he was called out about claiming that h can never be zero, however, the effect of taking the limit of the constant (mind you!)
Q(x,h) is equivalent to setting h=0!

By the time I was 13 years of age, I had already taught myself the garbage of mainstream calculus. I would be modest if I said that my knowledge of calculus at that age had already surpassed that of any mainstream professor of mathematics.

One wonders if the previous form was purposely used in an act of willful deception. The higher up the academic math ape, the more chances are that it is a well-known fact the definition was flawed and they had no clue how to fix it. Since they did not know, the next best thing was to pile up tons of rubbish theory such as the construction of “real numbers” which is a fallacy since there is no valid construction. Add in the laughable ZFC axioms and who would even dare to challenge the authenticity of their utter rot.

Then at the beginning of the twentieth century, very bad ideas such as instantaneous rate of change were introduced by the idiots at the top Ivy League unis. One such idiot is Prof. Gilbert Strang (MIT) - a proper idiot if there ever was one.

All the mainstream academics I have encountered are incompetent, ignorant, arrogant and incorrigibly stupid. The few that know I am right, are too cowardly to step forward and say so.

Eram semper recta wrote:

> I first made contact with the flawed mainstream formulation of calculus
> in the encyclopedia Britannica. It was on page 600 of that edition. In
> the following article I give you a glimpse into my genius mind and share
> some of my thoughts with lesser mortals such as you.

you are a capitalist wanting making money on your science. Kiss my ass.

Em 05/12/2021 09:14, Eram semper recta escreveu:
> I first made contact with the flawed mainstream formulation of calculus in the encyclopedia Britannica. It was on page 600 of that edition. In the following article I give you a glimpse into my genius mind and share some of my thoughts with lesser mortals such as you.

No geniuses ever call themselves geniuses. Suck it, crank.

nabru
--
nabru | "This PIZZA symbolizes |
| my COMPLETE EMOTIONAL RECOVERY!!" |
------ ------------------------------------

On 12/5/2021 10:41 AM, nabru wrote:
> Em 05/12/2021 09:14, Eram semper recta escreveu:
>> I first made contact with the flawed mainstream formulation of
>> calculus in the encyclopedia Britannica. It was on page 600 of that
>> edition. In the following article I give you a glimpse into my genius
>> mind and share some of my thoughts with lesser mortals such as you.
>
> No geniuses ever call themselves geniuses. Suck it, crank.

Correct.

If other people call you a genius, you're probably a genius.
If you call yourself a genius, you're probably a crackpot.

Not just Gabriel, but look at the other self-proclaimed "greatest" who
hang out in this and related groups. Plutonium, Banerjee,...

söndag 5 december 2021 kl. 13:14:25 UTC+1 skrev Eram semper recta:
> I first made contact with the flawed mainstream formulation of calculus in the encyclopedia Britannica. It was on page 600 of that edition. In the following article I give you a glimpse into my genius mind and share some of my thoughts with lesser mortals such as you.
>
> https://www.academia.edu/61998111/My_First_Contact_with_the_flawed_mainstream_calculus
>
> Some excerpts:
>
> As you can see, it was called the “Calculus of Differences”, which is somewhat of a misnomer. This raised the first red flag in my mind. It’s not as if the “Calculus of Variations” is a different kind of calculus at all. The latter is optimisation using calculus. Karen Uhlenbeck(who in her silly Abel prize winner speech claimed that it is not just about optimisation clearly never understood calculus), the Abel prize laureate was recognised for her “work” in this respect. So, both these expressions are extraneous verbiage. The name is simply “Calculus”.
>
>
> For starters, the mainstream morons of math academia(BIG STUPID incorrigible apes) obfuscated these definitions even further while claiming they had rigorised calculus. The use of omega (w) was dropped for h.
> Next, they added the flawed concept of limit, not realising that the expression called a finite difference is stated as an equation using my historic geometric identity of January2020:
>
> [ f(x+h)-f(x) ] / h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
>
> In effect, what the buffoons of mainstream math academia had done was to take the limit of a constant, ie, Q(x,h), which even in their theory cannot change, but in the limit definition, it goes to ZERO!
>
> If it is not zero, the RHS is no longer equal to the LHS. The baboons reason as follows:
>
> lim_{h->0} [ f(x+h)-f(x) ] / h = f'(x) + lim_{h->0} Q(x,h)
>
> There are so many things wrong with what the orangutans did.
>
> 1. The limit of a constant is the constant itself.
> 2. They assume that only f'(x) remains constant.
> 3. The limit definition itself is circular, because as an MIT master graduate (an imbecile called Anders Kaesorg) once said:
>
> "The definition of the derivative in standard calculus is
> f'(x) is the number m, iff it exists) such that for all epsilon > 0, there exists a delta > 0, such that for all h =/= 0, with |h|<delta, | f(x+h)-f(x) ] / h -m | < epsilon."
>
> Dunno about you, but isn't the derivative m used in its own definition?
>
> m is the derivative which is used in the verifinition (portmanteau of verification and definition). In other words, this was all magic! Chuckle.
>
> Until my historic geometric theorem, the apes of mainstream academia had no valid systematic way of computing the derivative, never mind the definite integral!
>
> In another comment he was called out about claiming that h can never be zero, however, the effect of taking the limit of the constant (mind you!)
> Q(x,h) is equivalent to setting h=0!
>
> By the time I was 13 years of age, I had already taught myself the garbage of mainstream calculus. I would be modest if I said that my knowledge of calculus at that age had already surpassed that of any mainstream professor of mathematics.
>
>
> One wonders if the previous form was purposely used in an act of willful deception. The higher up the academic math ape, the more chances are that it is a well-known fact the definition was flawed and they had no clue how to fix it. Since they did not know, the next best thing was to pile up tons of rubbish theory such as the construction of “real numbers” which is a fallacy since there is no valid construction. Add in the laughable ZFC axioms and who would even dare to challenge the authenticity of their utter rot.
>
> Then at the beginning of the twentieth century, very bad ideas such as instantaneous rate of change were introduced by the idiots at the top Ivy League unis. One such idiot is Prof. Gilbert Strang (MIT) - a proper idiot if there ever was one.
>
> All the mainstream academics I have encountered are incompetent, ignorant, arrogant and incorrigibly stupid. The few that know I am right, are too cowardly to step forward and say so.
still spewing garbage