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

Applet which explains the definite integral without any ill-formed concepts such as infinity, infinitesimals or the circular rot of limit theory:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JYRxjGb3MxlYWp_2KqVXwXNr5XUvUNz7

A video explaining the new applet:

https://youtu.be/TJqvbshIGtg

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. Unfortunately, sci.math has become the mainstream's "Truth Network" - replete with paid trolls, some of whose names are mentioned in this paragraph. These fools have lost the privilege of being educated by me. Gracing them with any kind of response is like placing a prized pearl on a pile of dung.

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.

My lecture on the true Foundations of Mathematics was recorded.

You can download it here:

https://youtu.be/_WZJY1xgJTk

The Gift applet (almost in power point format!):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SYT-MbYtXUAYgwPeTgZ8QC8gxNpj-fap

Remember, you cannot understand mathematics without me because no one understands mathematics as well as I do. The lecture is a bit on the slow side (because of my health issues), BUT you will learn more about the foundations of mathematics than you ever knew your entire life!

The Elements is not about geometry. It's not about algebra. It's not about constructions. It is a template for the realisation of all SCIENCE.

I quote a Greek scholar (http://www.physics.ntua.gr/mourmouras/euclid/common/anti_prologou.html):

Τα Στοιχεία Ευκλείδου δέν είναι Γεωμετρία (ούτε επιπεδομετρία, ούτε γεωμετρία χώρου), απλώς μπορούν να παραχθούν από αύτα «Γεωμετρίες» (είτε «Ευκλείδειες,» είτε «μή Ευκλείδειες», κλπ), όπως επίσης μπορούν να παραχθούν πολλές άλλες θεωρίες «Μαθηματικές» καί όχι μόνο, π.χ. Θεωρία Αριθμών, Aναλογίες, Aσύμμετρα Μεγέθη, Θεωρία της Σχετικότητας, κ.α.

Τα Στοιχεία τού Ευκλείδου δεν είναι ούτε αντικείμενα του Πραγματικού κόσμου, καίούτε είναι αντικείμενα τών Μαθηματικών, αλλά χωρίς αυτά, όλα τά παραπάνω δέν μπορούν να περιγραφούν, να κατανοηθούν, να ερμηνευτούν.

Πολλοί συγχέουν τον πραγματικό χώρο τών «Φυσικών» επιστημών με τά Στοιχεία Ευκλείδου. Aπό τα Στοιχεία Ευκλείδου προέρχονται οί πλείστες μαθηματικές καί φυσικές επιστήμες, τόσο οί παραδοσιακές όσο καί οί μοντέρνες. Γιά τις τεχνολογίες αυτό είναι προφανές.

Τα Στοιχεία Ευκλείδου αποτελούν ένα ενιαίον όλο, ένα «Σύστημα», τό οποίο είναι «κλειστό καί ἀνοικτό», τόσο όσο καί ή σκέψη, ό λόγος καί ή γραμματική τής ανθρώπινης υπόστασης. H πληρότητα καί ἡ συνέπεια είναι δομημένες μέ έναν εκπληκτικό τρόπο, πού τό καθιστούν μοναδικό.

My καθαρεύουσα (high Greek) Greek is very poor, but here is my translation:

Euclidean Elements are not Geometry (neither plane geometry nor space geometry), from these can be produced "Geometries" (either "Euclidean" or "non-Euclidean", etc.), as well as many other "Mathematical" theories can be produced and not only, e.g. Number Theory, Proportions, Asymmetric Sizes, Theory of Relativity, etc.

The Elements of Euclid are neither objects of the real world, nor are they objects of Mathematics, but without them, all the above cannot be described, understood, interpreted. Many confuse the real world of the "Natural" sciences with the Euclidean Elements. Most of the mathematical and natural sciences, both traditional and modern, come from the Euclidean Elements. For technologies this is obvious.

The Euclidean Elements constitute a single whole, a "System", which is "closed and open", as much as the thought, reason and grammar of the human condition. Completeness and consistency are structured in an amazing way, which make it unique.

----------------------------------------------------------

This professor (of Physics and mathematics) also reads all the Ancient texts and gives lectures. He is quite an interesting academic and very learned. He is currently reading all of Aristotle's texts:

https://www.youtube.com/c/DimitriosMourmouras

What you probably do not know is that there is no mention of any of the following words in the Elements:

axiom
geometry
straight-edge or ruler
compass

The diagrams are merely used as a means of communicating the relationships between points (location) and distances (lines).

The Elements is a product of pure thought that was realised first by the brilliant Ancient Greeks.

Become a subscriber to my New Calculus YT channel to learn more mathematics than you learned in all your school and university years:

https://www.youtube.com/c/JohnGabriel/videos

Mainstream mathematics has turned into a universe of alternate "facts". The majority of mainstream academics are stupid and ignorant beyond belief so that mainstream math is today more of a cult than the science it was meant to be.

Unfortunately mainstream academia does not teach one how to think, only to memorise the prescribed doctrines that form their official statement of beliefs. Free yourself from the utter bullshit you are forced to memorise and if you're honest with yourself, will admit that you never actually understand.

Mainstream academia are shitting themselves because their days are numbered.. I am their prime target because the more I publish facts (truth), the more I am hated for it. Even the cranks (Archimedes Plutonium aka Ludwig Poehlman) join in the mocking spectacle.

Don't believe a word I say, but prove that what I say is indeed the case. How, you ask? Use your brain!

There's more....

Learn about the BIG LIE "Calculus was made rigorous...":

https://www.academia.edu/45408445/Big_Lie_Calculus_was_made_rigorous

"Why can’t you understand the difference between assuming that f'(x)=3x^2, as a “fact” upon which to build further proofs, and hypothesizing that f'(x) might equal 3x^2, as a guess to be treated with extreme suspicion and checked using the definition before I’m allowed to write f'(x)=3x^2?" - Anders Kaesorg.

The 5 Step method is outlined below and it summarises the mindset of most morons from MIT:

1. Assumption of fact
2. Hypothesis
3. Probability
4. Suspicion
5. Verification

;-)

https://youtu.be/gX5Bt8BEdNM

Subscribe to my YT Channel - the best math channel on the web:

https://www.youtube.com/c/JohnGabriel/videos

Who gave you the 0.999... and 0.333...:

Euler wrote a very good book on algebra but unfortunately it was soiled with his delusional notions.

Daher ist uns Bruch 1/(1+a) gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a + aa -aaa + ...&c.

Therefore is our fraction 1/(1+a) equal to this infinite series 1 - a + aa -aaa + ...&c.

1/(1+a) is the <<limit>> of the series <<1 - a + aa -aaa + ...&c.>>

Ergo, Lim S = S or S = Lim S.

There is much more in the following link:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH

Free your mind from the religious rot of mainstream mathematics academia which is a full-blown cult, not too different from Trump's supporters.

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 2:36:26 AM UTC-5, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel (JG) wrote:

> First learn ...

Taking a page out of your Archie Poo's playbook, Mr. Rectum? Do you REALLY want to end up like him?

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

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

Thats a nice list. But the more important question is,
how many identity functions do exist in DC Proof?

Dan Christensen schrieb am Freitag, 17. Dezember 2021 um 20:09:57 UTC+1:
> On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 2:36:26 AM UTC-5, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel (JG) wrote:
>
> > First learn ...
>
> Taking a page out of your Archie Poo's playbook, Mr. Rectum? Do you REALLY want to end up like him?
>
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of JG's fake math
>
> 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

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 7:28:40 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> Thats a nice list. But the more important question is,
> how many identity functions do exist in DC Proof?

Jan Burse here seems to believe that the truth value of y=f(x) can be determined even if x is NOT in the domain of function f. Jan Burse and JG -- a match made in heaven!

Dan

Yes P(x,y) is false outside of the domain.
This follows from Terence Tao:

"let P(x,y) be a property pertaining to an object x ∈ X and an object y ∈ Y"
https://lms.umb.sk/pluginfile.php/111477/mod_page/content/5/TerenceTao_Analysis.I.Third.Edition.pdf

Thats easy to prove.

Dan Christensen schrieb am Samstag, 18. Dezember 2021 um 05:21:46 UTC+1:
> On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 7:28:40 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > Thats a nice list. But the more important question is,
> > how many identity functions do exist in DC Proof?
> Jan Burse here seems to believe that the truth value of y=f(x) can be determined even if x is NOT in the domain of function f. Jan Burse and JG -- a match made in heaven!
>
> Dan

You can also try Terence Tao decrement example:

Example 3.3.2:
Unfortunately this does not define a function, because
when x = 0 there is no natural number y whose increment
is equal to x (Axiom 2.3). On the other hand, we can legitimately
define a decrement function h : N\{0} → N associated to
the property P(x,y) defined by y++ = x.

I think its is provable:

~EXIST(y):P(0,y)

Or do you claim otherwise?
Do you also have dark booleans for decrement?

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 18. Dezember 2021 um 14:13:40 UTC+1:
> Yes P(x,y) is false outside of the domain.
> This follows from Terence Tao:
>
> "let P(x,y) be a property pertaining to an object x ∈ X and an object y ∈ Y"
> https://lms.umb.sk/pluginfile.php/111477/mod_page/content/5/TerenceTao_Analysis.I.Third.Edition.pdf
>
> Thats easy to prove.
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Samstag, 18. Dezember 2021 um 05:21:46 UTC+1:
> > On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 7:28:40 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > > Thats a nice list. But the more important question is,
> > > how many identity functions do exist in DC Proof?
> > Jan Burse here seems to believe that the truth value of y=f(x) can be determined even if x is NOT in the domain of function f. Jan Burse and JG -- a match made in heaven!
> >
> > Dan

On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 8:13:40 AM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> Yes P(x,y) is false outside of the domain.
> This follows from Terence Tao:
>
> "let P(x,y) be a property pertaining to an object x ∈ X and an object y ∈ Y"
> https://lms.umb.sk/pluginfile.php/111477/mod_page/content/5/TerenceTao_Analysis.I.Third.Edition.pdf
>

Look harder, Jan Burse. Notice that in his definition of a function, Tao restricts quantifiers to elements of the domain or codomain/range set. As such, no truth value can be assigned to y=f(x) for x outside of the domain of any function f. We say that f is undefined in such cases.

It's just the basic set theory that is used in almost every math textbook, Jan Burse. Maybe JG can loan you his beige math book. How about it, JG?

Dan

The harder I look the less your nonsense makes any sense. Those
people calling other people cranks, are often cranks themselves.

Can you show us the decrement function in DC Proof. If
I take your approach and only define it as:

ALL(a):[a in N \ {0} => h(a)++ = a]

I can still prove in DC Proof:

EXIST(b):h(0)=b

But Terrence Tao says "decrement function h : N\{0} → N
associated to the property P(x,y) defined by y++ = x".

Dan Christensen schrieb am Samstag, 18. Dezember 2021 um 14:44:53 UTC+1:
> On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 8:13:40 AM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > Yes P(x,y) is false outside of the domain.
> > This follows from Terence Tao:
> >
> > "let P(x,y) be a property pertaining to an object x ∈ X and an object y ∈ Y"
> > https://lms.umb.sk/pluginfile.php/111477/mod_page/content/5/TerenceTao_Analysis.I.Third.Edition.pdf
> >
> Look harder, Jan Burse. Notice that in his definition of a function, Tao restricts quantifiers to elements of the domain or codomain/range set. As such, no truth value can be assigned to y=f(x) for x outside of the domain of any function f. We say that f is undefined in such cases.
>
> It's just the basic set theory that is used in almost every math textbook, Jan Burse. Maybe JG can loan you his beige math book. How about it, JG?
>
> Dan

You are confusing a theorem about functions, with the
way functions are defined. This here is only a theorem:

Thus, for any x ∈ X and y ∈ Y , y=f(x) ⇐⇒ P(x,y) is true.
https://lms.umb.sk/pluginfile.php/111477/mod_page/content/5/TerenceTao_Analysis.I.Third.Edition.pdf

The word "Thus" tells me its a consequence of how
functions are define, but it is not the function definition

schema itself. There is more going on.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 18. Dezember 2021 um 14:57:56 UTC+1:
> The harder I look the less your nonsense makes any sense. Those
> people calling other people cranks, are often cranks themselves.
>
> Can you show us the decrement function in DC Proof. If
> I take your approach and only define it as:
>
> ALL(a):[a in N \ {0} => h(a)++ = a]
>
> I can still prove in DC Proof:
>
> EXIST(b):h(0)=b
>
> But Terrence Tao says "decrement function h : N\{0} → N
> associated to the property P(x,y) defined by y++ = x".
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Samstag, 18. Dezember 2021 um 14:44:53 UTC+1:
> > On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 8:13:40 AM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > > Yes P(x,y) is false outside of the domain.
> > > This follows from Terence Tao:
> > >
> > > "let P(x,y) be a property pertaining to an object x ∈ X and an object y ∈ Y"
> > > https://lms.umb.sk/pluginfile.php/111477/mod_page/content/5/TerenceTao_Analysis.I.Third.Edition.pdf
> > >
> > Look harder, Jan Burse. Notice that in his definition of a function, Tao restricts quantifiers to elements of the domain or codomain/range set. As such, no truth value can be assigned to y=f(x) for x outside of the domain of any function f. We say that f is undefined in such cases.
> >
> > It's just the basic set theory that is used in almost every math textbook, Jan Burse. Maybe JG can loan you his beige math book. How about it, JG?
> >
> > Dan

On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 9:05:09 AM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> You are confusing a theorem about functions, with the
> way functions are defined. This here is only a theorem:
>
> Thus, for any x ∈ X and y ∈ Y , y=f(x) ⇐⇒ P(x,y) is true.

Grasping at straws as always, Jan Burse? Nowhere does the author suggest that we can assign a truth value to y=f(x) if x is not in the domain of the function f. Just admit you were wrong.

Dan

fredag 17 december 2021 kl. 08:36:26 UTC+1 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
>
> Applet which explains the definite integral without any ill-formed concepts such as infinity, infinitesimals or the circular rot of limit theory:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JYRxjGb3MxlYWp_2KqVXwXNr5XUvUNz7
>
> A video explaining the new applet:
>
> https://youtu.be/TJqvbshIGtg
>
> 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. Unfortunately, sci.math has become the mainstream's "Truth Network" - replete with paid trolls, some of whose names are mentioned in this paragraph. These fools have lost the privilege of being educated by me. Gracing them with any kind of response is like placing a prized pearl on a pile of dung.
>
> 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.
>
> My lecture on the true Foundations of Mathematics was recorded.
>
> You can download it here:
>
> https://youtu.be/_WZJY1xgJTk
>
> The Gift applet (almost in power point format!):
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SYT-MbYtXUAYgwPeTgZ8QC8gxNpj-fap
>
> Remember, you cannot understand mathematics without me because no one understands mathematics as well as I do. The lecture is a bit on the slow side (because of my health issues), BUT you will learn more about the foundations of mathematics than you ever knew your entire life!
>
> The Elements is not about geometry. It's not about algebra. It's not about constructions. It is a template for the realisation of all SCIENCE.
>
> I quote a Greek scholar (http://www.physics.ntua.gr/mourmouras/euclid/common/anti_prologou.html):
>
> Τα Στοιχεία Ευκλείδου δέν είναι Γεωμετρία (ούτε επιπεδομετρία, ούτε γεωμετρία χώρου), απλώς μπορούν να παραχθούν από αύτα «Γεωμετρίες» (είτε «Ευκλείδειες,» είτε «μή Ευκλείδειες», κλπ), όπως επίσης μπορούν να παραχθούν πολλές άλλες θεωρίες «Μαθηματικές» καί όχι μόνο, π.χ. Θεωρία Αριθμών, Aναλογίες, Aσύμμετρα Μεγέθη, Θεωρία της Σχετικότητας, κ.α.
>
> Τα Στοιχεία τού Ευκλείδου δεν είναι ούτε αντικείμενα του Πραγματικού κόσμου, καίούτε είναι αντικείμενα τών Μαθηματικών, αλλά χωρίς αυτά, όλα τά παραπάνω δέν μπορούν να περιγραφούν, να κατανοηθούν, να ερμηνευτούν.
>
> Πολλοί συγχέουν τον πραγματικό χώρο τών «Φυσικών» επιστημών με τά Στοιχεία Ευκλείδου. Aπό τα Στοιχεία Ευκλείδου προέρχονται οί πλείστες μαθηματικές καί φυσικές επιστήμες, τόσο οί παραδοσιακές όσο καί οί μοντέρνες. Γιά τις τεχνολογίες αυτό είναι προφανές.
>
> Τα Στοιχεία Ευκλείδου αποτελούν ένα ενιαίον όλο, ένα «Σύστημα», τό οποίο είναι «κλειστό καί ἀνοικτό», τόσο όσο καί ή σκέψη, ό λόγος καί ή γραμματική τής ανθρώπινης υπόστασης. H πληρότητα καί ἡ συνέπεια είναι δομημένες μέ έναν εκπληκτικό τρόπο, πού τό καθιστούν μοναδικό.
>
> My καθαρεύουσα (high Greek) Greek is very poor, but here is my translation:
>
> Euclidean Elements are not Geometry (neither plane geometry nor space geometry), from these can be produced "Geometries" (either "Euclidean" or "non-Euclidean", etc.), as well as many other "Mathematical" theories can be produced and not only, e.g. Number Theory, Proportions, Asymmetric Sizes, Theory of Relativity, etc.
>
> The Elements of Euclid are neither objects of the real world, nor are they objects of Mathematics, but without them, all the above cannot be described, understood, interpreted. Many confuse the real world of the "Natural" sciences with the Euclidean Elements. Most of the mathematical and natural sciences, both traditional and modern, come from the Euclidean Elements. For technologies this is obvious.
>
> The Euclidean Elements constitute a single whole, a "System", which is "closed and open", as much as the thought, reason and grammar of the human condition. Completeness and consistency are structured in an amazing way, which make it unique.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> This professor (of Physics and mathematics) also reads all the Ancient texts and gives lectures. He is quite an interesting academic and very learned. He is currently reading all of Aristotle's texts:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/c/DimitriosMourmouras
>
> What you probably do not know is that there is no mention of any of the following words in the Elements:
>
> axiom
> geometry
> straight-edge or ruler
> compass
>
> The diagrams are merely used as a means of communicating the relationships between points (location) and distances (lines).
>
> The Elements is a product of pure thought that was realised first by the brilliant Ancient Greeks.
>
> Become a subscriber to my New Calculus YT channel to learn more mathematics than you learned in all your school and university years:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/c/JohnGabriel/videos
>
> Mainstream mathematics has turned into a universe of alternate "facts". The majority of mainstream academics are stupid and ignorant beyond belief so that mainstream math is today more of a cult than the science it was meant to be.
>
> Unfortunately mainstream academia does not teach one how to think, only to memorise the prescribed doctrines that form their official statement of beliefs. Free yourself from the utter bullshit you are forced to memorise and if you're honest with yourself, will admit that you never actually understand.
>
> Mainstream academia are shitting themselves because their days are numbered. I am their prime target because the more I publish facts (truth), the more I am hated for it. Even the cranks (Archimedes Plutonium aka Ludwig Poehlman) join in the mocking spectacle.
>
> Don't believe a word I say, but prove that what I say is indeed the case. How, you ask? Use your brain!
>
> There's more....
>
> Learn about the BIG LIE "Calculus was made rigorous...":
>
> https://www.academia.edu/45408445/Big_Lie_Calculus_was_made_rigorous
>
> "Why can’t you understand the difference between assuming that f'(x)=3x^2, as a “fact” upon which to build further proofs, and hypothesizing that f'(x) might equal 3x^2, as a guess to be treated with extreme suspicion and checked using the definition before I’m allowed to write f'(x)=3x^2?" - Anders Kaesorg.
>
> The 5 Step method is outlined below and it summarises the mindset of most morons from MIT:
>
> 1. Assumption of fact
> 2. Hypothesis
> 3. Probability
> 4. Suspicion
> 5. Verification
>
> ;-)
>
> https://youtu.be/gX5Bt8BEdNM
>
> Subscribe to my YT Channel - the best math channel on the web:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/c/JohnGabriel/videos
>
> Who gave you the 0.999... and 0.333...:
>
> Euler wrote a very good book on algebra but unfortunately it was soiled with his delusional notions.
>
> Daher ist uns Bruch 1/(1+a) gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a + aa -aaa + ...&c.
>
> Therefore is our fraction 1/(1+a) equal to this infinite series 1 - a + aa -aaa + ...&c.
>
> 1/(1+a) is the <<limit>> of the series <<1 - a + aa -aaa + ...&c.>>
>
> Ergo, Lim S = S or S = Lim S.
>
> There is much more in the following link:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
>
> Free your mind from the religious rot of mainstream mathematics academia which is a full-blown cult, not too different from Trump's supporters.
>
> Learn about how dishonest and incompetent mainstream academics failed to realise a rigorous formulation of calculus:
>
> I am a genius who discovered the New Calculus and quite possibly the greatest mathematician of all time. If you said this, no doubt you are a crank, but I am the exception. Don't believe me?
>
> Study my works:
>
> My historic geometric theorem which placed the final nail in the coffin of your bogus mainstream formulation of calculus:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> It's demonstrated for any smooth function in this free applet:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ON1GQ7b6UNpZSEEsbG14eAFCPv8p03pv
>
> Greek language applet:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/120g3VfFFqAzyZWHzHljXZYuWYpl5kUDB
>
> How the theorem fixes your bogus mainstream formulation using Newton's and Leibniz's juvenile ideas:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
>
> Definite integration (no bullshit of limit theory, infinitesimals, infinity, Riemann sums and the myriad of mainstream shit one finds in textbooks) demonstrated for any smooth function in this free applet:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JYRxjGb3MxlYWp_2KqVXwXNr5XUvUNz7
>
> Greek language applet:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iG5Oc7pV3x3AIVcz6Cpd4x5UavYMwhhp
>
> Explaining my historic identity:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sjs3eZJZnwI6caaUA1MtC7FhNYSLfICZ
>
> You won't find this information anywhere else! I offer it free of charge to you.
>
> Today I am the greatest mathematician. If history is written correctly, I will be remembered as the greatest mathematician ever.
>
> It will be your loss if you pass on this once in a lifetime opportunity.
>
> Learn about my first contact with your bullshit mainstream calculus:
>
> 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.

zelos...@gmail.com wrote:

>> 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 making up excuses to not face reality huh?

quote less, you fucking imbecile.