4- Kibo Parry Moron waxing on why MIT Gilbert Strang is a failure of mathematics and should stop writing calculus textbooks
8k views

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 23, 2022, 3:44:17 PM (22 hours ago)



to
On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 3:10:02 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"failed goonclod of math" flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
>of Math andof Physics "Bozo of Math"
> fails at math and science:
> > AP requires the entire MIT math dept especially Gilbert Strang to publish in the student newspaper en-masse

Kibo Parry Moron does not mince words in his disgust of the failed Gilbert Strang in mathematics. But Kibo is short on details. Here are the details.

1) Strang has been in math education all his life, yet the imp could never recognize that a single cone has but 1 axis of symmetry, meaning that the slant cut could never be an ellipse but had to be a oval.

2) A real mathematician that writes calculus textbooks is expected to define what the hell are the numbers he is going to use throughout the text to teach Calculus. But no Gilbert Strang is such a scatterbrain, that he never defines-- what the hell are your numbers Gilbert? And has the audacity to define Complex numbers on page 360 but never what the hell are his original numbers.

3) Taking a look at the very first page of Strang's Calculus, 1991, and I hope any new editions were denied so as to save our young students the agony of using a scatterbrained calculus book. But looking at the very first page is revealing as to whether any math textbook is worthy of using in education.

And here, Strang on the very first page reveals not his scatterbrain mind in math, but reveals he never understood Calculus in the first place. For he ends the first page with the stark mistake of saying "The central question of calculus is the relation between v and f."

No, Strang, you math moron. The central question of calculus involves the two new operators of integral and derivative, (other than add, subtract, multiply and divide) for integral and derivative are new operators and the question about integral and derivative is the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

Of course we can count on scatterbrain Strang to call Calculus just a tiny part of the derivative, and totally amiss of the integral.

So, yes, Kibo Parry Moron is correct in saying that Gilbert Strang is a failure of math, not just because Strang cannot tell apart a ellipse from a oval, nor can he ever do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, but that Gilbert Strang was never a mathematician in the first place.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics