tisdag 7 juni 2022 kl. 06:37:59 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
>
> 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 as long as I am alive.
>
> 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 themselves alarmed because their days of deception are numbered. I am their prime target
> because the more I publish facts (truth), the more I am hated for it. Even the certified 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 the 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 that of 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 hand waving circular nonsense 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 primates 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.
>
> ****A crank is one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.****
>
> The majority of mainstream mathematics academics are cranks or truth-deniers.
false