måndag 27 september 2021 kl. 14:27:02 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 27 September 2021 at 12:24:05 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > måndag 27 september 2021 kl. 07:39:22 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Monday, 27 September 2021 at 08:00:30 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > söndag 26 september 2021 kl. 06:57:14 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Saturday, 25 September 2021 at 20:18:03 UTC+3, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:10:19 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 12:49:10 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > fredag 17 september 2021 kl. 08:04:54 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 19:25:48 UTC+3, markus....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > torsdag 16 september 2021 kl. 07:37:34 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:25:42 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 15 september 2021 kl. 22:12:36 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 20:19:44 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don'y hate it. I just think it's wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You hate it because you know you're wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > That's not it, chief.
> > > > > > > > > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > :-)))))
> > > > > > > > > > As real numbers, yes.
> > > > > > > > > NO. Pi is NEVER a factor of 6.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A factor k of any p, can only be a factor of p IF k divides p without remainder. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Time for you to go back to primary school.
> > > > > > > > there are no remainders in a field,
> > > > > > > Irrelevant, because a field is irrelevant.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>. How embarrassing!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > LMAO.
> > > > > > A factorisation of some element a is a=b*c.
> > > > > We are not talking about the garbage of elements or set theory but well-formed concepts such as numbers and magnitudes.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do not subscribe to your bullshit.
> > > > > > You can do this for any field.
> > > > > In your Alice-In-Wonderland, your imagination can run wild, but in mathematics, we talk about measure and number. Nothing else.
> > > > > > Let a be non-negative. Then a=b*(a/b), so any non-negative b is a factor of a.
> > > > > Nonsense! Unbelievable what a crank you are!
> > > > > "h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > >
> > > > > "π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)
> > > > > You have yet to admit that you made a grave error and are a disgrace to the institution (Chambers in Sweden) where you claim to study.
> > > > Mathematics is not about your idea of "measure"
> > > It's not my idea. Mathematics is the science of measure and number.
> > >
> > > Since you love citations:
> > >
> > > mathematics, the science of structure, order, and relation that has evolved from elemental practices of counting, measuring, and describing the shapes of objects. - https://www.britannica.com/science/mathematics
> > >
> > > : the science of numbers and their operations - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mathematics
> > >
> > > Let me know if you need more. LMAO.
> > > > and it is not focused on "numbers", especially not your idea of it. It is far bigger than that.
> > > The most important concept in mathematics is *NUMBER* and it can only be derived flawlessly using the theory of the ELEMENTS of EUCLID, the one and ONLY true foundation of mathematics.
> > notice they say STRUCTURE, ORDER, ANDER RELATIONS that has EVOLVED from....
> > so even your citation says it is MORE than what you want it to be.
> Exactly, and none of those mean what you think, ie, groups, fields, etc.
>
> Evolution is an idea. The mathematics of the Ancient Greeks has NOT evolved at all.
>
> Till this day, when you multiply p/q by r/s, the result is exactly the same as it was 2400 years ago, ie pr/qs.
>
> Dumbo is what you will always be.

Actually it would include abstract algebra. Because it is a structure that evolved from our initial ideas of numbers. You are really stupid.

Theory of evolution is not part of this but evolution itself is a fact and mathematics HAS evolved, as in CHANGED, over time.

We use the same rational structure because it is useful but we have understood it better with more abstract tools and developed new ones that are useful as well. Things far too advanced for your stupid brain.