Yes, Euler defined S = Lim S and the evidence is irrefutable. Euler claimed 9.999... = 10.

[Jew Lover]

There are still morons on sci.math who are denying Euler defined S = Lim S. Well, here is yet more evidence Euler did exactly this!

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6486028326468227072

[Me]

On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 1:45:21 AM UTC+1, Jew Lover wrote:
> There are still morons on sci.math who are denying Euler defined S = Lim S. Well, here is yet more evidence Euler did exactly this!
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6486028326468227072

Actually, I don't think that Euler claimed that 0.999... = 10.

[Jew Lover]

What you think (or rather don't think) is irrelevant. Euler's Elements of algebra states this clearly. Paragraph 524 is the evidence as explained in the link.

[Me]

Keep on the good work, John. I'm sure, finally you will suckseed! (Just like Monica Levinsky did.)

[j4n bur53]

New meta stasis of your brain cancer poor boy?

[Dan Christensen]

On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 7:45:21 PM UTC-5, Jew Lover wrote:
> There are still morons on sci.math who are denying Euler defined S = Lim S. Well, here is yet more evidence Euler did exactly this!
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6486028326468227072

HA, HA! Have a look at Troll Boy's pathetic Linkedin page here. The formula "S = Lim S" was only written by him in large red letters, not by Euler. What a pathetic moron!


Interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words (December 2018)” at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Jew Lover]

I've succeeded. It pleases me that you and those like you will no longer obtain a free bullshitting pass. Anyone can read the Elements of Euler to see that he did in fact write 9.999... = 10.

[j4n bur53]

Well 0.999... = 1 is correct, so is 9.999... = 10.
What are you bragging about? Short of medication?

[Me]

On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 4:02:52 AM UTC+1, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 7:45:21 PM UTC-5, Jew Lover wrote:
> >
> > There are still morons on sci.math who are denying Euler defined S = Lim S.
> > Well, here is yet more evidence Euler did exactly this!
> >
> > https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6486028326468227072
> >
> HA, HA! Have a look at Troll Boy's pathetic Linkedin page here. The formula
> "S = Lim S" was only written by him in large red letters, not by Euler. What
> a pathetic moron!

Right. Here's a clean source:

https://books.google.de/books?id=X8yv0sj4_1YC&pg=PA170&redir_esc=y&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false

And here's a modern rendering of its "mathematical content":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...#Infinite_series_and_sequences

(Well, actually _they_ show that 0.999... = 1 instead of 9.999... = 10, like Euler did. But no big deal.)

[Bill]

This .999... = 1 thing is getting old. Here's a new question for
that crowd in particular: Do you consider a point to be a circle?

[Me]

On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 4:22:50 AM UTC+1, Jew Lover wrote:

Huh?!

> Anyone can read the Elements of Euler to see that he did in fact write

> [effectively] 9.999... = 10.

Huh?! Of course, NO ONE ever disputed _that_ claim. :-)

But we CAN'T SEE that "Euler defined S = Lim S" (John-birdbrain-Gabriel).

[Me]

On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 4:33:02 AM UTC+1, Bill wrote:

> Do you consider a point to be a circle?

Well... Let's see...

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-circle-have-no-area-i-e-can-a-circle-have-a-radius-of-0

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/66132.html

https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/wi1rv/can_a_circle_have_a_radius_of_zero_can_a_point_be/

And finally (last but not least):

"A point is a degenerate circle, namely one with radius 0."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degeneracy_%28mathematics%29#Conic_section

[Bill]

You seem undecided. How about a negative radius???

[Zelos Malum]

Den onsdag 2 januari 2019 kl. 01:45:21 UTC+1 skrev Jew Lover:
> There are still morons on sci.math who are denying Euler defined S = Lim S. Well, here is yet more evidence Euler did exactly this!
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6486028326468227072

Let's assume Euler accidently made that mistake (which I do not think)

So? None would say that today cause it is wrong at face value. No one says S = lim S, cause that implies that S n S^|N is non-empty which is absurd.

[bassam king karzeddin]

And based on this very well-known poor reasoning (in current so modern mathematics), one can multiply both sides by 10 get this:

99.999... = 100, or this

999.999... = 1000, and ultimately multiply both sides by 10^n when n tends to any large natural number you may imagine since natural numbers can tend only and strictly to another larger natural numbers, no matter however large since simply the natural numbers are a sequence of a successive chain of "endless" integers but with no existing largest element, where this only invalidates entirely and immediately the fictional concepts of Infinities that are hopeless and very poor tries to LIMIT the natural numbers, hence you ultimately get this final picture of total non-sense and mental disorder behaviour of a nature of a human mind so clear cheating, FOR SURE

10^n = 999(n), where this (999(n)) represents a sequence digits of 9's repeated (n) number of times

But, it is so obvious for a layperson that the true statement is this:

10^n = 999(n) + 1, where (n) is any natural number

Hence, the entire theme is totally flawed and never valid

And that is why they have well-established those so wonderful human brain fart about infinity, denoted below as (Inf.)

(Inf.)^(Inf.) = (Inf.)

(Inf.) + (Inf.) = (Inf.)

(Inf.)*(Inf.) = (Inf.)

(Inf.) + n = (Inf.)

(Inf.) - n = (Inf.)

(Inf.)* n = (Inf.)

(Inf.)/n = (Inf.)

(Inf.)*(Inf.) = (Inf.)

Log(Inf.) = (Inf.)

.....And much more of the human brain farts .....

Hence, 10^(Inf.) = 999(Inf.)

Or 1 = 0.999(Inf.), What a so wonderful Paradise (Genious mathematickers)? No wonder!

BKK

[Jew Lover]

It is nonsense and must be exposed for what it is - the result of brain syphilis.

> Here's a new question for
> that crowd in particular: Do you consider a point to be a circle?

You asking such a question proves you know nothing about geometry and have never understood the foundations of mathematics which is geometry.

A point is a 'location'. A circle is a 'distance'.

It's like comparing apples and oranges. You do this throughout your mythmatics. Well, S and Lim S are different objects but you have no problem considering them to be equal.

Do you consider S to be sequence or a limit (Lim S)?

[Jew Lover]

I know what is genius and mathematics, and I can't tell you that there is nothing like that in the Church of Academia. Only fundamentalist beliefs.

> No wonder!
>
> BKK

[j4n bur53]

Poor boy, I guess your Greek genes are recessive.
Otherwise you wouldn't be the complete imbecil
as you are right now.

[Jew Lover]

What makes me laugh about these morons is how they think they know better than us.

My ancestors realised geometry and your ancestors were the custodians of Greek knowledge for several centuries.

Now the morons want to teach us! Go figure! Ha, ha.

>
> BKK

[Zelos Malum]

There is absolutely nothign correct in this.

[Alan Mackenzie]

Bill <WhoK...@newsguy.com> wrote:

[ .... ]

> This .999... = 1 thing is getting old. Here's a new question for
> that crowd in particular: Do you consider a point to be a circle?

It may or may not be. But it's a conic section. So why not an
ellipse? But a point's never a cylindrical section, so it can't be an
ellipse, according to this group's "expert" on conical sections. ;-)

However, (x/a)^2 + (y/b)^2 = 0 must be an ellipse, and it is a point.

So, we have a contradiction. We have a point both being an ellipse and
not being an ellipse (as it's not a cylinder section).

Perhaps we should ask AP about this.

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

[Jew Lover]

On Friday, 4 January 2019 12:11:45 UTC-5, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Bill <WhoK...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> [ .... ]
>
> > This .999... = 1 thing is getting old. Here's a new question for
> > that crowd in particular: Do you consider a point to be a circle?
>
> It may or may not be.

Er, no. Chuckle. A point is NEVER a circle. You see, a circle has a circumference with distance greater than 0. A point has no distance.

> But it's a conic section.

Fail. A point is NOT a conic section.

> So why not an
> ellipse? But a point's never a cylindrical section, so it can't be an
> ellipse, according to this group's "expert" on conical sections. ;-)
>
> However, (x/a)^2 + (y/b)^2 = 0 must be an ellipse, and it is a point.
>
> So, we have a contradiction. We have a point both being an ellipse and
> not being an ellipse (as it's not a cylinder section).
>
> Perhaps we should ask AP about this.

LMAO.

[j4n bur53]

Poor boy, still struggling with 0.999... = 1.
A point is also a conic section, just

intersect a plane with the tip of the cone.
the plane needs to have a leaning less than

the slope of the cone.

\ /
\ /
\/
/\
/ \
/ \

[Jew Lover]

On Friday, 4 January 2019 13:10:55 UTC-5, j4n bur53 wrote:
> Poor boy, still struggling with 0.999... = 1.
> A point is also a conic section, just
>
> intersect a plane with the tip of the cone.

Chuckle. What a moron.

Conic section: Noun:

a figure formed by the intersection of a plane and a right circular cone. Depending on the angle of the plane with respect to the cone, a conic section may be a circle, an ellipse, a parabola, or a hyperbola.

Clue: A point can NEVER intersect anything, you infinite moron! A point is the location at which geometric objects that are paths intersect. Paths do not consist of points which are like flags or road signs and are not part of any path, because paths/lines have no extent. Their chief attribute is distance.

[j4n bur53]

I didn't say point intersects something. I said:

plane n cone = point

is possible. Do you deny this?

[j4n bur53]

"In geometry, a degenerate conic is a conic
(a second-degree plane curve, defined by a
polynomial equation of degree two) that fails
to be an irreducible curve."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_conic

[Zeit Geist]

Holy shit! That is THE stupidest thing you have ever said. Will you also deny that two intersecting lines do NOT intersect in a point?

ZG

[Jew Lover]

On Friday, 4 January 2019 18:47:03 UTC-5, j4n bur53 wrote:
> I didn't say point intersects something. I said:
>
> plane n cone = point
>
> is possible. Do you deny this?

The "point" is not part of the cone. It merely describes the location of the apex. Points have no size or dimension. Book I, Def. 1.

Heard of Euclid? Chuckle.

Is a road sign part of the road? No moron.

[Me]

On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 1:17:22 AM UTC+1, j4n bur53 wrote:

> A point is also a conic section, just intersect a plane with the tip of the cone.

"Planes that pass through the vertex of the cone will intersect the cone in a point, a line or a pair of intersecting lines. These are called degenerate conics [...]"

Souce: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conic_section

[j4n bur53]

Thanks, didn't find the passage.

So John Garbageiel is in fact Archimedes Plutonium?

[Jew Lover]

On Saturday, 5 January 2019 05:41:52 UTC-5, Me wrote:
> On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 1:17:22 AM UTC+1, j4n bur53 wrote:
>
> > A point is also a conic section, just intersect a plane with the tip of the cone.
>
> "Planes that pass through the vertex of the cone will intersect the cone in a point, a line or a pair of intersecting lines. These are called degenerate conics [...]"

A plane does not pass through *anything*. The vertex or apex is a location which has ZERO dimension. It's like a road sign indicating distance.

A conic section is by definition the distance realised by intersecting a plane with a right circular cone. A POINT HAS NO DISTANCE.

Get it moron?

>
> Souce: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conic_section

Quoting the Moronica just makes you look stupid.

[Zelos Malum]

and if we allow it to be 0 a point is a circle.

[Jew Lover]

You cannot "allow" anything, you pathetic crank. A circle is by definition a line having some distance. A point has no distance.

[Me]

On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 11:18:51 AM UTC+1, Jew Lover wrote:

> having some distance.

A distance may be 0, man. Actually,

d(x,y) = 0 <=> x = y .

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_(mathematics)#Definition

[Jew Lover]

On Monday, 7 January 2019 06:02:37 UTC-5, Me wrote:
> On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 11:18:51 AM UTC+1, Jew Lover wrote:
>
> > having some distance.
>
> A distance may be 0, man.

No. A distance may NOT be 0 where a conic section is concerned. By definition, a conic section is a *line* or *distance*. A line is NOT a point, you baboon.

> Actually,
>
> d(x,y) = 0 <=> x = y .

Frechet was just another French moron. That very statement is indicative of the syphilitic "thinking" in mainstream academia. First of all, it is redundant.
Second of all, it is circular because aside from the primitive notion of point, distance is required to reify a point in any Cartesian system.

[Me]

On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 12:11:17 PM UTC+1, Jew Lover wrote:

> By definition, a conic section is a *line* or *distance*.

Really, where did you get that from?

Hint: "Planes that pass through the vertex of the cone will intersect the cone in a point, a line or a pair of intersecting lines. These are called degenerate conics [...]"

Souce: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conic_section

[Jew Lover]

On Monday, 7 January 2019 06:47:31 UTC-5, Me wrote:
> On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 12:11:17 PM UTC+1, Jew Lover wrote:
>
> > By definition, a conic section is a *line* or *distance*.
>
> Really, where did you get that from?

My Ancestors, the Ancient Greeks who gave you mathematics.

<crap>

[Zelos Malum]

>You cannot "allow" anything, you pathetic crank. A circle is by definition a line having some distance. A point has no distance.

We can extend definitions so they encompasses more cases and previous cases becomes special cases, that is perfectly valid in mathematics.

[Jew Lover]

On Tuesday, 8 January 2019 06:18:54 UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:
> >You cannot "allow" anything, you pathetic crank. A circle is by definition a line having some distance. A point has no distance.
>
> We can extend definitions so they encompasses more cases and previous cases becomes special cases, that is perfectly valid in mathematics.

You can extend definitions as much as you like, provided each new definition is well formed. There are NO special cases which are decrees (rules) in mathematics, only in mythmatics.

[Zelos Malum]

>You can extend definitions as much as you like, provided each new definition is well formed. There are NO special cases which are decrees (rules) in mathematics, only in mythmatics.

Considering thigns in mathematics are written in FOL, they are not more well-defined.

It is much more well-defined than any of yoru garbage.

[Jew Lover]

On Wednesday, 9 January 2019 01:53:36 UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:
> >You can extend definitions as much as you like, provided each new definition is well formed. There are NO special cases which are decrees (rules) in mathematics, only in mythmatics.
>
> Considering thigns in mathematics are written in FOL, they are not more well-defined.

You mistake your mythmatics for mathematics. There is no FOL in real mathematics.

>
> It is much more well-defined than any of yoru garbage.

You know nothing about what it means for a concept to be well defined. I hold out little hope that you will ever know. Chuckle.

[Zelos Malum]

>You mistake your mythmatics for mathematics. There is no FOL in real mathematics.

You got that backward, in mathematics it is used all the time to be disambigious, precise and clear.

>You know nothing about what it means for a concept to be well defined. I hold out little hope that you will ever know. Chuckle.

Actually I do, your shit is garbage though and I have read your stupid post it, it is laughable.

[Jew Lover]

You poor lost boy. You should seriously think about visiting a psychiatrist. There is not a chance in hell that you will ever convince anyone to believe in the crap you peddle.

As I've told you O moronic Viking, even if there were an impossible chance I happened to be wrong (I am right on everything), I would still reject everything you say because that is the amount of disdain and disrespect I have for you. I would literally crush you in any situation. You could never convince me because you are a mental midget. You are literally stupid beyond belief.

[j4n bur53]

So new calculoose works, since it uses "Eulers blunder" S = Lim S?

[Zelos Malum]

>You poor lost boy. You should seriously think about visiting a psychiatrist. There is not a chance in hell that you will ever convince anyone to believe in the crap you peddle.

How unfortunate for you it has happened already.

>As I've told you O moronic Viking, even if there were an impossible chance I happened to be wrong (I am right on everything)

You are right on virtually nothing.

> I would still reject everything you say because that is the amount of disdain and disrespect I have for you.

Which means you ahve no intellectual integrity. When you are right I'd admit it, fortunately for me it is never anything beyond 5th grade stuff.

>You could never convince me because you are a mental midget

No, iti s because you are a narcissist that suffer from delusions of grandure and you cannot stand the fact you are a nothing.

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 3:45:21 AM UTC+3, Jew Lover wrote:
> There are still morons on sci.math who are denying Euler defined S = Lim S. Well, here is yet more evidence Euler did exactly this!
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6486028326468227072

Thanks to the free internet, where I found an answer by (conifold) that was highly voted (despite "Conifold" did not understand what he wrote...) FOR SURE

But it seems that he is very knowledgeable about the history of many other issues in mathematics as well much better than so many resident trolls here on sci. math, who try hopelessly to keep Euler away from this scandal for sure

But, so what? Euler had many other useful contributions in number theory or geometry, where that didn't guarantee him of making fatal mistakes for sure

Link here: https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/2740/when-did-it-become-understood-that-irrational-numbers-have-non-repeating-decimal

Where he clearly referred to Euler about this big fallacy of (10 = 9.999...)

BKK

[Jew Lover]

On Saturday, 12 January 2019 03:23:51 UTC-5, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 3:45:21 AM UTC+3, Jew Lover wrote:
> > There are still morons on sci.math who are denying Euler defined S = Lim S. Well, here is yet more evidence Euler did exactly this!
> >
> > https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6486028326468227072
>
> Thanks to the free internet, where I found an answer by (conifold) that was highly voted (despite "Conifold" did not understand what he wrote...) FOR SURE
>
> But it seems that he is very knowledgeable about the history of many other issues in mathematics as well much better than so many resident trolls here on sci. math, who try hopelessly to keep Euler away from this scandal for sure
>
> But, so what? Euler had many other useful contributions in number theory or geometry, where that didn't guarantee him of making fatal mistakes for sure

Actually I think that Euler was a very good mathematician, except for S = Lim S and the really stupid claims he makes about infinity, that is, 1/oo = 0, etc.

Euler did not have my depth of understanding. No one in the history of humans did. Even my ancestors who were smarter than anyone else, didn't quite succeed in writing down the perfect derivation of number given that they understood it very well. What I am saying is the Euclid (don't confuse with Euler!) made some vague and circular definitions, but I have fixed all of that. There were some cracks in his foundations, but now they are solid - thanks to me.

Euler's greatest contribution was his method of solving first order differential equations from which all other methods such as the well-known Runge-Kutta numeric integration were realised.

>
> Link here: https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/2740/when-did-it-become-understood-that-irrational-numbers-have-non-repeating-decimal
>
> Where he clearly referred to Euler about this big fallacy of (10 = 9.999...)

No. The answer to this became evident when the first series approximations were realised. It all started with Newton and his interpolation polynomial.

That the measure of an incommensurable magnitude (NOT an irrational number) in ANY radix results in non-terminating non-repeating digits is a property of the fact that it has NO measure in any radix system.

On the other hand, rational numbers have the property that a repeating pattern will be noticed when measure is attempted in a radix that does not contain all the prime factors of the denominator, for example 1/3 =/= 0.333... However, 1/3 has an exact measure in many other radix systems, e.g. 1/3 = 0.1 (base 3).

So NOTHING is remarkable about these properties and they DO NOT define rational and irrational numbers.



>
> BKK

[Zelos Malum]

Word play word play, when will you stop?

[Jew Lover]

When you don't understand, you need to ask me because I am the master.

[Me]

On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 2:09:24 PM UTC+1, Jew Lover wrote:

> When you don't understand, you need to ask me because I am the master.

The master of but sex?

[j4n bur53]

Poor boy, still struggling with 0.999... = 1.

Ha Ha, what a moron.

[Jew Lover]

"But" sex? What's that? Did you perhaps mean "Butt" sex? Chuckle.

[Jew Lover]

On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 11:11:33 UTC-5, j4n bur53 wrote:
> Poor boy, still struggling with 0.999... = 1.
>

I dismiss ill-formed definitions. There's never a struggle. I knew Euler was wrong even before the dumb cunt you call your mother, spewed you out.

[Me]

Am Dienstag, 15. Januar 2019 18:12:54 UTC+1 schrieb Jew Lover:
> On Monday, 14 January 2019 09:01:35 UTC-5, Me wrote:
> > On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 2:09:24 PM UTC+1, Jew Lover wrote:
> > >

> > > [...] you need to ask me because I am the master.

> > >
> > The master of but sex?
> >

> Did mean "butt sex"?

Exactly, I meant "butt sex". Thank you, master!

[Zelos Malum]

You are the master of cranks, nothing else :)

>I dismiss ill-formed definitions. There's never a struggle. I knew Euler was wrong even before the dumb cunt you call your mother, spewed you out.

Then you should dismiss all of yorus cause that is as illformed as it gets

[Jew Lover]

On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 02:07:17 UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:

<drivel>

> >I dismiss ill-formed definitions. There's never a struggle. I knew Euler was wrong even before the dumb cunt you call your mother, spewed you out.
>
> Then you should dismiss all of yorus cause that is as illformed as it gets

Your opinion has been noted and dismissed. Chuckle.

[Me]

On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 8:36:34 AM UTC+1, Jew Lover wrote:

> <bla>

Note that I've a) checked your "New Calculus" and b) identified it's fundamental flaw. :-)

You are a fraud!

[Zelos Malum]

Of course you old crank, 43 years and you ahve accomplished nothing! HAHAHAHA!

[Jew Lover]

On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 06:30:28 UTC-5, Me driveled :

> Note that I' ... <poop>

I'm sorry. Did you try to say something O retardus maximus? Chuckle.

[Jew Lover]

On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 07:11:30 UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:
>
> Of course you old crank, 43 years and you ahve accomplished nothing! HAHAHAHA!

Take your medication please. You're so mad that you keep scarbmlnig your word letters. Chuckle.

Note that your rabid saliva won't do your keyboard much good.

[Zelos Malum]

Yes yes, old fart.

[Jew Lover]

I am 57 years old, but in better shape than most 25 year olds and I am sure that I would kick your arse so bad that you would land in hospital for at least 6 months.

[Zelos Malum]

You might do that but guess what? You are the barbarian then that must use physical violence because you cannot make a verbal case. I am the civilized cause I would never once strike you.

You are old and have wasted your life, 43 years and what have you done? Nothing!

[Jew Lover]

Liar. I recall a comment made by you some months ago that you would have a go at me any time. So now you are trying to appear civilised? Don't make me laugh.

>
> You are old and have wasted your life, 43 years and what have you done? Nothing!

The New Calculus is the greatest intellectual feat in human history. I'd say that's a big deal and more people are adding their voices. It's only the jealous scum like you and your vile sidekicks on this forum who continue to spew out hate and rot.

[j4n bur53]

Is there a way to fix the new calculoose?

I think it cannot deal with:

/ sqrt(1-(1-x)^2) 0<x=<1
f(x) = <
\ 1 1<x


What is f'(1) ?

Credits go to john-c, he posted this f(x) here:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/8KYhbrica94/KAfHBSM4EAAJ

Here is a Geogebra rendering:
https://www.geogebra.org/classic/vH2HabfU

[j4n bur53]

Maybe AP brain farto can help you, his
wheelchair has a symbolic calculator builtin.

It now looks like this:

|
|__%
| |
| |
o o

So the calculator is at the tip of the armrest.

[Me]

On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 10:32:50 PM UTC+1, j4n bur53 wrote:

> I think it cannot deal with:
>
> / sqrt(1-(1-x)^2) 0<x=<1
> f(x) = <
> \ 1 1<x
>
> What is f'(1) ?

Same (but simpler) with

/ 0 for x < 0
f(x) = <
\ x^2 for x >= 0

What is f'(0)? Calculoose can't tell.

[j4n bur53]

Its not the same "penis shape" as the
example from john-c.

[Jew Lover]

What you can't tell is that f(x) cannot be TWO functions. f(x)=0 is one function and f(x) = x^2 is entirely a different function. Therefore, according to the definition of function, which states ONE rule, what you contrived is shit. There is no such thing as piecewise function, you utter imbecile.

[Jew Lover]

On Sunday, 20 January 2019 16:56:58 UTC-5, Me wrote:

> <drivel>

Calculus is both null and void unless the function is smooth.

I guess you gave up on the OP eh? S = Lim S to shameful for you! Ha, ha.

[Me]

On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 11:12:49 PM UTC+1, j4n bur53 wrote:

> Its not the same "penis shape" as the
> example from john-c.

Indeed not. I meant "an example to the same effect" (but simpler). :-)

Moreover the domain of this example is IR.

[Me]

On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 11:38:57 PM UTC+1, Jew Lover wrote:
> On Sunday, 20 January 2019 16:56:58 UTC-5, Me wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 10:32:50 PM UTC+1, j4n bur53 wrote:
> >
> > > I think it cannot deal with:
> > >
> > > / sqrt(1-(1-x)^2) 0<x=<1
> > > f(x) = <
> > > \ 1 1<x
> > >
> > > What is f'(1) ?
> >
> > Same (but simpler) with
> >
> > / 0 for x < 0
> > f(x) = <
> > \ x^2 for x >= 0
> >
> > What is f'(0)? Calculoose can't tell.
> >

> What you can't tell is that <bla>

Oh, shut up you imbecile. That's brain dead nonsense.

EOD

[Me]

On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 11:40:33 PM UTC+1, Jew Lover wrote:

> My "New Calculus" is both null and void

Yes, we know that!

[Me]

On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 11:38:57 PM UTC+1, Jew Lover wrote:

> <bla>

So how does your "New Calculus" yield the derivative of the following function at x = 0:

f(x) = x^2 * lim_(e->0) 1/pi [arctan(x/e) + pi/2] ,

Pleeze tell us! (You may use a drawing if you like, it might help.)

f'(0) = ?

[Me]

Hints: Some consideration will show you that f(x) = x^2 for x >= 0 and f(x) = 0 for x < 0. Still, only ONE rule, dumbass. Moreover this function is "smooth" in x = 0.

[j4n bur53]

Noice!

[Jew Lover]

On Sunday, 20 January 2019 18:19:39 UTC-5, Me wrote:

No idiot. y=x^2 is not the same as y=0. Even a chimpanzee can tell. Oh, wait, you IQ is lower. Tsk, tsk. Well, too bad.

[Jew Lover]

On Tuesday, 1 January 2019 21:31:59 UTC-5, Jew Lover wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 January 2019 21:20:37 UTC-5, Me wrote:

> > On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 1:45:21 AM UTC+1, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > There are still morons on sci.math who are denying Euler defined S = Lim S. Well, here is yet more evidence Euler did exactly this!
> > >
> > > https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6486028326468227072
> >

> > Actually, I don't think that Euler claimed that 0.999... = 10.
>
> What you think (or rather don't think) is irrelevant. Euler's Elements of algebra states this clearly. Paragraph 524 is the evidence as explained in the link.

Still no answer from dumb cunt Franz ("Me") ? Chuckle.

I guess you know now that Oiler claimed 9.999... = 10, eh?

[Me]

On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 12:50:26 AM UTC+1, Jew Lover wrote:
> On Sunday, 20 January 2019 18:19:39 UTC-5, Me wrote:
> > On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 12:08:11 AM UTC+1, Me wrote:
> > >
> > > So how does your "New Calculus" yield the derivative of the following
> > > function at x = 0:
> > >
> > > f(x) = x^2 * lim_(e->0) 1/pi [arctan(x/e) + pi/2] ,
> > >
> > > Pleeze tell us! (You may use a drawing if you like, it might help.)
> > >
> > > f'(0) = ?
> > >
> > Hints: Some consideration will show you that f(x) = x^2 for x >= 0 and

> > f(x) = 0 for x < 0. Still, only ONE rule [in its definition], dumbass.

> > Moreover this function is "smooth" in x = 0.
> >
> No idiot. y=x^2 is not the same as y=0.

Holy shit, did anyone claim that nonsense? What the hell are you talking about?! Man, you really should stop taking drugs!

Again, the QUESTION is:

f'(0) = ?

for the function f(x) = x^2 * lim_(e->0) 1/pi [arctan(x/e) + pi/2] for x e IR.

Obviously, you calculoose can't even deal with rather simple cases. A total loser!

[Me]

On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 12:53:27 AM UTC+1, Jew Lover wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 January 2019 21:20:37 UTC-5, Me wrote:
> >
> > Actually, I don't think that Euler claimed that 0.999... = 10.

So you have corrected it now? Great, Gabriel.

> Oiler claimed 9.999... = 10

Right!

Hence YOU claim that "Euler defined 9.999... = 10" is still wrong.

[Jew Lover]

On Sunday, 20 January 2019 19:14:16 UTC-5, Me wrote:
> On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 12:50:26 AM UTC+1, Jew Lover wrote:
> > On Sunday, 20 January 2019 18:19:39 UTC-5, Me wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 12:08:11 AM UTC+1, Me wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So how does your "New Calculus" yield the derivative of the following
> > > > function at x = 0:
> > > >
> > > > f(x) = x^2 * lim_(e->0) 1/pi [arctan(x/e) + pi/2] ,
> > > >
> > > > Pleeze tell us! (You may use a drawing if you like, it might help.)
> > > >
> > > > f'(0) = ?
> > > >
> > > Hints: Some consideration will show you that f(x) = x^2 for x >= 0 and
> > > f(x) = 0 for x < 0. Still, only ONE rule [in its definition], dumbass.
> > > Moreover this function is "smooth" in x = 0.
> > >
> > No idiot. y=x^2 is not the same as y=0.
>
> Holy shit, did anyone claim that nonsense?

You did moron! y=x^2 for (x>=0) and y=0 (x<0).

>
> Again, the QUESTION is:
>
> f'(0) = ?

There is no tangent line possible there, you idiot! A straight line cannot be tangent to itself, you mega crank.

>
> for the function f(x) = x^2 * lim_(e->0) 1/pi [arctan(x/e) + pi/2] for x e IR.

Whatever you driveled there is nonsense.

[Jew Lover]

On Sunday, 20 January 2019 19:21:28 UTC-5, Me wrote:

> Hence YOU claim that "Euler defined 9.999... = 10" is still wrong.

Of course. It's bullshit - just like 0.999... = 1.

S = Lim S is Oiler's worst blunder.

We won't even get to discussing all his other delusions like 1/oo = 0, etc.

[j4n bur53]

f'(x) is about slope, not tangent. You are crazy.

[j4n bur53]

Corr.:

f'(x) is about slope, not bird brain
John Garbageiel tangent. You are crazy.

[j4n bur53]

Here bird brain, some education for you:

Definition Steigung
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0btf2U7oab8

[Jew Lover]

On Sunday, 20 January 2019 19:49:02 UTC-5, j4n bur53 wrote:
> f'(x) is about slope, not tangent. You are crazy.

Fail. The tangent line problem is about the tangent line slope.

Learn some math, you incorrigibly stupid idiot.

[Zelos Malum]

>Liar. I recall a comment made by you some months ago that you would have a go at me any time. So now you are trying to appear civilised? Don't make me laugh.

I will gladly ahve a go at you and call you every name in the book thats applicable to you (which are many) but I can also be civilized to show you have nothing to stand on.

>The New Calculus is the greatest intellectual feat in human history

It isn't, yuou are just forcing yourself to believe it because if you admit it is just junk, like it is, then you have to admit you have wasted 43 years of your life on nothing and you cannot stand that cause you are that much of a loser.

[Jew Lover]

On Monday, 21 January 2019 01:43:03 UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:
> >Liar. I recall a comment made by you some months ago that you would have a go at me any time. So now you are trying to appear civilised? Don't make me laugh.
>
> I will gladly ahve a go at you and call you every name in the book thats applicable to you (which are many) but I can also be civilized to show you have nothing to stand on.

You have nothing on me. You're just a failed punk.

>
> >The New Calculus is the greatest intellectual feat in human history
>
> It isn't, yuou are just forcing yourself to believe it because if you admit it is just junk, like it is, then you have to admit you have wasted 43 years of your life on nothing and you cannot stand that cause you are that much of a loser.

Chuckle. From one who can't even write down a formula correctly and pay attention to detail.

f'(x) = [f(x+n)-f(x-m)] / (m+n)

f(x)=x^2 => f'(x)=2x+m+n

Moron Malum imagined that he could choose m and n. LMAO! The fool doesn't even know what these stand for and yet ALL is clearly explained in the most important mathematics book ever written:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO

[Zelos Malum]

>You have nothing on me. You're just a failed punk.

Actually I have lots, but most of iti s publicly known cause you are a verbose crank.

>Chuckle. From one who can't even write down a formula correctly and pay attention to detail.

Which is exactly how I cited it.

>Moron Malum imagined that he could choose m and n. LMAO! The fool doesn't even know what these stand for and yet ALL is clearly explained in the most important mathematics book ever written:

And its nto even written in latex, a classical sign of crankery.

[Me]

On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 1:44:04 AM UTC+1, Jew Lover wrote:
> On Sunday, 20 January 2019 19:14:16 UTC-5, Me wrote:
> > On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 12:50:26 AM UTC+1, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 20 January 2019 18:19:39 UTC-5, Me wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 12:08:11 AM UTC+1, Me wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > So how does your "New Calculus" yield the derivative of the following
> > > > > function at x = 0:
> > > > >
> > > > > f(x) = x^2 * lim_(e->0) 1/pi [arctan(x/e) + pi/2] ,
> > > > >
> > > > > Pleeze tell us! (You may use a drawing if you like, it might help.)
> > > > >
> > > > > f'(0) = ?

So your Idiot Calculoose cannot give an answer to this simple question?

Very bad!

> > > > Hints: [...] this function is "smooth" in x = 0.

> > > >
> > Again, the QUESTION is:
> >
> > f'(0) = ?
> >

> There is no tangent line <bla>

MAN, I didn't ask for a "tangent line". I am asking for the _derivative_ of the following function at x = 0:

> > f(x) = x^2 * lim_(e->0) 1/pi [arctan(x/e) + pi/2] (x e IR).

Still no answer? Your Calculoose is a fraud, man!

[Jew Lover]

On Monday, 21 January 2019 06:58:30 UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:
> >You have nothing on me. You're just a failed punk.
>
> Actually I have lots, but most of iti s publicly known cause you are a verbose crank.

It's publicly known that you are nothing but an ignorant troll and when I am finished with you, that will be your end. You will never amount to anything because you simply don't have what it takes. At 25 years and you are a complete failure going nowhere.

>
> >Chuckle. From one who can't even write down a formula correctly and pay attention to detail.
>
> Which is exactly how I cited it.

You cited it incorrectly you moron. You can't just close your eyes and ears and pretend you don't see and hear it! La, la, la, ... won't get you anywhere.

<crank explosion>

[Jew Lover]

On Monday, 21 January 2019 11:33:18 UTC-5, Moron wrote:
>
> MAN, I didn't ask for a "tangent line". I am asking ...

Shut up moron. You don't know what you are asking.


> I am a fraud, man!

I know.

[Me]

On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 5:43:54 PM UTC+1, Jew Lover wrote:
> On Monday, 21 January 2019 11:33:18 UTC-5, Moron wrote:
> >

> > I didn't ask for a "tangent line". I am asking for the derivative of
> > the simple function

> >
> > f(x) = x^2 * lim_(e->0) 1/pi [arctan(x/e) + pi/2] (x e IR)
> >

> > at x = 0.

In other words:

f'(0) = ?

> I don't know!

Right, and your Idiotic Calculoose can't help here, obviously.

Ergo: Your Calculoose is a fraud!

Hint: *Real* Calculus allows to prove that f'(0) = 0.

[Me]

On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 7:50:54 PM UTC+1, Me wrote:

> Hint: *Real* Calculus allows to prove that f'(0) = 0.

Ok, since you can't do that, a simpler task.

Let f(x) = sqrt(x) (x e IR, x >= 0).

Now what's f'(1)?

Actually, I'd like to see a derivation based on your "definition" of f' in your "New Calculus". You know, you famous n,m-Definition.

[Jew Lover]

On Monday, 21 January 2019 13:50:54 UTC-5, Me wrote:
> On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 5:43:54 PM UTC+1, Jew Lover wrote:
> > On Monday, 21 January 2019 11:33:18 UTC-5, Moron wrote:
> > >
> > > I didn't ask for a "tangent line". I am asking for the derivative of
> > > the simple function
> > >
> > > f(x) = x^2 * lim_(e->0) 1/pi [arctan(x/e) + pi/2] (x e IR)
> > >
> > > at x = 0.
>
> In other words:

It was answered in a previous comment. Alas you have difficulty reading and comprehending.

>
> f'(0) = ?

> Actually, I'd like to see a derivation based on your "definition" of f' in your "New Calculus". You know, you famous n,m-Definition.

Read the free eBook, you fucking moron.

[Me]

On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 12:39:13 AM UTC+1, Jew Lover wrote:
> On Monday, 21 January 2019 13:50:54 UTC-5, Me wrote:
> > On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 5:43:54 PM UTC+1, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > On Monday, 21 January 2019 11:33:18 UTC-5, Moron wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I didn't ask for a "tangent line". I am asking for the derivative of
> > > > the simple function
> > > >
> > > > f(x) = x^2 * lim_(e->0) 1/pi [arctan(x/e) + pi/2] (x e IR)
> > > >
> > > > at x = 0.
>

> It was answered ....

No, it WASN'T ANSWERED, you nutcase.

I guess the reason is that your "New Calculus" can't even handle simple cases like this one.

So what IS

f'(0) = ?

Actually, I'd like to see a derivation based on your "definition" of f' in your "New Calculus". You know, you famous n,m definition.

> Read the free eBook

I'm asking you, the master! Pleeze tell us!

[Me]

On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 12:39:13 AM UTC+1, Jew Lover wrote:

STILL NO ANSWER! What a shame!

But it is a VERY SIMPLE example:

Let f(x) = sqrt(x) (x e IR, x >= 0).

Now what's f'(1)?

Actually, I'd like to see a derivation based on your "definition" of f' in your "New Calculus". You know, you famous n,m definition.

I know that you can do it! After all, you are the master. (I mean, it should be a simple task using your "New Calculus".)