Crackpot Central sci.math

[math...@gmail.com]

It is entertaining to see the three stooges of sci.math compete for main crackpot at sci.math. Can you guess who these three stooges are?

In the 90's we had one that could give these three a run for their money. JSHtev, or something like that. Whatever happened to him?

[j4n bur53]

four horse men of the apocalipse

WM, AP, JG and BKK

[Me]

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 6:31:08 PM UTC+2, math...@gmail.com wrote:

> In the 90's we had one that could give these three a run for their money. JSH,

> or something like that. Whatever happened to him?

He's quite active, it seems:
https://somemath.blogspot.com/

[math...@gmail.com]

Holy cow! He must be like 70 now. It is intriguing how a human being can go on through life being deluded.

[bassam king karzeddin]

It is much more interesting to see the real **delusional** people are accusing others of the same thing, No wonder!
But **utterly** and more **purposely** they can't show themselves since then everything would even clearer

So to say this a very simple exercise for you to convey and make an elementary school student understand your alleged real number (0.999...), where you have to keep in mind that he didn't learn yet about the decimal **BLODY** notation, nor you are asked to teach (her/him) that magical decimal notation that spoiled completely your so little size **empty skull**

Hint: the *****ELEMENTARY**** school student well-understand the division notations as (/)

And ***YOU*** know that (0.9 = 9/10) Right?

And more ****HINTS**** to **YOU** only

(0.999999 = 999999/1000000) Right?
And for a well-determined natural number of repeated digits of 9's
(0.999...(n) = 999...(n)/1000...(n)), Right?

Then how can you convince the ***KIDS*** about your (...brain fart number...)(0.999...) in his own *ELEMENTARY TERMINOLOGY*?

And then, ask yourselves how could the true *IMBECILES* of mathematics pour it ***mercilessly*** into your so **EMPTY SKULLS**? No wonder!

Please don't hide behind more fictions and *SH*T* theories, they aren't needed at all in this regard since the core issue is too elementary FOR SURE

You can ask a friend and the whole world too, but don't cheat the *KIDS* any more
BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

A better way to understand
And since you are **HIDING* under a fake name that is never suitable for you, then you can do one thing

Ask any well-known but necessarily ***DECENT*** (If at all existing) Profissional mathematicians to dare say that (0.999...) is a real number under his true identity name

And you won't find FOR SURE, and forget completely about Wikipedia morons, SURE
BKK

[Sergio]

someone logged all his posts from back then at

https://hismath.blogspot.com/

then he went to tweeter for a while

he was 5 times smarter than JG, and 5 times kinder.

his troll goal was to have as long treads as possible.

[Dan Christensen]

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 1:30:25 PM UTC-4, bassam king karzeddin wrote:

>
> It is much more interesting to see the real **delusional** people ...


This from the psycho troll BKK who wrote here:

“Those many challenges of mine (in my posts) weren't actually designed for human beings, but for the future artificial beings that would certainly replace them not far away from now, for sure.”
-- BKK, Dec. 6, 2017

“You know certainly that I'm the man, and more specially the KING who is going to upside down most of your current false mathematics for all future generations.”
-- BKK, Nov. 22, 2018

Math failure, BKK, doesn't believe in negative numbers, zero or numbers like pi and root 2. He doesn't even believe in 40 degree angles or circles. Really! Needless to say his own goofy system is getting nowhere and never will. As such he is insanely jealous of wildly successful mainstream mathematics. He seems to believe these super-intelligent artificial beings of his will somehow be enlisting his help to "reform" mathematics worldwide when they take over the planet in the near future. He is TRULY delusional.


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]

On Thursday, 18 July 2019 12:31:08 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> It is entertaining to see the three stooges of sci.math compete for main crackpot at sci.math. Can you guess who these three stooges are?
>
> In the 90's we had one that could give these three a run for their money. JSHtev, or something like that. Whatever happened to him?

Hello Crank!

crank: one who is regarded as mentally ill by those who reject his theories.

I wasn't around when JSH was on here. I chanced to read some of his posts and he reminded me of AP.

The difference between JSH (and AP) and you is that JSH sincerely believed the rot they spewed out.

You, on the other hand are being corrected by the world's greatest mathematician (that's me) and your stubborn refusal to admit error makes you worse that a crackpot - it makes you a math jihadist.

[math...@gmail.com]

You criticising JSH and AP is a hell of a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Wow!

[Jew Lover]

Tell me moron, do you actually have anything to say? I am not interested in your two cents. Now go and play with those who are children like you!

[math...@gmail.com]

Yes, I have something to say. Seek psychiatric help and stop posting drivel on the internet. Can you do that?

[Sergio]

better yet, JG, go ask your Dr for your "Final Medicine".

[Jew Lover]

I didn't meant more drivel, idiot. Can you fuck yourself?

It's quite hilarious that you talk about academics in the USA's best universities when they are for the most part a bunch of stupid fucks like YOU!

I piss and SHIT on those academics. They are fucking morons compared to my intelligence. Get it idiot?! Not even Newton and Leibniz or any one who came after them was able to produce a rigorous formulation of calculus. That makes me great in any honest and intelligent person's eyes.

M'kay dumb fuck? Now slit your throat and fuck off from here.

[Sergio]

you angry bro ?

[Dan Christensen]

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 4:34:09 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:

> I piss and SHIT on those academics. They are fucking morons compared to my intelligence. Get it idiot?! Not even Newton and Leibniz or any one who came after them was able to produce a rigorous formulation of calculus.

Their calculus works. Yours doesn't, Troll Boy. Deal with it. By your own admission, it cannot handle instantaneous rates of change. That's like arithmetic without numbers. Or geometry without points and lines. Absolutely USELESS! Time to cut your losses and move on, Troll Boy.


Forget calculus. Even at his advanced age (60+?), John "Troll Boy" Gabriel is still struggling with basic, elementary-school arithmetic. As he has repeatedly posted here:

"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017

“1/2 is not equal to 2/4 if a different unit is used.” (Huh??? 1/2 is ALWAYS equal to 2/4.)
--July 14, 2019

“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015 (confirmed July 14, 2019)

"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
--October 28, 2017 (confirmed July 14, 2019)

"Zero is not a number."
-- Jan. 10, 2017 (confirmed July 14, 2019)

"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017 (confirmed July 14, 2019)


No math genius, our JG. (Hee, hee!)

The above idiocies confirmed July 14, 2019 at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.math/TB8goKMbF3c


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

[math...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 4:34:09 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 July 2019 15:03:01 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 2:42:52 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 18 July 2019 14:34:33 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 1:57:19 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, 18 July 2019 12:31:08 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > It is entertaining to see the three stooges of sci.math compete for main crackpot at sci.math. Can you guess who these three stooges are?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the 90's we had one that could give these three a run for their money. JSHtev, or something like that. Whatever happened to him?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello Crank!
> > > > >
> > > > > crank: one who is regarded as mentally ill by those who reject his theories.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wasn't around when JSH was on here. I chanced to read some of his posts and he reminded me of AP.
> > > > >
> > > > > The difference between JSH (and AP) and you is that JSH sincerely believed the rot they spewed out.
> > > > >
> > > > > You, on the other hand are being corrected by the world's greatest mathematician (that's me) and your stubborn refusal to admit error makes you worse that a crackpot - it makes you a math jihadist.
> > > >
> > > > You criticising JSH and AP is a hell of a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Wow!
> > >
> > > Tell me moron, do you actually have anything to say? I am not interested in your two cents. Now go and play with those who are children like you!
> >
> > Yes, I have something to say. Seek psychiatric help and stop posting drivel on the internet. Can you do that?
>
> I didn't meant more drivel, idiot. Can you fuck yourself?

I sense hostility - you are sure quick at dishing out the insults. Signs of a man that has no reason and no argument.

> It's quite hilarious that you talk about academics in the USA's best universities when they are for the most part a bunch of stupid fucks like YOU!

Ok, I will byte on this one. Humour me - where in the world do you think most mathematical progress has been made within the last 20 to 40 years? Mind you, we are not talking insignificant topics like grade school arithmetic or high school calculus.

> I piss and SHIT on those academics. They are fucking morons compared to my intelligence.

So you think you are intelligent? Almost no one in this mathematics forum seems to agree with that opinion. But, just to give you the benefit of the doubt, besides your breakthrough "new calculus" and treatment of fractions, what areas of mathematics could you dwell into? I might have some interesting problems for you to be able to show that intelligence of yours that seems to be elusive at the moment.

> Get it idiot?! Not even Newton and Leibniz or any one who came after them was able to produce a rigorous formulation of calculus. That makes me great in any honest and intelligent person's eyes.

I am willing to consider that claim, that an honest person would be able to see some greatness in you. I have some unsolved, but tangible, mathematics problems that an intelligent person could possibly tackle and solve. Are you up to that?

> M'kay dumb fuck? Now slit your throat and fuck off from here.

That's not nice. I hope that your health is fine and that one day you are able to contribute to humanity in a constructive way. There is no need to be nasty!

[Jew Lover]

On Thursday, 18 July 2019 18:33:56 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 4:34:09 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > On Thursday, 18 July 2019 15:03:01 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 2:42:52 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, 18 July 2019 14:34:33 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 1:57:19 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, 18 July 2019 12:31:08 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > It is entertaining to see the three stooges of sci.math compete for main crackpot at sci.math. Can you guess who these three stooges are?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the 90's we had one that could give these three a run for their money. JSHtev, or something like that. Whatever happened to him?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Crank!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > crank: one who is regarded as mentally ill by those who reject his theories.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wasn't around when JSH was on here. I chanced to read some of his posts and he reminded me of AP.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The difference between JSH (and AP) and you is that JSH sincerely believed the rot they spewed out.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You, on the other hand are being corrected by the world's greatest mathematician (that's me) and your stubborn refusal to admit error makes you worse that a crackpot - it makes you a math jihadist.
> > > > >
> > > > > You criticising JSH and AP is a hell of a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Wow!
> > > >
> > > > Tell me moron, do you actually have anything to say? I am not interested in your two cents. Now go and play with those who are children like you!
> > >
> > > Yes, I have something to say. Seek psychiatric help and stop posting drivel on the internet. Can you do that?
> >
> > I didn't meant more drivel, idiot. Can you fuck yourself?
>
> I sense hostility - you are sure quick at dishing out the insults.

No kidding?!!! Chuckle.

> Signs of a man that has no reason and no argument.

No. Signs of a man that is tired of dealing with an idiot.

>
> > It's quite hilarious that you talk about academics in the USA's best universities when they are for the most part a bunch of stupid fucks like YOU!
>
> Ok, I will byte on this one. Humour me - where in the world do you think most mathematical progress has been made within the last 20 to 40 years?

My work has been the only progress. There has been almost 0 progress in the last 200 years where the mainstream is concerned.

> Mind you, we are not talking insignificant topics like grade school arithmetic or high school calculus.

Oh yeah, I know. You are usually talking shit in a big way: topology, set theory, etc. All total garbage that has gone nowhere in the last 200 years. Thousands of dissertations have been written that are not worth the ink and paper used to print them.

>
> > I piss and SHIT on those academics. They are fucking morons compared to my intelligence.
>
> So you think you are intelligent?

Fuck you asshole. You don't know anything about intelligence. How could you? I mean you're a retard who keeps coming back for more verbal abuse. Seems like you like it even when you've been told to fuck off? You have nothing to say to me, you moron, and what do you hope to accomplish?

> Almost no one in this mathematics forum seems to agree with that opinion.

Liar. Many agree with my opinions and you are afraid of this. Too scared to reveal your name hey coward? Know why? Because you are a fucking NOBODY.

> But, just to give you the benefit of the doubt, besides your breakthrough "new calculus" and treatment of fractions, what areas of mathematics could you dwell into? I might have some interesting problems for you to be able to show that intelligence of yours that seems to be elusive at the moment.

You don't have shit. I told you that you're an idiot and I am not interested in ANYTHING you have to drivel. Get it fool?

>
> > Get it idiot?! Not even Newton and Leibniz or any one who came after them was able to produce a rigorous formulation of calculus. That makes me great in any honest and intelligent person's eyes.
>
> I am willing to consider that claim, that an honest person would be able to see some greatness in you. I have some unsolved, but tangible, mathematics problems that an intelligent person could possibly tackle and solve. Are you up to that?

Yawn. Go play with your fellow idiots.

>
> > M'kay dumb fuck? Now slit your throat and fuck off from here.
>
> That's not nice.

Chuckle. You vile, despicable, hypocritical piece of dirt! You don't know not nice.

> I hope that your health is fine

Reptile!!!! I hope you choke to death nice and slowly.

> and that one day you are able to contribute to humanity in a constructive way.

I have contributed more than any moron academic in the last 2500 years, you delusional, lying bastard.

> There is no need to be nasty!

I would do a lot worse to you if I could get away with it. You don't want to know. Bwaaa haaaa haaaaa.

Grrrr. Snake!!!

[Simply Curious]

salt

[philipe...@gmail.com]

You? The little bratty teenager who can't tell what the logic disjunction OR is? Really? The greatest mathematician?

Now I think I was wrong. Your are, maybe, 8 years old.

[math...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 8:59:16 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 July 2019 18:33:56 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 4:34:09 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 18 July 2019 15:03:01 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 2:42:52 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, 18 July 2019 14:34:33 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 1:57:19 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, 18 July 2019 12:31:08 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > It is entertaining to see the three stooges of sci.math compete for main crackpot at sci.math. Can you guess who these three stooges are?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In the 90's we had one that could give these three a run for their money. JSHtev, or something like that. Whatever happened to him?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello Crank!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > crank: one who is regarded as mentally ill by those who reject his theories.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I wasn't around when JSH was on here. I chanced to read some of his posts and he reminded me of AP.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The difference between JSH (and AP) and you is that JSH sincerely believed the rot they spewed out.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You, on the other hand are being corrected by the world's greatest mathematician (that's me) and your stubborn refusal to admit error makes you worse that a crackpot - it makes you a math jihadist.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You criticising JSH and AP is a hell of a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Wow!
> > > > >
> > > > > Tell me moron, do you actually have anything to say? I am not interested in your two cents. Now go and play with those who are children like you!
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I have something to say. Seek psychiatric help and stop posting drivel on the internet. Can you do that?
> > >
> > > I didn't meant more drivel, idiot. Can you fuck yourself?
> >
> > I sense hostility - you are sure quick at dishing out the insults.
>
> No kidding?!!! Chuckle.

If you are dealing with anger issues, try finding a coping mechanism.

> > Signs of a man that has no reason and no argument.
>
> No. Signs of a man that is tired of dealing with an idiot.

And, exactly, why do you qualify me as an idiot?

> > > It's quite hilarious that you talk about academics in the USA's best universities when they are for the most part a bunch of stupid fucks like YOU!
> >
> > Ok, I will byte on this one. Humour me - where in the world do you think most mathematical progress has been made within the last 20 to 40 years?
>
> My work has been the only progress. There has been almost 0 progress in the last 200 years where the mainstream is concerned.

Assuming that is a fact, you have to admit that your work is a dust spec in the broader realm of mathematics. So, can you answer my question?

> > Mind you, we are not talking insignificant topics like grade school arithmetic or high school calculus.
>
> Oh yeah, I know. You are usually talking shit in a big way: topology, set theory, etc. All total garbage that has gone nowhere in the last 200 years. Thousands of dissertations have been written that are not worth the ink and paper used to print them.

Wait, aren't trying to pass as a revolutionary mathematical genius? If the answer is affirmative, then you cannot dismiss such important areas of mathematics as being total garbage. If you want to be taken seriously in your quest to revolutionise high school calculus, you will need to acknowledge the importance of other areas of mathematical endeavour.

> > > I piss and SHIT on those academics. They are fucking morons compared to my intelligence.
> >
> > So you think you are intelligent?
>
> Fuck you asshole.
> You don't know anything about intelligence. How could you?
> I mean you're a retard who keeps coming back for more verbal abuse.
> Seems like you like it even when you've been told to fuck off? You have nothing to say to me, you moron, and what do you hope to accomplish?

You are going to have to stop the ad hominem if you really want to make progress in your quest to get people to take you seriously.

I am not coming back for verbal abuse, I am actually trying to understand your perspective. For instance, I am trying to determine if you reject infinite processes. It seems that you study calculus concepts from a finite frame of reference - is this the case?

> > Almost no one in this mathematics forum seems to agree with that opinion.
>
> Liar. Many agree with my opinions and you are afraid of this.

No. All I see is a lot of people refuting you. You invariably react to their refutations with insults.

If there are posters who agree with your theories, I have not run across them. Can you point to one or two of them?

> Too scared to reveal your name hey coward? Know why? Because you are a fucking NOBODY.

I do not have to reveal my real name to carry on an intellectual discussion.

> > But, just to give you the benefit of the doubt, besides your breakthrough "new calculus" and treatment of fractions, what areas of mathematics could you dwell into? I might have some interesting problems for you to be able to show that intelligence of yours that seems to be elusive at the moment.
>
> You don't have shit. I told you that you're an idiot and I am not interested in ANYTHING you have to drivel. Get it fool?

I do have some problems in constructive mathematics. Don't pretend to know what others have or don't have. If you have any interest in making contributions to the field, you cannot dismiss or reject areas that you have not explored or do not understand. Isn't that your own opinion?

> > > Get it idiot?! Not even Newton and Leibniz or any one who came after them was able to produce a rigorous formulation of calculus. That makes me great in any honest and intelligent person's eyes.
> >
> > I am willing to consider that claim, that an honest person would be able to see some greatness in you. I have some unsolved, but tangible, mathematics problems that an intelligent person could possibly tackle and solve. Are you up to that?
>
> Yawn. Go play with your fellow idiots.

I could. But, why would you turn down the possibility of getting an ally?

> > > M'kay dumb fuck? Now slit your throat and fuck off from here.
> >
> > That's not nice.
>
> Chuckle. You vile, despicable, hypocritical piece of dirt! You don't know not nice.

Now, you are also qualifying me as hypocritical. What is the basis?

> > I hope that your health is fine
>
> Reptile!!!! I hope you choke to death nice and slowly.

Again, no need to get nasty.

> > and that one day you are able to contribute to humanity in a constructive way.
>
> I have contributed more than any moron academic in the last 2500 years, you delusional, lying bastard.

I do not see anybody interacting in these threads who agree with that assessment.

> > There is no need to be nasty!
>
> I would do a lot worse to you if I could get away with it. You don't want to know. Bwaaa haaaa haaaaa.

I don't think you would be able to. Usenet discussions are essentially harmless. But, if you are experiencing anger issues, do find some way of resolving them.

> Grrrr. Snake!!!

[Jew Lover]

A fool is known by his words.

>
> > > > It's quite hilarious that you talk about academics in the USA's best universities when they are for the most part a bunch of stupid fucks like YOU!
> > >
> > > Ok, I will byte on this one. Humour me - where in the world do you think most mathematical progress has been made within the last 20 to 40 years?
> >
> > My work has been the only progress. There has been almost 0 progress in the last 200 years where the mainstream is concerned.
>
> Assuming that is a fact, you have to admit that your work is a dust spec in the broader realm of mathematics.

It is so important that nothing done before even comes close to it.

> So, can you answer my question?
>
> > > Mind you, we are not talking insignificant topics like grade school arithmetic or high school calculus.
> >
> > Oh yeah, I know. You are usually talking shit in a big way: topology, set theory, etc. All total garbage that has gone nowhere in the last 200 years. Thousands of dissertations have been written that are not worth the ink and paper used to print them.
>
> Wait, aren't trying to pass as a revolutionary mathematical genius? If the answer is affirmative, then you cannot dismiss such important areas of mathematics as being total garbage. If you want to be taken seriously in your quest to revolutionise high school calculus, you will need to acknowledge the importance of other areas of mathematical endeavour.
>
> > > > I piss and SHIT on those academics. They are fucking morons compared to my intelligence.
> > >
> > > So you think you are intelligent?
> >
> > Fuck you asshole.
> > You don't know anything about intelligence. How could you?
> > I mean you're a retard who keeps coming back for more verbal abuse.
> > Seems like you like it even when you've been told to fuck off? You have nothing to say to me, you moron, and what do you hope to accomplish?
>
> You are going to have to stop the ad hominem if you really want to make progress in your quest to get people to take you seriously.

I'll stop once you reveal your real name.

>
> I am not coming back for verbal abuse,

Does not seem that way.

> I am actually trying to understand your perspective.

Liar. You're trying to waste my time, but I am not falling for it.

> For instance, I am trying to determine if you reject infinite processes.

You would have known if you actually studied my work. You haven't, so you know nothing about it and are not interested in anything except to pry. Too bad, because you'll only know what I allow you to know about me.

> It seems that you study calculus concepts from a finite frame of reference - is this the case?
>
> > > Almost no one in this mathematics forum seems to agree with that opinion.
> >
> > Liar. Many agree with my opinions and you are afraid of this.
>
> No. All I see is a lot of people refuting you.

Did you perhaps mean a lot of idiots arguing with me? Chuckle. There has been exactly zero refutations from any moron on this newsgroup and I don't expect anything else besides drivel. My agenda does not require acquiescence from any dimwit here, most of all you? Chuckle.

>
> If there are posters who agree with your theories, I have not run across them.

Liar.

> Can you point to one or two of them?
>
> > Too scared to reveal your name hey coward? Know why? Because you are a fucking NOBODY.
>
> I do not have to reveal my real name to carry on an intellectual discussion.

Afraid you do. There is no way I will take you seriously without being able to prove that you are indeed who you say.

>
> > > But, just to give you the benefit of the doubt, besides your breakthrough "new calculus" and treatment of fractions, what areas of mathematics could you dwell into? I might have some interesting problems for you to be able to show that intelligence of yours that seems to be elusive at the moment.

I am certain you would never have anything of interest to me except more drivel.

> >
> > You don't have shit. I told you that you're an idiot and I am not interested in ANYTHING you have to drivel. Get it fool?
>
> I do have some problems in constructive mathematics. Don't pretend to know what others have or don't have. If you have any interest in making contributions to the field, you cannot dismiss or reject areas that you have not explored or do not understand. Isn't that your own opinion?
>
> > > > Get it idiot?! Not even Newton and Leibniz or any one who came after them was able to produce a rigorous formulation of calculus. That makes me great in any honest and intelligent person's eyes.
> > >
> > > I am willing to consider that claim, that an honest person would be able to see some greatness in you. I have some unsolved, but tangible, mathematics problems that an intelligent person could possibly tackle and solve. Are you up to that?
> >
> > Yawn. Go play with your fellow idiots.
>
> I could. But, why would you turn down the possibility of getting an ally?
>
> > > > M'kay dumb fuck? Now slit your throat and fuck off from here.
> > >
> > > That's not nice.
> >
> > Chuckle. You vile, despicable, hypocritical piece of dirt! You don't know not nice.
>
> Now, you are also qualifying me as hypocritical. What is the basis?

Face palm.

[Simply Curious]

"I'll stop once you reveal your real name."

So your name...
is JEW LOVER?

This explains everything about your childhood.

[math...@gmail.com]

I am being a fool when I say I should give you the benefit of the doubt?

> > > > > It's quite hilarious that you talk about academics in the USA's best universities when they are for the most part a bunch of stupid fucks like YOU!
> > > >
> > > > Ok, I will byte on this one. Humour me - where in the world do you think most mathematical progress has been made within the last 20 to 40 years?
> > >
> > > My work has been the only progress. There has been almost 0 progress in the last 200 years where the mainstream is concerned.
> >
> > Assuming that is a fact, you have to admit that your work is a dust spec in the broader realm of mathematics.
>
> It is so important that nothing done before even comes close to it.

You are not very modest. Even if you had a facto contribution to the treatment of high school calculus, that would not measure up to developments in modern mathematics.

> > So, can you answer my question?
> >
> > > > Mind you, we are not talking insignificant topics like grade school arithmetic or high school calculus.
> > >
> > > Oh yeah, I know. You are usually talking shit in a big way: topology, set theory, etc. All total garbage that has gone nowhere in the last 200 years. Thousands of dissertations have been written that are not worth the ink and paper used to print them.
> >
> > Wait, aren't trying to pass as a revolutionary mathematical genius? If the answer is affirmative, then you cannot dismiss such important areas of mathematics as being total garbage. If you want to be taken seriously in your quest to revolutionise high school calculus, you will need to acknowledge the importance of other areas of mathematical endeavour.
> >
> > > > > I piss and SHIT on those academics. They are fucking morons compared to my intelligence.
> > > >
> > > > So you think you are intelligent?
> > >
> > > Fuck you asshole.
> > > You don't know anything about intelligence. How could you?
> > > I mean you're a retard who keeps coming back for more verbal abuse.
> > > Seems like you like it even when you've been told to fuck off? You have nothing to say to me, you moron, and what do you hope to accomplish?
> >
> > You are going to have to stop the ad hominem if you really want to make progress in your quest to get people to take you seriously.
>
> I'll stop once you reveal your real name.

There is no need for me to reveal my name to conduct a Usenet discussion. If you choose to dish out attacks, that only weakens your own position, not mine.

> >
> > I am not coming back for verbal abuse,
>
> Does not seem that way.

What do you accomplish by verbally abusing your opponents? That would not be the proper way of you establishing your truths or facts.

> > I am actually trying to understand your perspective.
>
> Liar. You're trying to waste my time, but I am not falling for it.

No, I am not. I am trying to understand what exactly prompts your objections to some of the established processes in mathematics.

> > For instance, I am trying to determine if you reject infinite processes.
>
> You would have known if you actually studied my work.
You haven't, so you know nothing about it and are not interested in anything except to pry. Too bad, because you'll only know what I allow you to know about me.

I have looked at what you wrote, though not in its entirety. What I have looked at seems to suggest that you may reject infinite processes. The immediate conclusion I draw is that the limitations you impose, do not allow you to solve many calculus problems, even though you allege you have a new treatment of calculus.

> > It seems that you study calculus concepts from a finite frame of reference - is this the case?
> >
> > > > Almost no one in this mathematics forum seems to agree with that opinion.
> > >
> > > Liar. Many agree with my opinions and you are afraid of this.
> >
> > No. All I see is a lot of people refuting you.
>
> Did you perhaps mean a lot of idiots arguing with me? Chuckle. There has been exactly zero refutations from any moron on this newsgroup and I don't expect anything else besides drivel. My agenda does not require acquiescence from any dimwit here, most of all you? Chuckle.

Not only arguing, but presenting what in my own estimate are sound arguments refuting your claims. But then again, your opponents may not be understanding what limitations you are demanding in your treatment.

> > If there are posters who agree with your theories, I have not run across them.
>
> Liar.

There is no need for me to lie about such triviality. Point to one or two posters who 1. understand your approach, and 2. agree with it.

> > Can you point to one or two of them?
> >
> > > Too scared to reveal your name hey coward? Know why? Because you are a fucking NOBODY.
> >
> > I do not have to reveal my real name to carry on an intellectual discussion.
>
> Afraid you do. There is no way I will take you seriously without being able to prove that you are indeed who you say.

Afraid of what? Who did I say I was?

> > > > But, just to give you the benefit of the doubt, besides your breakthrough "new calculus" and treatment of fractions, what areas of mathematics could you dwell into? I might have some interesting problems for you to be able to show that intelligence of yours that seems to be elusive at the moment.
>
> I am certain you would never have anything of interest to me except more drivel.

Limiting one's horizons can leave one ignorant and/or fooled. I think you would agree with that point.

> > > You don't have shit. I told you that you're an idiot and I am not interested in ANYTHING you have to drivel. Get it fool?
> >
> > I do have some problems in constructive mathematics. Don't pretend to know what others have or don't have. If you have any interest in making contributions to the field, you cannot dismiss or reject areas that you have not explored or do not understand. Isn't that your own opinion?
> >
> > > > > Get it idiot?! Not even Newton and Leibniz or any one who came after them was able to produce a rigorous formulation of calculus. That makes me great in any honest and intelligent person's eyes.
> > > >
> > > > I am willing to consider that claim, that an honest person would be able to see some greatness in you. I have some unsolved, but tangible, mathematics problems that an intelligent person could possibly tackle and solve. Are you up to that?
> > >
> > > Yawn. Go play with your fellow idiots.
> >
> > I could. But, why would you turn down the possibility of getting an ally?
> >
> > > > > M'kay dumb fuck? Now slit your throat and fuck off from here.
> > > >
> > > > That's not nice.
> > >
> > > Chuckle. You vile, despicable, hypocritical piece of dirt! You don't know not nice.
> >
> > Now, you are also qualifying me as hypocritical. What is the basis?
>
> Face palm.

No basis, correct?

[Jew Lover]

You NEVER said this! However, you can save your "benefits" because I don't need them. My work speaks for itself and defends itself against every one of your lies, false criticisms and assertions.

If you want me to respond seriously, you will reveal your name. I will not waste my time otherwise. :-))

[bassam king karzeddin]

Yes, and but no sham of being a fool, but the real shame is not being able to understand anything yet

when I say I should give you the benefit of the doubt?

You have nothing to give except bullshit for sure

>
> > > > > > It's quite hilarious that you talk about academics in the USA's best universities when they are for the most part a bunch of stupid fucks like YOU!
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, I will byte on this one. Humour me - where in the world do you think most mathematical progress has been made within the last 20 to 40 years?
> > > >
> > > > My work has been the only progress. There has been almost 0 progress in the last 200 years where the mainstream is concerned.
> > >
> > > Assuming that is a fact, you have to admit that your work is a dust spec in the broader realm of mathematics.
> >
> > It is so important that nothing done before even comes close to it.
>
> You are not very modest. Even if you had a facto contribution to the treatment of high school calculus, that would not measure up to developments in modern mathematics.

Still, talking aimlessly about many well-known ignorances that you never like to understand for sure

>
> > > So, can you answer my question?
> > >
> > > > > Mind you, we are not talking insignificant topics like grade school arithmetic or high school calculus.
> > > >
> > > > Oh yeah, I know. You are usually talking shit in a big way: topology, set theory, etc. All total garbage that has gone nowhere in the last 200 years. Thousands of dissertations have been written that are not worth the ink and paper used to print them.
> > >
> > > Wait, aren't trying to pass as a revolutionary mathematical genius? If the answer is affirmative, then you cannot dismiss such important areas of mathematics as being total garbage. If you want to be taken seriously in your quest to revolutionise high school calculus, you will need to acknowledge the importance of other areas of mathematical endeavour.
> > >
> > > > > > I piss and SHIT on those academics. They are fucking morons compared to my intelligence.
> > > > >
> > > > > So you think you are intelligent?
> > > >
> > > > Fuck you asshole.
> > > > You don't know anything about intelligence. How could you?
> > > > I mean you're a retard who keeps coming back for more verbal abuse.
> > > > Seems like you like it even when you've been told to fuck off? You have nothing to say to me, you moron, and what do you hope to accomplish?
> > >
> > > You are going to have to stop the ad hominem if you really want to make progress in your quest to get people to take you seriously.
> >
> > I'll stop once you reveal your real name.
>
> There is no need for me to reveal my name to conduct a Usenet discussion. If you choose to dish out attacks, that only weakens your own position, not mine.
>
> > >
> > > I am not coming back for verbal abuse,
> >
> > Does not seem that way.
>
> What do you accomplish by verbally abusing your opponents? That would not be the proper way of you establishing your truths or facts.
>
> > > I am actually trying to understand your perspective.
> >
> > Liar. You're trying to waste my time, but I am not falling for it.
>
> No, I am not. I am trying to understand what exactly prompts your objections to some of the established processes in mathematics.
>

Most likely you aren't a lier, but an honest ignorant for sure

> > > For instance, I am trying to determine if you reject infinite processes.
> >
> > You would have known if you actually studied my work.
> You haven't, so you know nothing about it and are not interested in anything except to pry. Too bad, because you'll only know what I allow you to know about me.
>
> I have looked at what you wrote, though not in its entirety. What I have looked at seems to suggest that you may reject infinite processes. The immediate conclusion I draw is that the limitations you impose, do not allow you to solve many calculus problems, even though you allege you have a new treatment of calculus.
>

Still as a fool, as usual, calculus works up to relatively too small integers but you don't know yet for surer

The coherent evidence in hand and just before everyone's eyes and silly minds is calculating your most worshipped number *Pi*, where you can ask the computer engineers (What is the largest natural number you were allowable to use to get your 31 trillion digits of accuracy)
And they will tell you frankly about it, where then you would realize that was too small natural number FOR SURE

And this story would have no end because of something that you would never like to simply understand because once well-understood then all Devils of mathematics would immediately fall together FOR SURER

But again, how truly the very delusional *IMPECILS* of the majority of mainstream mathematics understand alone? Wonder!

> > > It seems that you study calculus concepts from a finite frame of reference - is this the case?
> > >
> > > > > Almost no one in this mathematics forum seems to agree with that opinion.
> > > >
> > > > Liar. Many agree with my opinions and you are afraid of this.
> > >
> > > No. All I see is a lot of people refuting you.
> >
> > Did you perhaps mean a lot of idiots arguing with me? Chuckle. There has been exactly zero refutations from any moron on this newsgroup and I don't expect anything else besides drivel. My agenda does not require acquiescence from any dimwit here, most of all you? Chuckle.
>
> Not only arguing, but presenting what in my own estimate are sound arguments refuting your claims. But then again, your opponents may not be understanding what limitations you are demanding in your treatment.

Save your time please, since true hiding *IMPICILS* of mathematics are everywhere in plenty and they truly can't and don't want to understand at all FOR SUREST

>
> > > If there are posters who agree with your theories, I have not run across them.
> >
> > Liar.
>
> There is no need for me to lie about such triviality. Point to one or two posters who 1. understand your approach, and 2. agree with it.
>

Don't try to understand anything anymore, since you truly failed misrably to grasp any elementary approach in this regard FOR SURE

> > > Can you point to one or two of them?
> > >
> > > > Too scared to reveal your name hey coward? Know why? Because you are a fucking NOBODY.
> > >
> > > I do not have to reveal my real name to carry on an intellectual discussion.
> >
> > Afraid you do. There is no way I will take you seriously without being able to prove that you are indeed who you say.
>
> Afraid of what? Who did I say I was?
>

Please, keep hiding forever, since if you say who are you then every thing would be easier to understand

> > > > > But, just to give you the benefit of the doubt, besides your breakthrough "new calculus" and treatment of fractions, what areas of mathematics could you dwell into? I might have some interesting problems for you to be able to show that intelligence of yours that seems to be elusive at the moment.
> >
> > I am certain you would never have anything of interest to me except more drivel.
>
> Limiting one's horizons can leave one ignorant and/or fooled. I think you would agree with that point.
>

Don't talk more of hallucinations

> > > > You don't have shit. I told you that you're an idiot and I am not interested in ANYTHING you have to drivel. Get it fool?
> > >
> > > I do have some problems in constructive mathematics. Don't pretend to know what others have or don't have. If you have any interest in making contributions to the field, you cannot dismiss or reject areas that you have not explored or do not understand. Isn't that your own opinion?
> > >
> > > > > > Get it idiot?! Not even Newton and Leibniz or any one who came after them was able to produce a rigorous formulation of calculus. That makes me great in any honest and intelligent person's eyes.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am willing to consider that claim, that an honest person would be able to see some greatness in you. I have some unsolved, but tangible, mathematics problems that an intelligent person could possibly tackle and solve. Are you up to that?
> > > >
> > > > Yawn. Go play with your fellow idiots.
> > >
> > > I could. But, why would you turn down the possibility of getting an ally?
> > >
> > > > > > M'kay dumb fuck? Now slit your throat and fuck off from here.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's not nice.
> > > >
> > > > Chuckle. You vile, despicable, hypocritical piece of dirt! You don't know not nice.
> > >
> > > Now, you are also qualifying me as hypocritical. What is the basis?
> >
> > Face palm.
>
> No basis, correct?
>

If you were not baised, then you must be a BIG FOOL, where then not to blame at all

Go and learn better how to argue with too superior people to your like, SURE
BKK

[Jew Lover]

Bullshit can be used as fertiliser. :-)))

Don't give him so much credit Bassam. :-)))

[bassam king karzeddin]

I'm using those hiding cowords of Wikipedia writers crackpots in the hope that the innocent mainstream would be *finally* able to grasp anything corect and hence recognize truly where their entire mathematics went wrong, then start shouting loudly *everywhere* about pulluting and poisining their entire life with so much huge nonsense that would spoile their entire life and minds as well, but even many of them would recognize they would simply keep so silent and run away from here where some of them had already started their own buissness in this regard, where they are invading the internet domain nowadays with many (books, vidios, articles, papers, ..., etc)

but they would never admit where did they learn this first, since no (honesty, nobility, credibility, ..., etc) with those type of creatures of academic professional mathematicians or alike (except in the fairy stories of the forged history books) FOR SURE
But never mind as long as the bitter facts about the mathematicians are becoming well-known to public people

BKK

[gabriel...@gmail.com]

I know quite a few who agree but will never admit to it publicly. WM is one that is brave and has admitted it. So is Wildberger. Some others have too, but the majority will not because of fear of being ostracised. The Church of Academia is very powerful. They would lose their livelihoods and what's left of their non-careers.

I can't get a job in teaching anymore because I am certain that I have been blacklisted somewhere. Nope. I am not paranoid. Someone told me about this and it happens in this so called "land of the free".

[Simply Curious]

Heh, by your logic, do you think creationists should be allowed to teach biology and astronomy?

[math...@gmail.com]

Yes I did. Maybe you forgot, but I did.

> However, you can save your "benefits" because I don't need them. My work speaks for itself and defends itself against every one of your lies, false criticisms and assertions.

Your work is far from speaking for itself - many refutations have been shown, but you dismiss them. If you do not make a fair effort to rescue it, your work will end up forgotten (assuming it is legit.)

> If you want me to respond seriously, you will reveal your name. I will not waste my time otherwise. :-))

Again, for the third time, there is no need for me to reveal my name to be able to carry on a rational intellectual discussion. Your demand is silly.

Anyways, here is a calculus problem that your calculus does not seem to solve: Since real numbers do not exists, it is impossible to find the area or perimetre of a circle.

That would be a fundamental flaw in calculus.

[Sergio]

wrong, => your work STINKS for itself

<snip moron crap>

[Sergio]

On 7/20/2019 11:14 AM, gabriel...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 July 2019 11:59:29 UTC-4, bassam king karzeddin wrote:

<snip crap>

> I can't get a job in teaching anymore because I am certain that I have been blacklisted somewhere.

wrong, anyone can do a search on ohn Gabriel and find out he knows no
math, and is angry ass h o l e .

[Sergio]

8 is about right, doesnt even know what (-1)^(1/2) is

[Jew Lover]

On Monday, 22 July 2019 21:33:32 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:

> Your work is far from speaking for itself - many refutations have been shown, but you dismiss them.

No refutations have ever been shown, only biased objections based almost always on the fact that the knowledge is revealed by me. I don't care if I am not liked by jealous fools like you, only that I am respected.

> If you do not make a fair effort to rescue it, your work will end up forgotten (assuming it is legit.)

Huh? A work is either good or it's bad meaning that if it is bad, it can't be rescued, only discarded. Chuckle. "...assuming it is legit" inferring that you haven't read it, haven't studied it and don't know what you are talking about... and yet you are on here arguing! Oh the irony...

> > If you want me to respond seriously, you will reveal your name. I will not waste my time otherwise. :-))
>

> Anyways, here is a calculus problem that your calculus does not seem to solve: Since real numbers do not exists, it is impossible to find the area or perimetre of a circle.

You're almost right, but not quite. It is impossible to calculate the area of ANY circle in ALGEBRA.

Area ≈ 3.14 x r
Area ≈ 3.141 x r
Area ≈ 3.1415 x r
Area ≈ 3.14159 x r

Area = πr is TRUE in the context of geometry.

> Again, for the third time, there is no need for me to reveal my name to be able to carry on a rational intellectual discussion. Your demand is silly.

It is necessary because I deem it so. As an anonymous person, you get away with writing a lot of drivel. I can discuss much more but not unless I verify who you are. I shall not waste my time with an insignificant nobody and most on this newsgroup are "nobodies". Chuckle.

[konyberg]

tirsdag 23. juli 2019 15.21.42 UTC+2 skrev Jew Lover følgende:
> On Monday, 22 July 2019 21:33:32 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Your work is far from speaking for itself - many refutations have been shown, but you dismiss them.
>
> No refutations have ever been shown, only biased objections based almost always on the fact that the knowledge is revealed by me. I don't care if I am not liked by jealous fools like you, only that I am respected.
>
> > If you do not make a fair effort to rescue it, your work will end up forgotten (assuming it is legit.)
>
> Huh? A work is either good or it's bad meaning that if it is bad, it can't be rescued, only discarded. Chuckle. "...assuming it is legit" inferring that you haven't read it, haven't studied it and don't know what you are talking about... and yet you are on here arguing! Oh the irony...
>
>
> > > If you want me to respond seriously, you will reveal your name. I will not waste my time otherwise. :-))
> >
>
> > Anyways, here is a calculus problem that your calculus does not seem to solve: Since real numbers do not exists, it is impossible to find the area or perimetre of a circle.
>
> You're almost right, but not quite. It is impossible to calculate the area of ANY circle in ALGEBRA.
>
> Area ≈ 3.14 x r
> Area ≈ 3.141 x r
> Area ≈ 3.1415 x r
> Area ≈ 3.14159 x r
>
> Area = πr is TRUE in the context of geometry.

Really?
KON

[Jew Lover]

On Tuesday, 23 July 2019 11:46:58 UTC-4, konyberg wrote:
> tirsdag 23. juli 2019 15.21.42 UTC+2 skrev Jew Lover følgende:
> > On Monday, 22 July 2019 21:33:32 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Your work is far from speaking for itself - many refutations have been shown, but you dismiss them.
> >
> > No refutations have ever been shown, only biased objections based almost always on the fact that the knowledge is revealed by me. I don't care if I am not liked by jealous fools like you, only that I am respected.
> >
> > > If you do not make a fair effort to rescue it, your work will end up forgotten (assuming it is legit.)
> >
> > Huh? A work is either good or it's bad meaning that if it is bad, it can't be rescued, only discarded. Chuckle. "...assuming it is legit" inferring that you haven't read it, haven't studied it and don't know what you are talking about... and yet you are on here arguing! Oh the irony...
> >
> >
> > > > If you want me to respond seriously, you will reveal your name. I will not waste my time otherwise. :-))
> > >
> >
> > > Anyways, here is a calculus problem that your calculus does not seem to solve: Since real numbers do not exists, it is impossible to find the area or perimetre of a circle.
> >
> > You're almost right, but not quite. It is impossible to calculate the area of ANY circle in ALGEBRA.
> >
> > Area ≈ 3.14 x r
> > Area ≈ 3.141 x r
> > Area ≈ 3.1415 x r
> > Area ≈ 3.14159 x r
> >
> > Area = πr is TRUE in the context of geometry.
>
> Really?

YES!

[math...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 9:21:42 AM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> On Monday, 22 July 2019 21:33:32 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Your work is far from speaking for itself - many refutations have been shown, but you dismiss them.
>
> No refutations have ever been shown, only biased objections based almost always on the fact that the knowledge is revealed by me. I don't care if I am not liked by jealous fools like you, only that I am respected.
>
> > If you do not make a fair effort to rescue it, your work will end up forgotten (assuming it is legit.)
>
> Huh? A work is either good or it's bad meaning that if it is bad, it can't be rescued, only discarded. Chuckle. "...assuming it is legit" inferring that you haven't read it, haven't studied it and don't know what you are talking about... and yet you are on here arguing! Oh the irony...

I already told you I have not looked at the whole thing. The parts I have looked at are not particularly impressive, but, it does appear you are developing some type of finite methods to deal with limit-based problems.

> > > If you want me to respond seriously, you will reveal your name. I will not waste my time otherwise. :-))
> >
>
> > Anyways, here is a calculus problem that your calculus does not seem to solve: Since real numbers do not exists, it is impossible to find the area or perimetre of a circle.
>
> You're almost right, but not quite. It is impossible to calculate the area of ANY circle in ALGEBRA.

In finite time and in a finite world it is indeed impossible to achieve the value of pi. But, I am sure you must know why calculus was gradually developed throughout history, namely to give meaning to, and to provide solutions to, these type of problems... In an ideal manner, of course.

> Area ≈ 3.14 x r
> Area ≈ 3.141 x r
> Area ≈ 3.1415 x r
> Area ≈ 3.14159 x r
>
> Area = πr is TRUE in the context of geometry.

Area formula for a circle is A = pi(r^2). You forgot the square.

> > Again, for the third time, there is no need for me to reveal my name to be able to carry on a rational intellectual discussion. Your demand is silly.
>
> It is necessary because I deem it so.

It won't happen.

> As an anonymous person, you get away with writing a lot of drivel.

Non-sense. When you see a written response, all you have to do is address the response. The name of the author is unnecessary in that process.

> I can discuss much more but not unless I verify who you are. I shall not waste my time with an insignificant nobody and most on this newsgroup are "nobodies". Chuckle.

If you limit yourself in such a manner, it is only you who stands to lose. You are defending your work/your claims. If you choose not to defend it, people are not going to give you the recognition and/or credit you seem to be seeking.

[Jew Lover]

On Tuesday, 23 July 2019 14:28:29 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 9:21:42 AM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > On Monday, 22 July 2019 21:33:32 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Your work is far from speaking for itself - many refutations have been shown, but you dismiss them.
> >
> > No refutations have ever been shown, only biased objections based almost always on the fact that the knowledge is revealed by me. I don't care if I am not liked by jealous fools like you, only that I am respected.
> >
> > > If you do not make a fair effort to rescue it, your work will end up forgotten (assuming it is legit.)
> >
> > Huh? A work is either good or it's bad meaning that if it is bad, it can't be rescued, only discarded. Chuckle. "...assuming it is legit" inferring that you haven't read it, haven't studied it and don't know what you are talking about... and yet you are on here arguing! Oh the irony...
>
> I already told you I have not looked at the whole thing. The parts I have looked at are not particularly impressive, but, it does appear you are developing some type of finite methods to deal with limit-based problems.

Well, when you don't understand something, it's obvious that you won't only remain unimpressed, but you'll also dislike it. It's called bias in knowledge acquisition.

>
> > > > If you want me to respond seriously, you will reveal your name. I will not waste my time otherwise. :-))
> > >
> >
> > > Anyways, here is a calculus problem that your calculus does not seem to solve: Since real numbers do not exists, it is impossible to find the area or perimetre of a circle.
> >
> > You're almost right, but not quite. It is impossible to calculate the area of ANY circle in ALGEBRA.
>
> In finite time and in a finite world it is indeed impossible to achieve the value of pi. But, I am sure you must know why calculus was gradually developed throughout history, namely to give meaning to, and to provide solutions to, these type of problems... In an ideal manner, of course.

In order to find areas, volumes, hyper-volumes, etc. The formulation failed spectacularly in terms of well-formed concepts. For example, an area is generally defined as the product of two arithmetic means, a volume of 3 means, etc. This is new knowledge which I revealed to the world.

Also the most important theorem which is the mean value theorem is sorely misunderstood by mainstreamers - it is the reason calculus works, not limits, infinity, infinisimals or any of the other rubbish in the insane mainstream formulation.

>
> > Area ≈ 3.14 x r
> > Area ≈ 3.141 x r
> > Area ≈ 3.1415 x r
> > Area ≈ 3.14159 x r
> >
> > Area = πr is TRUE in the context of geometry.
>
> Area formula for a circle is A = pi(r^2). You forgot the square.

Right. I was in a hurry. :-) But it's not important to the point I was making.

>
> > > Again, for the third time, there is no need for me to reveal my name to be able to carry on a rational intellectual discussion. Your demand is silly.
> >
> > It is necessary because I deem it so.
>
> It won't happen.

If it does not, then you won't ever be taken seriously and there is no chance of you getting a satisfactory response.

> > As an anonymous person, you get away with writing a lot of drivel.
>
> Non-sense. When you see a written response, all you have to do is address the response. The name of the author is unnecessary in that process.

Maybe so. I still want to know your name.

>
> > I can discuss much more but not unless I verify who you are. I shall not waste my time with an insignificant nobody and most on this newsgroup are "nobodies". Chuckle.
>
> If you limit yourself in such a manner, it is only you who stands to lose.

Not at all. You stand to lose - in a big way.

> You are defending your work/your claims.

What?! On this newsgroup??!! Chuckle. No. I only come here for entertainment and my work does not need to be defended - it defends itself. It has been studied and applied by many with more liking it and subscribing to its ideas daily. Your problem is that YOU haven't studied it. Ironically, you tell me to address your responses, and not you. Yet you do not study my work, rather you look at me whom you dislike. Hypocrisy of the worst kind...

> If you choose not to defend it, people are not going to give you the recognition and/or credit you seem to be seeking.

No. Unfortunately that is not going to happen because I am not part of the Church of Academia, nor does it need to happen because what I am doing is destroying the entire Church and its dishonest, ignorant, stupid, incompetent and arrogant priests.

I have been recognised and continue to be recognised. It is doubtful I shall ever be rewarded financially or otherwise. I already take pleasure in the fact that everyone who has spoken against me will squirm with shame in the future whether I am still here to witness it or not. The penalty for calling me a crank and psychopath is that the world does not get to see the most interesting part of my work. I doubt even the smartest on the planet will get close to it in the next 50 years. Chuckle.

The New Calculus which is worth 10 Abel prizes is all you get. :-))

[konyberg]

But when I said "really", you didn't bother to look at why. And you are the greatest mathematician?
KON

[Jew Lover]

Because as I told the other dimwit, it doesn't actually affect my argument at all.

> And you are the greatest mathematician?

Without any shadow of doubt.

And you are the greatest dimwit.

> KON

[math...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 5:36:43 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 July 2019 14:28:29 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 9:21:42 AM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > On Monday, 22 July 2019 21:33:32 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Your work is far from speaking for itself - many refutations have been shown, but you dismiss them.
> > >
> > > No refutations have ever been shown, only biased objections based almost always on the fact that the knowledge is revealed by me. I don't care if I am not liked by jealous fools like you, only that I am respected.
> > >
> > > > If you do not make a fair effort to rescue it, your work will end up forgotten (assuming it is legit.)
> > >
> > > Huh? A work is either good or it's bad meaning that if it is bad, it can't be rescued, only discarded. Chuckle. "...assuming it is legit" inferring that you haven't read it, haven't studied it and don't know what you are talking about... and yet you are on here arguing! Oh the irony...
> >
> > I already told you I have not looked at the whole thing. The parts I have looked at are not particularly impressive, but, it does appear you are developing some type of finite methods to deal with limit-based problems.
>
> Well, when you don't understand something, it's obvious that you won't only remain unimpressed, but you'll also dislike it. It's called bias in knowledge acquisition.

Are you implying I did not understand that you are trying to do calculus while rejecting the limit concept? Or that you are not accepting the real numbers in that development?

Clarify this.

> > > > > If you want me to respond seriously, you will reveal your name. I will not waste my time otherwise. :-))
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Anyways, here is a calculus problem that your calculus does not seem to solve: Since real numbers do not exists, it is impossible to find the area or perimetre of a circle.
> > >
> > > You're almost right, but not quite. It is impossible to calculate the area of ANY circle in ALGEBRA.
> >
> > In finite time and in a finite world it is indeed impossible to achieve the value of pi. But, I am sure you must know why calculus was gradually developed throughout history, namely to give meaning to, and to provide solutions to, these type of problems... In an ideal manner, of course.
>
> In order to find areas, volumes, hyper-volumes, etc. The formulation failed spectacularly in terms of well-formed concepts. For example, an area is generally defined as the product of two arithmetic means, a volume of 3 means, etc. This is new knowledge which I revealed to the world.

You could define area of as the product of two averages. But in order to obtain those averages in uncountably many irregular shapes, the effort will inevitably lead to the discovery or invention of limits. Your development does not seem to point in that direction.

> Also the most important theorem which is the mean value theorem is sorely misunderstood by mainstreamers - it is the reason calculus works, not limits, infinity, infinisimals or any of the other rubbish in the insane mainstream formulation.

The first thought that comes to mind here is, do you realise there are two MVT's? One for derivatives and one for integrals?

Are you by any chance trying to unify them? If you are, Consider f(x) = xx + 1 over the interval [1, 3]

> > > Area ≈ 3.14 x r
> > > Area ≈ 3.141 x r
> > > Area ≈ 3.1415 x r
> > > Area ≈ 3.14159 x r
> > >
> > > Area = πr is TRUE in the context of geometry.
> >
> > Area formula for a circle is A = pi(r^2). You forgot the square.
>
> Right. I was in a hurry. :-) But it's not important to the point I was making.

I did not assume otherwise.

What was the point again? That pi is not achievable through a finite process? Absolutely. Problem with that approach is that, it does not permit the development of calculus in a meaningful way, unfortunately.

> > > > Again, for the third time, there is no need for me to reveal my name to be able to carry on a rational intellectual discussion. Your demand is silly.
> > >
> > > It is necessary because I deem it so.
> >
> > It won't happen.
>
> If it does not, then you won't ever be taken seriously and there is no chance of you getting a satisfactory response.

I could turn that around and say that if you do not accept established mathematical developments, that you won't ever be taken seriously and there is not chance of you getting any recognition.

How much sense does that make to you? The same happens with me when you make it a requirement to reveal my name.

> > > As an anonymous person, you get away with writing a lot of drivel.
> >
> > Non-sense. When you see a written response, all you have to do is address the response. The name of the author is unnecessary in that process.
>
> Maybe so. I still want to know your name.

Someone in the forum appears to think you have interacted with Gilbert Strang. If that is the case, you do not want to know my name - I am a nobody in comparison.

> >
> > > I can discuss much more but not unless I verify who you are. I shall not waste my time with an insignificant nobody and most on this newsgroup are "nobodies". Chuckle.
> >
> > If you limit yourself in such a manner, it is only you who stands to lose.
>
> Not at all. You stand to lose - in a big way.

Wrong. I am trying to understand your frame of reference - if there is something to be gained from that, I will not miss out. You are the only one who stands to lose if you dis-engage based on such a silly demand as knowing your opponent's name. So let's try focusing on your work and how important it could be.

> > You are defending your work/your claims.
>
> What?! On this newsgroup??!! Chuckle. No.

Then, why are you arguing with practically everybody who is not accepting your claims? Many of those folks you are arguing with are pretty knowledgeable in mathematics.

> I only come here for entertainment

Is that true? Does that mean that you do not care that practically everyone in this forum thinks your work is essentially rubbish?

> and my work does not need to be defended - it defends itself.

Not really. If that were the case, some of these mathematicians around here would have taken some interest.

> It has been studied and applied by many with more liking it and subscribing to its ideas daily.

One example?

> Your problem is that YOU haven't studied it.

I have studied bits and pieces. I am not particularly impressed by it, but maybe there is some pedagogical value to it - that is what has me engaged in discussion with you.

> Ironically, you tell me to address your responses, and not you. Yet you do not study my work, rather you look at me whom you dislike. Hypocrisy of the worst kind...

I am not telling you to address my responses - you address them because you want to, or feel compelled to. I neither like you nor dislike you. I do think you are an interesting case.

> > If you choose not to defend it, people are not going to give you the recognition and/or credit you seem to be seeking.
>
> No. Unfortunately that is not going to happen because I am not part of the Church of Academia, nor does it need to happen because what I am doing is destroying the entire Church and its dishonest, ignorant, stupid, incompetent and arrogant priests.

There are a lot of flaws in "academia," especially when it comes to getting jobs in it. But, when it comes to intellectual development, there are enough niches to beget recognition. It does not come for free, you have to invest time and effort in defending your work.

> I have been recognised and continue to be recognised.

Definitely not in this forum. A forum dedicated to mathematics, mind you.

> It is doubtful I shall ever be rewarded financially or otherwise. I already take pleasure in the fact that everyone who has spoken against me will squirm with shame in the future whether I am still here to witness it or not.

So, you are indeed trying to get recognition. You are going to have to put some work into that!!!

> The penalty for calling me a crank and psychopath is that the world does not get to see the most interesting part of my work. I doubt even the smartest on the planet will get close to it in the next 50 years. Chuckle.

The jury is still out on whether you are one or not. I would say that if you are able to get one person who is trained in mathematics to validate what you are trying to convey, that you have accomplished something, possibly not as significant as you may think, but something.

> The New Calculus which is worth 10 Abel prizes is all you get. :-))

Be happy if someone validates it as being plausible, but somewhat confined.

[Jew Lover]

On Wednesday, 24 July 2019 22:45:49 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 5:36:43 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 23 July 2019 14:28:29 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 9:21:42 AM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > On Monday, 22 July 2019 21:33:32 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Your work is far from speaking for itself - many refutations have been shown, but you dismiss them.
> > > >
> > > > No refutations have ever been shown, only biased objections based almost always on the fact that the knowledge is revealed by me. I don't care if I am not liked by jealous fools like you, only that I am respected.
> > > >
> > > > > If you do not make a fair effort to rescue it, your work will end up forgotten (assuming it is legit.)
> > > >
> > > > Huh? A work is either good or it's bad meaning that if it is bad, it can't be rescued, only discarded. Chuckle. "...assuming it is legit" inferring that you haven't read it, haven't studied it and don't know what you are talking about... and yet you are on here arguing! Oh the irony...
> > >
> > > I already told you I have not looked at the whole thing. The parts I have looked at are not particularly impressive, but, it does appear you are developing some type of finite methods to deal with limit-based problems.
> >
> > Well, when you don't understand something, it's obvious that you won't only remain unimpressed, but you'll also dislike it. It's called bias in knowledge acquisition.
>
> Are you implying I did not understand that you are trying to do calculus while rejecting the limit concept? Or that you are not accepting the real numbers in that development?
>
> Clarify this.

There is no "trying to do" calculus without limit theory and the myth of real number. It has been done in the New Calculus and you obviously did not understand.

>
> > > > > > If you want me to respond seriously, you will reveal your name. I will not waste my time otherwise. :-))
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Anyways, here is a calculus problem that your calculus does not seem to solve: Since real numbers do not exists, it is impossible to find the area or perimetre of a circle.
> > > >
> > > > You're almost right, but not quite. It is impossible to calculate the area of ANY circle in ALGEBRA.
> > >
> > > In finite time and in a finite world it is indeed impossible to achieve the value of pi. But, I am sure you must know why calculus was gradually developed throughout history, namely to give meaning to, and to provide solutions to, these type of problems... In an ideal manner, of course.
> >
> > In order to find areas, volumes, hyper-volumes, etc. The formulation failed spectacularly in terms of well-formed concepts. For example, an area is generally defined as the product of two arithmetic means, a volume of 3 means, etc. This is new knowledge which I revealed to the world.
>
> You could define area of as the product of two averages.

No, as a product of two arithmetic means.

> But in order to obtain those averages in uncountably many irregular shapes, the effort will inevitably lead to the discovery or invention of limits.

Nonsense. Limit theory is absolute rot that is not required in any way, shape or form in calculus. Again, the New Calculus proves this.

> Your development does not seem to point in that direction.

Wrong.

>
> > Also the most important theorem which is the mean value theorem is sorely misunderstood by mainstreamers - it is the reason calculus works, not limits, infinity, infinisimals or any of the other rubbish in the insane mainstream formulation.
>
> The first thought that comes to mind here is, do you realise there are two MVT's? One for derivatives and one for integrals?

False. These are both just different forms of the same mean value theorem - these facts are detailed in my eBook which you haven't read!

>
> Are you by any chance trying to unify them? If you are, Consider f(x) = xx + 1 over the interval [1, 3]
>
> > > > Area ≈ 3.14 x r
> > > > Area ≈ 3.141 x r
> > > > Area ≈ 3.1415 x r
> > > > Area ≈ 3.14159 x r
> > > >
> > > > Area = πr is TRUE in the context of geometry.
> > >
> > > Area formula for a circle is A = pi(r^2). You forgot the square.
> >
> > Right. I was in a hurry. :-) But it's not important to the point I was making.
>
> I did not assume otherwise.
>
> What was the point again? That pi is not achievable through a finite process? Absolutely. Problem with that approach is that, it does not permit the development of calculus in a meaningful way, unfortunately.

It does and your assertion is wrong.

>
> > > > > Again, for the third time, there is no need for me to reveal my name to be able to carry on a rational intellectual discussion. Your demand is silly.
> > > >
> > > > It is necessary because I deem it so.
> > >
> > > It won't happen.
> >
> > If it does not, then you won't ever be taken seriously and there is no chance of you getting a satisfactory response.
>
> I could turn that around and say that if you do not accept established mathematical developments, that you won't ever be taken seriously and there is not chance of you getting any recognition.

You can say anything you like and it will make no difference.

>
> How much sense does that make to you? The same happens with me when you make it a requirement to reveal my name.
>
> > > > As an anonymous person, you get away with writing a lot of drivel.
> > >
> > > Non-sense. When you see a written response, all you have to do is address the response. The name of the author is unnecessary in that process.
> >
> > Maybe so. I still want to know your name.
>
> Someone in the forum appears to think you have interacted with Gilbert Strang. If that is the case, you do not want to know my name - I am a nobody in comparison.

Strang is a nobody, so it's kind of impossible to be anything less. I have countless enemies and like to know who I am communicating with. If you want me to be serious, you will reveal who you are.

>
> > >
> > > > I can discuss much more but not unless I verify who you are. I shall not waste my time with an insignificant nobody and most on this newsgroup are "nobodies". Chuckle.
> > >
> > > If you limit yourself in such a manner, it is only you who stands to lose.
> >
> > Not at all. You stand to lose - in a big way.
>
> Wrong. I am trying to understand your frame of reference - if there is something to be gained from that, I will not miss out. You are the only one who stands to lose if you dis-engage based on such a silly demand as knowing your opponent's name. So let's try focusing on your work and how important it could be.

I don't need to discuss it with a nobody and it has already been shown to be most important.

>
> > > You are defending your work/your claims.
> >
> > What?! On this newsgroup??!! Chuckle. No.

> has

> Then, why are you arguing with practically everybody who is not accepting your claims?

To make fools of them and have fun.

> Many of those folks you are arguing with are pretty knowledgeable in mathematics.

Not a chance.

>
> > I only come here for entertainment
>
> Is that true? Does that mean that you do not care that practically everyone in this forum thinks your work is essentially rubbish?

Yes. I don't care about fools.

>
> > and my work does not need to be defended - it defends itself.
>
> Not really. If that were the case, some of these mathematicians around here would have taken some interest.

There are no mathematicians here besides me.

>
> > It has been studied and applied by many with more liking it and subscribing to its ideas daily.
>
> One example?

Your name?

>
> > Your problem is that YOU haven't studied it.
>
> I have studied bits and pieces. I am not particularly impressed by it, but maybe there is some pedagogical value to it - that is what has me engaged in discussion with you.
>
> > Ironically, you tell me to address your responses, and not you. Yet you do not study my work, rather you look at me whom you dislike. Hypocrisy of the worst kind...
>
> I am not telling you to address my responses - you address them because you want to, or feel compelled to. I neither like you nor dislike you. I do think you are an interesting case.


>
> > > If you choose not to defend it, people are not going to give you the recognition and/or credit you seem to be seeking.
> >
> > No. Unfortunately that is not going to happen because I am not part of the Church of Academia, nor does it need to happen because what I am doing is destroying the entire Church and its dishonest, ignorant, stupid, incompetent and arrogant priests.
>
> There are a lot of flaws in "academia," especially when it comes to getting jobs in it. But, when it comes to intellectual development, there are enough niches to beget recognition. It does not come for free, you have to invest time and effort in defending your work.
>
> > I have been recognised and continue to be recognised.
>
> Definitely not in this forum. A forum dedicated to mathematics, mind you.

A forum dedicated to trolls and clueless fools.

>
> > It is doubt...

[math...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 2:38:01 AM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 July 2019 22:45:49 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 5:36:43 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 23 July 2019 14:28:29 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 9:21:42 AM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, 22 July 2019 21:33:32 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Your work is far from speaking for itself - many refutations have been shown, but you dismiss them.
> > > > >
> > > > > No refutations have ever been shown, only biased objections based almost always on the fact that the knowledge is revealed by me. I don't care if I am not liked by jealous fools like you, only that I am respected.
> > > > >
> > > > > > If you do not make a fair effort to rescue it, your work will end up forgotten (assuming it is legit.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Huh? A work is either good or it's bad meaning that if it is bad, it can't be rescued, only discarded. Chuckle. "...assuming it is legit" inferring that you haven't read it, haven't studied it and don't know what you are talking about... and yet you are on here arguing! Oh the irony...
> > > >
> > > > I already told you I have not looked at the whole thing. The parts I have looked at are not particularly impressive, but, it does appear you are developing some type of finite methods to deal with limit-based problems.
> > >
> > > Well, when you don't understand something, it's obvious that you won't only remain unimpressed, but you'll also dislike it. It's called bias in knowledge acquisition.
> >
> > Are you implying I did not understand that you are trying to do calculus while rejecting the limit concept? Or that you are not accepting the real numbers in that development?
> >
> > Clarify this.
>
> There is no "trying to do" calculus without limit theory and the myth of real number. It has been done in the New Calculus and you obviously did not understand.

In that case, do not call it "calculus," call it algebra attempt at calculus. Unfortunately, such approach is unable to solve calculus problems.

> > > > > > > If you want me to respond seriously, you will reveal your name. I will not waste my time otherwise. :-))
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Anyways, here is a calculus problem that your calculus does not seem to solve: Since real numbers do not exists, it is impossible to find the area or perimetre of a circle.
> > > > >
> > > > > You're almost right, but not quite. It is impossible to calculate the area of ANY circle in ALGEBRA.
> > > >
> > > > In finite time and in a finite world it is indeed impossible to achieve the value of pi. But, I am sure you must know why calculus was gradually developed throughout history, namely to give meaning to, and to provide solutions to, these type of problems... In an ideal manner, of course.
> > >
> > > In order to find areas, volumes, hyper-volumes, etc. The formulation failed spectacularly in terms of well-formed concepts. For example, an area is generally defined as the product of two arithmetic means, a volume of 3 means, etc. This is new knowledge which I revealed to the world.
> >
> > You could define area of as the product of two averages.
>
> No, as a product of two arithmetic means.

The term average, means that.

> > > But in order to obtain those averages in uncountably many irregular shapes, the effort will inevitably lead to the discovery or invention of limits.

> Nonsense. Limit theory is absolute rot that is not required in any way, shape or form in calculus. Again, the New Calculus proves this.

The "new calculus" is unable to solve the simple problem of finding the perimetre of a circle with radius 1. Consequently, the "new calculus" has a serious handicap.

> > Your development does not seem to point in that direction.
>
> Wrong.

Solve the following calculus exercise using the "new calculus":

Obtain the area of y = 1/x over the interval 1 to 2.

> > > Also the most important theorem which is the mean value theorem is sorely misunderstood by mainstreamers - it is the reason calculus works, not limits, infinity, infinisimals or any of the other rubbish in the insane mainstream formulation.
> >
> > The first thought that comes to mind here is, do you realise there are two MVT's? One for derivatives and one for integrals?
>
> False. These are both just different forms of the same mean value theorem - these facts are detailed in my eBook which you haven't read!

Well, they are definitely not the same quantity for a specified function. You do know that - correct?

Your approach at analysing the MVT gives the impression you are confising the two versions, or, that you are creating a non-existing connection between then.

> > Are you by any chance trying to unify them? If you are, Consider f(x) = xx + 1 over the interval [1, 3]
> >
> > > > > Area ≈ 3.14 x r
> > > > > Area ≈ 3.141 x r
> > > > > Area ≈ 3.1415 x r
> > > > > Area ≈ 3.14159 x r
> > > > >
> > > > > Area = πr is TRUE in the context of geometry.
> > > >
> > > > Area formula for a circle is A = pi(r^2). You forgot the square.
> > >
> > > Right. I was in a hurry. :-) But it's not important to the point I was making.
> >
> > I did not assume otherwise.
> >
> > What was the point again? That pi is not achievable through a finite process? Absolutely. Problem with that approach is that, it does not permit the development of calculus in a meaningful way, unfortunately.
>
> It does and your assertion is wrong.

If the "new calculus" cannot succeed at finding the perimetre/area of a circle, it is meaningless and useless.

> > > > > > Again, for the third time, there is no need for me to reveal my name to be able to carry on a rational intellectual discussion. Your demand is silly.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is necessary because I deem it so.
> > > >
> > > > It won't happen.
> > >
> > > If it does not, then you won't ever be taken seriously and there is no chance of you getting a satisfactory response.
> >
> > I could turn that around and say that if you do not accept established mathematical developments, that you won't ever be taken seriously and there is not chance of you getting any recognition.
>
> You can say anything you like and it will make no difference.

I say the same about your preceding comment. See how that works?

> > How much sense does that make to you? The same happens with me when you make it a requirement to reveal my name.
> >
> > > > > As an anonymous person, you get away with writing a lot of drivel.
> > > >
> > > > Non-sense. When you see a written response, all you have to do is address the response. The name of the author is unnecessary in that process.
> > >
> > > Maybe so. I still want to know your name.
> >
> > Someone in the forum appears to think you have interacted with Gilbert Strang. If that is the case, you do not want to know my name - I am a nobody in comparison.
>
> Strang is a nobody, so it's kind of impossible to be anything less.

Gilbert Strang is admittedly a well known and respected mathematician and educator. You have no basis for your charge he is otherwise.

> I have countless enemies and like to know who I am communicating with. If you want me to be serious, you will reveal who you are.

You make your own enemies. I have read some of the exchanges you have had with some reasonable folks around here, and you have not exactly been very civil or reasonable with them.

For the last time, there is no need for me to reveal my name to conduct a Usenet discussion. Take it or leave it - it is inconsequential to me.

> > > > > I can discuss much more but not unless I verify who you are. I shall not waste my time with an insignificant nobody and most on this newsgroup are "nobodies". Chuckle.
> > > >
> > > > If you limit yourself in such a manner, it is only you who stands to lose.
> > >
> > > Not at all. You stand to lose - in a big way.
> >
> > Wrong. I am trying to understand your frame of reference - if there is something to be gained from that, I will not miss out. You are the only one who stands to lose if you dis-engage based on such a silly demand as knowing your opponent's name. So let's try focusing on your work and how important it could be.
>
> I don't need to discuss it with a nobody and it has already been shown to be most important.

Your loss. And no, your approach has not been shown by anyone besides you to be important. It does not appear significant at first glance, and, it seems to be weak when put to the test.

> > > > You are defending your work/your claims.
> > >
> > > What?! On this newsgroup??!! Chuckle. No.
> > has
> > Then, why are you arguing with practically everybody who is not accepting your claims?
>
> To make fools of them and have fun.

You do not seem to be achieving that in the slightest.

> > Many of those folks you are arguing with are pretty knowledgeable in mathematics.
>
> Not a chance.

There is a saying that goes something like, just because you can't see it, it does not mean it does not exists.

> > > I only come here for entertainment
> >
> > Is that true? Does that mean that you do not care that practically everyone in this forum thinks your work is essentially rubbish?
>
> Yes. I don't care about fools.

Not fools, they may be onto something. You have to reflect on that - assuming that you care about the validity of your own work, that is.

> > > and my work does not need to be defended - it defends itself.
> >
> > Not really. If that were the case, some of these mathematicians around here would have taken some interest.
>
> There are no mathematicians here besides me.

You do not come across as being a mathematician, as you seem to reject established mathematical ideas, and, seem to reject learning about it.

> > > It has been studied and applied by many with more liking it and subscribing to its ideas daily.
> >
> > One example?
>
> Your name?

I do not particularly like or subscribe to the ideas of the "new calculus". As for the likes you get on YT, my first impression is that those who do are not knowledgeable enough to critique what you are attempting to do.

> > > Your problem is that YOU haven't studied it.
> >
> > I have studied bits and pieces. I am not particularly impressed by it, but maybe there is some pedagogical value to it - that is what has me engaged in discussion with you.
> >
> > > Ironically, you tell me to address your responses, and not you. Yet you do not study my work, rather you look at me whom you dislike. Hypocrisy of the worst kind...
> >
> > I am not telling you to address my responses - you address them because you want to, or feel compelled to. I neither like you nor dislike you. I do think you are an interesting case.
>
>
> >
> > > > If you choose not to defend it, people are not going to give you the recognition and/or credit you seem to be seeking.
> > >
> > > No. Unfortunately that is not going to happen because I am not part of the Church of Academia, nor does it need to happen because what I am doing is destroying the entire Church and its dishonest, ignorant, stupid, incompetent and arrogant priests.
> >
> > There are a lot of flaws in "academia," especially when it comes to getting jobs in it. But, when it comes to intellectual development, there are enough niches to beget recognition. It does not come for free, you have to invest time and effort in defending your work.
> >
> > > I have been recognised and continue to be recognised.
> >
> > Definitely not in this forum. A forum dedicated to mathematics, mind you.
>
> A forum dedicated to trolls and clueless fools.

Maybe you are one of them?


> >
> > > It is doubt...

[Jew Lover]

On Thursday, 25 July 2019 09:46:24 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 2:38:01 AM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 24 July 2019 22:45:49 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 5:36:43 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 23 July 2019 14:28:29 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 9:21:42 AM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, 22 July 2019 21:33:32 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your work is far from speaking for itself - many refutations have been shown, but you dismiss them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No refutations have ever been shown, only biased objections based almost always on the fact that the knowledge is revealed by me. I don't care if I am not liked by jealous fools like you, only that I am respected.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you do not make a fair effort to rescue it, your work will end up forgotten (assuming it is legit.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Huh? A work is either good or it's bad meaning that if it is bad, it can't be rescued, only discarded. Chuckle. "...assuming it is legit" inferring that you haven't read it, haven't studied it and don't know what you are talking about... and yet you are on here arguing! Oh the irony...
> > > > >
> > > > > I already told you I have not looked at the whole thing. The parts I have looked at are not particularly impressive, but, it does appear you are developing some type of finite methods to deal with limit-based problems.
> > > >
> > > > Well, when you don't understand something, it's obvious that you won't only remain unimpressed, but you'll also dislike it. It's called bias in knowledge acquisition.
> > >
> > > Are you implying I did not understand that you are trying to do calculus while rejecting the limit concept? Or that you are not accepting the real numbers in that development?
> > >
> > > Clarify this.
> >
> > There is no "trying to do" calculus without limit theory and the myth of real number. It has been done in the New Calculus and you obviously did not understand.
>
> In that case, do not call it "calculus," call it algebra attempt at calculus.

It is called calculus because it is based on sound analytic geometry.

> Unfortunately, such approach is unable to solve calculus problems.

Obviously you know nothing about the New Calculus which solves ALL the same problems as your bogus formulation and much more.

<drivel>

[j4n bur53]

The four horse men of the crankocalipse:

1. WM: thinks there is a distance d(aleph_0,aleph_0)

2. AP: thinks there is an infinity border 10^604

3. JG: thinks negative numbers cannot be defined

4: BKK: Wonder, for sure!

Am Donnerstag, 18. Juli 2019 18:40:54 UTC+2 schrieb j4n bur53:
> four horse men of the apocalipse
>
> WM, AP, JG and BKK

[j4n bur53]

All 4 horse men claim it was worth it:

A pallet I made from an old coffee table
https://9gag.com/gag/a9K36y6

[math...@gmail.com]

By most accounts, calculus is the "branch of mathematics that deals with the finding and properties of derivatives and integrals of functions, by methods originally based on the summation of infinitesimal differences."

Consequently, if you claim you are developing calculus, limiting processes must be considered, regardless of whether you are employing analytic geometry or not.

> > Unfortunately, such approach is unable to solve calculus problems.
>
> Obviously you know nothing about the New Calculus which solves ALL the same problems as your bogus formulation and much more.
>

No, it does not. For instance, the "new calculus" does not seem to solve problems such as finding the area of a function such as y = Ln(x) over the interval e to 3. That is a serious flaw.

> <drivel>

Just because you do not understand, it does not mean it is drivel.

[j4n bur53]

I am pretty sure you need negative numbers for
calculus. Even this function, which doesn't
a negative value for positive arguments:

f(x) = 1/(x + 1)

Nevertheless has obviously a negative derivative:

f(x) = -1/(x + 1)^2

Ha Ha

[Jew Lover]

On Thursday, 25 July 2019 11:39:32 UTC-4, j4n bur53 wrote:
> The four horse men of the crankocalipse:
>
> 1. WM: thinks there is a distance d(aleph_0,aleph_0)
>
> 2. AP: thinks there is an infinity border 10^604
>
> 3. JG: thinks negative numbers cannot be defined

Liar. I said no such thing. Are you turning into another Dan Christensen troll?

[Jew Lover]

On Thursday, 25 July 2019 12:05:54 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 11:06:19 AM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > On Thursday, 25 July 2019 09:46:24 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 2:38:01 AM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, 24 July 2019 22:45:49 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 5:36:43 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, 23 July 2019 14:28:29 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 9:21:42 AM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, 22 July 2019 21:33:32 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Your work is far from speaking for itself - many refutations have been shown, but you dismiss them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No refutations have ever been shown, only biased objections based almost always on the fact that the knowledge is revealed by me. I don't care if I am not liked by jealous fools like you, only that I am respected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you do not make a fair effort to rescue it, your work will end up forgotten (assuming it is legit.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Huh? A work is either good or it's bad meaning that if it is bad, it can't be rescued, only discarded. Chuckle. "...assuming it is legit" inferring that you haven't read it, haven't studied it and don't know what you are talking about... and yet you are on here arguing! Oh the irony...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I already told you I have not looked at the whole thing. The parts I have looked at are not particularly impressive, but, it does appear you are developing some type of finite methods to deal with limit-based problems.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, when you don't understand something, it's obvious that you won't only remain unimpressed, but you'll also dislike it. It's called bias in knowledge acquisition.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you implying I did not understand that you are trying to do calculus while rejecting the limit concept? Or that you are not accepting the real numbers in that development?
> > > > >
> > > > > Clarify this.
> > > >
> > > > There is no "trying to do" calculus without limit theory and the myth of real number. It has been done in the New Calculus and you obviously did not understand.
> > >
> > > In that case, do not call it "calculus," call it algebra attempt at calculus.
> >
> > It is called calculus because it is based on sound analytic geometry.
>
> By most accounts, calculus is the "branch of mathematics that deals with the finding and properties of derivatives and integrals of functions, by methods originally based on the summation of infinitesimal differences."

That's your incorrect mainstream definition.

Calculus is the branch of mathematics that deals with the properties of smooth curves in order to determine tangent line slopes, areas and volumes.

>
> Consequently, if you claim you are developing calculus, limiting processes must be considered, regardless of whether you are employing analytic geometry or not.

False conclusion based on false definition.

>
> > > Unfortunately, such approach is unable to solve calculus problems.
> >
> > Obviously you know nothing about the New Calculus which solves ALL the same problems as your bogus formulation and much more.
> >
>
> No, it does not. For instance, the "new calculus" does not seem to solve problems such as finding the area of a function such as y = Ln(x) over the interval e to 3. That is a serious flaw.

Of course the New Calculus can be used to find the area of y = Ln(x). You false assert otherwise because you have not studied the New Calculus.

I suppose you think that just because e is not a number, that the New Calculus can't include it algebraically. Wrong as usual.

>
> > <drivel>
>
> Just because you do not understand, it does not mean it is drivel.

It's not because I don't understand, but because it IS drivel. Chuckle.

[j4n bur53]

You wrote:
> You cannot consider '-k' alone. It is meaningless gibberish.
- JG, 25.07.2019

Which is also wrong, it means the same as f(k),
some function applied to k. Only it uses prefix
notation. You can already reason with it,

for example this law holds if the function
is a total function:

x = y => -x = -y

You don't need any definition for it. This
is also known as Equality Elimination, or
Substitutio of Equals by Equals:

http://intrologic.stanford.edu/extras/equality.html

Jew Lover schrieb:

[j4n bur53]

If you then know that - is from an additive
group, you can further prove for example:

- - x = x

You still need no definition of - .

j4n bur53 schrieb:

[math...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 12:33:55 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> On Thursday, 25 July 2019 12:05:54 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 11:06:19 AM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 25 July 2019 09:46:24 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 2:38:01 AM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, 24 July 2019 22:45:49 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 5:36:43 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, 23 July 2019 14:28:29 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com

<snipped to clean>

> > > It is called calculus because it is based on sound analytic geometry.
> >
> > By most accounts, calculus is the "branch of mathematics that deals with the finding and properties of derivatives and integrals of functions, by methods originally based on the summation of infinitesimal differences."
>
> That's your incorrect mainstream definition.
>
> Calculus is the branch of mathematics that deals with the properties of smooth curves in order to determine tangent line slopes, areas and volumes.

Your definition is very restrictive, and non-standard. Never-the-less, your development does not seem to be able to live up to it.

> > Consequently, if you claim you are developing calculus, limiting processes must be considered, regardless of whether you are employing analytic geometry or not.
>
> False conclusion based on false definition.

Not according to those who have developed calculus throughout history. If you restrict what your development is supposed to study, you are limiting the scope of the problems you can solve. For instance, we define the area of a rectangle in geometry to be length x width. On that basis we are able to determine the area of some basic geometric shapes, such as rectangles, parallelogrammes, and trapezoids. However, we are not able to find the area of a circle without getting involved with the limit concept. Consequently, anyone who rejects the concept of limit will not be able to solve the problem of finding the area of a circle.

> > > > Unfortunately, such approach is unable to solve calculus problems.
> > >
> > > Obviously you know nothing about the New Calculus which solves ALL the same problems as your bogus formulation and much more.
> > >
> >
> > No, it does not. For instance, the "new calculus" does not seem to solve problems such as finding the area of a function such as y = Ln(x) over the interval e to 3. That is a serious flaw.
>
> Of course the New Calculus can be used to find the area of y = Ln(x). You false assert otherwise because you have not studied the New Calculus.

In that case, educate me, and those who are following this thread, use the "new calculus" to find the area of the smooth curve y = Ln(x) over the interval e to 3.

> I suppose you think that just because e is not a number, that the New Calculus can't include it algebraically. Wrong as usual.

I believe real numbers exist and that e is one of them. But assume e is just a symbol, let's have a stab at the problem. What is your solution with the "new calculus"?

> > > <drivel>
> >
> > Just because you do not understand, it does not mean it is drivel.
>
> It's not because I don't understand, but because it IS drivel. Chuckle.

Do you really understand calculus? For instance, do you know how to check continuity, do you know how to compute Riemann sums? Do you know what a non-differentiable function is? Can you construct one? Do you know what the first and second fundamental theorems of calculus are? Can you provide examples of pathologies to theose two theorems?

[Jew Lover]

On Thursday, 25 July 2019 13:15:13 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 12:33:55 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > On Thursday, 25 July 2019 12:05:54 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 11:06:19 AM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, 25 July 2019 09:46:24 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 2:38:01 AM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, 24 July 2019 22:45:49 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 5:36:43 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 23 July 2019 14:28:29 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> <snipped to clean>
>
>
>
> > > > It is called calculus because it is based on sound analytic geometry.
> > >
> > > By most accounts, calculus is the "branch of mathematics that deals with the finding and properties of derivatives and integrals of functions, by methods originally based on the summation of infinitesimal differences."
> >
> > That's your incorrect mainstream definition.
> >
> > Calculus is the branch of mathematics that deals with the properties of smooth curves in order to determine tangent line slopes, areas and volumes.
>
> Your definition is very restrictive, and non-standard.

Hardly. It is exactly the definition of calculus.

> Never-the-less, your development does not seem to be able to live up to it.

How could you know? You haven't studied it! Chuckle.

>
> > > Consequently, if you claim you are developing calculus, limiting processes must be considered, regardless of whether you are employing analytic geometry or not.
> >
> > False conclusion based on false definition.
>
> Not according to those who have developed calculus throughout history.

No. According to the founders, they didn't really know what they were doing. Neither Newton nor Leibniz had my understanding and in actual fact they were groping around in the dark.

>If you restrict what your development is supposed to study, you are limiting the scope of the problems you can solve.

Nonsense because no restriction is being placed anywhere.

> For instance, we define the area of a rectangle in geometry to be length x width.

You DO NOT define it. The area of a rectangle is the product of two arithmetic means: its length and width. This is true of ALL areas, irregular or otherwise.

> On that basis we are able to determine the area of some basic geometric shapes, such as rectangles, parallelogrammes, and trapezoids. However, we are not able to find the area of a circle

Nonsense. The area of a semi-circle of radius 1 is π/2. The one arithmetic mean is the interval width, that is, 2. The other arithmetic mean is the mean of all the vertical line lengths in a semi-circle which happens to be π/4. If you don't believe me, then use your average value theorem to check this.

Finally, the product π/4 x 2 gives the area of the semi-circle which is π/2.

> without getting involved with the limit concept.

Just proved to you that assertion is FALSE.

> Consequently, anyone who rejects the concept of limit will not be able to solve the problem of finding the area of a circle.
>
> > > > > Unfortunately, such approach is unable to solve calculus problems.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously you know nothing about the New Calculus which solves ALL the same problems as your bogus formulation and much more.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, it does not. For instance, the "new calculus" does not seem to solve problems such as finding the area of a function such as y = Ln(x) over the interval e to 3. That is a serious flaw.
> >
> > Of course the New Calculus can be used to find the area of y = Ln(x). You false assert otherwise because you have not studied the New Calculus.
>
> In that case, educate me, and those who are following this thread, use the "new calculus" to find the area of the smooth curve y = Ln(x) over the interval e to 3.

The function xln(x) - x is the primitive or antecedent of ln(x).

So, 3ln(3) - 3 - [eln(e) - e] is the area. It is also given by the product of two arithmetic means, viz.

(3-e) x { 3ln(3) - 3 - [eln(e) - e] } / (3-e)

= 3ln(3)-3

as required by the New Calculus.

>
> > I suppose you think that just because e is not a number, that the New Calculus can't include it algebraically. Wrong as usual.
>
> I believe real numbers exist and that e is one of them. But assume e is just a symbol, let's have a stab at the problem. What is your solution with the "new calculus"?

Solution shown above.

[math...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 5:44:19 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> On Thursday, 25 July 2019 13:15:13 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 12:33:55 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 25 July 2019 12:05:54 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 11:06:19 AM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, 25 July 2019 09:46:24 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 2:38:01 AM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, 24 July 2019 22:45:49 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 5:36:43 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 23 July 2019 14:28:29 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> > <snipped to clean>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > It is called calculus because it is based on sound analytic geometry.
> > > >
> > > > By most accounts, calculus is the "branch of mathematics that deals with the finding and properties of derivatives and integrals of functions, by methods originally based on the summation of infinitesimal differences."
> > >
> > > That's your incorrect mainstream definition.
> > >
> > > Calculus is the branch of mathematics that deals with the properties of smooth curves in order to determine tangent line slopes, areas and volumes.
> >
> > Your definition is very restrictive, and non-standard.
>
> Hardly. It is exactly the definition of calculus.

No. That is *your* definition of calculus. And, you have a long road ahead of you if your goal is to make it plausible.

> > Never-the-less, your development does not seem to be able to live up to it.
>
> How could you know? You haven't studied it! Chuckle.

I have studies enough to infer it has fundamental flaws. I have already pointed a few flaws to you during this discussion.

> > > > Consequently, if you claim you are developing calculus, limiting processes must be considered, regardless of whether you are employing analytic geometry or not.
> > >
> > > False conclusion based on false definition.
> >
> > Not according to those who have developed calculus throughout history.
>
> No. According to the founders, they didn't really know what they were doing. Neither Newton nor Leibniz had my understanding and in actual fact they were groping around in the dark.

I did not say that it was Newton and Leibniz that defined calculus, I said is that those who have developed it throughout history have. Please try reading before posting. Like practically every endeavour in the search for knowledge, a problem is not properly recognised/solved overnight - it takes time to digest and to to solve.

> >If you restrict what your development is supposed to study, you are limiting the scope of the problems you can solve.
>
> Nonsense because no restriction is being placed anywhere.

You are treating calculus while rejecting limit processes. That *is* a limitation!

> > For instance, we define the area of a rectangle in geometry to be length x width.
>
> You DO NOT define it. The area of a rectangle is the product of two arithmetic means: its length and width.
> This is true of ALL areas, irregular or otherwise.

And, what did I say? Did you read what I wrote?

> > On that basis we are able to determine the area of some basic geometric shapes, such as rectangles, parallelogrammes, and trapezoids. However, we are not able to find the area of a circle
>
> Nonsense. The area of a semi-circle of radius 1 is π/2.

Prove it with the "new calculus"

> The one arithmetic mean is the interval width, that is, 2. The other arithmetic mean is the mean of all the vertical line lengths in a semi-circle which happens to be π/4.

How do you find that value π/4 with the "new calculus"?

> If you don't believe me, then use your average value theorem to check this.

You are appealing to a traditional calculus theorem which rests on a limit process. We are interested in how to solve the problem with the "new calculus..."

> Finally, the product π/4 x 2 gives the area of the semi-circle which is π/2.
>
> > without getting involved with the limit concept.
>
> Just proved to you that assertion is FALSE.

What you just proved is that you have to resort to traditional calculus to rescue the "new calculus." Not very impressive and not very honest.

> > Consequently, anyone who rejects the concept of limit will not be able to solve the problem of finding the area of a circle.
> >
> > > > > > Unfortunately, such approach is unable to solve calculus problems.
> > > > >
> > > > > Obviously you know nothing about the New Calculus which solves ALL the same problems as your bogus formulation and much more.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, it does not. For instance, the "new calculus" does not seem to solve problems such as finding the area of a function such as y = Ln(x) over the interval e to 3. That is a serious flaw.
> > >
> > > Of course the New Calculus can be used to find the area of y = Ln(x). You false assert otherwise because you have not studied the New Calculus.
> >
> > In that case, educate me, and those who are following this thread, use the "new calculus" to find the area of the smooth curve y = Ln(x) over the interval e to 3.
>
> The function xln(x) - x is the primitive or antecedent of ln(x).
>
> So, 3ln(3) - 3 - [eln(e) - e] is the area. It is also given by the product of two arithmetic means, viz.
>
> (3-e) x { 3ln(3) - 3 - [eln(e) - e] } / (3-e)
>
> = 3ln(3)-3
>
> as required by the New Calculus.

Whether you admit it or not, what you just did is exactly what the whole world has been doing for years, namely, integrate Ln(x) over the interval [e, 3]. And it is not a mystery where you are getting your average value from, repeat after me,

Riemann integration!!!!

> > > I suppose you think that just because e is not a number, that the New Calculus can't include it algebraically. Wrong as usual.
> >
> > I believe real numbers exist and that e is one of them. But assume e is just a symbol, let's have a stab at the problem. What is your solution with the "new calculus"?
>
> Solution shown above.

Followed by an explanation on how that solution was obtained.

[Jew Lover]

On Thursday, 25 July 2019 18:13:09 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 5:44:19 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > On Thursday, 25 July 2019 13:15:13 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 12:33:55 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, 25 July 2019 12:05:54 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 11:06:19 AM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, 25 July 2019 09:46:24 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 2:38:01 AM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 24 July 2019 22:45:49 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 5:36:43 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 23 July 2019 14:28:29 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > <snipped to clean>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > It is called calculus because it is based on sound analytic geometry.
> > > > >
> > > > > By most accounts, calculus is the "branch of mathematics that deals with the finding and properties of derivatives and integrals of functions, by methods originally based on the summation of infinitesimal differences."
> > > >
> > > > That's your incorrect mainstream definition.
> > > >
> > > > Calculus is the branch of mathematics that deals with the properties of smooth curves in order to determine tangent line slopes, areas and volumes.
> > >
> > > Your definition is very restrictive, and non-standard.
> >
> > Hardly. It is exactly the definition of calculus.
>
> No. That is *your* definition of calculus. And, you have a long road ahead of you if your goal is to make it plausible.

My definition is correct. Yours is wrong. The mainstream is wrong and I am correct.

>
> > > Never-the-less, your development does not seem to be able to live up to it.
> >
> > How could you know? You haven't studied it! Chuckle.
>
> I have studies enough to infer it has fundamental flaws. I have already pointed a few flaws to you during this discussion.

Liar. You have yet to point out any except your confusion and inability to understand.

>
> > > > > Consequently, if you claim you are developing calculus, limiting processes must be considered, regardless of whether you are employing analytic geometry or not.
> > > >
> > > > False conclusion based on false definition.
> > >
> > > Not according to those who have developed calculus throughout history.
> >
> > No. According to the founders, they didn't really know what they were doing. Neither Newton nor Leibniz had my understanding and in actual fact they were groping around in the dark.
>
> I did not say that it was Newton and Leibniz that defined calculus, I said is that those who have developed it throughout history have.

Those who developed mainstream calculus were a bunch of incorrigible morons like you.

> Please try reading before posting. Like practically every endeavour in the search for knowledge, a problem is not properly recognised/solved overnight - it takes time to digest and to to solve.

This is very good advice for YOU!

>
> > >If you restrict what your development is supposed to study, you are limiting the scope of the problems you can solve.
> >
> > Nonsense because no restriction is being placed anywhere.
>
> You are treating calculus while rejecting limit processes.

I do not subscribe to ill-formed concepts like those one finds in limit theory.

> That *is* a limitation!

On the contrary, it means the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history. It is *limit theory* which makes mainstream calculus a FLAWED formulation.

>
> > > For instance, we define the area of a rectangle in geometry to be length x width.
> >
> > You DO NOT define it. The area of a rectangle is the product of two arithmetic means: its length and width.
> > This is true of ALL areas, irregular or otherwise.
>
> And, what did I say? Did you read what I wrote?

You write a lot of shit. Excuse me if I missed smelling some of it.

>
> > > On that basis we are able to determine the area of some basic geometric shapes, such as rectangles, parallelogrammes, and trapezoids. However, we are not able to find the area of a circle
> >
> > Nonsense. The area of a semi-circle of radius 1 is π/2.
>
> Prove it with the "new calculus"

I just did. What is unclear about the above explanation. The New Calculus defines an integral as the product of two arithmetic means. The actual form is given as a finite sum in my eBook. See page 120. The formal definition is stated there.

>
> > The one arithmetic mean is the interval width, that is, 2. The other arithmetic mean is the mean of all the vertical line lengths in a semi-circle which happens to be π/4.
>
> How do you find that value π/4 with the "new calculus"?

The same way you do with the *RESULTS* of your bogus calculus, only the New Calculus is a rigorous formulation, unlike the shit you have been brainwashed to believe is correct.

>
> > If you don't believe me, then use your average value theorem to check this.
>
> You are appealing to a traditional calculus theorem which rests on a limit process.

Bullshit. I prove in my eBook that the "mean value theorem" from which the "average value theorem" is derived IS the fundamental theorem of ALL calculus, not the bullshit 2-part fundamental theorem you and morons like you believe in.

In my proof I use NO limits (pg. 121). However, in order to convince orangutans who have "limit crap" branded in between their ears, I also do it using limits on page 93.

Everything is proved in the New Calculus. I did not leave anything to chance as those fucking idiots of the past 200 years. Everything in the New Calculus is based on well-formed concepts.

Do not talk to be about that knucklehead Riemann. He didn't know shit about mathematics. Riemann sums are proof that the moron could not reach the sound conclusion about areas, etc.

AND IF YOU WANT ME TO KEEP EDUCATING YOU, YOU FUCKING MORON!!!! THEN YOU BETTER WATCH YOUR TONE. I PISS AND SHIT ON YOU. THIS IS WHAT I THINK OF KNOW-FUCKALLS LIKE YOU. Do you understand me, pisshead?????

I am so angry right now, I shall erase the rest of your vomit and will probably try to ignore you more in the future.

<vomit>

[Jew Lover]

On Thursday, 25 July 2019 18:13:09 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:

<drivel>

You can ask me questions without an "attitude" or libel and I might answer. I have ZERO interest in what you think or any one else on the planet thinks in his syphilitic brain. Get it stupidicus maximus?

Keep every shitty thought to yourself please. You are a fucking moron when compared to my intelligence. I am the great John Gabriel and you are a stupid fuck.

[gilber69]

Looks like its the five horse men. I was always
suspicious that Crank "Me" is also applying.
It started with his Ebbinghause nonsense,

now because of some stroke or something, he
is up to S=Lim S. So the five horse men of
the crankocalypse are now:

WM, AP, JG, BKK and Crank "Me"

[gilber69]

Poor bird brain JG, he is not so interesting
anymore. What happened with Crank "Me", dehydration

because of hot weather in Europe, together with
loss of sugar. Now his brain cells produce

utter bullshit?

[Jew Lover]

I think you're needed to clean up a bad mess in the toilets. GET OFF that library computer because there are students waiting to use it!!!!

[gilber69]

Poor boy, still struggling with 0.333... = 1/3.
No wonder Gil Strang thought you are a bird brain.
Gil Strang is the one who already dealt with you

conclusive. No need to discuss JG anymore. But
what about Crank "Me". How could he mutate
through brainfuck by JG?

[Jew Lover]

On Friday, 26 July 2019 14:11:35 UTC-4, gilber69 wrote:
> Poor boy, still struggling with 0.333... = 1/3.
> No wonder Gil Strang thought you are a bird brain.
> Gil Strang is the one who already dealt with you

Your grandma was a peasant Greek nanny goat?

We already know your father is a Swiss retard like you.

[math...@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 26, 2019 at 1:58:11 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> On Thursday, 25 July 2019 18:13:09 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 5:44:19 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 25 July 2019 13:15:13 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 12:33:55 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, 25 July 2019 12:05:54 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 11:06:19 AM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, 25 July 2019 09:46:24 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 2:38:01 AM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 24 July 2019 22:45:49 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 5:36:43 PM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 23 July 2019 14:28:29 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > <snipped to clean>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > It is called calculus because it is based on sound analytic geometry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By most accounts, calculus is the "branch of mathematics that deals with the finding and properties of derivatives and integrals of functions, by methods originally based on the summation of infinitesimal differences."
> > > > >
> > > > > That's your incorrect mainstream definition.
> > > > >
> > > > > Calculus is the branch of mathematics that deals with the properties of smooth curves in order to determine tangent line slopes, areas and volumes.
> > > >
> > > > Your definition is very restrictive, and non-standard.
> > >
> > > Hardly. It is exactly the definition of calculus.
> >
> > No. That is *your* definition of calculus. And, you have a long road ahead of you if your goal is to make it plausible.
>
> My definition is correct. Yours is wrong. The mainstream is wrong and I am correct.

That is not how it works. Your definition of calculus is restrictive and not the one that has been designed by those who have developed the subject. Do not presume that your definition can supersede the one in existence unless you are able to establish it is broader and/or better than the existing one. So far you are not doing a good job at that.

> > > > Never-the-less, your development does not seem to be able to live up to it.
> > >
> > > How could you know? You haven't studied it! Chuckle.
> >
> > I have studies enough to infer it has fundamental flaws. I have already pointed a few flaws to you during this discussion.
>
> Liar. You have yet to point out any except your confusion and inability to understand.

There is not need for me to lie about such triviality. I read what you wrote on the matter of derivatives and integrals, you outright reject limit process. That represents a handicap when trying to compute areas and lenghts of irregular shapes. Tjis is the third or fourth time I point out to you, yet you have no offered defense to that flaw.

> > > > > > Consequently, if you claim you are developing calculus, limiting processes must be considered, regardless of whether you are employing analytic geometry or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > False conclusion based on false definition.
> > > >
> > > > Not according to those who have developed calculus throughout history.
> > >
> > > No. According to the founders, they didn't really know what they were doing. Neither Newton nor Leibniz had my understanding and in actual fact they were groping around in the dark.
> >
> > I did not say that it was Newton and Leibniz that defined calculus, I said is that those who have developed it throughout history have.
>
> Those who developed mainstream calculus were a bunch of incorrigible morons like you.

Until you succeed at showing this claim is actually true, you are just talking without foundation. Stop the ad hominem calling those who have contributed to the subject "morons" and instead offer mathematical evidence that your work is not a bunch of non-sense.

> > Please try reading before posting. Like practically every endeavour in the search for knowledge, a problem is not properly recognised/solved overnight - it takes time to digest and to to solve.
>
> This is very good advice for YOU!

I am faithfully abiding by those reasonable principles in the search for knowledge. Your attitude towards modern mathematics shows the opposite about you.

> > > >If you restrict what your development is supposed to study, you are limiting the scope of the problems you can solve.
> > >
> > > Nonsense because no restriction is being placed anywhere.
> >
> > You are treating calculus while rejecting limit processes.
>
> I do not subscribe to ill-formed concepts like those one finds in limit theory.

In the study of calculus, even under your own definition of it, the concept of limit is not ill formed. Your treatment of calculus does not seem to show otherwise.

> > That *is* a limitation!
>
> On the contrary, it means the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history. It is *limit theory* which makes mainstream calculus a FLAWED formulation.

Not exactly. What you have written lacks rigour. There is a lot of talk, many claims are being made, but no math to support. Furthermore, when put to the test, your claims have not held water so far.

> > > > For instance, we define the area of a rectangle in geometry to be length x width.
> > >
> > > You DO NOT define it. The area of a rectangle is the product of two arithmetic means: its length and width.
> > > This is true of ALL areas, irregular or otherwise.
> >
> > And, what did I say? Did you read what I wrote?
>
> You write a lot of shit. Excuse me if I missed smelling some of it.

I could say the same thing about you, but I abstain. You gain nothing by arguing dishonestly.

> > > > On that basis we are able to determine the area of some basic geometric shapes, such as rectangles, parallelogrammes, and trapezoids. However, we are not able to find the area of a circle
> > >
> > > Nonsense. The area of a semi-circle of radius 1 is π/2.
> >
> > Prove it with the "new calculus"
>
> I just did. What is unclear about the above explanation. The New Calculus defines an integral as the product of two arithmetic means. The actual form is given as a finite sum in my eBook. See page 120. The formal definition is stated there.

NO! you presented an answer, you showed no method. The answer is no doubt obtained from the well established Riemann integral. Yeah, show how you obtain the mean that requires integration without using Riemann integration - Do it, if you claim you can do it with methods not involving limits, show in the world one would be able to obtain the integral without performing Riemann integration. Do it here!

> > > The one arithmetic mean is the interval width, that is, 2. The other arithmetic mean is the mean of all the vertical line lengths in a semi-circle which happens to be π/4.
> >
> > How do you find that value π/4 with the "new calculus"?
>
> The same way you do with the *RESULTS* of your bogus calculus, only the New Calculus is a rigorous formulation, unlike the shit you have been brainwashed to believe is correct.

You failed to oblige by the request. Do you want to try again? Here is the question, again, How do you find that value pi/4 with the "new calculus"?

> > > If you don't believe me, then use your average value theorem to check this.
> >
> > You are appealing to a traditional calculus theorem which rests on a limit process.
>
> Bullshit. I prove in my eBook that the "mean value theorem" from which the "average value theorem" is derived IS the fundamental theorem of ALL calculus, not the bullshit 2-part fundamental theorem you and morons like you believe in.

NO, there is no proof in your book of the MVT for integrals. Do you know what a proof is? On page 91 you assert that f'(c) is the mean of all values of f(x) over the interval of interest and from that you concoct the MVT for integrals, ie, you assume what you are trying to prove. That is called CIRCULAR REASONING. The assertion bout f'(c) requires a proof itself.

> In my proof I use NO limits (pg. 121). However, in order to convince orangutans who have "limit crap" branded in between their ears, I also do it using limits on page 93.

This is utterly wrong. Your avoidance of the limit process seems to be forcing you to assume that derivatives are given objects - they are not.

> Everything is proved in the New Calculus. I did not leave anything to chance as those fucking idiots of the past 200 years. Everything in the New Calculus is based on well-formed concepts.

NO. Your "proofs" are lacking something. I am thinking is the limit concept.

> Do not talk to be about that knucklehead Riemann. He didn't know shit about mathematics. Riemann sums are proof that the moron could not reach the sound conclusion about areas, etc.

Riemann did know enough and put it forth in his development of the integral, the same integral you undoubtedly used to obtain the area under the graph of y = Ln(x) over [e, 3]. And before you proclaim the product of averages cop out, know that you will need to explain where the difficult average comes from.

> AND IF YOU WANT ME TO KEEP EDUCATING YOU, YOU FUCKING MORON!!!! THEN YOU BETTER WATCH YOUR TONE. I PISS AND SHIT ON YOU. THIS IS WHAT I THINK OF KNOW-FUCKALLS LIKE YOU. Do you understand me, pisshead?????
> I am so angry right now, I shall erase the rest of your vomit and will probably try to ignore you more in the future.
>
> <vomit>

Try keeping the conversation civil. The jury is still out as to whether you will in fact succeed at establishing your work is plausible.

[Jew Lover]

On Friday, 26 July 2019 21:06:38 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:

<lies and drivel>

This poster math...@gmail.com is a troll. It is clear from my eBook that everything he claims is either a lie, said in ignorance or plain ad hominem. He posts anonymously and pretends to be civil when in fact trying to provoke me to anger.

Don't believe a word I say, but study my work which has been endorsed by several mainstream academics:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view

[Jew Lover]

On Thursday, 18 July 2019 12:31:08 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> It is entertaining to see the three stooges of sci.math compete for main crackpot at sci.math. Can you guess who these three stooges are?
>
> In the 90's we had one that could give these three a run for their money. JSHtev, or something like that. Whatever happened to him?

It's easy to tell a troll as follows:

i. You correct him and he simply repeats his drivel
ii. A troll provokes you to anger
iii. A troll will sometimes appear to be erudite and civil but his real purpose is to waste your time
iv. Because a troll has no credibility, he will post anonymously and expect to be treated as a knowledgeable expert
v. A troll will attempt to make others appear to be the crackpots by focusing on their weaknesses (anger in my case) when in fact he knows little or nothing about what is being discussed.
vi. A troll produces long rants usually based on half-truths or lies.

[Simply Curious]

...Troll, eh?

How is it you got banned on all those sites again?

Was your intent really to look for genuine answers? Or was it to inflame the EEEEEVIL mainstream academics there and promote your bullshit?

Also, 'a troll provokes you to anger'.

Heh, I can't help it that you have an anger problem!

[gilber69]

gay lard bird brain can still not place page numbers
on his documents. Where are the page numbers?

And why this big font? Is this for the blind.
Or is this indicative that you don't have any

content and need to blow up your nonsense?

Ha Ha, what a moron.

[bassam king karzeddin]

"The English language words or any other language words are truly helpless to describe the very deep-rooted and inherited STUPIDITY of those vast majorities of that ALLEGED certified genius historical or living mathematicians" FOR SURE

Please note that isn't directed to *YOU* personally or even for those many common traditional unknown academic mathematicians of sci. math or alike, since they don't count at all in this very BIG issue

Where their modern-mathematics depends entirely on this "No number"

999... / 1000...

So to say, they have failed miserably to understand basically what is truly a real number?

Let alone "school kids" discover truly this absolute fact only "by themselves"

"ONLY NATURAL NUMBERS CAN TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH WHERE LANGUAGES CAN'T"
FOR SURER

And I know that people of your alike would never give up their brain fart and would keep appearing in so many fake names since they were deeply involved in this biggest scandal, FOR SUREST
BKK

[Jew Lover]

On Saturday, 27 July 2019 07:22:01 UTC-4, Simply Curious wrote:
> ...Troll, eh?
>
> How is it you got banned on all those sites again?

Solely because they did not like me or my ideas. Must be their open-mindedness eh? Chuckle.

>
> Was your intent really to look for genuine answers? Or was it to inflame the EEEEEVIL mainstream academics there and promote your bullshit?

Hello stupid. My intent was to share my knowledge as it was here.

>
> Also, 'a troll provokes you to anger'.
>
> Heh, I can't help it that you have an anger problem!

You can! Disappear from my threads for good. Your stupidity isn't helping.

[Zelos Malum]

>And for a well-determined natural number of repeated digits of 9's (0.999...(n) = 999...(n)/1000...(n)), Right?

Wrong, as usual you do not understand anything.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

On Sunday, July 28, 2019 at 11:00:08 PM UTC-7, Zelos Malum wrote:
> >And for a well-determined natural number of repeated digits of 9's (0.999...(n) = 999...(n)/1000...(n)), Right?
>
> Wrong, as usual you do not understand anything.

(I think it means 1.0.)

[bassam king karzeddin]

The ratio of two successive natural numbers (n-1)/n is impossible to be one, where the largest *FINITE* Natural number doesn't exist for sure

Note here in current meaningless mathematical concepts or terms that even the largest *finite* natural number is truly *infinite*, which is a very clear contradiction to all those very poor terms or words mathematicians usually and so blindly follow

Do you have better terms? wonder!


But by much other non-mathematical thinking, one may claim or create many other non-mathematical terms like (Approximations, limits, approaching slowly or fast, sequences, cuts, bullshit, ..., etc) to finally get (her/his) dream done so illegally in *MATHEMATICS*

BKK

[Simply Curious]

"The ratio of two successive natural numbers (n-1)/n is impossible to be one, where the largest *FINITE* Natural number doesn't exist for sure"

No one said otherwise.

"Note here in current meaningless mathematical concepts or terms that even the largest *finite* natural number is truly *infinite*"

Nope, in 'current meaningless mathematical concepts', there is no such thing as the largest finite natural number. There is a larger size then finite naturals, say the set of naturals, but that is irrelevant to the conversation here either way. The 'limit' isn't saying something about a 'largest finite number'.

"which is a very clear contradiction to all those very poor terms or words mathematicians usually and so blindly follow"

A clear display you don't have one iota of a clue of what the fuck you are talking about.

"Do you have better terms? wonder!"

How about you learn them?

"But by much other non-mathematical thinking, one may claim or create many other non-mathematical terms like (Approximations, limits, approaching slowly or fast, sequences, cuts, bullshit, ..., etc) to finally get (her/his) dream done so illegally in *MATHEMATICS*"

Name me one illegal instance. Also, make sure it is truly illegal and not something that you don't personally like, ie, you need to show a contradiction.

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Monday, July 29, 2019 at 10:27:13 AM UTC+3, Simply Curious wrote:
> "The ratio of two successive natural numbers (n-1)/n is impossible to be one, where the largest *FINITE* Natural number doesn't exist for sure"
>
> No one said otherwise.
>

No, lier, YOU and almost every professional mathematician says that

999... / 1000... = 0.999... = 1

But Morons and Trolls of mathematics don't like to confess what they do believe in

See how only the misuse of the decimal notation can con you for the rest of your life, do you need more analysis like step by step to understand? wonder!

> "Note here in current meaningless mathematical concepts or terms that even the largest *finite* natural number is truly *infinite*"
>
> Nope, in 'current meaningless mathematical concepts', there is no such thing as the largest finite natural number.

Yes, in 'current meaningless mathematical concepts', there is no such thing as the largest finite natural number.

And there is nearly the term of "largest natural number doesn't exist"

But that is my own term which is theoretically valid, isn't it? no wonder

> There is a larger size then finite naturals,

Do you truly understand in depth what are you hallucinating? wonder

If the largest **FINITE** natural number doesn't exist and, but in fact, **INFINITE** in the current mathematical terms, then how can be there a larger size than finite? wonder!

Or is it only a memorized meaningless words from Wikipedia and alike? wonder!

You truly don't understand anything from what you say FOR SURE

>say the set of naturals,

Who taught you *WRONGLY* that the natural numbers constitute a set? Wonder!

Probably the alleged top-most Journals and the best Universities Publication, No wonder!

But they had badly deceived your little mind in this regard and FOR SURE

To verify it, just ask your self the following two questions innocently

1) Are there truly any *EXISTING* SET with natural numbers that have all its elements? wonder!

2) Is the set of natural numbers truly countable? wonder!

3) How can there be an existing set that is also countable if we know only a negligible number of its endless number elements? wonder!

And the ability to obtain and count a few elements of the set doesn't mean that you can find all its elements or even count them FOR SURE

That was the main two fundamental obvious mistakes that master inventors of the set theory had fallen in so miserably from the EARLY beginning FOR SURE

>but that is irrelevant to the conversation here either way. The 'limit' isn't saying something about a 'largest finite number'.
>

The limit is approximations to a possible degree of accuracy and never as we wish, but as we technically can

However, the limit concept doesn't belong to mathematics but is only an engineering VALID term and so irrelevant to maths FOR SURE

Where also, never needs any fiction like infinity to work the way scientists or engineers require

> "which is a very clear contradiction to all those very poor terms or words mathematicians usually and so blindly follow"
>
> A clear display you don't have one iota of a clue of what the fuck you are talking about.
>

That you must ask yourself before anyone else for sure

> "Do you have better terms? wonder!"
>
> How about you learn them?
>

You teach nothing but complete nonsense FOR SURE

> "But by much other non-mathematical thinking, one may claim or create many other non-mathematical terms like (Approximations, limits, approaching slowly or fast, sequences, cuts, bullshit, ..., etc) to finally get (her/his) dream done so illegally in *MATHEMATICS*"
>
> Name me one illegal instance. Also, make sure it is truly illegal and not something that you don't personally like, ie, you need to show a contradiction.

I had already named you so many but frankly, you *DON'T* like to understand and FOR SURER
BKK

[Simply Curious]

"No, lier"

Dishonest tactic #43:

Anytime there is opposition, instead of saying they are wrong, try to achieve a moral advantage by claiming the other person is MALICIOUSLY lying.

"YOU and almost every professional mathematician says that

999... / 1000... = 0.999... = 1"

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuullshit.

Find me ONE source that writes it DIRECTLY in this form. I don't want your made up INTERPRETATION of what is being said: give me the black and white statement of so.

Otherwise, you are talking out of your ass. If you are to be a bit more careful, you might have said that based on what you have heard, x is interpreted as y. Not that we say x is y.

"Do you truly understand in depth what are you hallucinating? wonder

If the largest **FINITE** natural number doesn't exist and, but in fact, **INFINITE** in the current mathematical terms, then how can be there a larger size than finite? wonder!"

Is it so hard to conceive that there is an ordering 1<2<3<...<N, where there is no value directly before N such that x<N but no value y such that x<y<N? Because this is in essence what you are seeing. What is the problem here?

There can be a larger size then the finite because by the very nature, there is no largest finite number, so the collection of all this can't be finite.

"Who taught you *WRONGLY* that the natural numbers constitute a set? Wonder!"

The only thing that can teach a person something, a person saying something or a book or similar.

"Probably the alleged top-most Journals and the best Universities Publication, No wonder!"

Yes, as opposed to AntlanteanConspiracy.com and the hippy hobo on LSD and Heroine down the street.

"1) Are there truly any *EXISTING* SET with natural numbers that have all its elements? wonder!"

I'd say yes. A better question is whether any mathematical objects exist independent of the mind.

"2) Is the set of natural numbers truly countable? wonder!"

A firmer yes then 1). It is very trivial it is countable, since to be countable means there is a one to one mapping from naturals to the set. And I assume you have enough intelligence to note there is a 1-1 mapping from natural to the very same naturals...

"3) How can there be an existing set that is also countable if we know only a negligible number of its endless number elements? wonder!"

Seems to me you are making the argument that since our lifespans our finite, the volume of our brains are finite, the information it can process is finite, and the age of the human race finite, that we can only compute 'finite numbers', but this is a very 'computational' view of mathematics that just doesn't seem to work with how mathematics actually works.

"And the ability to obtain and count a few elements of the set doesn't mean that you can find all its elements or even count them FOR SURE"

Method of generalization is the key point here, and is to what I mean 'how mathematics actually works'.

"The limit is approximations to a possible degree of accuracy and never as we wish, but as we technically can"

Limit is not an 'approximation', you can imagine a sequence of approximations itself to some value, but the LIMIT is a firm numerical value. No questions asked.

"You teach nothing but complete nonsense FOR SURE"

Well, for one, I don't teach anything. Went over this before.

"I had already named you so many but frankly, you *DON'T* like to understand and FOR SURER"

Noooooooooo...

I don't think you know exactly what a contradiction is. I don't mean something that appears to be wrong contingent in some world view, I mean a contradiction, with bright flashing red lights and alarm sounds. Never have you ever been able to take the idea itself and deduce a statement of the form "P and not P", and so haven't found a contradiction. If you can do this, I would pretty quickly convert. As of yet, though, NO ONE has been able to take up on this offer.

As to, "I don't like to understand" is bullshit because those that have been actually able to make logically sound arguments, have been immediately convinced by. ZelosMalum, FredJefferies, and Dan Christensen have been able to do this. You, JG, AP, and WM haven't.

"you *DON'T* like to understand"

Take a look at my damn name.

[Jew Lover]

On Monday, 29 July 2019 07:46:30 UTC-4, Simply Curious wrote:
> "No, lier"
>
> Dishonest tactic #43:
>
> Anytime there is opposition, instead of saying they are wrong, try to achieve a moral advantage by claiming the other person is MALICIOUSLY lying.
>
> "YOU and almost every professional mathematician says that
>
> 999... / 1000... = 0.999... = 1"
>
> Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuullshit.

Yes, you do!!!! I'm sorry but you do even worse! You claim that

333.../999... = 333.../1000...

implying that 3/9 = 3/10.

That is EXACTLY what you DO!!! CHUCKLES.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAM_l72UJw

You are mentally ill. Very sad.

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Monday, July 29, 2019 at 2:46:30 PM UTC+3, Simply Curious wrote:
> "No, lier"
>
> Dishonest tactic #43:
>

??

> Anytime there is opposition, instead of saying they are wrong, try to achieve a moral advantage by claiming the other person is MALICIOUSLY lying.
>

You certainly mean to accept blindly what others (MORONS) had already illegally established

> "YOU and almost every professional mathematician says that
>
> 999... / 1000... = 0.999... = 1"
>
> Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuullshit.
>
> Find me ONE source that writes it DIRECTLY in this form.

Most likely I'm the first person to write it in this form since I didn't learn it from anybody else before

And this is completely very legal since (0.9 = 9/10), (0.99 = 99/100), and with a natural number (n) of repeated digits of 9's and zeros, one may simply denote
(0.999...(n) = 999...(n) /1000...(n) =/= 1), where no sensible mathematician would ever dare to deny

And assuming you're (n) tends to infinity (which isn't a number nor anything else by definition), then the same expression becomes like

(0.999...(n-->00) = 999...(n-->00) /1000...(n-->00) = 999.../1000... = No number/No number =/= 1, nor equals to any real existing number) FOR SURE

And since this is only an elementary school level, how do you convey the same number (0.999...) you do worship blindly to a school kid who didn't learn yet about the decimal notation? wonder

Or do you still think blindly that the whole magic hide behind that only decimal notation that isn't any fundamental mathematical operation that can *SUDDENLY* and **MAGICALLY** turn non-sense endless sequence digits to real numbers and integers? wonder!
No, you real idiot, the decimal notation is simply a division notation but you aren't even up to that too elementary level to understand it FOR SURE

> I don't want your made up INTERPRETATION of what is being said: give me the black and white statement of so.
>

Did you understand NOW OR by the YEARS coming how my simple made up INTERPRETATION confused your fixed and rigid brain? wonder!

> Otherwise, you are talking out of your ass.

It seems obvious that you understand only from your ass, No wonder!

>If you are to be a bit more careful, you might have said that based on what you have heard, x is interpreted as y. Not that we say x is y.
>

I'm truly getting so mad about how too easy the whole problem is indeed and how jugglers of mathematics want to complicate it to a degree of how can we make a space ship that can go to another far galaxy? wonder!

Please, wise intelligent being or people mustn't at all blame me when I talk so loudly about the so unbelievable stupidity that only the vast majorities of top-most professional academic mathematicians *EXPERTS* solely, naturally and freely enjoy FOR SURE

> "Do you truly understand in depth what are you hallucinating? wonder
>
> If the largest **FINITE** natural number doesn't exist and, but in fact, **INFINITE** in the current mathematical terms, then how can be there a larger size than finite? wonder!"
>
> Is it so hard to conceive that there is an ordering 1<2<3<...<N, where there is no value directly before N such that x<N but no value y such that x<y<N? Because this is in essence what you are seeing. What is the problem here?
>

All the problems are that you still don't understand anything FOR SURE

> There can be a larger size then the finite because by the very nature, there is no largest finite number, so the collection of all this can't be finite.
>

I truly want to save you but seems completely impossible

Who is truly *RESPONSIBLE* about making almost ALL the ALLEGED *genius professional mathematician* so *FOOLISH* up to this so *UNBELIEVABLE* LIMIT? wonder!

Is it the *LIMIT* itself? NO wonder!

> "Who taught you *WRONGLY* that the natural numbers constitute a set? Wonder!"
>
> The only thing that can teach a person something, a person saying something or a book or similar.
>

Yes, you are certainly a mere *VICTIM* of so many BOOKS, PAPERS, ..., ETC

> "Probably the alleged top-most Journals and the best Universities Publication, No wonder!"
>
> Yes, as opposed to AntlanteanConspiracy.com and the hippy hobo on LSD and Heroine down the street.
>

??

> "1) Are there truly any *EXISTING* SET with natural numbers that have all its elements? wonder!"
>
> I'd say yes. A better question is whether any mathematical objects exist independent of the mind.
>

Don't you jump randomly to higher levels of true mathematics unless you clear the too elementary level,

> "2) Is the set of natural numbers truly countable? wonder!"
>
> A firmer yes then 1). It is very trivial it is countable, since to be countable means there is a one to one mapping from naturals to the set. And I assume you have enough intelligence to note there is a 1-1 mapping from natural to the very same naturals...
>

Just like any obedient Parrot, saying and repeating words from books that you never understand where it fails *DRASTICALLY* FOR SURE

> "3) How can there be an existing set that is also countable if we know only a negligible number of its endless number elements? wonder!"
>
> Seems to me you are making the argument that since our lifespans our finite, the volume of our brains are finite, the information it can process is finite, and the age of the human race finite, that we can only compute 'finite numbers', but this is a very 'computational' view of mathematics that just doesn't seem to work with how mathematics actually works.
>

Of course, nothing would work the way they *LIKE* without your fiction *INFINITY*, No wonder!

> "And the ability to obtain and count a few elements of the set doesn't mean that you can find all its elements or even count them FOR SURE"
>
> Method of generalization is the key point here, and is to what I mean 'how mathematics actually works'.
>

It works fine and even far better like calculus but without your infinities and only with very small *finite* natural numbers

And guess what are those my small natural numbers? wonder

> "The limit is approximations to a possible degree of accuracy and never as we wish, but as we technically can"
>
> Limit is not an 'approximation', you can imagine a sequence of approximations itself to some value, but the LIMIT is a firm numerical value. No questions asked.
>

Limits are all your problems for sure

> "You teach nothing but complete nonsense FOR SURE"
>
> Well, for one, I don't teach anything. Went over this before.
>
> "I had already named you so many but frankly, you *DON'T* like to understand and FOR SURER"
>
> Noooooooooo...
>
> I don't think you know exactly what a contradiction is.

The many contradictions are so many and became very well-known to many others where they are swimming freely across the planet throughout the free internet public domains these days, SURE

>I don't mean something that appears to be wrong contingent in some world view, I mean a contradiction, with bright flashing red lights and alarm sounds.

Talking funnily about bright flashing, red lights, and alarm sounds as if you are a true searcher of the fact? wonder!

But most likely, and if only you are too lucky to overcome from your own self first, then you would certainly laugh too *LOUDLY* about yourself *ONEDAY*, FOR SURE

> Never have you ever been able to take the idea itself and deduce a statement of the form "P and not P",

Oops, the issue is suddenly becoming hotter now, I have no idea about that topic

>and so haven't found a contradiction.

Let alone you find it only by yourself (hopefully)

>If you can do this, I would pretty quickly convert. As of yet, though, NO ONE has
been able to take up on this offer.
>

I can't do things that I have no idea about as "p and not p" FOR SURE

I heard that is a computer riddle problem

> As to, "I don't like to understand" is bullshit because those that have been actually able to make logically sound arguments, have been immediately convinced by. ZelosMalum, FredJefferies, and Dan Christensen have been able to do this. You, JG, AP, and WM haven't.
>

What? wonder

Maybe I didn't read properly, you said

ZelosMalum, and Dan Christensen

How can one don't immediately recognize those two *IMBICILS* and very peculiar creatures? wonder!

> "you *DON'T* like to understand"
>

> Take a look at my damn name.

I took a look at your damn thoughts instead

But hopes are there (HOPEFULLY)
BKK

[Simply Curious]

I have made free omissions of what I respond to because much of it doesn't appear worthwhile to go in depth into or repeat. In short, yet to be produced is a very clear cut contradiction where you show within the theory, some statement "P" is derived, yet similarly, a statement of the form "not P" produced. So, no contradiction. Argued so far has just been basically on how it is supposedly obvious that the contradiction follows: it never has been produced.

"Most likely I'm the first person to write it in this form since I didn't learn it from anybody else before"

So it is fallacious to say "YOU and almost every professional mathematician says that 999... / 1000... = 0.999... = 1".

In short, you conflate the notion of limit of n-> oo as some kind of function evaluation at n=oo. Something no one said.

Next.

"No, you real idiot, the decimal notation is simply a division notation but you aren't even up to that too elementary level to understand it FOR SURE"

Decimal notation is a representation of the subdivision process. At this 'elementary level', there is a number called pi, may have heard of it, which is irrational but has a decimal expansion.

"I'm truly getting so mad about how too easy the whole problem is indeed and how jugglers of mathematics want to complicate it to a degree of how can we make a space ship that can go to another far galaxy? wonder!"

And I am much madder that people that know jack shit about the topic and don't have interest and determination to study the subject want to piss and shit all over it.

I would say arrogance from ones ignorance is way worse then the fact that technical things are hard.

"How can one don't immediately recognize those two *IMBICILS* and very peculiar creatures? wonder!"

It's remarkable: even when I am quite wrong in the conversation, that they have been able to convince me, despite the fact that I supposedly am purposely trying to force myself to claim I am right. I have not been able to do the same with you and the other people mentioned.

[Jew Lover]

On Monday, 29 July 2019 10:27:51 UTC-4, Simply Curious wrote:

> I have made free omissions of what I respond to because much of it doesn't appear worthwhile to go in depth into or repeat.

One who understands mathematics does not need to produce rants as you do. A good mathematician is articulate in every sense. You fail dismally and you compound the problem after refusing to admit you are wrong. Gosh, if I were talking to you about the vertex problem, I would have lost my breath. You are incorrigibly stupid and obstinate. Think about this!!!!

>
> It's remarkable: even when I am quite wrong in the conversation, that they have been able to convince me,

Chuckle. Who is "they"? Those who have been filling your brains with crap?

> despite the fact that I supposedly am purposely trying to force myself to claim I am right.

Wow. Very bad grammar. If I understand you correctly, then why do you think that you claiming to be correct makes any difference at all????

> I have not been able to do the same with you and the other people mentioned.

And you never will!!! Know why? Because you are consistently wrong about everything.

[Jew Lover]

I laughed when I read this. Oh boy, this poor boy is Simply Lost. Chuckle.

You cannot fix Simply Idiot. I don't like Malum, but he is not in the same category as Christensen. There is a huge difference in intellectual ability. Christensen is the biggest fucking moron on sci.math. He holds the prize for that title.

Malum on the other hand almost appears to know better but his faith trumps facts as expected of any fundamentalist believer.

[Simply Curious]

"One who understands mathematics does not need to produce rants as you do."

So based on your own damn criteria, should not your channel completely negate the idea that you understand mathematics?

"A good mathematician is articulate in every sense."

So that doesn't include you because half the time I don't know what the fuck you are saying. That isn't so bad though considering with WM I don't understand him 85% of the time, with BKK like 95% of the time, and well AP 100% of the time.

On the other hand, through some magical process, I can manage to understand these apparently incoherent mathematicians. The very same ones that you struggle with!

Maybe this is a sign to reconsider your conclusions?

"You fail dismally and you compound the problem after refusing to admit you are wrong."

I admit I am wrong when I am. See the comment you saw that made you erupt into laughter.

Here, I am not.

I gave very simple criticism on your work, the most OBVIOUS problem of how your definition of positional derivatives at different points actually equates to the same point of before, and instead tried to argue against it with god knows what.

"Gosh, if I were talking to you about the vertex problem, I would have lost my breath."

One can't hope for it to happen sooner.

"You are incorrigibly stupid and obstinate. Think about this!!!!"

Thought about it but since you are still struggling to understand the notion of substitution of values, the insult kind of loses all its weight.

"Chuckle. Who is "they"? Those who have been filling your brains with crap?"

If you insist.

"Wow. Very bad grammar."

If you might have noticed, in the comment referenced, I cut out quite a bit BKK said, and tried to write short.

I really didn't care to check over.

So yes, you got me there.

In response...
'Wow, very bad math.'

Maybe though you should check over your magnum opus.

"If I understand you correctly, then why do you think that you claiming to be correct makes any difference at all????"

...And you want to talk about bad grammar and poor sentence structure?

I am not sure I understand YOU correctly.

"I laughed when I read this."

Don't worry mate, I laugh at the stuff you write. It is a mutually beneficial relationship!

"Oh boy, this poor boy is Simply Lost. Chuckle. You cannot fix Simply Idiot."

So wait I am confused, am I Simply Lost? Or am I Idiot, Simply Idiot? Did I change my name? At what point did I go from Simply Lost to Simply Idiot, or vice versa? Or, what two families am I with to have both "Lost" and "Idiot"? Would I then be Simply Lost-Idiot?

"I don't like Malum"

I can tell.

"but he is not in the same category as Christensen. There is a huge difference in intellectual ability. Christensen is the biggest fucking moron on sci.math. He holds the prize for that title."

I am not putting them in the same intellectual category, something I can't judge because I know next to nothing about any of them. The only category I have put them is have they been able to put forward arguments, in which I at first though I was right, but due to clarity and logic presented, were able to convince me I was wrong.

"Malum on the other hand almost appears to know better but his faith trumps facts as expected of any fundamentalist believer."

k

[Zelos Malum]

>No, lier, YOU and almost every professional mathematician says that
>
>999... / 1000... = 0.999... = 1

That is a bodl face lie, no one says that.

>999... / 1000...

Is nonesense, no one thinks thats okey.

>If the largest **FINITE** natural number doesn't exist and, but in fact, **INFINITE** in the current mathematical terms, then how can be there a larger size than finite? wonder!

just because there is no largest finite does that not mean there isn't somethign larger than any finite. You have a true nonsequitor here.

>Who taught you *WRONGLY* that the natural numbers constitute a set? Wonder!

It is correct that the natural numbers is a set. It is garantueed to exist by ZFC and to be a set.

>But they had badly deceived your little mind in this regard and FOR SURE

Just because you are too stupid to get basic anythign doesn't that mean anyone has been decieving.

>1) Are there truly any *EXISTING* SET with natural numbers that have all its elements? wonder!

Yes, again, garantueed by ZFC

>2) Is the set of natural numbers truly countable? wonder!

By definition countable means there is a bijection to a subset of the set of natural numbers, the natural numbers is in bijection with themselves (identity morphism) so it si countable.

>3) How can there be an existing set that is also countable if we know only a negligible number of its endless number elements? wonder!

We know all the elements but we have not COMPUTED all elements of it and our ability to COMPUTE somethign is not a criteria for existence.

>And the ability to obtain and count a few elements of the set doesn't mean that you can find all its elements or even count them FOR SURE

Countable does not maen you count "one, two, three, four" etc, it means there exists a bijection between a set and a subset of natural numbers. Learn what things maen.

>However, the limit concept doesn't belong to mathematics but is only an engineering VALID term and so irrelevant to maths FOR SURE

Incorrect, limit belongs to mathematics and is an important tool within mathematics.

>Where also, never needs any fiction like infinity to work the way scientists or engineers require

What science and engineers uses are irrelevant to mathematics.

> I had already named you so many but frankly, you *DON'T* like to understand and FOR SURER

No you haven't, you claim them but you never DEMONSTRATE there is a contradiction.

A contradiction means you must show, USING ZFC, not your own ideas, but ZFC where an infinite set does exist, and derive a contradiction.

[Zelos Malum]

No one says that gabriel, this is an outright lie.

[Zelos Malum]

You don't like me cause I show you wrong at every turn :)

[bassam king karzeddin]

So, Zelos Malum, you are insisting to challenge the *KING* where I do love the *challenge* and love much more and so *desperately* to lose the *challenge* FOR SURE
Now, I would like to give you another greater chance to *win* my simplest challenge ever happened on the too elementary level of, but you have to be very clear in every word you say and never run away untill you *win* the challenge *HOPEFULLY*
Let us start, now you are kindly requested to convince a brilliant school kid (who didn't learn yet anything about the decimal notation), that your number
(1 = 0.999...)
Good Luck
BKK

[Simply Curious]

"Let us start, now you are kindly requested to convince a brilliant school kid (who didn't learn yet anything about the decimal notation), that your number (1 = 0.999...)"

So, you want someone, that has NO clue of what the decimal is, and you want me to convince that a decimal number, is a number?

All right.

Start with the number line. Now, if we were to imagine measuring a number relative to 0, we might use the method of subdivisions, reason being, it gives us a way of precisely representing numbers: how many parts are needed to comprise the number?

Of course, some numbers don't fit evenly: for instance, our first subdivision, the amount of 1's that fit into the number, say 1+9/10, is, well, 1. But 1=/=9/10. So we need a further subdivision, that by tenths, which here is 9. This is represented as 1.9.

Some numbers are a bit more difficult, consider 1251/10000. Then, I would need divisions by tenths, hundreths, thousandths, and so forth, to produce 0.1251. Now, if we imagine the first 'tenth' and its decimal, we may define that as .1, the next as 0.01, and so forth. And, that the amount of tenths, hundredths, and thousandths determine the decimal places.

If we then imagine measuring, say 1/3, we would never be able to fully measure it. 0.3,0.33, and so on.

We may then say that 1/3 is represented by the decimal 0.333..., which indicates that the finer process of subdivision and finding the next highest divider does not end. Or, that 1/3=0.333...

Now, for 1=0.999...

Imagine now the subdivision by that of rulers. Imagine lining up a ruler from 0 to 1. Then, the ruler would have maximum subdivision up to .1, there are no marks for anywhere at 1, the entire ruler is 1 but it itself is not represented on it. We want to describe numbers by these subdivisions. We notice the following point:

Now, with 1, if I measure to the .1(notice .9 is the highest you could divide by .1 alone), I would get, well, .9. Not right. I would need further subdivision. A division by 0.01. I get 0.99. Still not right. But we are closer.

So, this equally valid subdivision process shows that the number 1 is represented by the decimal 0.999...

So, 0.999...=1

But, similarly, if the ruler were larger, I would be able to start my marks off at 1 and so 1=1.0.

[bassam king karzeddin]

Ethically, one must provide available HINTS in order to help the genius professional mathematicians for this too elementary and very easy task as well

But not by suggesting to teach the school kid the decimal notation first, then simply pouring into his mind what other masters of mathematics had actually done

And please note that the decimal notation isn't any fundamental operation but an only *DIVISION* notation

Example: (45.23 = 4523/100), (0.5789 = 5789/10000), (0.9 = 9/10),

(0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 = (999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 / 10^{101}) =/= 1

This is to convey that mathematics is the same (even without a decimal notation), so live without it for a few minutes untill you see the ***FACT***

However, there are also many more HINTS to this ABSOLUTE FACT, FOR SURE
BKK

[Ross A. Finlayson]

I think it means .999 < 1.

[bassam king karzeddin]

However, you have so, unfortunately, failed again to convince the brilliant school kid about your constant belief that is too easily ***REFUTABLE*** FOR SURE

Since the equivalent non-decimal form is simply this general form

[A(n) / 10^n], where (n) is a natural number and A(n) is a natural number consisting of (n) number of repeated sequence digits, which is always well-defined and distinct rational decimal number or a fraction for each well-defined (n)

One more very important note that one may easily observe that it is not permissible in the holy grail of too elementary principles of mathematics to consider (n) tends to no number the well-known (infinity fiction in modern mathematics), not only because of the fact of there is no such fiction to hide behind but because the **perpetual* above expression then becomes as a ratio of two **NON-EXISTING** natural numbers

So to say, even we go with your madness to infinity, it also doesn't work FOR SURE

However, Clear fictions in mathematics can't work by any means, but certainly can be believed for so many other very dirty purposes that are indeed very far from facts and true mathematics FOR SURER
BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Monday, July 29, 2019 at 5:27:51 PM UTC+3, Simply Curious wrote:
> I have made free omissions of what I respond to because much of it doesn't appear worthwhile to go in depth into or repeat. In short, yet to be produced is a very clear cut contradiction where you show within the theory, some statement "P" is derived, yet similarly, a statement of the form "not P" produced. So, no contradiction. Argued so far has just been basically on how it is supposedly obvious that the contradiction follows: it never has been produced.
>
> "Most likely I'm the first person to write it in this form since I didn't learn it from anybody else before"
>
> So it is fallacious to say "YOU and almost every professional mathematician says that 999... / 1000... = 0.999... = 1".
>
> In short, you conflate the notion of limit of n-> oo as some kind of function evaluation at n=oo. Something no one said.
>
> Next.
>
> "No, you real idiot, the decimal notation is simply a division notation but you aren't even up to that too elementary level to understand it FOR SURE"
>

simply curious wrote:

> Decimal notation is a representation of the subdivision process. At this 'elementary level', there is a number called pi, may have heard of it, which is irrational but has a decimal expansion.
>

Here is the whole problem again that was staRted with *Pi* since the start of mathematics

Naturally, and like any mathematician on eath, you have never suspected the fact that Pi itself maybe a non-number

Of course, it is not any real number since its ultimately a ratio of two non-existing natural numbers

(Pi = 31415926.../10000000... = No number/No number = No number)

Probably you didn't read the many posts and discussions about that with many proofs

Most likely you had never heard about new proven facts about non-existing angles (in both old and modern mathematics) as well

And not noting how **RECENTLY** some scientists and notable professional mathematicians are announcing openly and loudly that circle doesn't exist, and Pi is not a number

Those and many hidden others had already absorbed the simplist facts, where they must be so busy now in preparing those new discoveries in very huge volumes that would be enforced on you soon where you have no choice to argue the old way mathematicians used to argue as you do here for example

But here, they are given to you in the shortest cuts ever possible and free to lean them first and spread them later

> "I'm truly getting so mad about how too easy the whole problem is indeed and how jugglers of mathematics want to complicate it to a degree of how can we make a space ship that can go to another far galaxy? wonder!"
>
> And I am much madder that people that know jack shit about the topic and don't have interest and determination to study the subject want to piss and shit all over it.
>
> I would say arrogance from ones ignorance is way worse then the fact that technical things are hard.
>
> "How can one don't immediately recognize those two *IMBICILS* and very peculiar creatures? wonder!"
>
> It's remarkable: even when I am quite wrong in the conversation, that they have been able to convince me, despite the fact that I supposedly am purposely trying to force myself to claim I am right. I have not been able to do the same with you and the other people mentioned.

Everything is changing drastically and a keen researcher (if existing) has to read not only from official sources but anything published no matter where that is so relevant and existing to his keyword search on google,

Didn't they find the greatest theorems from the rubbish papers of many dead people or (non-professional mathematicians kids) before? Wonder!
BKK

[philipe...@gmail.com]

> Let us start, now you are kindly requested to convince a brilliant school kid (who didn't learn yet anything about the decimal notation), that your number
> (1 = 0.999...)
> Good Luck
> BKK

Millions of school kids are being taught decimal numbers every year, and they all understand them, but you.

Don't project your failures and start to learn. Think for a second that maybe you are wrong and try to understand what millions of kids (brilliant or not) understand every year.

[Simply Curious]

"However, you have so, unfortunately, failed again to convince the brilliant school kid about your constant belief that is too easily ***REFUTABLE*** FOR SURE"

So, how why do you think the brilliant school kids that go to study mathematics or physics or computer science or engineering almost NEVER agree with your idea?

What, are they not the level of brilliance you expect? Or are you talking out of your ass with another 'no true scotsman' type argument?

"Since the equivalent non-decimal form is simply this general form
[A(n) / 10^n], where (n) is a natural number and A(n) is a natural number consisting of (n) number of repeated sequence digits, which is always well-defined and distinct rational decimal number or a fraction for each well-defined (n)"

Nope, you have not been able to derive that first statement from the very basic definition of a decimal.

Be consistent with the definitions its fucking annoying.

Who is the 'brilliant school kid'? What if I were a 'brilliant school kid', how would your argument go then?

'Oh, hE cLeaRlY wAsN't brILliAnt enOuGh"

Bloody hell with the circularity...

[Simply Curious]

"Pi = 31415926.../10000000... = No number/No number = No number"

If you, are trying to reason that from a given mainstream statement that something is contradictory or ill formed...

You should actually make a statement someone has said.

NO ONE said 'Pi = 31415926.../10000000...'.

No one.

Find me ONE source that allows you to IMMEDIATELY derive this. That is, a clean cut showcase of what say 2000.../1000... means.

[math...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 6:40:06 AM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> On Friday, 26 July 2019 21:06:38 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <lies and drivel>
>
> This poster math...@gmail.com is a troll. It is clear from my eBook that everything he claims is either a lie, said in ignorance or plain ad hominem. He posts anonymously and pretends to be civil when in fact trying to provoke me to anger.
>
> Don't believe a word I say, but study my work which has been endorsed by several mainstream academics:

Name one.

> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view

[math...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 6:40:06 AM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> On Friday, 26 July 2019 21:06:38 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <lies and drivel>
>
> This poster math...@gmail.com is a troll. It is clear from my eBook that everything he claims is either a lie, said in ignorance or plain ad hominem. He posts anonymously and pretends to be civil when in fact trying to provoke me to anger.

I am using your e-book to point out its flaws that's all. Whenever you build the courage to address the serious objections I brought forth, you are welcome to return into the discussion. I will be patient...

> Don't believe a word I say, but study my work which has been endorsed by several mainstream academics:
>

> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 2:02:32 PM UTC+3, Simply Curious wrote:
> "Pi = 31415926.../10000000... = No number/No number = No number"
>
> If you, are trying to reason that from a given mainstream statement that something is contradictory or ill formed...
>

Yes, you got it, the mainstream concepts about what is truly the real number is totally ill-formed and flawed as well

***Real number is well-described *EXACT* existing distance relative to any arbitrary existing unity distance, where they are only created by that unity, ONE***,

Hence they are only the real positive constructible numbers (in the current mathematical definitions), Where the rest (negative) are only mirror images (unreal)

> You should actually make a statement someone has said.
>

Yes, few others have already discovered partly the fact but certainly not the whole fact that I discovered *FIRST*

I have said this many years back, and definitely, we see many others say the almost similar things but not exactly the way I DID the first state it

Not only here on sci. math but also from the top-certified levels of the professional academic as well, and their numbers would increase by the time FOR SURE

> NO ONE said 'Pi = 31415926.../10000000...'.
>
> No one.
>

This is the same as saying (Pi = 3.1415926...), so, don't let only the decimal notation con you for the rest of your life

And I say this isn't a number based on the current but **WRONG** definition of Pi as being irrational number and also not exactly constructible (by any means I did prove earlier)

Since there is no circle nor Pi for circle, but Pi is solely a complete property of existing regular polygons and never any constant number but a real constructible number (depending solely on the choice of that existing regular polygon), where then it is comparable with decimal rational numbers up to our very limited technical ability FOR SURE (read my relevant posts in this regard)


NO, I SAID THIS FACT BESIDE MANY OTHER RELEVANT FACTS THAT ARE COMPLETELY **SHOCKING** TO THE ENTIRE MATHEMATICAL COMMUNITIES *GLOBALLY* WHERE THEY CAN'T HELP IT AT ALL OR MEET A SINGLE ***PUBLISHED*** CHALLENGE OF MINE, FOR SURE

> Find me ONE source that allows you to IMMEDIATELY derive this. That is a clean cut showcase of what say 2000.../1000... means.

2000.../1000... = No number / No number = No number

Based on your own mathematical *CURRENT* understanding of those three meaningless ellipsis notations denoted by (...),

But my own understanding is completely different since I see clearly the fictionality of infinity, where one is impossible to escape from the natural number index (by any means), so it becomes like this

(2/1 = 2*10^n / 10^n = 2), since gcd(2*10^n, 10^n) = 10^n, no matter however large is the natural number (n)

It is a very tricky issue that everybody has to understand *IMMEDIATELY* FOR SURE
A fraction is in its lowest form with no common factors

By the way, Did you ever read about any historical proof (if existing) about the existence of a circle? wonder!

Can you distinguish a circle from an existing regular polygon with many sides?

Read them in my posts, probably you would understand them

There are so many more important topic than this silly one, but still, mainstream mathematicians are struggling *AIMLESSLY* about this too elementary issue, so one can't go for more higher levels that they *NOTHING* yet about them

So, we have reached a very ***UTTER*** case in the entire history of mathematics (despite all the technical facilities of immediate GLOBAL communication that scientists and Engineers made them available for those **UTTER** creatures of mainstream professional mathematicians where they themselves trying their best to prevent any serious progress in their own mathematics just for so many *UTTER* irrelevant issues that are a kind of physicological incurable disease and heavy mental retardation accompanied with so much of disorder behaviours just for the sake of fake useless business in so many fake paradises beside not to appear as ignorant as they are

So, where are those true historian and researchers to convey those many facts? wonder!

Most probably they are there in the next century (as always as usual)

BKK

[Jew Lover]

On Tuesday, 30 July 2019 01:27:19 UTC-4, Zelos Malum wrote:
> >No, lier, YOU and almost every professional mathematician says that
> >
> >999... / 1000... = 0.999... = 1
>
> That is a bodl face lie, no one says that.
>
> >999... / 1000...
>
> Is nonesense, no one thinks thats okey.

Not true. YOU do think it is correct, otherwise you wouldn't say stupid things like 0.999... = 1 because

0.999... = 999... / 1000...

Both 999... and 1000... are valid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAM_l72UJw

[Jew Lover]

On Tuesday, 30 July 2019 08:32:56 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 6:40:06 AM UTC-4, Jew Lover wrote:
> > On Friday, 26 July 2019 21:06:38 UTC-4, math...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > <lies and drivel>
> >
> > This poster math...@gmail.com is a troll. It is clear from my eBook that everything he claims is either a lie, said in ignorance or plain ad hominem. He posts anonymously and pretends to be civil when in fact trying to provoke me to anger.
>
> I am using your e-book to point out its flaws that's all.

Name just ONE flaw you fucking liar.