The BIG STUPID (mainstream academia) hate my 8th grade proof. It has sent shock waves through the entire trash heap.

[John Gabriel]

The BIG STUPID (mainstream academia) hate my 8th grade proof. It has sent shock waves through the entire trash heap. The orangutans are at a loss for words. How could they never have realised these facts they ask themselves. How could John Gabriel their arch enemy be so much smarter than they.

They are so green with envy that it is beginning to become gangrenous. Chuckle.

Without further ado, I present what Archimedes, Newton and Leibniz were unable to realise - a feat worthy of 10 Abel Prizes, not just one. For the first time in human history, grade 8 students can now learn calculus without any of the bullshit of limit theory, real analysis or any other unnecessary crap that is peddled by the BIG STUPID. No more a useless 6 month course of limits and another on real analysis followed by another on topology and yet another on metric spaces, and, ...

THE NEW CALCULUS: 8th grade derivative definition:

Theorem 1.0

We can prove that if f(x) is a function with tangent line equation t(x)=kx+b and a parallel secant line equation
s(x)=[{f(x+n)-f(x-m)}/(m+n)] x + p, then f'(x)={f(x+n)-f(x-m)}/(m+n).

Proof:

Let t(x)=kx+b be the equation of the tangent line to the function f(x).

Then a parallel secant line is given by s(x)=[{f(x+n)-f(x-m)}/(m+n)] x + p.

So, k={f(x+n)-f(x-m)}/(m+n) because the secant lines are all parallel to the tangent line.

But the required derivative f'(x) of f(x), is given by the slope of the tangent line t(x).

Therefore f'(x)={f(x+n)-f(x-m)}/(m+n).

Q.E.D.

Theorem 1.1

Also, m+n is a factor of the expression f(x+n)-f(x-m).

Proof:

From k(m+n)=f(x+n)-f(x-m), it follows that m+n divides the LHS exactly. But since m+n divides the left hand side exactly, it follows that m+n must also divide the RHS exactly. Hence, m+n is a factor of the expression f(x+n)-f(x-m). This means that if we divide f(x+n)-f(x-m) by m+n, the expression so obtained must be equal to k. This is only possible if the sum of all the terms in m and n are 0.

Q.E.D.

The previous two proofs hold for any function f.

[abu.ku...@gmail.com]

totally

[Jan]

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 9:43:43 PM UTC-8, John Gabriel wrote:
> The BIG STUPID (mainstream academia) hate my 8th grade proof. It has sent shock waves through the entire trash heap.

Nobody paid attention or was even aware. Just don't delude yourself, be an adult.

--
Jan

[John Gabriel]

On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 22:54:13 UTC-8, Jan wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 9:43:43 PM UTC-8, John Gabriel wrote:
> > The BIG STUPID (mainstream academia) hate my 8th grade proof. It has sent shock waves through the entire trash heap.
>
> Nobody paid attention or was even aware.

Paying attention has never been a strength of the BIG STUPID.

> Just don't delude yourself, be an adult.

I'll tell you this: I will pick at every little thing that I can to destroy you and your ilk.

You haven't been able to rubbish my proof and yet you falsely claim it is incorrect. Ironically, even an 8th grader can understand it.

I am not worried because I have provided more than sufficient evidence that has never been refuted.

Circular reasoning:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX9fFWb75yI


Can't find general derivative without division by 0:

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

Limits only work if real numbers exist, but alas they don't!

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU


>
> --
> Jan

[John Gabriel]

Just so there is a record on here, the irrefutable proofs are listed below.

Circular reasoning:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX9fFWb75yI


Can't find general derivative without division by 0:

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

Limits only work if real numbers exist, but alas they don't!

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU

For the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history:

http://thenewcalculus.weebly.com

[John Gabriel]

On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 22:54:13 UTC-8, Jan wrote:

You're such a dishonest bastard that you care little to lie as you have here. It's pretty clear that you all jump whenever I publish anything...

Reddit goes insane
Math news forums experience a lot of activity

Most importantly is how desperately hard you are trying to get me off here.

You stupid, very stupid idiot. I'll continue to win over you and my new calculus is steadily gaining favour.

What is so hilarious is how all the parrots like you JUMPED when I made this comment. "Oh no, that is such an elementary result!"

Chuckle. You never questioned the definition as to why a distance can be negative, and it never crossed your stupid brain that the definition can be restated to show that h can be negative.

You continue to burden the youth with a lot of rules that have no place in mathematics.

Moreover, the case of |x| at x=0 is completely irrelevant as calculus works only when a function is continuous and smooth. One is asking for trouble with "piecewise functions".

[j4n bur53]

By BIG STUPID you are talking about you and
your new calculus bird brain John Gabriel birdbrains?

BTW:
irrefutable proof is a pleonasm (from Greek πλεονασμός)

John Gabriel schrieb:

[John Gabriel]

On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 03:34:22 UTC-8, j4n bur53 wrote:
> By BIG STUPID you are talking about you and
> your new calculus bird brain John Gabriel birdbrains?
>
> BTW:
> irrefutable proof is a pleonasm (from Greek πλεονασμός)

It all depends on which way you look at it. In the BIG STUPID, a proof may not necessarily be a proof. Thus it is has a dual nature.

Didn't know you were trying to learn Greek my little pink man? Chuckle.

Nothing will change the fact that you are a MALAKA though. Hee, hee.

[j4n bur53]

I wrote already that I am 1/4 greek, but proof is proof,
either informal or formal, in either case something is
established that is irrefutable.

Refutable are credulous conjectures. But sceptical proofs
are irrefutable. What you probably mean is falsification
of axioms.

Credulous and Sceptical Argumentation
(Prolog Implementation)
by D. Gaertner and F. Toni
http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~ft/CaSAPI/

Formally for toying around with the two modes of reasoning,
you can use the signs |= and |~.

You can define sceptical (usual FOL reasoning etc..) as follows:

A |= B :<=> forall M(M[A]=1 -> M[B]=1)

You can define credulous as follows:

A |~ B :<=> exists M(M[A]=1 & M[B]=1)

Here is an example of credulous reasoning:

a v b |~ a & b

Which is not possible in skeptical reasoning.

John Gabriel schrieb:

[John Gabriel]

On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 03:52:55 UTC-8, j4n bur53 wrote:
> I wrote already that I am 1/4 greek, but proof is proof,

Only 1/4 ? Aaaah, that explains why you are such an idiot. Chuckle.

<crap erased>

[j4n bur53]

By idiot you are talking about you and your
new calculoose bird brain John Gabrieb birdbrains.

John Gabriel schrieb:

[John Gabriel]

On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 21:43:43 UTC-8, John Gabriel wrote:

Have yet to see anything that even remotely touches these proofs. But I'll be patient.

Anyone want to try? Chuckle.

[j4n bur53]

By BIG STUPID you are talking about you and your