How to well define the concepts: variables. functions and graphs.

[Eram semper recta]

There is a sci.math contributor (*) who was recently trying to dismiss my historic geometric theorem of January 2020 - the theorem proves mainstream calculus is a bogus formulation:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

(*) His real name is Jean Pierre Messager but he is also known as YBM, JPM and as of late "Python" since he apparently works on Cloud Applications by coding in the computer language called Python.

The following paragraph is for him and his fellow syphilitic thinkers (Prof. Gilbert Strang of MIT, Prof. Jack Huizenga, Harvard Alumnus, etc):

"I do not see what varies. Every constant value of x renders a constant value of y. There is no variation or change. Sure, when one compares a certain x or y to another x or y there could be a difference. However, to call them variables merely based on that seems a great conceptual error"

[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)

I do not see what varies in the above identity. Written as a function:

f(x,h) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h or f(x,h) = f'(x) + Q(x,h)

It's great to be having the last laugh on all my enemies in the mainstream and around the globe!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RqTSFNlQlg

[Python]

Crank John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> [bullshit] [abuse reported]
Still ridiculing yourself trying to give to "Q(x,h) is not constant"
another meaning than "Q(x,h) may have different values for different
values of x and h"?

It's quite sad to notice how mentally degraded you are John. You're
now choking on the most basic concepts.

[Eram semper recta]

On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 11:35:51 UTC-4, Jean Pierre Messager aka YBM aka JPM aka Python wrote:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

> Still ridiculing yourself trying to give to "Q(x,h) is not constant"
> another meaning than "Q(x,h) may have different values for different
> values of x and h"?
>

> It's quite sad ...

:) Like I told you in times past, the worst is yet to come for you. I am going to make you pay dearly for all the lies, libel and deception you (and your fuckbuddies Prof. Gilbert Strang and minion Dan Christensen) have spread about me.

All in due time, you vile piece of excrement.

[Eram semper recta]

Q(x,h) is COMSTANT and has always been. I don't know of a single secant line that has ever changed its slope. Only an imbecile can say otherwise. LMAO.

[Eram semper recta]

On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 12:14:08 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 12:10:47 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 11:35:51 UTC-4, Jean Pierre Messager aka YBM aka JPM aka Python wrote:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> > > Still ridiculing yourself trying to give to "Q(x,h) is not constant"
> > > another meaning than "Q(x,h) may have different values for different
> > > values of x and h"?
> > >
> > > It's quite sad ...
> >
> > :) Like I told you in times past, the worst is yet to come for you. I am going to make you pay dearly for all the lies, libel and deception you (and your fuckbuddies Prof. Gilbert Strang and minion Dan Christensen) have spread about me.
> >
> > All in due time, you vile piece of excrement.
> Q(x,h) is COMSTANT and has always been.

And ALWAYS will be! ROFLMAO.

[Eram semper recta]

On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 12:14:43 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 12:14:08 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 12:10:47 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 11:35:51 UTC-4, Jean Pierre Messager aka YBM aka JPM aka Python wrote:
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> > > > Still ridiculing yourself trying to give to "Q(x,h) is not constant"
> > > > another meaning than "Q(x,h) may have different values for different
> > > > values of x and h"?
> > > >
> > > > It's quite sad ...
> > >
> > > :) Like I told you in times past, the worst is yet to come for you. I am going to make you pay dearly for all the lies, libel and deception you (and your fuckbuddies Prof. Gilbert Strang and minion Dan Christensen) have spread about me.
> > >
> > > All in due time, you vile piece of excrement.
> > Q(x,h) is COMSTANT and has always been.

Tsk, tsk. Laughing so much that I misspelled CONSTANT. Chuckle.

[Python]

Crank John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:

> Q(x,h) is COMSTANT and has always been. I don't know of a single secant line that has ever changed its slope. Only an imbecile can say otherwise. LMAO.

"compstant", sure.

'nuff said :-)

[Eram semper recta]

What mainstream math baboons want you to believe is that you can do something like this:

Q(0,1/2)=1/2
Q(0,1/4)=1/4
Q(0,1/16)=1/16
Q(0,1/32)=1/32

Until Q(0,h) gets very close to 0 so that 2x + h = 2x. LMAO!

But as you can see (if you have two brain cells at least!), NONE of the Q(x,h) change for any given secant line. There is a ONE-TO-ONE correspondence between each secant line and Q(x,h).

YOU CANNOT USE A DIFFERENT Q(X,H) FOR THE SAME FUCKING SECANT LINE, MORONSSSS!!!!!!!! WHY?

Because then the identity [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) is NO LONGER TRUE!!!!! Stupid fuckwads!!!!!

Those of you who know I am right and are keeping silent, I hope you get COVID19 and DIE, you vile scumbags!!!!!

Your mainstream calculus was NEVER rigorous. It was developed by minds far inferior to mine. I am a genius and ALL of you without any exception are fucking retards! Get it? CHUCKLE.

Eat shit and die every one of you!!!!

Grrr. I hate dishonest and vile, lying academics. Speak up or die, you scum!!!!!

[Python]

Crank John Gariel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
...
> Q(0,1/2)=1/2
> Q(0,1/4)=1/4
> Q(0,1/16)=1/16
> Q(0,1/32)=1/32

Quite a strange way for Q(x,h) to be a constant, isn't it?

John, you are exposing your stupidity and digging again and again.

[Michael Moroney]

On 8/1/2021 12:17 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 11:13:11 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:

>> "I do not see what varies. Every constant value of x renders a constant value of y.

> Q(0,1/2)=1/2
> Q(0,1/4)=1/4
> Q(0,1/16)=1/16
> Q(0,1/32)=1/32
>
That doesn't look like a constant to me!

[Eram semper recta]

On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 12:20:21 UTC-4, Psychopath Jean Pierre Messager aka YBM aka JM aka Python wrote:

> > Q(0,1/2)=1/2
> > Q(0,1/4)=1/4
> > Q(0,1/16)=1/16
> > Q(0,1/32)=1/32
>
> Quite a strange way for Q(x,h) to be a constant, isn't it?

Quiet strange that if f(x)=x^2 and Q(x,h)=2x+h and x=0 that you can use more than one of those values for the same secant line, eh crank? Chuckle.

Q(0,1/2)=1/2 <=> Q(x,h)=2(0) + 1/2 = 1/2 But do you think any other h will work here? LMAO.

Go ahead psycho, try it!

Here, I'll help you with the first one:

Try h=0.001 in Q(0,1/2)=2(0) + 1/2 = 1/2 =/= Q(0, 0.001) = 0.001

YOU CANNOT VARY h FOR ANY OF THE SECANT LINES BECAUSE WAIT FOR IT ... EVERY SECANT LINE HAS ONLY ONE VALUE OF h WHICH MAKES THE SECANT LINE SLOPE IDENTITY TRUE:

[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)

BOTH f'(x) AND Q(x,h) ARE CONSTANTS.

[Eram semper recta]

Only a deranged psychopath can imagine that he can take the limit of a constant and it will change so that his bogus calculus might not appear to be what it is - BOGUS! Ha, ha.

There is no lim_{h->0} Q(x,h) in the identity [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h).

Get it moron? Nah....

[Eram semper recta]

Mainstream math baboons want Q(x,h) = 2x + h to be equal to 2x, but this is not possible unless h=0. Unfortunately, no secant line slope is possible with h=0! LMAO.

The only way 2x + h = 2x is is h=0. But you don't want that, do you? ROFLMAO.

[Dan Christensen]

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 11:13:11 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:
> There is a sci.math contributor (*) who was recently trying to dismiss my historic geometric theorem...

You mean the one about derivatives that fails to provide a workable definition of them??? What a joke!

You failed math in school; now you are failing math in your old age. Face it, Troll Boy, math was never your thing and never will be. It really is time to cut your losses and move on. You aren't getting any younger.

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of JG's fake math

JG here claims to have a discovered as shortcut to mastering calculus without using limits. Unfortunately for him, this means he has no workable a definition of the derivative of a function. It blows up for functions as simple f(x)=|x|. Or even f(x)=0. As a result, he has had to ban 0, negative numbers and instantaneous rates of change rendering his goofy little system quite useless. What a moron!

Forget calculus. JG has also banned all axioms because he cannot even derive the most elementary results of basic arithmetic, e.g. 2+2=4. Such results require the use of axioms, so he must figure he's now off the hook. Again, what a moron!

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

"There are no points on a line."
--April 12, 2021

"Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
--July 10, 2020

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

“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015

"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
--October 28, 2017

"Zero is not a number."
-- Dec. 2, 2019

"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017

“There is no such thing as an empty set.”
--Oct. 4, 2019

“3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
--Oct. 22, 2019

No math genius our JG, though he actually lists his job title as “mathematician” at Linkedin.com. Apparently, they do not verify your credentials.

Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated March 10, 2020) at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ

Dan

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

[Eram semper recta]

Quiz for sci.math morons:

f(x)=x^2 and f'(x)=2x and Q(x,h)=2x+h

If x=0 and h =1/16, then which of the following will make the identity [f(0+(1/16))-f(0)]/(1/16) = f'(0) + Q(0,1/6) true?

Q(0,1/2)=1/2
Q(0,1/4)=1/4
Q(0,1/16)=1/16
Q(0,1/32)=1/32

You have a 25% chance of getting it right! Chuckle.

[Eram semper recta]

Study the following historic geometric theorem first:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

Now try your hand at the following quiz:

(i) f(x)=x^2 and [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f ' (x) + Q(x,h)= 2x + h, and so f'(x)=2x and Q(x,h)=h

If x=0 and h =1/16, then which of the following will make the identity

[f(0+(1/16))-f(0)]/(1/16) = f '(0) + Q(x,h) true?

[A] Q(0,1/2)=1/2
[B] Q(0,1/4)=1/4
[C] Q(0,1/16)=1/16
[D] Q(0,1/32)=1/32

Only one answer is correct.

(ii) Given that only one Q(x,h) will satisfy the above identity, write a short answer describing why your mainstream calculus formulation is a fraud.

Prompt: 0 = Lim (h->0) Q(x,h)

Any takers?

[zelos...@gmail.com]

Even fi you DID prove your idea is equivalent to standard calculus, which we know it isn't as it is considerably weaker, it would in NO way show that standard calculus is bogus.

[Eram semper recta]

There is no "IF" anywhere. The above theorem is equivalent to the bogus mainstream formulation, but the New Calculus is 100% rigorous.

> which we know it isn't as it is considerably weaker,

Liar. The above theorem produces exactly the same results as mainstream calculus - even at inflection points where there is no tangent line and hence no derivative.

> it would in NO way show that standard calculus is bogus.

It does that, but more damning is that it tells a lot about morons like you! LMAO.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

>There is no "IF" anywhere

There is because you didn't-

>The above theorem is equivalent to the bogus mainstream formulation

It isn't, as several have pointed out, yours is considerably weaker.

>but the New Calculus is 100% rigorous

Standard calculus is rigorous.

>Liar

nope

>The above theorem produces exactly the same results as mainstream calculus - even at inflection points where there is no tangent line and hence no derivative

That tells it is weaker because standard calculus do not need to talk about tangent lines, it is used introductory because it is more easily understood but the definitions are not in anyway dependent on it.

But alright, derive f(x)=|x|

>It does that, but more damning is that it tells a lot about morons like you! LMAO.

It doesn't because you have not shown a single contradiction in standard calculus. Standard calculus stands on its own and a different method ofi t does not demonstrate it

[Eram semper recta]

On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 07:57:57 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:

<drivel>

> >The above theorem produces exactly the same results as mainstream calculus - even at inflection points where there is no tangent line and hence no derivative

> That tells it is weaker because standard calculus do not need to talk about tangent lines, it is used introductory because it is more easily understood but the definitions are not in anyway dependent on it.
>

You should learn to read. My historic identity is NOT New Calculus, you utter imbecile. It allows derivative at inflection points which is technically speaking still WRONG since there is no tangent line possible at any point of inflection.

> But alright, derive f(x)=|x|

Don't waste my time, stupid. That was done a long time ago. You simply believing in your fellow idiot Dan Christsensen shows you have no critical thinking skills. DC repeats lies over and over again like Donald Trump - only morons believe in his lies.

> >It does that, but more damning is that it tells a lot about morons like you! LMAO.
> It doesn't because you have not shown a single contradiction in standard calculus.

It does - as explained:

Study the following historic geometric theorem first:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

Now try your hand at the following quiz:

(i) f(x)=x^2 and [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f ' (x) + Q(x,h)= 2x+ h, and so f'(x)=2x and Q(x,h)=h

If x=0 and h =1/16, then which of the following will make the identity

[f(0+(1/16))-f(0)]/(1/16) = f '(0) + Q(x,h) true?

[A] Q(0,1/2)=1/2
[B] Q(0,1/4)=1/4
[C] Q(0,1/16)=1/16
[D] Q(0,1/32)=1/32

Only one answer is correct.

(ii) Given that only one Q(x,h) will satisfy the above identity, write a short answer describing why your mainstream calculus formulation is a fraud.

Prompt: 0 = Lim (h->0) Q(x,h)

Spoiler Alert!























































































Zelos Malum pretended this comment was not actually here! LMAO.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

>You should learn to read. My historic identity is NOT New Calculus, you utter imbecile. It allows derivative at inflection points which is technically speaking still WRONG since there is no tangent line possible at any point of inflection.

The fact you say it is wrong and say derivative = tangent line shows how juvenile your understanding is.

>Don't waste my time, stupid. That was done a long time ago. You simply believing in your fellow idiot Dan Christsensen shows you have no critical thinking skills. DC repeats lies over and over again like Donald Trump - only morons believe in his lies.

Show it then.

>It does - as explained:

You have never shown any contradictions.

Your document is so extremely unprofessional.

[Eram semper recta]

On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 01:59:27 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >You should learn to read. My historic identity is NOT New Calculus, you utter imbecile. It allows derivative at inflection points which is technically speaking still WRONG since there is no tangent line possible at any point of inflection.

> The fact you say it is wrong <drivel>

My definition of tangent line is correct. The drivel in your brain is incorrect. Your definition of tangent line is CIRCULAR. You define your tangent line in terms of its slope (derivative), but in order to do this, you have to assume that it is already a tangent line. You fucking crank!

[zelos...@gmail.com]

As always, you fail to understand what circular means.

[Eram semper recta]

LMAO. Tangent in your bogus calculus is defined as:

t(x) = f'(c) x + k
t(x) = f'(c) x + t(c) - f'(c)c
t(x) = f'(c)[x-c] + t(c)

Now for the circularity:

f'(c) = [t(c+h)-t(c)]/h

The function t(x) is used in its own definition.

The most laughable part here is that the limiting process does not even apply. Mainstream baboons like to think of it as

f'(c) = Lim_{h->0} [f(c+h)-f(c)]/h

However, the above finite difference quotient is meaningless unless it is already assumed that a tangent line is possible at x=c.

Crank that you are, I doubt you'll understand any of this because you don't even understand the bogus theory you were forced to memorise.

[Dan Christensen]

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 11:13:11 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:

> There is a sci.math contributor (*) who was recently trying to dismiss my historic geometric theorem of January 2020...

[Eram semper recta]

STUDENTS BEWARE: Dan Christensen is a vicious spamming troll and has been at it the last 5 years!

Anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen spammed:

> "There are no points on a line."

Lie. I never said that. What I did say is that a line does not consists of points. When we talk about points on a line, we really mean distances that are indicated much like road signs do for distances travelled along a road.

A line is one of innumerable distances between any two points.
A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.

> "Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"

True. Pi is merely a symbol for an incommensurable magnitude - apparently a concept too advanced for an imbecile like Dan Christensen.

> "1/2 not equal to 2/4"

Lie. I have NEVER said this. What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.

There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4. For example:

_ / _ _
_ _ / _ _ _ _

The length _ is not equal to the length _ _ .

> “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”

True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w

Also, my article on pi not being a number of any kind:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FFg_9XCkIwTZ9N1jbU4oMYfHHHuFHYf3

The true story of how we got numbers:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU

No such thing as a "real number" or a "real number line":

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMHVYcE8xcmRZRnc

There is no valid construction of "real number" - it's a myth:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU

> "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”

True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.

3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4

Actually, there is no "OR" part, so the logical disjunction is invalid.

> "Zero is not a number."

True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w2tt7IgoIu-ychDCoYi-4jOAzToy0ViM

> "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."

Half-truth. While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.

> “There is no such thing as an empty set.”

True. Even the father of all mainstream mathematical cranks rejected the idea of empty set. But let's not go too far ... there isn't even a definition of "set" in set theory!

https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w

https://youtu.be/1CcSsOG0okg

> “3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)

True. These are propositions that are implied by the given equations. For example, my historic geometric identity states:

[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = dy/dx + Q(x,h)

And so, f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)

The theorem:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

How it provides a rigorous definition of integral for the flawed mainstream calculus:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y

The day will come when this vicious anonymous troll Dan Christensen is convicted in a court of law.

Download for free the most important mathematics book ever written:

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

[zelos...@gmail.com]

>The function t(x) is used in its own definition.

My god you are stupid, just because you can go from one to the other doesn't that mean it is circular.

It is only circular if you go
Assume B
Implies A
Proves B
Ergo B is true.

B implies A
A implies B
is not circular, as long as you either start with only one of them or proves one of htem from C

In calculus we have

D(f,x)=Lim(h->0) (f(x+h)-f(x))/h
We start there

Now we define T(f,x,c)=D(f,c)(x-c)+f(c)

We used D to define T but there is nothing circular about it.

Sure we can throw things around to get
D(f,c)=(T(f,x,c)-f(c))/(x-c)

but that doesn't make it fucking circular you moron.
We started with D, then came with T, that means iti s linear, not circular.
We went
Define D
Define T in terms of D

Learn how circularity works ffs.

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 01:12:21 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >The function t(x) is used in its own definition.
> My god

Good! You got this right! I am YOUR GOD!!! Too funny. ROFLMAO.

> you are stupid, just because you can go from one to the other doesn't that mean it is circular.

No. That is not what is meant by circular, you Swede ape!

It is circular because it is used in its OWN definition. Has NOTHING to do with "going from one to the other". Eyes rolling....

<irrelevant drivel that has no application or relation to mathematics>

> In calculus we have
>
> D(f,x)=Lim(h->0) (f(x+h)-f(x))/h

I like how you write D(f,x) - does it have something to do with the fact that you might have actually learned something from me? LMAO. You stupid boy!

> We start there
>
> Now we define T(f,x,c)=D(f,c)(x-c)+f(c)
>
> We used D to define T but there is nothing circular about it.

Of course there is! D(f,x) ASSUMES there is a tangent line otherwise there is no rationale for using the finite difference f(x+h)-f(x))/h which applies ONLY to a STRAIGHT LINE. Get it, moron?

>
> Sure we can throw things around to get
> D(f,c)=(T(f,x,c)-f(c))/(x-c)

> but that doesn't make it fucking circular you moron.

It means EXACTLY that, you fucking idiot deluxe!!!!!

What follows is so funny, I leave it to the students to reach their own conclusion. It's pretty clear this is an alternate universe that Malum lives in! :)

[Python]

Crank John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> [bullshit]

Reminder: John Gabriel idiotic rant has been debunked in numerous
places, including there:

http://blog.logicalphalluses.net/2017/03/04/math-crankery-with-john-gabriel-cauchys-kludge/

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 10:47:25 UTC-4, Psychopath Jean Pierre Messager aka YBM aka JPM aka Python wrote:

>
> Reminder: John Gabriel idiotic rant has been debunked in numerous
> places, including there:
>
> http://blog.

Sadly, no. There is nothing on that web site that even comes close to understanding, never mind debunking. Dennis Muller is even a bigger idiot than you are. LMAO.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

>Good! You got this right! I am YOUR GOD!!! Too funny. ROFLMAO.

A very pathetic joke. Indicative of your narcissism.

>I like how you write D(f,x) - does it have something to do with the fact that you might have actually learned something from me? LMAO. You stupid boy!

Nope, I wrote it because D(f) is used in an algebra book by Yang that I like :)

>Of course there is! D(f,x) ASSUMES there is a tangent line

It assumed nothing of the sort, it gives a definition but it assumes nothing about a tangent, only that the D(f,x) has a value that exists.

> otherwise there is no rationale for using the finite difference f(x+h)-f(x))/h which applies ONLY to a STRAIGHT LINE. Get it, moron?

This is where your own assumptions show. All it assumes there is that it is a field, we have addition, negatives and inverses for non-zero elements.

I can define G(f,x)=f(x)+9/x

and it assumes nothing about anything but what I said before. You think of derivatives in terms of tangent lines so when you see it, you think "tangent line" because you never went past highschool mathematics. But derivative does not have to do with tangent lines in its formal definitions. We can use it to make tangent lines, as I demonstrated, but that is not the job.

>It means EXACTLY that, you fucking idiot deluxe!!!!!

That is exactly what it doesn't because the tangent T doesn't use itself, nor does D use T to define itself. T is defined in terms of D, and nothing else.

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 01:20:28 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Good! You got this right! I am YOUR GOD!!! Too funny. ROFLMAO.
> A very pathetic joke. Indicative of your narcissism.

You really should stop asserting falsehoods and cease to project your low IQ on others. It just makes you look stupid and desperate.

> >I like how you write D(f,x) - does it have something to do with the fact that you might have actually learned something from me? LMAO. You stupid boy!
> Nope, I wrote it because D(f) is used in an algebra book by Yang that I like :)

In other words, you included x as D(f,x) because you have seen me using this many times before in exposing your stupidity and ignorance!

> >Of course there is! D(f,x) ASSUMES there is a tangent line
> It assumed nothing of the sort, it gives a definition but it assumes nothing about a tangent, only that the D(f,x) has a value that exists.

It MOST ABSOLUTELY ASSUMES a tangent line because the finite difference quotients have NOTHING in common with the tangent line slope except that as one approaches the point of tangency, the difference in slope decreases.

> > otherwise there is no rationale for using the finite difference f(x+h)-f(x))/h which applies ONLY to a STRAIGHT LINE. Get it, moron?
> This is where your own assumptions show. All it assumes there is that it is a field, we have addition, negatives and inverses for non-zero elements.

ROFLMAO. Same stupidity all over again that was pointed out to you when you tried to define multiplication from scratch. You never learn, do you Malum?

>
> I can define G(f,x)=f(x)+9/x
>
> and it assumes nothing about anything but what I said before.

But it says a lot about your syphilitic brain because it has no fucking relevance and is a fallacy of false analogy. You use these fallacies a lot in your drivel.

> But derivative does not have to do with tangent lines in its formal definitions.

It has everything to do with tangent line, the correct definition of tangent line which Newton and Leibniz understood well:

A tangent line NEVER crosses a curve at the point of tangency.

> We can use it to make tangent lines, as I demonstrated, but that is not the job.

You can write children stories too and they would be as boring.

> >It means EXACTLY that, you fucking idiot deluxe!!!!!
> That is exactly what it doesn't because the tangent T doesn't use itself, nor does D use T to define itself. T is defined in terms of D, and nothing else.

Let's see once again whether the definition is circular or not:

t(x) = f'(c) x + k
t(x) = f'(c) x + t(c) - f'(c)c
t(x) = f'(c)[x-c] + t(c)

Now for the circularity:

f'(c) = [t(c+h)-t(c)]/h

The function t(x) is used in its own definition.

The most laughable part here is that the limiting process does not even apply. Mainstream baboons like to think of it as

f'(c) = Lim_{h->0} [f(c+h)-f(c)]/h

However, the above finite difference quotient is meaningless unless it is already assumed that a tangent line is possible at x=c.

Hmm. Definitely Circular!

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 09:14:31 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 01:20:28 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >Good! You got this right! I am YOUR GOD!!! Too funny. ROFLMAO.
> > A very pathetic joke. Indicative of your narcissism.
> You really should stop asserting falsehoods and cease to project your low IQ on others. It just makes you look stupid and desperate.
> > >I like how you write D(f,x) - does it have something to do with the fact that you might have actually learned something from me? LMAO. You stupid boy!
> > Nope, I wrote it because D(f) is used in an algebra book by Yang that I like :)
> In other words, you included x as D(f,x) because you have seen me using this many times before in exposing your stupidity and ignorance!
> > >Of course there is! D(f,x) ASSUMES there is a tangent line
> > It assumed nothing of the sort, it gives a definition but it assumes nothing about a tangent, only that the D(f,x) has a value that exists.
> It MOST ABSOLUTELY ASSUMES a tangent line because the finite difference quotients have NOTHING in common with the tangent line slope except that as one approaches the point of tangency, the difference in slope decreases.

Also very telling about Malum's above statement is the method of "thinking" and defining in the mainstream:

<<Use everything but the concept itself to define the concept>>

So, the derivative is defined by ALL the secant line finite differences except the one that actually matters - the slope of the tangent line at the point of tangency. You see, Cauchy was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG when he claimed that defining the derivative could not be done by geometry and algebra alone. My New Calculus as well as my historic geometric theorem of January 2020 debunk this Cauchian drivel in its entirety.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

f ' (x) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - Q(x,h) as simple as this. I solved the tangent line problem, not those frauds Newton and Leibniz or any of the morons who came after them.

My New Calculus:

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

> > > otherwise there is no rationale for using the finite difference f(x+h)-f(x))/h which applies ONLY to a STRAIGHT LINE. Get it, moron?
> > This is where your own assumptions show. All it assumes there is that it is a field, we have addition, negatives and inverses for non-zero elements.

The above quote reminds me of math graduates who claimed that they learned all about the "laws" of commutativity, associativity, etc and never really understood anything else. All of Malum's notion are based on mantra that forms the basis of his false beliefs. When he can't understand or explain why he believes that which he does, all that's left is the mantra - one of the core concepts of a cult.

[konyberg]

fredag 6. august 2021 kl. 15:42:49 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 09:14:31 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 01:20:28 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >Good! You got this right! I am YOUR GOD!!! Too funny. ROFLMAO.
> > > A very pathetic joke. Indicative of your narcissism.
> > You really should stop asserting falsehoods and cease to project your low IQ on others. It just makes you look stupid and desperate.
> > > >I like how you write D(f,x) - does it have something to do with the fact that you might have actually learned something from me? LMAO. You stupid boy!
> > > Nope, I wrote it because D(f) is used in an algebra book by Yang that I like :)
> > In other words, you included x as D(f,x) because you have seen me using this many times before in exposing your stupidity and ignorance!
> > > >Of course there is! D(f,x) ASSUMES there is a tangent line
> > > It assumed nothing of the sort, it gives a definition but it assumes nothing about a tangent, only that the D(f,x) has a value that exists.
> > It MOST ABSOLUTELY ASSUMES a tangent line because the finite difference quotients have NOTHING in common with the tangent line slope except that as one approaches the point of tangency, the difference in slope decreases.
> Also very telling about Malum's above statement is the method of "thinking" and defining in the mainstream:
>
> <<Use everything but the concept itself to define the concept>>
>
> So, the derivative is defined by ALL the secant line finite differences except the one that actually matters - the slope of the tangent line at the point of tangency. You see, Cauchy was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG when he claimed that defining the derivative could not be done by geometry and algebra alone. My New Calculus as well as my historic geometric theorem of January 2020 debunk this Cauchian drivel in its entirety.
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> f ' (x) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - Q(x,h) as simple as this. I solved the tangent line problem, not those frauds Newton and Leibniz or any of the morons who came after them.

If you use the definition that f'(x) are the parts only containing x and Q(x,h) also contains h. Then it holds for functions of the type f(x) = ax^n. But other types? How does it hold for a simple function like f(x) = e^x? Show.
KON

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 16:02:49 UTC-4, konyberg wrote:
> fredag 6. august 2021 kl. 15:42:49 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 09:14:31 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 01:20:28 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >Good! You got this right! I am YOUR GOD!!! Too funny. ROFLMAO.
> > > > A very pathetic joke. Indicative of your narcissism.
> > > You really should stop asserting falsehoods and cease to project your low IQ on others. It just makes you look stupid and desperate.
> > > > >I like how you write D(f,x) - does it have something to do with the fact that you might have actually learned something from me? LMAO. You stupid boy!
> > > > Nope, I wrote it because D(f) is used in an algebra book by Yang that I like :)
> > > In other words, you included x as D(f,x) because you have seen me using this many times before in exposing your stupidity and ignorance!
> > > > >Of course there is! D(f,x) ASSUMES there is a tangent line
> > > > It assumed nothing of the sort, it gives a definition but it assumes nothing about a tangent, only that the D(f,x) has a value that exists.
> > > It MOST ABSOLUTELY ASSUMES a tangent line because the finite difference quotients have NOTHING in common with the tangent line slope except that as one approaches the point of tangency, the difference in slope decreases.
> > Also very telling about Malum's above statement is the method of "thinking" and defining in the mainstream:
> >
> > <<Use everything but the concept itself to define the concept>>
> >
> > So, the derivative is defined by ALL the secant line finite differences except the one that actually matters - the slope of the tangent line at the point of tangency. You see, Cauchy was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG when he claimed that defining the derivative could not be done by geometry and algebra alone. My New Calculus as well as my historic geometric theorem of January 2020 debunk this Cauchian drivel in its entirety.
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> >
> > f ' (x) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - Q(x,h) as simple as this. I solved the tangent line problem, not those frauds Newton and Leibniz or any of the morons who came after them.
> If you use the definition that f'(x) are the parts only containing x and Q(x,h) also contains h. Then it holds for functions of the type f(x) = ax^n. But other types?

It holds for all types.

> How does it hold for a simple function like f(x) = e^x? Show.

Absolutely! Download the applet and see how the geometry works for any smooth function:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ON1GQ7b6UNpZSEEsbG14eAFCPv8p03pv

Type in e^x (Choose ℯ from the drop down menu where it shows α) in the function input. Change your axis to 100:1 for x:y and set h=1 so you can see what's happening.

So let's see how it works quickly:

f'(x) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - Q(x,h)

[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = [e^(x+h) - e^x ]/h = [(1 + (x+h) + (x+h)^2/2! + ...) - (1 + x + x^2/2! + ...)]/h

Now you can do the arithmetic and you will end up with the terms for e^x and also extra terms containing h. These extra terms are part of Q(x,h). However, it is easy to see that Q(x,h) = [e^(x+h) - e^x ]/h - e^x

You can verify this by typing (ℯ^(x(D)+h) - ℯ^x(D) )/h - ℯ^x(D) into the function input bar at the bottom of the screen.

Click on "Reveal geometric Identity" to see the actual "numbers".

[Mostowski Collapse]

You can define:

3 =< 4 <=> 3 = 4 v 3 < 4

But you can also define it as, because of Trichotomy:

3 =< 4 <=> 3 = 4 xor 3 < 4

Doesn't change anything, gives the same truth value.

What is the truth value?

[konyberg]

Yes. But can you show me that e^x = 1 + x + x^2/2! + ...
I suspect you have it back in your mind, but how do you construct this series? Do you use the fact that (e^x)' = e^x?
KON

[Eram semper recta]

I've shown you how several times already. For the LAST time:

The following ONE page shows you how to find e^x using the binomial theorem:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1elqK9zByBXkddNOfJypKJd1Oxyc2YCyP

The following video reveals more:

https://youtu.be/QNaH4RY6Yfk

[konyberg]

You say:
f(x,n) = (1+xn)^1/n = 1 + x +x^2/2! - x^2n/2! + ...
Then
f(x,0) = 1 + x + x^2/2! + ... = e^x
How can you set n = 0? Then you divide by 0 in (1+xn)^(1/n).

KON

[Eram semper recta]

No, I don't divide by 0, because I am using a reduced form of the binomial (1+xn)^1/n.

The same thing happens with sin (x)/x.

f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...

f(x) * x/x = x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ... = sin (x)/x

It makes no sense trying to evaluate sin(x)/x in this form, but it can be evaluated as f(x) because

sin (x)/x = f(x) * x/x

Multiplying f(x) by 1 does not mean f(0) is no longer computable.

[Eram semper recta]

Sorry, should be:

f(x) * x/x = (x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ...)/x = sin (x)/x

[zelos...@gmail.com]

>You really should stop asserting falsehoods and cease to project your low IQ on others. It just makes you look stupid and desperate.

The one doing it is you. You are making such pathetic jokes, changing quotes and all like a stupid narcissistic child.

>In other words, you included x as D(f,x) because you have seen me using this many times before in exposing your stupidity and ignorance!

Nope, I used x in it because it is now a function of a function and a real number :) 2 inputs required.

>It MOST ABSOLUTELY ASSUMES a tangent line because the finite difference quotients have NOTHING in common with the tangent line slope except that as one approaches the point of tangency, the difference in slope decreases.

It assumes nothing about a tangent, it only assumes the limit exist. If we can make a tangent from it later down the line is a fortuitous thing.

>ROFLMAO. Same stupidity all over again that was pointed out to you when you tried to define multiplication from scratch. You never learn, do you Malum?

I did it just fine, you were just too stupid to understand that just because you assume Q from the beginning, it doesn't mean when I construct it I do too.

I go N->Z->Q->R

You go Q

Just because you start at Q does that not mean I start there too.

>It has everything to do with tangent line, the correct definition of tangent line which Newton and Leibniz understood well:

It doesn't, we can use it to get tangents but it doesn't assume or deal with it. It is just a function that takes a function and gives another with specific properties.

This is once again demonstrating your limited understanding.

>Hmm. Definitely Circular!

Nope

Again, T is defined in terms of D, and D is defined on it's own unrelated to T.

Just because you can throw around things in the definition of T to get D=blah doesn't that mean it is circular.

This is where your own inability to reason fails.

[Eram semper recta]

On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 11:13:11 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> There is a sci.math contributor (*) who was recently trying to dismiss my historic geometric theorem of January 2020 - the theorem proves mainstream calculus is a bogus formulation:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> (*) His real name is Jean Pierre Messager but he is also known as YBM, JPM and as of late "Python" since he apparently works on Cloud Applications by coding in the computer language called Python.
>
> The following paragraph is for him and his fellow syphilitic thinkers (Prof. Gilbert Strang of MIT, Prof. Jack Huizenga, Harvard Alumnus, etc):
>
> "I do not see what varies. Every constant value of x renders a constant value of y. There is no variation or change. Sure, when one compares a certain x or y to another x or y there could be a difference. However, to call them variables merely based on that seems a great conceptual error"
>
> [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
>
> I do not see what varies in the above identity. Written as a function:
>
> f(x,h) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h or f(x,h) = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
>
> It's great to be having the last laugh on all my enemies in the mainstream and around the globe!
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RqTSFNlQlg

Messager has tried various times to rubbish my theorem and has failed consistently.

The thing about theorems is that they tend to be "true". LMAO.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

actually we've pointed out many flaws

[Eram semper recta]

> actually we've pointed out many flaws ...

... in your thinking and beliefs.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

no, we havepointed out flaws in all of your stuff.

[Eram semper recta]

You have done much pointing which is meaningless nonsense proving that you are an ignoramus.

YOU ARE A CRANK!

A crank is one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.

No need for the blessing of the apes in the Church of Academia or the journals they control. LMAO.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

"Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false"

Wanna try again? The crank here is you :)

In addition, the overwhelming majority of cranks:

seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone shows that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
compare themselves with luminaries in their chosen field (often Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or Georg Cantor),[citation needed] implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is not good reason for it to be dismissed,
claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically backed up by conspiracy theories invoking intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,

My my, look, #4 there is what you're doing here!

[Eram semper recta]

One who cannot be convinced his beliefs are false in the face of overwhelming evidence. - is ALWAYS TRUE.

Your Mainstream supported drivel "definition" may or may not be TRUE. As I've tried to teach you, it is necessary but insufficient because there have been many examples of those who have been correct and the mainstream wrong.