Don Redmond - where has the mean value theorem ever been proven constructively before I proved it constructively?

[Eram semper recta]

Redmond is a vile piece of shit and deserves the lambasting he gets.

Tell us Redmond, where has it been done. It took you over a month to point out where you imagined my historic theorem was published before. You were wrong about it and I am certain you are wrong too about the mean value theorem having been proved constructively before I did it.

We are all waiting...

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLZG1pNlVIX2RTR0E

I remember that bastard David Ullrich from OK state dismissing the above proof circa 2005. Perhaps his ulcerative colitis reached his brain or he has succumbed to covid19 as has Zelos Malum. Good riddance!

[Dan Christensen]

On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 8:18:27 AM UTC-4, Eram semper RECTUM (formerly "John Gabriel" and "Jew Lover") wrote:

> Redmond ....

What do you know about mathematics, John? You are still struggling with fractions and integers.


Even at his advanced age (60+?), John 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

“1/3 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 at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Eram semper recta]

My evil Jew father (thank goodness he is dead!) used to tell me I should have become a lawyer. Chuckle. I suppose that one needs to have lawyer skills in order to deal with the abject filth and the morass that is known as mainstream mathematics academia.

Boy, I would have been absolutely miserable had I become a lawyer. Most lawyers are disgusting and sickening dogs.

[Dan Christensen]

On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 8:18:27 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Redmond...

In your goofy little system, John, you do not even have workable definition of the derivative of a function on R, John. You are unable, for example, to show that for f(x)=|x|, we have f'(x) being -1 if x<0, +1 if x>0 and undefined if x=0. Fix it or scrap it, John.

Oooops... I forgot that you banned the number 0. Oh, well....

[Dan Christensen]

In that case, I guess your dad thought you would fit right in.


Dan

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, 15 May 2020 08:18:27 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:

The New Calculus is the first RIGOROUS formulation in human history:

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

From its well-formed concepts the following historic GEOMETRIC theorem was realised:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

And from this the mainstream calculus is fixed - both derivative and integral are DEFINED in terms of the historic identity:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y


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

is to CALCULUS as the theorem of Pythagoras is to ALL of mathematics.

Mainstream mythmaticians hate it because it exposes their centuries ignorance and stupidity. Basically, it destroys what they stand for which in turn destroys them! I am sorry, but I am out to destroy them and it's a personal thing.

[Dan Christensen]

On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 8:49:21 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:

>
> The New Calculus is the first RIGOROUS formulation in human history:
>

A "rigorous formulation" of calculus without a workable definition of the derivative??? How does that work, Johnny? It doesn't. Fix it or scrap it!


Dan

[Eram semper recta]

[Sergio]

On 5/15/2020 9:21 AM, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 8:49:21 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
>
>>
>> The New Calculus is the first RIGOROUS formulation in human history:
>>
>
> A "rigorous formulation" of calculus without a workable definition of the derivative??? How does that work, Johnny? It doesn't. Fix it or scrap it!
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

>>
>> From its well-formed concepts the following historic GEOMETRIC theorem was realised:

JG uses SECANT, not TANGENT so it is ALWAYS WRONG


>>
>> https://porn.drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

>>
>> And from this the mainstream calculus is fixed - both derivative and integral are DEFINED in terms of the historic identity:
>>

>> https://porn.drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y

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

Q(x,h) is the QuACk function, an error term thrown in.



>>
>> is to CALCULUS as

ravings of a lunatic

>>
>> Mainstream mythmaticians hate it because it exposes their centuries ignorance and stupidity. Basically, it destroys what they stand for which in turn destroys them! I am sorry, but I am out to destroy them and it's a personal thing.
>

have fun, JG the lunatic

[Eddie Gelbert]

Shut up idiot.

[red...@siu.edu]

Since you asked try Erret Bishop's book Constructive Analysis

BTW I mentioned LaBarre's book reference several months ago. At the time I didn't have a copy of the book and couldn't offer you year of publication as well page number.

Don

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, 15 May 2020 12:14:40 UTC-4, red...@siu.edu wrote:
> On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 7:18:27 AM UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > Redmond is a vile piece of shit and deserves the lambasting he gets.
> >
> > Tell us Redmond, where has it been done. It took you over a month to point out where you imagined my historic theorem was published before. You were wrong about it and I am certain you are wrong too about the mean value theorem having been proved constructively before I did it.
> >
> > We are all waiting...
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLZG1pNlVIX2RTR0E
> >
> > I remember that bastard David Ullrich from OK state dismissing the above proof circa 2005. Perhaps his ulcerative colitis reached his brain or he has succumbed to covid19 as has Zelos Malum. Good riddance!
>
> Since you asked try Erret Bishop's book Constructive Analysis

Not a chance I would pay even a cent for it. If you know the page number and know of an electronic copy, then state it here. If it's anything like your other link on Labarre, then it's probably junk.

>
> BTW I mentioned LaBarre's book reference several months ago.

You did and I informed you back then already that the Lipschitz Condition has NOTHING to do with my theorem.

> At the time I didn't have a copy of the book and couldn't offer you year of publication as well page number.

You're lying. You had the link but not the page number. In less than a minute I scoured the entire electronic copy and told you that the Lipschitz Condition has nothing to do with my theorem. Much later you claimed falsely this was were my theorem was published.

Then you disappeared only to resurface a few days ago with your drivel about Labarre having realised my theorem.

If you had even an ounce of intellectual honesty, then you would admit that Labarre's observation is not equivalent to my geometric theorem, but you found what you imaged to be a similarity and yet Labarre stated a small observation about the difference in slopes in passing (which he left to the reader). However, Labarre refers to this in the context of the Lipschitz Condition and not in the way my theorem deals with it. Moreover, Labarre does NOT state my theorem anywhere and his so-called "variant" is obtained from an epsilonics inequality, not an actual theorem that is stated with a complete proof as I provide in my article.

Then after confronted, you disappeared again, leaving me to deal with the shit you started and the confusion you added to the local morons who are already confused.

It's clear you were trying to sow doubt and to bring my claims into disrepute. You are truly a vile man.

And let's just suppose that Labarre knew of my theorem (he did not...), how is it that he didn't connect it to the definition of integral which I show can be produced from the theorem? I'll tell you why: Labarre had nothing but a superficial understanding. He made an observation and thought nothing of it outside of the Lipschitz Condition - a non-remarkable piece of junk that leads absolutely nowhere and can't be used in any way whatsoever.

I hope you're proud of yourself for being such a vile reptile. Dishonest people like you are the reason mainstream academia is steadfastly being rejected.

>
> Don

[Me]

On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 2:18:27 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:

> point out where [...] my historic theorem was published before.

Btw. isn't that just "your" "theorem"? :-)

https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf

Do you think he stole it from you? *lol*

Get a grip, man!

[Me]

On Saturday, May 16, 2020 at 1:26:27 AM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, 15 May 2020 12:14:40 UTC-4, red...@siu.edu wrote:
> >
> > BTW I mentioned LaBarre's book reference several months ago.

Right! He did that.

> you claimed falsely this was were my theorem was published.

Well, how about
https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
? isn't that just "your" "theorem"? :-)

[Eram semper recta]

He sure did you fucking asshole and I have already warned him to remove it or add the correct attribution.

Thanks for the notification! You stupid dumb fuck! It's pretty telling because there isn't even a date on that article and it was only revealed to the world in January 2020.

I hear ching-ching if he doesn't remove it or add my name. Chuckle.

> Get a grip, man!

[Mostowski Collapse]

Well he used Ghostscript 7.05 to make the
PDF, which came out in 2002. Maybe the

PDF is quite old, probably from the
time John Gabbermonkey still shit in his

diaper? Oh no, John Gabbermonkey is an old sack?

[Eram semper recta]

On Saturday, 16 May 2020 09:59:01 UTC-4, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> Well he used Ghostscript 7.05 to make the
> PDF, which came out in 2002.

Fucking liar. There is no date on the article and there is no way for you to check the properties of the article because a stupid fuck like you has no access to the web page.

[Mostowski Collapse]

Inspect the PDF, it tells me it was produced
with Ghostscript 7.05. Which came out 2002.

[Mostowski Collapse]

On a Mac, if you have the PDF in standard
preview app, just press command-I, I = information.

[Mostowski Collapse]

Didn't they show you how to use a computer
in the african ghetto, where you were raised?

[Me]

On Saturday, May 16, 2020 at 4:01:48 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:

> There is no date on the article and there is no way for you to check the

> properties of the article because <bla bla>

Actually, there is a way, it's called Wayback machine! :-)

Hint: https://web.archive.org/web/20180101000000*/https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf

=> Saved 1 time November 27, 2018.

View capture:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181127025902/https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf

Yeah, dumbo, YOU ARE FUCKED!

Hint: It's pretty evident that you saw his pdf on the web and decided to plagiarise it!

[Python]

$ wget -q --server-response
https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf 2>&1 |
grep Last-Modified

Last-Modified: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:18:20 GMT

LOL :-)

[gabriel...@gmail.com]

His equation is wrong anyway. Q(x,h) is a function of x and h.

[Python]

JG - I've been plagiarised !

- The file is at least from 2006...

JG - The paper is wrong!

You're such a kook, John...

[gabriel...@gmail.com]

Shut up psycho troll Jean Pierre Messager. You're a nobody.

[gabriel...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 16, 2020 at 10:39:54 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:

Kook is a racist term you stupid fuck! Learn what words mean before you misuse them Jean pierre messager.

[Me]

Ok, you are a prick. :-)

[Me]

On Saturday, May 16, 2020 at 4:36:49 PM UTC+2, gabriel...@gmail.com wrote:

> His equation is wrong anyway. Q(x,h) is a function of x and h.

Look, dumbo, for his considerations he considers /a/ to be "constant" so there's no need to write E(a, h) in this case.

Hint: That's why he uses the lable /a/ here and not the variable /x/ (like you did).

The more general expression would (of course) be:

[f(a+h)-f(a)]/h = f'(a) + E(a,h) .

But since /a/ is fixed _in the context of his considerations_, "E(h)" for the "error term" is ok too.

Hint: He's just interested in the behaviour of error term for h->0, dumbo.

[Eram semper recta]

On Saturday, 16 May 2020 10:48:51 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> On Saturday, May 16, 2020 at 4:36:49 PM UTC+2, gabriel...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > His equation is wrong anyway. Q(x,h) is a function of x and h.
>
> Look, dumbo, for his considerations he considers /a/ to be "constant" so there's no need to write E(a, h) in this case.
>
> Hint: That's why he uses the lable /a/ here and not the variable /x/ (like you did).
>
> The more general expression would (of course) be:
>
> [f(a+h)-f(a)]/h = f'(a) + E(a,h) .

What's really funny you stupid fuck, is that you wouldn't have known any of this, had I not revealed it to you!

His equation is just plain crap. I've written and told him it's okay because he isn't writing anything but drivel.

<drivel>

[Me]

On Saturday, May 16, 2020 at 9:24:50 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:

> I've written and told him it's okay

I'm sure he was rather glad to hear that!

[Eram semper recta]

Hey crank. You are boring me. I know my theorem has caused a lot of consternation for you, but it was bound to happen sooner or later that you are exposed for the idiot that you are. Chuckle.

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, 15 May 2020 08:18:27 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Redmond is a vile piece of shit and deserves the lambasting he gets.
>
> Tell us Redmond, where has it been done. It took you over a month to point out where you imagined my historic theorem was published before. You were wrong about it and I am certain you are wrong too about the mean value theorem having been proved constructively before I did it.
>
> We are all waiting...
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLZG1pNlVIX2RTR0E
>
> I remember that bastard David Ullrich from OK state dismissing the above proof circa 2005. Perhaps his ulcerative colitis reached his brain or he has succumbed to covid19 as has Zelos Malum. Good riddance!

We can see from all the objections just how worried are the orangutans of mainstream academia. They have tried desperately to discredit my historic theorem - first with the joke called Lipschtiz Condition and then with some drivel by an ex Washington state professor.

The historic geometric theorem first revealed by me:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

How it fixes the bogus mainstream formulation of calculus:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y


My theorem shows how the entire calculus is formulated in terms of my historic identity:

[Me]

On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:

> My theorem [bla]

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

You mean

https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf

- published many years ago?

Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)

Hint: Let E(h) = [f(a+h)-f(a)]/h - f'(a) (for h =/= 0) then [f(a+h)-f(a)]/h = f'(a) + E(h) (for h =/= 0). In the same way: Let Q(x,h) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - f'(x) (for h =/= 0) then [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) (for h =/= 0).

[Eram semper recta]

On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> > My theorem [bla]
> >
> > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
>
> You mean
>
> https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
>
> - published many years ago?
>
> Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)

You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.

It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?

[Me]

On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 4:47:20 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >
> > > My theorem [bla]
> > >
> > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > >
> > You mean
> >
> > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> >
> > - published many years ago?
> >
> > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> >

> You're lying. But even if that [...] document was published in 2002, my New

> Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over
> 35 years.

Look, you lying sack of shit, you wrote:

"Early in January 2020, I revealed the historic geometric theorem which provides the general derivative for any smooth function."

[Eram semper recta]

Right. But it came from the New Calculus which was discovered more than 35 years ago. No lies there at all.

The historic theorem was realised in order to embarrass the lot of you morons in the mainstream who claimed that calculus could not be done geometrically, ie. without the bullshit of limit theory, etc.

Now you know it can. Chuckle.

[New Age Prophet]

On Friday, 15 May 2020 at 15:18:27 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Redmond (red...@siu.edu) is a vile piece of shit and deserves the lambasting he gets.

>
> Tell us Redmond, where has it been done. It took you over a month to point out where you imagined my historic theorem was published before. You were wrong about it and I am certain you are wrong too about the mean value theorem having been proved constructively before I did it.
>
> We are all waiting...
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLZG1pNlVIX2RTR0E
>
> I remember that bastard David Ullrich from OK state dismissing the above proof circa 2005. Perhaps his ulcerative colitis reached his brain or he has succumbed to covid19 as has Zelos Malum. Good riddance!

The laughable part is that Labarre didn't mention my identity as a general solution to finding the derivative (he muttered some unremarkable gibberish wrt irrelevant crap called Lipschitz condition) and more importantly, he made NO connection to the definite integral using the identity which I did:

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

It was I, not Newton or Leibniz who solved the tangent line problem rigorously and moreover revealed the clear link between the derivative and definite integral. Before me, there was nothing but a misty haze.

[markus...@gmail.com]

"Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
-- John Gabriel

[Eram semper recta]

Your point? I see, nothing as usual.

[markus...@gmail.com]

The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

fredag 15 maj 2020 kl. 14:18:27 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> Redmond is a vile piece of shit and deserves the lambasting he gets.

>
> Tell us Redmond, where has it been done. It took you over a month to point out where you imagined my historic theorem was published before. You were wrong about it and I am certain you are wrong too about the mean value theorem having been proved constructively before I did it.
>
> We are all waiting...
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLZG1pNlVIX2RTR0E
>
> I remember that bastard David Ullrich from OK state dismissing the above proof circa 2005. Perhaps his ulcerative colitis reached his brain or he has succumbed to covid19 as has Zelos Malum. Good riddance!

I am sitll around :) You're still an idiot

[zelos...@gmail.com]

That means like Evangelical Christians, you refuse to ever acknowledge you are wrong.

You are just like them

[Eram semper recta]

I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.

You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

Having another way to define derivatives, which yours don't, does not in anyway demonstrate the previous ones are wrong or were bogus. It just adds one more to the list of many ways to define derivative and build calculus, yawn.

Is this derived from your "only one" mentality?

[Eram semper recta]

On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 09:02:09 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 14 september 2021 kl. 07:59:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 20:40:08 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > söndag 12 september 2021 kl. 14:31:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:11:33 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > söndag 17 maj 2020 kl. 16:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Sunday, 17 May 2020 09:23:56 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 2:51:12 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My theorem [bla]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You mean
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - published many years ago?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeah, it's just a trivial truth. :-)
> > > > > > You're lying. But even if that incorrect document was published in 2002, my New Calculus from whence the historic theorem comes from, has been around over 35 years.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It must be really awful to be a loser like you and Jean Pierre Messager eh?
> > > > > "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right"
> > > > > -- John Gabriel
> > > > Your point? I see, nothing as usual.
> > > The point: even when faced with the fact that you are wrong, you insist that "Wikipedia or someone else stole your work" when in fact you have just presented a butchered version of mainstream mathematics.
> > I've never said any of the above lies of yours. In fact, Don Redmond tried to say that I got my ideas from Labarre's calculus which is outright false since Labarre does not claim the same as my identity, not even close.
> >
> > You hate the identity derived from my historic geometric theorem because it proves once and for all, your mainstream formulation of calculus has and always will be bogus. Moreover, it embarrasses you because you were too stupid to question your orangutan lecturers.
> Having another way to define derivatives,

There is no other way to define a derivative because a derivative by definition is an expression that indicates the slope of a special kind of straight line, one called a <tangent line>. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

Here we have have your "only one" mentality again. The derivative can be defined in many ways for various purposes that gives us slightly different capabilities. There are more than one way to skin a cat.

We have the classical way to define it.
We have the non-standard way
We have measure theory way to define it.
We have an algebraic way to define it
There are many ways because derivative and integral are about functions, not lines.

[markus...@gmail.com]

I don'y hate it. I just think it's wrong.

[Eram semper recta]

You hate it because you know you're wrong.

[markus...@gmail.com]

That's not it, chief.

[Eram semper recta]

"h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)

"π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)

:-)))))

[markus...@gmail.com]

As real numbers, yes. The reals has only one non-unit element.

[Eram semper recta]

NO. Pi is NEVER a factor of 6.

A factor k of any p, can only be a factor of p IF k divides p without remainder. THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.

Time for you to go back to primary school.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

there are no remainders in a field, that is what makes htem a field.

You are conflating an integral domain with a field again showing again you do not fucking understand mathematics.

[Eram semper recta]

Irrelevant, because a field is irrelevant.

What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Klyver do not understand at all what is a <factor>. How embarrassing!

A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.

LMAO.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

integral domains and fields work differently. One has factor being meaningful, the other doesn't.

Fields are relevant because that is what makes factorization adn remainders useless concepts. That is why no one speaks of "factorization" of 5.3, 3.9, pi, phi etc in real numbers.

[Eram semper recta]

Also irrelevant. You're just trying to make your narrative seem like the right one, but the facts are clear that you are a bullshitter who knows nothing about mathematics.

No. Fields have ZERO relevance.

To makes a statement like "integral domains and fields work differently" only shows that once again you are trying to pull the authority card. Chuckle. Poor Malum, it must be so embarrassing for you:

"h*f(x)/h means that h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)

Therefore by the "brilliant" logic of these two math master graduates, we arrive at the stunning result:

"pi*f(x)/pi means that pi is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)

Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk.

A factor is any magnitude that measures (is a divisor in modern lingo) another exactly.

This has nothing to do with your bullshit of fields, rings, etc. LMAO.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

>Clearly you have no clue what it means for a "set " to be countable.

I do, again, a set is countable if it is in bijection with a subset of N

>It has EVERYTHING to do with indexing.

No it doesn't, given an index set can be any set so it is entirely worthless.

>A set is countable IF AND ONLY IF it can be indexed. When one talks about bijection between imaginary "real sets", there is nothing about countbility there, only that one set is scaled to another. Flags do not imply equinumerosity.

Sorry to inform you but it is about bijection with subset of N, not indexing because any set, even 2^N, can be used for indexing and 2^N is not countable.

>rrelevant. You're just trying to make your narrative seem like the right one, but the facts are clear that you are a bullshitter who knows nothing about mathematics.

Very relevant. The fact is still you do not understand the difference between fields and integral domains and that is the major issue for you.

I know mathematics much better than you :) I can cite sources you can only cite your own garbage.

>To makes a statement like "integral domains and fields work differently" only shows that once again you are trying to pull the authority card. Chuckle. Poor Malum, it must be so embarrassing for you:

I pulled no authority on it. I can DEMONSTRATE they work differently based on definitions. There is no authority on it.

>Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk.

Indeed tsk tsk tsk, you still fail to understand that integral domains and fields do work differently and factorization is only a relevant property in one of them.

[Eram semper recta]

> a set is countable if it is in bijection with a subset of N

That is an indirect reason of the fact that elements of N can be listed systematically. In fact, you haven't even memorised the definition you were brainwashed to use correctly:

A set is countable if it can be placed into a bijection with N or a subset of N.

You're a super CRANK.

<drivel>

[zelos...@gmail.com]

N is a subset of N you imbecile

https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Definition:Subset

[Eram semper recta]

From the MIT website:

"A set is said to be countable, if you can make a list of its members. By a list we mean that you can find a first member, a second one, and so on, and eventually assign to each member an integer of its own, perhaps going on forever."

http://www-math.mit.edu/~djk/calculus_beginners/chapter01/section04.html

"h*f(x)/h means that h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)

Therefore by the "brilliant" logic of these two math master graduates, we arrive at the stunning result:

"pi*f(x)/pi means that pi is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers Uni) / Zelos Malum (Uppsala)

You should really listen to your Abel Prize winner Karen Uhlenbeck who calls your Wikipedia Moronica by the name of Wackopedia!

LMAO.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

>I don't read Wikipedia. It's a shit site.

it is proofwiki, not wikipedia.

>N is NOT a subset of N

it is you imbecile.

>That's like saying a set is a subset of itself.

Which they are. They aren't PROPER subsets of themselves but they are SUBSETS of themselves.

>"...a set A is a subset of a set B if all elements of A are also elements of B"

Correct, all elements of A are members of A so it fits them.

>Note that A and B are not the same sets, for otherwise it would say:

They do not say that because there is no need for it.

>"...a set A is a subset of a itself if all elements of A are also elements of A"

Which is a tautology

>Ha, ha. So much for your set theory bullshit.

Thank you for demonstrating you do not understand any of it.

>I promise that by the year 2050, there will not be a single set theorist or topologist left and anyone who was will deny ever being one. There is no place for druids in mathematics. LMAO.

I'll be around then, unlike you and I will smile knowing you were wrong :)

https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Set_is_Subset_of_Itself
https://www.quora.com/Can-a-set-be-a-subset-of-itself
https://www.reddit.com/r/learnmath/comments/2iicte/why_is_every_set_said_to_be_a_subset_of_itself/

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, 15 May 2020 at 15:18:27 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:

> Redmond is a vile piece of shit and deserves the lambasting he gets.
>
> Tell us Redmond, where has it been done. It took you over a month to point out where you imagined my historic theorem was published before. You were wrong about it and I am certain you are wrong too about the mean value theorem having been proved constructively before I did it.
>
> We are all waiting...
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLZG1pNlVIX2RTR0E
>
> I remember that bastard David Ullrich from OK state dismissing the above proof circa 2005. Perhaps his ulcerative colitis reached his brain or he has succumbed to covid19 as has Zelos Malum. Good riddance!

Getting back on topic, it's quite telling that all my old enemies have shut their mouths. Of course there are the persistent stupid trolls who don't matter anyhow.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

Pointing out where you're wrong is not trolling.

[Eram semper recta]

Except that you never point out anything except the fact that you're an idiot and a troll.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

We have many times here. Markus has shown, Dan has, I have. For example we have pointed out you do not understand integral domains vs fields and how factorization works in them.

Amongst many many many things.

[Eram semper recta]

[zelos...@gmail.com]

We have pointed it out, for example again, factorization in integral domains vs fields :)

[Eram semper recta]

It is trolling when you confirm with your every comment that you are a troll and that's what you do. I mean even the infamous troll Dan Christensen seems to have mellowed compared to you. Now that's a poke in your eye. LMAO.

If you have nothing to say, the best practice is to abstain from taking a dump on the thread by repeating your drivel over and over again - so typical of a troll.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

To be a troll I have to say things for the purpsoe of antagonizing people. I have no intent of antagonizing anyone. My intent is correcting you where you're wrong and boy there are many places where you are!

You repeat your drivel, so by your definition, you are a troll!

You are quite the hypocrite!

[NewAge Prophet]

On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 3:18:27 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Redmond is a vile piece of shit and deserves the lambasting he gets.
>
> Tell us Redmond, where has it been done. It took you over a month to point out where you imagined my historic theorem was published before. You were wrong about it and I am certain you are wrong too about the mean value theorem having been proved constructively before I did it.
>
> We are all waiting...
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLZG1pNlVIX2RTR0E
>
> I remember that bastard David Ullrich from OK state dismissing the above proof circa 2005. Perhaps his ulcerative colitis reached his brain or he has succumbed to covid19 as has Zelos Malum. Good riddance!

All we have are troll comments and nothing of substance.

[markus...@gmail.com]

A factorisation of some element a is a=b*c. You can do this for any field. Let a be non-negative. Then a=b*(a/b), so any non-negative b is a factor of a.

[markus...@gmail.com]

It's not so much they are not meaningful as they are trivial. You can factorise 5.3 as a real number in infinitely many ways.

[FromTheRafters]

markus...@gmail.com expressed precisely :

Am I wrong in thinking that you meant positve rather than non-negative
with respect to b?

[markus...@gmail.com]

I actually meant non-zero, but thanks for the correction. You don't need to have an ordering in a ring.

[Eram semper recta]

We are not talking about the garbage of elements or set theory but well-formed concepts such as numbers and magnitudes.

I do not subscribe to your bullshit.

> You can do this for any field.

In your Alice-In-Wonderland, your imagination can run wild, but in mathematics, we talk about measure and number. Nothing else.

> Let a be non-negative. Then a=b*(a/b), so any non-negative b is a factor of a.

Nonsense! Unbelievable what a crank you are!

"h*f(x)/h means h is a factor of f(x)" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)

"π*6/π means π is a factor of 6" - Markus Klyver (Chambers University)/Zelos Malum(Uppsala)

You have yet to admit that you made a grave error and are a disgrace to the institution (Chambers in Sweden) where you claim to study.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

Mathematics is not about your idea of "measure" and it is not focused on "numbers", especially not your idea of it. It is far bigger than that.

[Eram semper recta]

It's not my idea. Mathematics is the science of measure and number.

Since you love citations:

mathematics, the science of structure, order, and relation that has evolved from elemental practices of counting, measuring, and describing the shapes of objects. - https://www.britannica.com/science/mathematics

: the science of numbers and their operations - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mathematics

Let me know if you need more. LMAO.

> and it is not focused on "numbers", especially not your idea of it. It is far bigger than that.

The most important concept in mathematics is *NUMBER* and it can only be derived flawlessly using the theory of the ELEMENTS of EUCLID, the one and ONLY true foundation of mathematics.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

notice they say STRUCTURE, ORDER, ANDER RELATIONS that has EVOLVED from...
so even your citation says it is MORE than what you want it to be.

[Eram semper recta]

Exactly, and none of those mean what you think, ie, groups, fields, etc.

Evolution is an idea. The mathematics of the Ancient Greeks has NOT evolved at all.

Till this day, when you multiply p/q by r/s, the result is exactly the same as it was 2400 years ago, ie pr/qs.

Dumbo is what you will always be.

[markus...@gmail.com]

No grave error has been made. a=b*(a/b) is a valid factorisation of a in any field.

Should I point out your misspelling of my university?

[markus...@gmail.com]

If you read that whole Britannica article, you would realise it's a description of mathematics from ancient times up until modern pure mathematics.

While mathematics has its origins in (read: evolved from) counting and shapes, that's nowhere near a complete description of what mathematics is today.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

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

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

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