John Gabriel said "Let there be light and there was light!"

[Eram semper recta]

Newton and Leibniz scratched their heads through their powdered wigs wondering how to solve the tangent line problem. The poor idiots failed dismally. Neither of them could realise the genius of John Gabriel's theorem from which the following identity is produced:

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

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

How this theorem realised from the rigorous New Calculus makes understanding your bogus mainstream formulation much eaiser:

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

How the stupidity and ignorance of mainstream academics the past few hundred years have led to all sorts of hand waving arguments and brain syphilis such as "error term", "limits", etc:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9

My New Calculus is 100% rigorous and while I corrected your bogus mainstream formulation, you are still better off just learning the New Calculus. You can do much more with

[f(x+n)-f(x-m)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,m,n) [New Calculus]

than you can do with

[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) [Correcting your bogus mainstream formulation]

For example, you wouldn't have the superior closed form Gabriel Polynomial if you tried to use Taylor series, because the derivative in Taylor series is a flawed formulation.

Gabriel Polynomial described here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MnnnczqCA6vAEEoL1_OQAabDyHHzNcwW

Math academics have been trying to write sqrt(2) and pi exactly for centuries. I, the great John Gabriel gift you the Gabriel polynomial which gives you innumerably many ways of writing these *magnitudes* EXACTLY.

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 17:24:27 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Newton and Leibniz scratched their heads through their powdered wigs wondering how to solve the tangent line problem. The poor idiots failed dismally. Neither of them could realise the genius of John Gabriel's theorem from which the following identity is produced:
>
> [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> How this theorem realised from the rigorous New Calculus makes understanding your bogus mainstream formulation much eaiser:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
>
> How the stupidity and ignorance of mainstream academics the past few hundred years have led to all sorts of hand waving arguments and brain syphilis such as "error term", "limits", etc:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9
>
> My New Calculus is 100% rigorous and while I corrected your bogus mainstream formulation, you are still better off just learning the New Calculus. You can do much more with
>
> [f(x+n)-f(x-m)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,m,n) [New Calculus]

where h = m+n.

[Dan Christensen]

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

On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 10:24:27 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel (JG), Troll Boy) wrote:
> Newton and Leibniz scratched their heads through their powdered wigs wondering how to solve the tangent line problem. The poor idiots failed dismally. Neither of them could realise the genius of John Gabriel's theorem from which the following identity is produced:
>

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


Unfortunately for Troll Boy here, this "definition" is really quite useless in applications.

JG here claims to have a discovered a 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

[Xavier]

Eram semper recta wrote:

> Newton and Leibniz scratched their heads through their powdered wigs
> wondering how to solve the tangent line problem. The poor idiots failed
> dismally. Neither of them could realise the genius of John Gabriel's
> theorem from which the following identity is produced:

Japanese PM quits after blocking Moderna Vax, promoting Ivermectin

[markus...@gmail.com]

How are limits handwaving? They have a precise definition if you bothered to understand it.

[Xavier]

Eram semper recta wrote:

>> [f(x+n)-f(x-m)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,m,n) [New Calculus]
>
> where h = m+n.

The world will soon be divided between the DAMAGED vaccinated and the
undamaged, “super powered” unvaccinated who will inherit the Earth

The vaccinated think they got passports to freedom, but they really
bought tickets to Hell


TEMPORARY BODY STORAGE SERVICE MASS DEATHS PREDICT
https://www.bitchute.com/video/qIx1eivG38Df/

[Dan Christensen]

On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 3:47:25 PM UTC-4, Xavier wrote:
> Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> >> [f(x+n)-f(x-m)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,m,n) [New Calculus]
> >
> > where h = m+n.
> The world will soon be divided between the DAMAGED vaccinated and the
> undamaged, “super powered” unvaccinated who will inherit the Earth
>

Their corpses seem to be piling up in the US anti-vax Bible Belt. Very sad.

Dan

[Michael Moroney]

When the nymshifter wrote "inherit the earth" I didn't realize it would
be by lying in it. So sad.

[Eram semper recta]

Stupid apes have "limit" bullshit seared in their syphilitic brains.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 1:09:16 AM UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Stupid [stalkers] have "limit" bullshit seared in their syphilitic brains.

On occasion John Gabriel lets loose with a nice poetic line, worthy of nomination to math awards by Jill Pipher and Ken Ribet of AMS who cannot do a geometry proof of FTC calculus nor can verify that their crank ellipse is really a oval in slant cut of cone.

So if we take out the animal reference, for everyone should stop using animals in their ad hominem. But take out the animal reference, John has produced a nice line for a poem about mathematicians and their imbecilic love of "limits" where limits were nothing but a mindboggling hornswaggling nonsense that should never have existed. Limits in mathematics is akin to injecting voodoo witchcraft into science and math.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Sprinkle a little pixie dust limit here, sprinkle some pixie dust limit there and imps of mathematics of Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell think they proved Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, yet all they have done is make themselves foolish idiots of mathematics calculus.

The entire enterprise of "limit in mathematics" was because Cauchy, the fool he was, was sick and tired of hearing his smartest students, not the ones who want A's in class, but the real smart ones who want the truth of math. Those smart ones kept pressing Cauchy for an explanation of how the rectangle area of width goes to zero, yet still have internal area. So the cruel Cauchy came up with "limit concept" that he used as a weapon against the smart students. Whenever a smart student wanted to know how rectangle can still have area with width of 0, Cauchy would say " well, you just do not understand the limit concept".

Cauchy was wicked in not seeking the truth of mathematics calculus-- a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

[Quantum Bubbles]

On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 7:09:16 AM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:

"Stupid apes have "limit" bullshit seared in their syphilitic brains".

You have said in the past that you are not claiming the results of calculus to be false, just the concepts used to get those results. Your knowledge of analysis and limit theory is so poor that you are not able to perceive the incoherence of such a combination of positions (hence your inability to explain the applied successes of modern mathematics, and your inability to handle general transcendental functions ). Understand limit theory first and then comment on it.

You seem to be oblivious to the extent that your NPD holds you back. If you could muster the will-power to put it aside, to understand evolution and basic cognitive science, you would realize the falsity/hopelessness of your theory of mathematical concepts, give up on such rubbish, and be able to look at mathematics anew. This would allow you to perceive that limit theory, set theory etc is sufficient to ground multivariable real and complex analysis at least up to and including the levels needed for Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity (neither of which you show any understanding of).

Oh by the way, I will be uploading my Mensa test results today to prove that I passed. Since you claim to have an IQ above the top 0.01% when are we going to see any proof from an official supervised Mensa recognized IQ test Mr Gabriel (we all know the answer and the reason for it...). Have you got the spine (LOL)?

Regards

QB

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 17:24:27 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:

Not much surprises me, but what always makes me curious is how cranks like Quantum Bubbles. Markus Klyver, Zelos Malum, etc persist in repeating their drivel even when proved to be wrong beyond any possible doubt. This should make for a useful psychological study.

Confirmation bias is not a new phenomenon among mainstream academics as this scientific study shows:

www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

It's like slapping your opponent who can't feel the pain and simply keeps coming back for more. What gives?

Preempt: Cranks on this site will claim that the above study applies to me, but that is impossible because I am not a mainstream academic and people of my genre cannot be called <mainstream academic>.

[Michael Moroney]

On 9/5/2021 5:21 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:

>
> Not much surprises me, but what always makes me curious is how cranks like Quantum Bubbles. Markus Klyver, Zelos Malum, etc persist in repeating their drivel even when proved to be wrong beyond any possible doubt. This should make for a useful psychological study.

Yes, John, you'd make for a very interesting psychological study.

>
> Confirmation bias is not a new phenomenon among mainstream academics as this scientific study shows:
>
> www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

I read that before and I kept thinking to myself "Yes, that's Gabriel,
alright!". Funny how your psychological projection makes you reference
the very article which describes you best.

>
> It's like slapping your opponent who can't feel the pain and simply keeps coming back for more. What gives?

Again funny watching how you keep getting slapped by the experts here
and you keep telling them "Thank you, sir, may I have another?"

>
> Preempt: Cranks on this site will claim that the above study applies to me,

Because it does!

> but that is impossible because I am not a mainstream academic

Which is why you are a crank, since part of the definition of crank is
that you are not of the mainstream.

> and people of my genre cannot be called <mainstream academic>.

Since it is an ability level you can never reach.

[Eram semper recta]

On Sunday, 5 September 2021 at 16:19:32 UTC+3, Michael MORONey babbled shit:

< PLONK >

[zelos...@gmail.com]

fredag 3 september 2021 kl. 16:24:27 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:

I hope you're not a religious man because if you are, you've just comited one of the unforgivable acts :)

[Eram semper recta]

No idea what goes on in your peanut brain down there.

If you think that I meant expressing pi exactly as an infinite decimal expansion, well then it's just you being your normal obtuse self.

To understand what I am saying you need to study - many years of it. But I'll make it simple for you:

Using Taylor series, you can only write pi ~ some series followed by 3 dost.

Using the Gabriel Polynomial, you can write pi exactly using functions. If you weren't such an ass, it is possible you might be able to learn some day.

[markus...@gmail.com]

A Taylor series is an infinite series with an exact value.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

I have studied mathematics far more than you have. Again, who has a masters degree? Not you!

[Eram semper recta]

That is such a joke. It hardly deserves an answer. All I will say here is that any Taylor series produces NOTHING but a <<rational number approximation.>>

The Gabriel polynomial gives an exact closed form in terms of functions. Eat your heart out!

[markus...@gmail.com]

No, a Taylor series is exact and defined as a limit. Please just open an undergrad analysis textbook.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

that would require him to actually learn and understand things! :O

[Dan Christensen]

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

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 2:19:46 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel (JG), Troll Boy) wrote:

>
> The Gabriel polynomial gives an exact closed form in terms of functions.

As you well know, it actually gives you shit, Troll Boy. Deal with it.

[Eram semper recta]

No Taylor series is exact, you stupid crank. It is well known that there is no last term in a Taylor series.

<PLONK>

[markus...@gmail.com]

That's why it is an infinite sum, i.e. a limit.

[New Age Prophet]

That's why it is a bunch of rot, because there is no such thing as an infinite sum.

[markus...@gmail.com]

So you *don't* accept Taylor series all of the sudden?

[zelos...@gmail.com]

that doesn't mean it isn't exact.

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 17:24:27 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:

> Newton and Leibniz scratched their heads through their powdered wigs wondering how to solve the tangent line problem. The poor idiots failed dismally. Neither of them could realise the genius of John Gabriel's theorem from which the following identity is produced:
>
> [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> How this theorem realised from the rigorous New Calculus makes understanding your bogus mainstream formulation much eaiser:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
>
> How the stupidity and ignorance of mainstream academics the past few hundred years have led to all sorts of hand waving arguments and brain syphilis such as "error term", "limits", etc:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9
>
> My New Calculus is 100% rigorous and while I corrected your bogus mainstream formulation, you are still better off just learning the New Calculus. You can do much more with
>
> [f(x+n)-f(x-m)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,m,n) [New Calculus]
>
> than you can do with
>
> [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) [Correcting your bogus mainstream formulation]
>
> For example, you wouldn't have the superior closed form Gabriel Polynomial if you tried to use Taylor series, because the derivative in Taylor series is a flawed formulation.
>
> Gabriel Polynomial described here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MnnnczqCA6vAEEoL1_OQAabDyHHzNcwW
>
> Math academics have been trying to write sqrt(2) and pi exactly for centuries. I, the great John Gabriel gift you the Gabriel polynomial which gives you innumerably many ways of writing these *magnitudes* EXACTLY.

Refreshed due to troll activity.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

pointing out where you are wrong is not trolling

[markus...@gmail.com]

onsdag 8 september 2021 kl. 09:29:02 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:

[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(h) has been the mainstream definition all along.

[Eram semper recta]

> [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) has been the mainstream definition all along.

Rubbish! I revealed this to the world. Show me ONE text where it was so defined, you vile liar and crank!

[zelos...@gmail.com]

it is trivially derived from standard

[markus...@gmail.com]

I don't know man, this is how we generalise derivatives to partial derivatives in virtually every undergrad course. This is just how we define the Fréchet derivative on normed spaces. In finite dimension, this reduces to the definition of the Jacobian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobian_matrix_and_determinant#Jacobian_matrix

The notation o(||x-p||) exactly means ||x-p|| times a function in ||x-p|| with limit 0 as ||x-p|| goes to 0. Exactly as written in f(x+h)-f(x) = f'(x) + |h|*Q(h) where lim_{h \to 0} Q(h)=0 when h goes to 0.


What you have "discovered" is nothing more than the standard definition of the Jacobian in one dimension, which is... well... the derivative.

Get down from your high horse, GABRIEL.

[Eram semper recta]

On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 16:28:50 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> onsdag 8 september 2021 kl. 14:48:40 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 15:47:20 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > onsdag 8 september 2021 kl. 09:29:02 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 17:24:27 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > Newton and Leibniz scratched their heads through their powdered wigs wondering how to solve the tangent line problem. The poor idiots failed dismally. Neither of them could realise the genius of John Gabriel's theorem from which the following identity is produced:
> > > > >
> > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
> > > > >
> > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> > > > >
> > > > > How this theorem realised from the rigorous New Calculus makes understanding your bogus mainstream formulation much eaiser:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
> > > > >
> > > > > How the stupidity and ignorance of mainstream academics the past few hundred years have led to all sorts of hand waving arguments and brain syphilis such as "error term", "limits", etc:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9
> > > > >
> > > > > My New Calculus is 100% rigorous and while I corrected your bogus mainstream formulation, you are still better off just learning the New Calculus. You can do much more with
> > > > >
> > > > > [f(x+n)-f(x-m)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,m,n) [New Calculus]
> > > > >
> > > > > than you can do with
> > > > >
> > > > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) [Correcting your bogus mainstream formulation]
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, you wouldn't have the superior closed form Gabriel Polynomial if you tried to use Taylor series, because the derivative in Taylor series is a flawed formulation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Gabriel Polynomial described here:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MnnnczqCA6vAEEoL1_OQAabDyHHzNcwW
> > > > >
> > > > > Math academics have been trying to write sqrt(2) and pi exactly for centuries. I, the great John Gabriel gift you the Gabriel polynomial which gives you innumerably many ways of writing these *magnitudes* EXACTLY.
> > > > Refreshed due to troll activity.
> > > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) has been the mainstream definition all along.
> >
> > Rubbish! I revealed this to the world. Show me ONE text where it was so defined, you vile liar and crank!
> I don't know man, this is how we generalise derivatives to partial derivatives in virtually every undergrad course. This is just how we define the Fréchet derivative on normed spaces. In finite dimension, this reduces to the definition of the Jacobian.

Moron. The Jacobian uses the notion of derivative and partial derivative. It never defines it.

<drivel>


Again, I ask you crank: SHOW ME JUST ONE PLACE WHERE THE DERIVATIVE IS DEFINED FROM THE IDENTITY:

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

You are plagiarising when you claim that there is such a definition in your bullshit mainstream mythmatics. There is NONE and you have failed to show me any textbook where this is published.

[markus...@gmail.com]

I just showed you Wikipedia using this exact definition. Check the link for God's sake.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 9/3/2021 12:47 PM, Xavier wrote:

> Eram semper recta wrote:
>
>>> [f(x+n)-f(x-m)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,m,n) [New Calculus]
>>

>> where h = m+n.
>
> The world will soon be divided between the DAMAGED vaccinated and the
> undamaged, “super powered” unvaccinated who will inherit the Earth

Well, if an unvaxed person get the sars-cov2 virus, their body is going
to be producing antibodies for the spike protein anyway. However, they
might get sick. For those people, their experience with the resulting
covid-19 disease might be more extreme than an unvaxed person.



>
> The vaccinated think they got passports to freedom, but they really
> bought tickets to Hell
>
>
> TEMPORARY BODY STORAGE SERVICE MASS DEATHS PREDICT
> https://www.bitchute.com/video/qIx1eivG38Df/
>

[dean rector]

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

>> The world will soon be divided between the DAMAGED vaccinated and the
>> undamaged, “super powered” unvaccinated who will inherit the Earth
>
> Well, if an unvaxed person get the sars-cov2 virus, their body is going
> to be producing antibodies for the spike protein anyway. However, they
> might get sick. For those people, their experience with the resulting
> covid-19 disease might be more extreme than an unvaxed person.

what Fauci, the biggest mass murderer in the history of earth, already
killed in millions if not billions, since nobody counts over thousands
anymore. And FDA should have been canceling that crap after tens of
deaths. They didn't.

American Medical Association releases stunning document teaching doctors
to LIE to patients while deliberately exaggerating covid death claims…
the AMA admits to its own complicity in crimes against humanity
https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2021-02/covid-19-vaccine-guide-
english.pdf

Best practices: general media messaging The following section provides
guidance for offering media commentary. These recommendations can be
leveraged for interviews and other external engagements. Interview
Response Formula – Controlled Response• Acknowledge the question• Bridge
to YOUR answer• Deliver YOUR message and proof pointsQuotable Language•
CLEAR – True, plain English• CONCISE – Headline your answers• COMPELLING
– Memorable & persuasive Interviewing Techniques Bridging• Steer –
“Before we leave that matter, let me add...”• Block – That’s
[proprietary, confidential, etc.], but what I can tell you is...•
Deflect – That’s a common misperception but the reality is...”•
Redirect – “I don’t have the details on that, but what I know
is...”Flagging• “The key point to remember is...”• “But the real story
here is...”Hook• “You’d be surprised what our research indicates...”• “A
little-known fact is that...”Stalling• Repeat question that was asked•
Paraphrase/acknowledge – “I’m glad you asked...”Interviewing is a Numbers
Game• Typical broadcast interview is 7 minutes...down to 7-second
soundbite • Typical print interview is 13 minutes...down to 13-word
quote• Solution: STAY ON MESSAGEYour Responsibilities1. Know your
messages, vulnerabilities2. Practice your messages, tough questions and
techniques3. Determine reporter style, knowledge, history covering
organization/profession/industry4. Be timely5. Provide reasonable access6.
Answer the questions7. Know the audience

8. Organize your thoughts and anticipate questions and issues9. Tell the
truth...don’t guess10. Speak for the organizationTop 10 Interview DO’s1.
Repeat your messages and put it in your own words2. Organize thoughts,
anticipate questions 3. Listen carefully before answering4. Speak slowly,
clearly5. KISS: keep it short and simple6. Communicate factually, openly,
honestly7. Turn “negatives” into “positives”8. Politely correct
inaccuracies, false statements9. Tell the truth, don’t guess 10. Use
answers to convey key messages, broaden responseTop 10 Interview DON’Ts1.
Go “off the record”2. Say “no comment”3. Disclose confidential
information 4. Disclose information before it’s time 5. Guess or
speculate6. Introduce or repeat the negative7. Offer personal views8.
Make promises you can’t keep9. Discuss competitors 10. Use industry
jargon/technical languageTop 10 Delivery Tips1. Project2. Vary your
speaking rate/pace 3. Use the pause4. Have strong eye contact5. Smile, if
appropriate6. Lean in, don’t slouch7. Exhibit emotion but not emotional8.
Read your audience (i.e. change speeds, question)9. Stand up for phone
interviews10. In stand-up interviews keep hands in front of you, up and
near a

[zelos...@gmail.com]

it isn't from that but that identity is derived from the definition.

[Eram semper recta]

You showed nothing but your ignorance. To ever quote Wikipedia is a sign of ignorance. Even your Abel Prize winner Uhlenbeck tells you this! :)

I don't read Wikipedia except for amusement. How many times must I tell you this? NEVER quote wikipedia moronica to me - it is edited by morons like you who know exactly shit about mathematics and boy, how it shows! LMAO

[Eram semper recta]

No idea what you are talking about there:

What is "it"? You really should take a course in English grammar because you have a problem expressing yourself even when it comes to the simplest concepts.

Again, there is no textbook or publication that describes my theorem. The closest is the obection from Prof. Don Redmond which I have dismissed:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9

To wit, in the case of Labarre, he was referring to some nonsense called the Lipschitz condition and in the case of that idiot ex-professor Folland, he was referring to Q(x,h) as an "error term". Both these idiots do not know what they are talking about.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

your precious little identity.

[markus...@gmail.com]

If you bothered to read the Wikipedia article, you would see that your identity is exactly the same as in the mainstream definition: this is also how my university approached defining the derivative in higher dimensions. This is from one of my textbooks in real analysis, which indeed is the generalisation of your identity also present on Wikipedia: https://i.imgur.com/bm6nX34.jpg

Please compare all three definitions, they are the same with slightly different ways of writing it. Do compare the two with Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobian_matrix_and_determinant#Jacobian_matrix

[Eram semper recta]

You hate it because it shows that you are an idiot and always will be? :)

[zelos...@gmail.com]

I do not hate it and it shows nothing of the sort. That "identity" is unremarkable.

[markus...@gmail.com]

Did you even look at the picture and Wikipedia link above?

[Eram semper recta]

Absolutely NOT. I've told you moron, that I do not subscribe to the Wikipedia Moronica, especially since I know it is moderated by retards the likes of you. Moreover, why would I support any source that bans me from commenting and having my own page... Pfffft.

[markus...@gmail.com]

Id you didn't even look at the link, how do you know no one before you already figured out the identity of yours? And hint: your identity is flawed since it doesn't involve limits.

[Eram semper recta]

Because it was not printed or published anywhere before I revealed it. IF the link has anything on my identity, then the cunts (like you) at Wikipedia copied it from me.

> And hint: your identity is flawed since it doesn't involve limits.

On the contrary, if your Wiki crap involves limits, it is WRONG.

[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) is 100% valid and stands on its own.

To claim otherwise, is to prove you are an idiot and cringe worthy to say the least.

What's quite remarkable is how mainstream morons like you (after learning new knowledge from me) react as follows:

i. No, it's completely wrong (All of you morons)
ii. Oh, it's unremarkable (Jean Pierre Messager aka Python)
iii. It can't be used to find the general derivative for all SMOOTH functions (LIE, because it works for ALL smooth functions)
iv. You were not the first (Prof. Don Redmond with his reference to LeBarre's Lipschitz Condition)
- LIE and misrepresentation because LeBarre meant something entirely different and was using limit theory which automatically
makes it wrong. Moreover, the MOST telling part is that LeBarre did not show a link between the identity (which he did not see
as such) and the definite integral. I DID! And I was the first also to generally define area and volume.
v. Oh, it's not logical (LIE because mathematics has nothing to do with TRUTH TABLES) - Markus Klyver
vi. Oh, it's in a Wiki Link (final desperation to remove any possible credit from John Gabriel) - Markus Klyver

You're nothing but a vile, deceptive, ignorant and jealous bastard. How can you even think you deserve any respect?

[666]

It was mentioned, for example, in 2001 in a book by Kivelä, Simo K. & Nurmiainen, Riikka & Spåra, Mika

https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funktion_differentiaali#Differentiaali_ja_korjaustermi

Q(x,h) is the error function ε(x,h)

[markus...@gmail.com]

I don't really know how to respond to this The way you state it is clearly outright wrong and false. The biggest issue with your definition is that you don't uniquely define Q, and thus f' could be anything.

If you would include a limiting condition on Q, that is, lim_{h to 0} Q(h)=0, then you just get the mainstream definition known hundreds of years ago. Also you are again stating something I never said. " [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)" is a logical statement, but " [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <---> f'(x) + Q(x,h)" is not.

[markus...@gmail.com]

Literally on the exact same for too.

[Eram semper recta]

No idiot. What is mentioned there is NOT the same as my geometric theorem. It is GARBAGE that includes the use of LIMITS.

My identity is COMPLETE with no need for limit bullshit.

>
> Q(x,h) is the error function ε(x,h)

LMAO. There is NO error function in [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) - every term in there is a CONSTANT and the left hand side is EXACTLY equal to the right hand side, you stupid Dane from spacetimeandtheuniverse.

How's your ourobouros? LMAO.

[Eram semper recta]

> I don't really know how to respond to this.

Because you can't!

> The biggest issue with your definition is that you don't uniquely define Q,

LIE. Both f'(x) and Q(x,h) are very well defined:

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

<drivel>

[markus...@gmail.com]

Q is not well-defined, so f' is not either.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

>Because it was not printed or published anywhere before I revealed it. IF the link has anything on my identity, then the cunts (like you) at Wikipedia copied it from me.

The more likely thing is that your stuff was already known and you didn't know about it.

>Profilfoto för Eram semper recta
Eram semper recta
oläst,
11 sep. 2021 07:41:51 (i går)
till

Because it was not printed or published anywhere before I revealed it. IF the link has anything on my identity, then the cunts (like you) at Wikipedia copied it from me.

>On the contrary, if your Wiki crap involves limits, it is WRONG.

it is very correct as it is along with what publicized works by mathematicians.

>What's quite remarkable is how mainstream morons like you (after learning new knowledge from me) react as follows:

Let's see if you got anything interesting.

>i. No, it's completely wrong (All of you morons)

Because it is.

>ii. Oh, it's unremarkable (Jean Pierre Messager aka Python)

What you got is not remarkable.

>iii. It can't be used to find the general derivative for all SMOOTH functions (LIE, because it works for ALL smooth functions)

it can't as several have pointed out and you do not know what smooth even means.

>v. Oh, it's not logical (LIE because mathematics has nothing to do with TRUTH TABLES) - Markus Klyver

logic is part of mathematics.

>vi. Oh, it's in a Wiki Link (final desperation to remove any possible credit from John Gabriel) - Markus Klyver

And here we have it, you want the credit and feel special.

>You're nothing but a vile, deceptive, ignorant and jealous bastard. How can you even think you deserve any respect?

How can you think you deserve any with a personality like yours?

[Eram semper recta]

Both are very well defined.

Q(x,h) is the expression whose terms contain at least one factor of h and it denotes the difference in slopes between tangent line and non-parallel secant line.

f'(x) is the expression whose terms do not contain h as factor.

Pretty simple, but morons like you and Malum still argue. LMAO.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

you can rewrite so anything has a factor of h which Marcus has pointed out so you can then say all derivatives are 0.

This is why you need a much stronger condition.

[Eram semper recta]

> you can rewrite so anything has a factor of h ....<shit follows>

You mean this joke:


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

"2*5/2 means that 2 is a factor of 5" - Markus Klyver/Zelos Malum


LMAO.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

That is the issue when you deal with a field, saying "factor" is rather meaningless and requires stronger condition cause you can introduce them as you see fit.

[markus...@gmail.com]

You haven't still defined what a "factor in h" means.

[Eram semper recta]

Defined it many times and if you don't know what is a "factor" by now (which you evidently do not!), you should really consider a field of study other than mathematic!

"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)

:-)))))


A magnitude (FACTOR) is part of or equal to another magnitude, the lesser of the greater magnitude, when it measures the greater magnitude. - Book 7, Def. 3

[markus...@gmail.com]

As real numbers, yes. For every real number r, a non-zero real number h is a factor of r in the sense of r=h*r/h. So I'm again asking you what a factor in this case is, because it cannot possibly be as real numbers. That would make your Q non-unique.

[Eram semper recta]

Everything you write is nonsense and as usual you are very confused.

k is a factor of p if k divides p without remainder. Pi does not divide 6 without remainder, therefore pi IS NOT a factor of 6 in any case.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

that definition doesn't work within a field.

[Eram semper recta]

Which is irrelevant in any case. LMAO.

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.

[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.

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]

You do not.

> 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]

No imbecile, no! A set cannot be a subset of itself. You might require this to prop up your iffy set theory, but it doesn't fly with a genius like me. You simply conflate subset with "proper subset", but this is so because set theory is inherently a bunch of crap.

A set is either a subset or it is not. The qualifier "proper" is just additional hand waving.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

>No imbecile, no! A set cannot be a subset of itself.

Except it is
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Definition:Subset

(Ax(x e S => x e S)) <=> S c S <=> S is a subset of S

so S is a subset of S

>You might require this to prop up your iffy set theory

No one needs it, it just naturally follows from the definition as I showed above and gave above.

>but it doesn't fly with a genius like me.

You are hardly a genius when you do not understand even the most basic of things.

>You simply conflate subset with "proper subset", but this is so because set theory is inherently a bunch of crap.

Nope, proper subset is

(Ax (x e A => x e B) & (A ~= B)) <=> A is proper subset of B

>A set is either a subset or it is not. The qualifier "proper" is just additional hand waving.

Not at all, it is to make it absolutely clear that the two sets are not equal. The definition of subset allows for equality which is why one can define

A=B <=> A c B & B c A

Maybe study things before you open your mouth? Lots of stupid coming out of that mouth of yours :)

[NewAge Prophet]

It is called 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!

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 17:24:27 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Newton and Leibniz scratched their heads through their powdered wigs wondering how to solve the tangent line problem. The poor idiots failed dismally. Neither of them could realise the genius of John Gabriel's theorem from which the following identity is produced:
>
> [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> How this theorem realised from the rigorous New Calculus makes understanding your bogus mainstream formulation much eaiser:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
>
> How the stupidity and ignorance of mainstream academics the past few hundred years have led to all sorts of hand waving arguments and brain syphilis such as "error term", "limits", etc:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9
>
> My New Calculus is 100% rigorous and while I corrected your bogus mainstream formulation, you are still better off just learning the New Calculus. You can do much more with
>
> [f(x+n)-f(x-m)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,m,n) [New Calculus]
>
> than you can do with
>
> [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) [Correcting your bogus mainstream formulation]
>
> For example, you wouldn't have the superior closed form Gabriel Polynomial if you tried to use Taylor series, because the derivative in Taylor series is a flawed formulation.
>
> Gabriel Polynomial described here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MnnnczqCA6vAEEoL1_OQAabDyHHzNcwW
>
> Math academics have been trying to write sqrt(2) and pi exactly for centuries. I, the great John Gabriel gift you the Gabriel polynomial which gives you innumerably many ways of writing these *magnitudes* EXACTLY.

All we have are troll comments and nothing of substance.

[markus...@gmail.com]

Pi does "divide" 6 without a remainder in the sense that you can equip the reals with an Euclidean function. The remainder of the divisions pi/6 and 6/pi is zero essentially because there are no "left overs". The numbers pi/6 and 6/pi are already real numbers.

Equip the reals with the Euclidean function f(x)=1. Then we have that if a and b are non-zero, then we can write a=bq+r with r=0.

But factorisations are more general than Euclidean division. All Euclidean domains are UFDs, but all UFDs are not Euclidean domains.

Factorisations in a field are trivial since there are no non-units (except for 0).

[Eram semper recta]

Spoiler Alert: This topic is not about factors. May I recommend that you review your primary school math book?

[zelos...@gmail.com]

Notice how you do not address anything above primary school mathematics yourself?

[Eram semper recta]

Obvious drivel.

Notice how you are never able to argue against the topic? Why is that?

Answer: Because a crank like YOU cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Seriously Malum, do you have so much time on your hands that you feel the need to SHIT all over my threads?

Am I sooooo important to you, that you can't resist your pathological fascination with me?

Get a life kiddo! You're not even 30 yet? Try find a girlfriend or boyfriend and get laid soon! Do what your Daddy did.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

Notice how you can never argue against anyone bringing up things beyond highschool mathematics and you always call it drivel? Why is that?

>Answer: Because a crank like YOU cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Comes from the one that cannot be convinced by anything, not even that he cannot cite a definition correctly when we provide links to the actual definitions you continue to spew the wrong one.

>Seriously Malum, do you have so much time on your hands that you feel the need to SHIT all over my threads?

I feel no need for it, which is why when I got more important things to do I don't bother :) You are however entertaining to show wrong.

Am I sooooo important to you, that you can't resist your pathological fascination with me?

>Get a life kiddo! You're not even 30 yet? Try find a girlfriend or boyfriend and get laid soon! Do what your Daddy did.

I got a life thank you very much :) Unlike you I don't try to convince people that some shit work is important. That is all you've done, made some shit.

[666]

sunnuntai 12. syyskuuta 2021 klo 15.42.13 UTC+3 Eram semper recta kirjoitti:
> On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 08:54:22 UTC+3, 666 wrote:

> > It was mentioned, for example, in 2001 in a book by Kivelä, Simo K. & Nurmiainen, Riikka & Spåra, Mika
> >
> > https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funktion_differentiaali#Differentiaali_ja_korjaustermi
> No idiot. What is mentioned there is NOT the same as my geometric theorem. It is GARBAGE that includes the use of LIMITS.
>
> My identity is COMPLETE with no need for limit bullshit.
> >
> > Q(x,h) is the error function ε(x,h)
> LMAO. There is NO error function in [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) - every term in there is a CONSTANT and the left hand side is EXACTLY equal to the right hand side, you stupid Dane from spacetimeandtheuniverse.
>
> How's your ourobouros? LMAO.

What about ineffable cardinal chuckleberry? Chuckle, chuckle, chuckle, chuckle, chuckle........ is there a last chuckle ?
If there is no last chuckle, is there a first chuckle ?