It's not that I don't understand, rather it's that I disagree with the most of you morons.

[Eram semper recta]

It's not that I don't understand, rather it's that I disagree with the most of you morons.

At around age 14, I had already written the first version of the following article:

https://www.academia.edu/32016628/Roger_Cotes_General_Numeric_Integration

No one I know (including the big mouths touted as geniuses such as Terence Tao, etc) even came close to this level of understanding.

And yet ... I knew that I had no clue back then why calculus works. Little did I know that about 15 years later my understanding would surpass any human in history.

I knew that most of what I had studied was utter bullshit that not even my math professors back then understood. Sure, they had a competency to memorise and teach the bullshit, but that's where it stopped.

Trying to make sense of all the bullshit led me on a journey of discovery that even most idiots in mainstream math academia today would not realise if they could live a thousand years:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLaW1ramVzQ2szMkE

The biggest surprise was the New Calculus, the first rigorous formulation in history - the result of pure genius. Newton and Leibniz would would have worshipped me.

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

Ignore the chief troll and crank Dan Christensen (the swine has been spamming my threads over the past 6 years and intensified his efforts when I proved to him that Peano was a moron who knew nothing about sound mathematics) and other trolls on this site.

Don't disadvantage yourself or be put off by the bullshit that will be spewed out in this thread. The newest sci.math trolls are Markus Klyver and Zelos Malum.

[Tomi Duda]

Eram semper recta wrote:

> It's not that I don't understand, rather it's that I disagree with the
> most of you morons. At around age 14, I had already written the first
> version of the following article:

nothing. We cannot expect intelligence from a one taking potentially
lethal injections (no1 and no2), then now the no3 (the "booster"),
sametime in alarming need of being protected, from the people refusing
those injections.

which one is it? If you are not protected, why on earth did you go
through the trouble? In which case something must be terribly wrong with
the way your brain is hardwired.

[Dan Christensen]

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

On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 6:25:39 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel (JG), Troll Boy) wrote:

> It's not that I don't understand....

Yeah, that's pretty much it, Mr. Rectum.

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

[zelos...@gmail.com]

>It's not that I don't understand,

No, you do not understand because you demonstrably cannot even tell what mainstream thinks accurately. That shows you do NOT understand it. When you can explain someones position and they say "That is accurate" that means you understand it, but you cannot do that!

>And yet ... I knew that I had no clue back then why calculus works. Little did I know that about 15 years later my understanding would surpass any human in history.

Narcissism.

[Eram semper recta]

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

The New Calculus is proof that you CAN DO calculus without the use of LIMIT THEORY.

Don't believe me? Study it. You will be pleasantly surprised.

I am a genius and the greatest mathematician alive today.

[Dan Christensen]

On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 2:02:47 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:

> > "1/2 not equal to 2/4"
> Lie. I have NEVER said this.

A direct quote from October 22, 2017 here at sci.math

> 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:
>

When will you learn, Troll Boy? 1/2 is ALWAYS EQUAL to 2/4.

[snip]

> > “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...

If you can't dazzle them brilliance, baffle them with bullshit, right, Troll Boy?

> > "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
> True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.
>
> 3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4
>

Since 3 < 4, it is true that 3 < 4 or 3 = 4 even though 3 =4 is false. Nothing "invalid" about it, Troll Boy.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table#Logical_disjunction_(OR)

[snip]

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

It really is a number, Troll Boy. Deal with it.

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

> Half-truth.

Nope. Completely false. Both 0 and negative numbers are required in mathematics.

> While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.

<yawn!>

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

> True.

Umm... What about the set of all your brilliant mathematical discoveries? Empty.

[snip]

> > “3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions”

> True.

Nope. The biconditional is logical connective. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_biconditional

3 is not a statement that is true or false. 3 is a number. So 3 <=> 2+1 would be an error in syntax. Deal with it, Troll Boy.


[snip]

> > 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

Also, all direct quotes from you, Troll Boy. To the extent that you will be remembered at all, history will not be kind to you. Time to cut your losses and move on Troll Boy.

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com

Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[markus...@gmail.com]

Yeah, no.

[Eram semper recta]

What you have clearly demonstrated is that you and Malum 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]

Refreshed due to Malum troll activity.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

Pointing out where you're wrong is not trolling.

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 13:25:39 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:

Malum: "pi is a factor of 6 and I'm only pointing out where you are wrong." LMAO.

Trolls love to talk about set theory because they don't understand the OP and know that it is much easier to bullshit using set theory or topology than it is to discuss sound mathematics.

Stick to the topic please! No one is interested in your drivel.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

Why when you fail? :)

No one is trolling you. As I have pointed out, "factor" is pointless in fields, it is only in integral domains and such they are relevant.

No one is bullshitting. The issue you have with advanced math is that
1: You do not understand them worth a damn.
2: They make you look and feel as stupid as you are
3: They demonstrate all things wrong with you.
4: They are rigorous and strict so you cannot bullshit.

No one bullshits in set theory or the likes, the issue is YOU do not understand it!

You cannot understand the difference between "subset of" and "member of"

[zelos...@gmail.com]

onsdag 22 september 2021 kl. 08:36:22 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 13:25:39 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:

Refreshed due to troll activity.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

It isn't trolling pointing out where you're wrong.

[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!

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 13:25:39 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:

All we have are troll comments and nothing of substance.