The Amazing 5 steps of mathematical proof demonstrated by Anders Kaesorg of MIT!

[Eram semper recta]

In my latest video, I expose the ignorance of Zelos Malum. Tsk, tsk. Mainstream morons are beyond correction. There is no hope for you once you are indoctrinated with the art of handwaving in mathematics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dL33J3zZlo

If you search for "John Gabriel New Calculus", then invariably the 32 page debate between Anders Kaesorg and me is returned. This video is about that debate and the idiocy that persists in mainstream mathematics academia.

There never was a valid systematic method of finding the derivative in mainstream calculus before I revealed the same. Kaesorg initially couldn't understand this and when he finally did, he tried to brush it aside with his silly arguments. In the short 2 minute video, I show you how feeble is Kaesorg's argument in 5 steps:

i. Assumption of fact
ii. Hypothesis
iii. Probability
iv. Suspicion
v. Verification

https://youtu.be/gX5Bt8BEdNM

The fact of the matter is that your mainstream calculus was never rigorous. My historic geometric theorem of January 2020 gave you a chance to apologise for your stupidity and incompetence. It was I who solved the tangent line problem and produced the FIRST rigorous formulation (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO) in human history using nothing but the sound concepts of geometry, not the morons called Isaac Newton and Gottfired Leibniz.

The geometric theorem is described here:

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

A link to the applet (because seeing is believing!):

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

How it fixes your broken definition of the definite integral but nowhere as near as elegant as the New Calculus definite integral:

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

There are no axioms or postulates in sound mathematics (Ancient Greek mathematics):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vlU-PJeIk672bFwZyULD1ASTRFF3jXg8

How a genius realises the concept of number (I am one!):

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

Anders Kaesorg received a thorough thrashing from me, but did he learn anything? I doubt it!

Link to the debate:

http://web.mit.edu/andersk/Public/John-Gabriel.pdf

Link to the sci.math discussion:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/4XuGLMwWCXI/m/lTPBOX1DBQAJ

I made a claim about epsilon and delta being functions of one another. Here is the proof:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMDAtai1rcE9jV1E

All the worthless "real analysis" theory is summarised by my geometric theorem for the mainstream limit in general:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t6Jeyx5sTrOEro4UjF0vQQ_hwY8G4YY_

I gift you an applet to test the above theorem with ANY function you like! Download here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLcUdHdmFOdUxVd3M

If you still think that I never understood the flawed mainstream calculus, then you have another think coming! I understand the bullshit of the hand waving art in the mainstream even better than they do! Epsilon-delta proofs are not required after my geometric theorem was discovered in January 2020. Calculus DOES NOT work because of the rot of limit theory. In fact, limits are not required at all to do ANY calculus, at least the applicable parts such as calculating surface areas, flow integrals, volumes, etc.

Do not believe me, but prove that what I tell you is indeed the case.

The spamming crank Dan Christensen will no doubt post his usual SPAM, so I counter his bullshit:

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

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


> "There are no points on a line."

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

_ / _ _
_ _ / _ _ _ _

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

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

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

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

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

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

The true story of how we got numbers:

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

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

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

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

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


> "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”

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

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

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

> "Zero is not a number."

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w

https://youtu.be/1CcSsOG0okg

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

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

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

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

The theorem:

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

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

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

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

Download for free the most important mathematics book ever written:

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

[Dan Christensen]

On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 2:36:17 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:

> If you still think that I never understood ...

Depends. Did you ever fix that bug that caused your goofy little system to blow up when determining the derivative of f(x)=|x|?

Noooooo?? Oh, well...

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

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

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

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

"There are no points on a line."

--April 12, 2021

"Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"

--July 10, 2020

"1/2 not equal to 2/4"

--October 22, 2017

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

-- February 8, 2015

"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”

--October 28, 2017

"Zero is not a number."

-- Dec. 2, 2019

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

-- Jan. 4, 2017

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

--Oct. 4, 2019

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

--Oct. 22, 2019

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

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

Dan

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

[Obíhá Skokovéh]

Dan Christensen wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 2:36:17 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum
> (aka John Gabriel, Troll Boy) wrote:
>
>> If you still think that I never understood ...

Agree 100%.

I wonder what's pushing this impertinent lying bitch, in believing he
knows any arithmetic at all, beyond kindergarten level. Shameless pig. He
knows no math, no physics, no algorithms, etc no nothing at all. But
stupid like hell in many areas.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

>In my latest video, I expose the ignorance of Zelos Malum.

Given I know more than you, that is a tall order.

I have read that debate, you demonstrated you don't even understand the epsilon-delta definition in it!

[Eram semper recta]

Have you read the comments section? I am called a genius by those who actually have a brain and are capable of thinking for themselves. You're still lost in an alternate universe....

[Kolijn Sneijers]

VACCINATION SITES ARE THE EXTERMINATION SITES - STOCK UP FOR WHAT'S
COMING AT THE END OF AUGUST https://www.bitchute.com/video/helzUI94M2DG/

[zelos...@gmail.com]

Oh my, comment sections of youtube is where the real stuff happens!...oh wait, flat earhters are also called geniuses there....so again, you are just like them.

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 01:10:24 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> torsdag 5 augusti 2021 kl. 16:11:38 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 01:04:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >In my latest video, I expose the ignorance of Zelos Malum.
> > > Given I know more than you, that is a tall order.
> > >
> > > I have read that debate, you demonstrated you don't even understand the epsilon-delta definition in it!
> > Have you read the comments section? I am called a genius by those who actually have a brain and are capable of thinking for themselves. You're still lost in an alternate universe....
> Oh my, comment sections of youtube is where the real stuff happens!...

Well, you're the one constantly lying about how "no one supposedly agrees with my views". So, whether or not the comments are from a genius, is irrelevant. My point that you are lying is once again demonstrated clearly.

You need to stop lying that there is no one who agrees with me. There are many, including mainstream math professors.

> oh wait, flat earhters are also called geniuses there....so again, you are just like them.

I cannot think of a bigger crank on the planet than you, Malum. Really, I cannot.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

Look in a mirror and you will see a much bigger crank. You are a crank and when you die, the world will be better :)

I do not doubt some will agree with you, but here is the thing, PEOPLE AGREE WITH TRUMP, FLAT EARTHER, CREATIONISTS AND MANY OTHER GROUPS THAT ARE VERY WRONG!

Just because you get some illiterates to agree with you doesn't that mean ANYTHING!

The thing is you cannot get anyone in MATHEMATICS that publishes in JOURNALS to agree with you!

[Eram semper recta]

On Monday, 9 August 2021 at 01:37:12 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> fredag 6 augusti 2021 kl. 15:19:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 01:10:24 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > torsdag 5 augusti 2021 kl. 16:11:38 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 01:04:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >In my latest video, I expose the ignorance of Zelos Malum.
> > > > > Given I know more than you, that is a tall order.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have read that debate, you demonstrated you don't even understand the epsilon-delta definition in it!
> > > > Have you read the comments section? I am called a genius by those who actually have a brain and are capable of thinking for themselves. You're still lost in an alternate universe....
> > > Oh my, comment sections of youtube is where the real stuff happens!...
> > Well, you're the one constantly lying about how "no one supposedly agrees with my views". So, whether or not the comments are from a genius, is irrelevant. My point that you are lying is once again demonstrated clearly.
> >
> > You need to stop lying that there is no one who agrees with me. There are many, including mainstream math professors.
> > > oh wait, flat earhters are also called geniuses there....so again, you are just like them.
> > I cannot think of a bigger crank on the planet than you, Malum. Really, I cannot.

You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main property:

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

Mainstream or not has NOTHING to do with being a crank. You want it to be that way, but it will never be so. :)

[zelos...@gmail.com]

>You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main property:

Nope, lets check
Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.

Nope, not me!

But it does fit you!

[Eram semper recta]

On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 06:21:05 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >You are a confirmed crank, Malum. You fit the main property:
> Nope, lets check
> Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
>

Let's check: Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Bingo! That is YOU!

[zelos...@gmail.com]

You got the wrong definition, so you are as always, wrong

[Eram semper recta]

See, there you go again. Definitions can't be wrong or right. They can only be well formed or ill formed. The latter is usually your practice.

Your definition might be necessary, but it is INSUFFICIENT.

"Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence."

The above definition is both necessary and sufficient. It does not rely on the approval or the blessing or the support of journals. Facts and evidence are the ONLY things that matters. All else is just bad wind. LMAO.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

Incorrect, that is not at all what it means :) I gave you it there and as you can see, what you say ain't in it.

[Eram semper recta]

"Nah Uh" is your usual reaction when you have been corrected.

[Michael Moroney]

You are projecting again, Rectum Breath. Zelos keeps correcting you and
the best you can do is respond with "Nah Uh" and your own definition of
crank.

[markus...@gmail.com]

So by virtually none except from your own accounts?

[zelos...@gmail.com]

That is yours, I just repost the definition that you are too dumb to understand

[Eram semper recta]

You mean you post the mainstream drivel. But of course, you're nothing but a mainstream bitch lackey. LMAO.

The ONLY criterion that applies to a crank is:

Crank is a term used for a person who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.

THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.

Therefore, Zelos Malum, by the definition, YOU are a CRANK!

[markus...@gmail.com]

You fit that definition.

[Eram semper recta]

You have yet to show this.

[markus...@gmail.com]

Well, for one you refuse to even use the complex definitions even when you get it presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything from the real case to the complex case. You have to modify the definition of the logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.

[Eram semper recta]

Of course. Complex number is the biggest bullshit concept second only to Euler's S = Lim S.

> even when you get it presented and explained why you can't just transfer everything from the real case to the complex case.

You cannot transfer everything, because your complex number is a bullshit concept. Do you understand?

> You have to modify the definition of the logarithm to make it 'an inverse' to the complex exponential.

Definitions are either well formed or ill formed. Once stated, a well-formed definition they never requires modification.

Your "definitions" are nothing but ignorant authoritative decrees to prop up your bullshit theory every time it fails miserably. In sound mathematics, this sort of thing never happens. Chuckle.

[markus...@gmail.com]

But you can have different definitions in different cases. The definition for multiplication differs depending on if we're talking about rational numbers or matrices.

So of course you can have different definitions in the real and complex case.

[Eram semper recta]

No. Matrix multiplication is not true multiplication - it involves much more than just multiplying entries and adding them. It is something very different.

But in any case, we were NOT discussing linear algebra, but multiplication as defined in geometry and then transferred to algebra via the abstract unit.

>
> So of course you can have different definitions in the real and complex case.

You can't because by definition:

A number is a name given to a measure that describes a magnitude or size.

THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.

[markus...@gmail.com]

It is really not that different. And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

Sorry but this is the definition used, so you are the crank, not me :)

And as always, we see you having the "only one" mentality and of course, it is only yours

[Eram semper recta]

It is very different.

> And it demonstrates we can extend and modify what it means to multiply things that aren't real numbers.

It demonstrates that you fail to pay attention to details and that you are confused about many things, including the fact that there is no such thing as a "real number".

[markus...@gmail.com]

Ok, but the same argument applies for rational numbers and rational matrices as well.

You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.

[Michael Moroney]

What's funny is Gabriel meets _both_ definitions of crank. Not only the
correct definition you keep showing him, but his own, "a person who
cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence." Despite
overwhelming evidence, he cannot be convinced. So even Gabriel agrees
that Gabriel is a crank. :-)

[markus...@gmail.com]

The ultimate irony, indeed.

[Eram semper recta]

No analogy whatsoever. A number and a matrix are two completely different things. A matrix does not even have to contain number entries.

>
> You can multiply stuff that aren't rational numbers.

No, you can't. The only actual numbers are the rational numbers. There aren't any other numbers. You might call other things numbers but this is due to the reason that you are a baboon.

[markus...@gmail.com]

Yes, you can. Matrices are in general not rational numbers.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

Indeed, as pointed out many times.

[Eram semper recta]

The only objects that can be called numbers are the *rational numbers*. There are no other numbers.

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

[markus...@gmail.com]

But that wasn't my argument. The argument was that you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example matrices.

[Eram semper recta]

You've never had any arguments. Everything you write is drivel. Scatterbrain is your name.

> The argument was that you can multiply stuff that AREN'T rational numbers, for example matrices.

You cannot. Whatever you think of "multiplication" is something else with matrices or "other stuff" as you call it.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

This is only your personal opinion, the rest of mathematics disagree as we got many types.

[Eram semper recta]

Nope. It is NOT my personal opinion, but my expert discovery based on the knowledge of my ancestors whose arse holes you are not worthy to lick. Chuckle.

Who is "mathematics"? You don't know SHIT about mathematics. You don't even have a degree in mathematics. What you have is a certificate of memorisation. You're stupid beyond belief.

[markus...@gmail.com]

So when I'm multiplying matrices, it's not multiplication? When I compute the cross product, it's not multiplication? When I multiply two sets (forming the Cartesian product), is it not multiplication of two sets? Of course it is, it's just not multiplication of rational numbers.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

That is exactly what it is

>but my expert

You are not an expert on anything. You fail even basic mathematics like variable substitution and understanding variables.

>discovery based on the knowledge of my ancestors whose arse holes you are not worthy to lick. Chuckle.

If ancient greeks thought it, guess what? It doesn't matter. That is history, not what is. Today, we have more numbers than they thought of.

>Who is "mathematics"?

The mathematical community that actually make contributions. Not cranks like you.

>You don't know SHIT about mathematics.

I know more than you, I know for example, unlike you, how variables and variable substitution works. This is basic high school stuff that you're failing.

>You don't even have a degree in mathematics.

I got a bachelor and masters degree in mathematics so you are wrong :)

>What you have is a certificate of memorisation. You're stupid beyond belief.

Strange, given I derived things I could not find in any book in my thesises it was clearly not memorisation :)

[Eram semper recta]

Part of it is, but it's not just multiplication.

> When I compute the cross product, it's not multiplication? When I multiply two sets (forming the Cartesian product), is it not multiplication of two sets? Of course it is, it's just not multiplication of rational numbers.

Multiplication is very well defined:

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

Definition: The product (or multiplication) of two positive numbers is the quotient of either positive number with the reciprocal of the other.

The above can be extended easily to negative numbers.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

That is ONE multiplication, there are many more.

[FromTheRafters]

zelos...@gmail.com submitted this idea :

Here comes one now:

https://textbooks.math.gatech.edu/ila/matrix-multiplication.html

[Eram semper recta]

The above link **proves** that matrix multiplication is not the same thing as multiplying two numbers.

Multiply 4 by 5:

(1+2+1) x (2+2+1) = 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 + 2*2 + 2*2 + 2*1 + 1*2 + 1*2 + 1*1 = 2 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 20

Multiply 1x3 matrix by 3x1 where 1x3 matrix = (1,2,1) and 3x1 matrix = (2,2,1):

(1, 2, 1) x (2, 2, 1) = (7)

How is (7) the same as 20?

I am RIGHT and you are WRONG. You are simply too stupid to debate me.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

No one said they are the same multiplication, only that your "there is only one" is wrong.

[Eram semper recta]

Markus Klyver did.

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/TGCYYxYk0Us/m/eIdetN_iBQAJ

> only that your "there is only one" is wrong.

FUN FACT: There is only one kind of multiplication in geometry and algebra, and it IS defined in geometry first.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

only chronologically, structurally today the algebraic definitions of multiplication comes before geometry. And there are many multiplications there.

[Eram semper recta]

Both chronologically and in the original definition of multiplication which was inspired by the word that came long before it - πλήθος.

> structurally today the algebraic definitions of multiplication comes before geometry.

Insanely stupid comment that is wrong in every possible aspect.

> And there are many multiplications there.

There are lots of chocolates in Epicurean food markets, but only one brand is called "Belgian Chocolate". Belgian chocolate has a higher cocoa content than most foreign products.

Multiplication is not chocolate. Chuckle.

[markus...@gmail.com]

I didn't say a the product of two matrices would be a scalar. I said both are multiplication operators.

[Eram semper recta]

You are still wrong because multiplication of numbers results in a scalar.

[Graham Cooper]

> i. Assumption of fact
> ii. Hypothesis
> iii. Probability
> iv. Suspicion
> v. Verification
>

haha this is MATHS not PSEUDO-SCIENCE

Try RESOLUTION in conjunctive normal form

(a v b v c) ^ (a v !c)
-------------------------------
a v b

just a convoluted MODUS PONENS

disPROOF by CONTRADICTION

ASSUME: A
DERIVE: F ^ !F
-------------------
!A

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:15:17 UTC-4, Some moron called Graham Cooper wrote:
> > i. Assumption of fact
> > ii. Hypothesis
> > iii. Probability
> > iv. Suspicion
> > v. Verification
> >
>
> haha this is MATHS not PSEUDO-SCIENCE

It is garbage. LMAO.

<drivel>

[Burt Weathers]

Graham Cooper wrote:

>> i. Assumption of fact ii. Hypothesis iii. Probability iv. Suspicion v.
>> Verification
>>
> haha this is MATHS not PSEUDO-SCIENCE
> Try RESOLUTION in conjunctive normal form

honestly, I never saw the hitler's nazis beating and arresting people the
way the capitalist pigs are doing all the places today. Nor that hitler
pushed his propaganda apparatus to forcefully convince people getting
toxic pseudo-experimental lethal injections into their bodies "for the
sake of the others"!!

I am forced to conclude, based on hard evidences, that the nazis were
angels when compared to these capitalist corporate *pigs*.

Some Pigs Beating Up An Old Man
https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=7D987W6567K5

[markus...@gmail.com]

Yes, but multiplication of matrices do not.

[Eram semper recta]

Because it's not multiplication, but something else that is a misnomer.

[markus...@gmail.com]

It is multiplication, just not of scalars.

[Eram semper recta]

No moron. It's not multiplication, because multiplication is defined geometrically for scalars and transferred to algebra ( a weaker form of geometry) through the abstract unit. I am convinced these things will be too advanced for your peanut brain.

[markus...@gmail.com]

Are you aware of the concept that words can mean different things? The word multiplication doesn't have a single definition, it depends on the objects you're multiplying. Exp and Log doesn't have single definitions either, it depends on what the arguments will be. WE have the real Exp And the complex Exp. It's perfectly value to define exp(A) for a matrix A.

[Eram semper recta]

You're an idiot and this discussion is also over.

[markus...@gmail.com]

Sometimes I feel like you resort to this outrageous sort of behaviour when you simply don't want to respond to objections. Discussing anything with you is more or less impossible after a point, because you will just refuse to acknowledge facts and call people vile Jews and retarded.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

>Both chronologically and in the original definition of multiplication which was inspired by the word that came long before it

Again, this is history. It doesn't mean that is how we define things today.

>Insanely stupid comment that is wrong in every possible aspect.

it isn't because geometry today is constructed from vector spaces which are constructed through algebra.

>Multiplication is not chocolate. Chuckle.

It isn't, but there is more than one type of multiplication.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

Things got too advanced for you?

[zelos...@gmail.com]

and he'll call them gay too!

[Eram semper recta]

On Wednesday, 4 August 2021 at 14:36:17 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> In my latest video, I expose the ignorance of Zelos Malum. Tsk, tsk. Mainstream morons are beyond correction. There is no hope for you once you are indoctrinated with the art of handwaving in mathematics.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dL33J3zZlo
>
> If you search for "John Gabriel New Calculus", then invariably the 32 page debate between Anders Kaesorg and me is returned. This video is about that debate and the idiocy that persists in mainstream mathematics academia.
>
> There never was a valid systematic method of finding the derivative in mainstream calculus before I revealed the same. Kaesorg initially couldn't understand this and when he finally did, he tried to brush it aside with his silly arguments. In the short 2 minute video, I show you how feeble is Kaesorg's argument in 5 steps:

>
> i. Assumption of fact
> ii. Hypothesis
> iii. Probability
> iv. Suspicion
> v. Verification
>

> https://youtu.be/gX5Bt8BEdNM
>
> The fact of the matter is that your mainstream calculus was never rigorous. My historic geometric theorem of January 2020 gave you a chance to apologise for your stupidity and incompetence. It was I who solved the tangent line problem and produced the FIRST rigorous formulation (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO) in human history using nothing but the sound concepts of geometry, not the morons called Isaac Newton and Gottfired Leibniz.
>
> The geometric theorem is described here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> A link to the applet (because seeing is believing!):
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ON1GQ7b6UNpZSEEsbG14eAFCPv8p03pv
>
> How it fixes your broken definition of the definite integral but nowhere as near as elegant as the New Calculus definite integral:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
>
> There are no axioms or postulates in sound mathematics (Ancient Greek mathematics):
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vlU-PJeIk672bFwZyULD1ASTRFF3jXg8
>
> How a genius realises the concept of number (I am one!):
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
>
> Anders Kaesorg received a thorough thrashing from me, but did he learn anything? I doubt it!
>
> Link to the debate:
>
> http://web.mit.edu/andersk/Public/John-Gabriel.pdf
>
> Link to the sci.math discussion:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/4XuGLMwWCXI/m/lTPBOX1DBQAJ
>
> I made a claim about epsilon and delta being functions of one another. Here is the proof:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMDAtai1rcE9jV1E
>
> All the worthless "real analysis" theory is summarised by my geometric theorem for the mainstream limit in general:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t6Jeyx5sTrOEro4UjF0vQQ_hwY8G4YY_
>
> I gift you an applet to test the above theorem with ANY function you like! Download here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLcUdHdmFOdUxVd3M
>
> If you still think that I never understood the flawed mainstream calculus, then you have another think coming! I understand the bullshit of the hand waving art in the mainstream even better than they do! Epsilon-delta proofs are not required after my geometric theorem was discovered in January 2020. Calculus DOES NOT work because of the rot of limit theory. In fact, limits are not required at all to do ANY calculus, at least the applicable parts such as calculating surface areas, flow integrals, volumes, etc.
>
> Do not believe me, but prove that what I tell you is indeed the case.
>
> The spamming crank Dan Christensen will no doubt post his usual SPAM, so I counter his bullshit:
>
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Dan Christensen is a vicious spamming troll and has been at it the last 5 years!
>
> Anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen spammed:
>
>
> > "There are no points on a line."
>
> Lie. I never said that. What I did say is that a line does not consists of points. When we talk about points on a line, we really mean distances that are indicated much like road signs do for distances travelled along a road.
>
> A line is one of innumerable distances between any two points.
> A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.
>
>
> > "Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
>
> True. Pi is merely a symbol for an incommensurable magnitude - apparently a concept too advanced for an imbecile like Dan Christensen.
>
> > "1/2 not equal to 2/4"
>
> Lie. I have NEVER said this. What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
> What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
> 2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.
>
> There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4. For example:
>
> _ / _ _
> _ _ / _ _ _ _
>
> The length _ is not equal to the length _ _ .
>
> > “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
>
> True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
>
> Also, my article on pi not being a number of any kind:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FFg_9XCkIwTZ9N1jbU4oMYfHHHuFHYf3
>
> The true story of how we got numbers:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
>
> No such thing as a "real number" or a "real number line":
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMHVYcE8xcmRZRnc
>
> There is no valid construction of "real number" - it's a myth:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU
>
>
> > "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
>
> True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.
>
> 3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4
>
> Actually, there is no "OR" part, so the logical disjunction is invalid.
>
> > "Zero is not a number."
>
> True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w2tt7IgoIu-ychDCoYi-4jOAzToy0ViM
>
> > "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
>
> Half-truth. While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.
>
> > “There is no such thing as an empty set.”
>
> True. Even the father of all mainstream mathematical cranks rejected the idea of empty set. But let's not go too far ... there isn't even a definition of "set" in set theory!
>
> https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w
>
> https://youtu.be/1CcSsOG0okg
>
> > “3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
>
> True. These are propositions that are implied by the given equations. For example, my historic geometric identity states:
>
> [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = dy/dx + Q(x,h)
>
> And so, f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)
>
> The theorem:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> How it provides a rigorous definition of integral for the flawed mainstream calculus:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
>
> The day will come when this vicious anonymous troll Dan Christensen is convicted in a court of law.
>
> Download for free the most important mathematics book ever written:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view

As you can see people, all we have are argumentative fools and trolls. Nothing of substance from them.

[markus...@gmail.com]

"Gay" is probably the mildest insult of these.

[Eram semper recta]

Gay is not an insult at all. One can't help being born this way and I have nothing against gays.

I call Zelos Malum gay because I know it offends him since he is not gay. LMAO.

Your displeasure is my smile. Anything to piss and shit on ALL of you cunts. You are nothing but vile dogs.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

Yet you claim it as if it was something bad and is of any relevance. Your actions speak differently

[Eram semper recta]

Mental midgets like you cannot comprehend the mind of a genius. I was doing it on purpose for one reason only: to annoy YOU! LMAO.

You're one very dumb, annoying, lying bastard!

[zelos...@gmail.com]

You are anything but a genius but that explains why you have trouble understanding anything. You are mentally a midget :)

And annoy me? Please, all it does is demonstrate that like Archimedes here, you're homophobic.

[Eram semper recta]

Essentially what the Baboons of mainstream academia will have you believe is that:

t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = Lim (h->0)[f(c+h)-f(c)]/h = f'(c) + Q(c,h) and is possible ONLY if Q(c,h)=0, but this happens only in the case of the straight line t(x). It NEVER happens with the finite difference quotients. The mainstream want you to believe that there is some finite difference ratio hovering at infinity which produces f'(c):

t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_1)-f(c)]/h_1 ; [f(c+h_2)-f(c)]/h_2 ; [f(c+h_3)-f(c)]/h_3 ; ... ; [f(c+h_3n-f(c)]/h_n ...; [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo

t(c+h)-t(c)]/h = [f(c+h_oo)-f(c)]/h_oo ?! What?!!! There is no such finite difference. It does not exist! But Baboon mathematics of the mainstream insists there is a limit!

Can you imagine how embarrassed Newton and Leibniz would be at these idiots today?! They knew that they could not solve the tangent line problem - this had to wait for the great John Gabriel. It is I who revealed to the entire world that:

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

It usually takes a genius to realise the most simple concepts that escape the syphilitic brains of highly educated idiots in the mainstream.

[Eram semper recta]