Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
About the New Calculus - the first and only rigorous formulation in human history.
273 views
Skip to first unread message
John Gabriel
Nov 4, 2017, 2:30:12 AM11/4/17
to
About the New Calculus - the first and only rigorous formulation in human history.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/new-calculus-first-only-rigorous-formulation-human-history-gabriel
The article:
I first revealed my discoveries concerning the New Calculus (NC hereafter) circa 2005 in online forums. In fact, I discovered the NC a lot earlier than that.
Initially most academics who read about it, rejected it outright because they did not like or could not understand it, or both. I would communicate with them on a much higher level than say a lay person, who is not trained in mathematics. For example, to prove to them that given any function f, then if f '(x)= { f(x+n)-f(x-m) }/ (m+n), it is true that m+n is a factor of every term in the numerator regardless of what function is f. The ignoramuses of mainstream academia (*) laughed me to scorn. At first I was surprised: it was strange to me that academics who claimed to be open minded and erudite, would reject such solid proofs. Did they really not understand those simple proofs? Or were they just being biased in rejecting this knowledge?
In my frustration I finally devised a proof that even an 8th grade student of mathematics can understand but neither Newton nor Leibniz were able to produce. It is a fact that no one before me was able to realise this rigorous formulation. There is a similar proof of the NC integral for eighth grade students of mathematics. I am working on simplifying the eighth grade explanation even further given that mainstream academics are highly stupid creatures. The simplest explanations always work best where mainstream morons are concerned and monosyllabic descriptions are generally the recommended route to follow. I loathe mainstream academia and it's hard for me to restrain myself. My tolerance for stupid people has long ceased to exist.
I realised many years later, they rejected my discoveries for several reasons, but the one that stood out is the fact that they did not like me personally. Truth or proofs had little to do with the rejection. They decided to libel and defame me, rather than study my ingenious work which is worthy not of one Abel prize, but of ten Abel prizes. The most notorious mainstream cranks attributed mental illnesses of all kinds to me. In truth, they are jealous and jealousy is the most stinky cologne.
I taught myself calculus at the age of 14 years. Making sense of it was not easy given that it was formulated with so many ill-formed concepts. But before you dismiss me as a crank, please note that I am the first to prove the mean value theorem constructively. In order to do this, I invented a patch called the positional derivative. I have shared numerous articles with the public and even more dynamic applets that expose the wrong ideas in mainstream mathematics.
Every so often, one of the lackeys of mainstream academia posts lies, libel and ad hominem about me on trashy sites like Reddit, Quora and that hilarious site xkcd. But there are also others like MSC (math stack exchange), ResearchGate and GeogebraTube. I have received numerous death threats on that news forum called sci.math. On the sci.math group there is a vicious troll called Dan Christensen who relentlessly posts libel in every one of my threads without fail. He has an assistant troll called Jan Burse who happens to be a failed software developer in Switzerland.
They cannot refute one iota of my discoveries, so it's much easier just to label me as a crank or crackpot. It is very sad that in this day and age, one is persecuted to the extent that I am just because I am not well liked or liked at all.
These academics and their lackeys have had my New Calculus site taken down six times. I cannot comment on any site without one of their lackeys spamming my threads. An example is sci.math. One would think that given I am helping future generations of aspiring young mathematicians, they would be grateful and welcome this new knowledge I reveal. But no, my life has all but been destroyed by the efforts and attacks of the most vile scum in mainstream academia, such as Gilbert Strang (alias Port563 on sci.math), the libelous and false criticisms by Jack Huizenga and their ilk. It's too bad that they can't be prosecuted in the USA.
Please DO NOT believe a word I write, but verify that what I write is true.
The NC is the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history. That is an incredible accomplishment given that no one before me was able to do this - not even the so-called greats such as Archimedes, Newton or anyone else. It is no longer debatable, but proven fact. You can learn much more about the fallacies in mainstream mathematics (mythmatics) by subscribing to my YT New Calculus Channel. There are 5 good reasons which will convince the astute reader that Cauchy's derivative definition is flawed. Moreover, the concept of infinity is ill formed and its use leads to paradoxes and contradictions.
Why would anyone dismiss a rigorous formulation that can be learned by high school students? Why would anyone libel the character of one who has shared such profound knowledge free of charge? No one before me even came close to the realisation of the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus.
(*) You can write to these individuals and ask them why they have behaved so unprofessionally, not to mention unethically and criminally also:
gils...@gmail.com (Professor Gilbert Strang of MIT)
huiz...@psu.edu (Professor Jack Huizenga, HARVARD alumnus)
and...@mit.edu (Computer science PhD, MIT)
david....@math.okstate.edu (Professor David Ullrich, Oklahoma State)
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/new-calculus-first-only-rigorous-formulation-human-history-gabriel
The article:
I first revealed my discoveries concerning the New Calculus (NC hereafter) circa 2005 in online forums. In fact, I discovered the NC a lot earlier than that.
Initially most academics who read about it, rejected it outright because they did not like or could not understand it, or both. I would communicate with them on a much higher level than say a lay person, who is not trained in mathematics. For example, to prove to them that given any function f, then if f '(x)= { f(x+n)-f(x-m) }/ (m+n), it is true that m+n is a factor of every term in the numerator regardless of what function is f. The ignoramuses of mainstream academia (*) laughed me to scorn. At first I was surprised: it was strange to me that academics who claimed to be open minded and erudite, would reject such solid proofs. Did they really not understand those simple proofs? Or were they just being biased in rejecting this knowledge?
In my frustration I finally devised a proof that even an 8th grade student of mathematics can understand but neither Newton nor Leibniz were able to produce. It is a fact that no one before me was able to realise this rigorous formulation. There is a similar proof of the NC integral for eighth grade students of mathematics. I am working on simplifying the eighth grade explanation even further given that mainstream academics are highly stupid creatures. The simplest explanations always work best where mainstream morons are concerned and monosyllabic descriptions are generally the recommended route to follow. I loathe mainstream academia and it's hard for me to restrain myself. My tolerance for stupid people has long ceased to exist.
I realised many years later, they rejected my discoveries for several reasons, but the one that stood out is the fact that they did not like me personally. Truth or proofs had little to do with the rejection. They decided to libel and defame me, rather than study my ingenious work which is worthy not of one Abel prize, but of ten Abel prizes. The most notorious mainstream cranks attributed mental illnesses of all kinds to me. In truth, they are jealous and jealousy is the most stinky cologne.
I taught myself calculus at the age of 14 years. Making sense of it was not easy given that it was formulated with so many ill-formed concepts. But before you dismiss me as a crank, please note that I am the first to prove the mean value theorem constructively. In order to do this, I invented a patch called the positional derivative. I have shared numerous articles with the public and even more dynamic applets that expose the wrong ideas in mainstream mathematics.
Every so often, one of the lackeys of mainstream academia posts lies, libel and ad hominem about me on trashy sites like Reddit, Quora and that hilarious site xkcd. But there are also others like MSC (math stack exchange), ResearchGate and GeogebraTube. I have received numerous death threats on that news forum called sci.math. On the sci.math group there is a vicious troll called Dan Christensen who relentlessly posts libel in every one of my threads without fail. He has an assistant troll called Jan Burse who happens to be a failed software developer in Switzerland.
They cannot refute one iota of my discoveries, so it's much easier just to label me as a crank or crackpot. It is very sad that in this day and age, one is persecuted to the extent that I am just because I am not well liked or liked at all.
These academics and their lackeys have had my New Calculus site taken down six times. I cannot comment on any site without one of their lackeys spamming my threads. An example is sci.math. One would think that given I am helping future generations of aspiring young mathematicians, they would be grateful and welcome this new knowledge I reveal. But no, my life has all but been destroyed by the efforts and attacks of the most vile scum in mainstream academia, such as Gilbert Strang (alias Port563 on sci.math), the libelous and false criticisms by Jack Huizenga and their ilk. It's too bad that they can't be prosecuted in the USA.
Please DO NOT believe a word I write, but verify that what I write is true.
The NC is the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history. That is an incredible accomplishment given that no one before me was able to do this - not even the so-called greats such as Archimedes, Newton or anyone else. It is no longer debatable, but proven fact. You can learn much more about the fallacies in mainstream mathematics (mythmatics) by subscribing to my YT New Calculus Channel. There are 5 good reasons which will convince the astute reader that Cauchy's derivative definition is flawed. Moreover, the concept of infinity is ill formed and its use leads to paradoxes and contradictions.
Why would anyone dismiss a rigorous formulation that can be learned by high school students? Why would anyone libel the character of one who has shared such profound knowledge free of charge? No one before me even came close to the realisation of the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus.
(*) You can write to these individuals and ask them why they have behaved so unprofessionally, not to mention unethically and criminally also:
gils...@gmail.com (Professor Gilbert Strang of MIT)
huiz...@psu.edu (Professor Jack Huizenga, HARVARD alumnus)
and...@mit.edu (Computer science PhD, MIT)
david....@math.okstate.edu (Professor David Ullrich, Oklahoma State)
Zelos Malum
Nov 4, 2017, 4:28:50 AM11/4/17
to
>Initially most academics who read about it, rejected it outright because they did not like or could not understand it, or both.
Or they did understand it and know it is garbage, like we all do.
>At first I was surprised: it was strange to me that academics who claimed to be open minded and erudite, would reject such solid proofs. Did they really not understand those simple proofs? Or were they just being biased in rejecting this knowledge
Dan Christensen
Nov 4, 2017, 10:41:18 PM11/4/17
to
On Saturday, November 4, 2017 at 2:30:12 AM UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote:
> About the New Calculus - the first and only rigorous formulation in human history.
>
Not even close, Troll Boy.
> About the New Calculus - the first and only rigorous formulation in human history.
>
In a vain attempt to rescue his Wacky New Calclueless, JG has already had to ban empty sets, infinite sets, axioms, rules of logic, repeating decimals, pi, root 2, negative numbers, zero, derivatives of linear functions and derivatives at points of inflection and who knows where else. In short, his goofy system is a useless piece of sh**.
See: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words (November 2017)“
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!starred/sci.math/4w1xglxOrfE
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
John Gabriel
Nov 5, 2017, 6:40:52 AM11/5/17
to
Zelos Malum
Nov 5, 2017, 7:38:05 AM11/5/17
to
Gabriel, if it was "rigorous" you would be able to define terms that doesn't rely on a natural language intepritation of things which are known to be ambigious and EXTREMELY heavily dependent on contexts.
Like your "measure" thing, I can say you only have the "number" 0 because no matter how long the line, it only has 0 in area.
burs...@gmail.com
Nov 5, 2017, 9:27:46 AM11/5/17
to
The article already begins with some nonsense:
"f '(x)= { f(x+n)-f(x-m) }/ (m+n), it is true that m+n is a
factor of every term in the numerator regardless of
what function is f."
Take f(x)=sin(x), what do you want to factor? How do
you define factor at all?
You could use:
sin(A + B) = sin A cos B + cos A sin B
sin(A − B) = sin A cos B − cos A sin B
and also:
cos u − cos v = −2 sin(½(u + v)) sin(½(u − v))
sin u + sin v = 2 sin(½(u + v)) cos(½(u − v))
https://brownmath.com/twt/sumdiff.htm#sincosAplusmnB
Then you would get:
( f(x+n)-f(x-m) }/ (m+n) = ( sin(x+n)-sin(x-m) ) / (m+n)
= (sin(x) cos(n) + cos(x) sin(n) - sin(x) cos(m) + cos(x) sin(m)) / (m+n)
= sin(x) (cos(n)-cos(m))/(m+n) + cos(x) (sin(n) + sin(m)) / (m+n)
= (- sin(x) sin((n-m)/2) + cos(x) cos((n-m)/2)) 2 sin((n+m)/2) / (m+n)
There is still no automatic factoring, when f'(x) is the unknown.
Only when m,n->0 something interesting happens, when we take
the limit. We could for example proceed:
lim n,m->0 2 sin((n+m)/2) / (m+n) = 1
lim n,m->0 sin((n-m)/2) = 0
lim n,m->0 cos((n-m)/2) = 1
We would then get:
f'(x) = (- sin(x) 0 + cos(x) 1) 1
= cos(x)
So we can say the new calculoose is the greatest math failure in
human history. Here have a banana bird brain John Gabriel:
Banana Song (I'm A Banana)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH5ay10RTGY
"f '(x)= { f(x+n)-f(x-m) }/ (m+n), it is true that m+n is a
factor of every term in the numerator regardless of
what function is f."
you define factor at all?
You could use:
sin(A + B) = sin A cos B + cos A sin B
sin(A − B) = sin A cos B − cos A sin B
and also:
cos u − cos v = −2 sin(½(u + v)) sin(½(u − v))
sin u + sin v = 2 sin(½(u + v)) cos(½(u − v))
https://brownmath.com/twt/sumdiff.htm#sincosAplusmnB
Then you would get:
( f(x+n)-f(x-m) }/ (m+n) = ( sin(x+n)-sin(x-m) ) / (m+n)
= (sin(x) cos(n) + cos(x) sin(n) - sin(x) cos(m) + cos(x) sin(m)) / (m+n)
= sin(x) (cos(n)-cos(m))/(m+n) + cos(x) (sin(n) + sin(m)) / (m+n)
= (- sin(x) sin((n-m)/2) + cos(x) cos((n-m)/2)) 2 sin((n+m)/2) / (m+n)
There is still no automatic factoring, when f'(x) is the unknown.
Only when m,n->0 something interesting happens, when we take
the limit. We could for example proceed:
lim n,m->0 2 sin((n+m)/2) / (m+n) = 1
lim n,m->0 sin((n-m)/2) = 0
lim n,m->0 cos((n-m)/2) = 1
We would then get:
f'(x) = (- sin(x) 0 + cos(x) 1) 1
= cos(x)
So we can say the new calculoose is the greatest math failure in
human history. Here have a banana bird brain John Gabriel:
Banana Song (I'm A Banana)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH5ay10RTGY
burs...@gmail.com
Nov 5, 2017, 9:36:58 AM11/5/17
to
Note for bird brain John Gabriel: Since f'(x) is
unknown taylor series are not allowed.
Besides that, bird brain John Gabriel, you say
infinity is a junk concept,
so even if you find some taylor series, again
by your own decree, you cannot use them
since infinity is a junk concept.
unknown taylor series are not allowed.
Besides that, bird brain John Gabriel, you say
infinity is a junk concept,
so even if you find some taylor series, again
by your own decree, you cannot use them
since infinity is a junk concept.
John Gabriel
Nov 5, 2017, 9:40:13 AM11/5/17
to
On Sunday, 5 November 2017 09:27:46 UTC-5, Monkey troll Jan Burse from Zurich, Switzerland burs...@gmail.com babbled:
> The article already begins with some nonsense:
>
> "f '(x)= { f(x+n)-f(x-m) }/ (m+n), it is true that m+n is a
> factor of every term in the numerator regardless of
> what function is f."
Monkey! It has been done in the New Calculus a long time ago:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnx0aGVuZXdjYWxjdWx1c3xneDoxYmRlMTZjMDFlYjZlMmQ
When you don't understand you NEED to shut your fucking mouth idiot!!!!!!!
EVERYTHING you say pink man is WRONG! You spam all the threads with your bullshit.
Get a job you fucking moron!!
> The article already begins with some nonsense:
>
> "f '(x)= { f(x+n)-f(x-m) }/ (m+n), it is true that m+n is a
> factor of every term in the numerator regardless of
> what function is f."
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnx0aGVuZXdjYWxjdWx1c3xneDoxYmRlMTZjMDFlYjZlMmQ
When you don't understand you NEED to shut your fucking mouth idiot!!!!!!!
EVERYTHING you say pink man is WRONG! You spam all the threads with your bullshit.
Get a job you fucking moron!!
burs...@gmail.com
Nov 5, 2017, 9:42:26 AM11/5/17
to
Well thats not a valid proof.
Spot your own error please.
Spot your own error please.
burs...@gmail.com
Nov 5, 2017, 9:49:14 AM11/5/17
to
You don't show what k should be. You can do your
derivation for any function, look see what nonsense you do:
(g(x+n)-g(x-m))/(m+n) = k (1)
Then you do skip one step:
g(x+n) = k(m+n) + g(x-m) (3)
But in fact you had two steps:
(g(x+n)-g(x-m)) = k(m+n) (2)
g(x+n) = k(m+n) + g(x-m) (3)
Now yu substitute in (1) the (3):
(k(m+n) + g(x-m)-g(x-m))/(m+n) = k (4)
k(m+n)/(m+n) = k (5)
k = k (6)
Woa all you have shown is k=k, which is trivially true,
but doesn't give you any factorig or divisibilty.
How stupid can you be John Gabriel? Do you think
sci.math and the whole world is also that stupid.
You didn't show anything. You just demonstrated
that your are a spamming super-idiot.
derivation for any function, look see what nonsense you do:
(g(x+n)-g(x-m))/(m+n) = k (1)
Then you do skip one step:
g(x+n) = k(m+n) + g(x-m) (3)
But in fact you had two steps:
(g(x+n)-g(x-m)) = k(m+n) (2)
g(x+n) = k(m+n) + g(x-m) (3)
Now yu substitute in (1) the (3):
(k(m+n) + g(x-m)-g(x-m))/(m+n) = k (4)
k(m+n)/(m+n) = k (5)
k = k (6)
Woa all you have shown is k=k, which is trivially true,
but doesn't give you any factorig or divisibilty.
How stupid can you be John Gabriel? Do you think
sci.math and the whole world is also that stupid.
You didn't show anything. You just demonstrated
that your are a spamming super-idiot.
John Gabriel
Nov 5, 2017, 10:00:15 AM11/5/17
to
On Sunday, 5 November 2017 09:49:14 UTC-5, IDIOT TROLL Jan Burse drooled :
> You don't show what k should be.
Of course we don't idiot, otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to verify it, would it you blithering idiot!!!!
burs...@gmail.com
Nov 5, 2017, 10:01:02 AM11/5/17
to
You only verified k=k, nothing else.
Me
Nov 5, 2017, 10:01:13 AM11/5/17
to
On Sunday, November 5, 2017 at 3:27:46 PM UTC+1, burs...@gmail.com wrote:
> The article already begins with some nonsense:
>
> "[...] it is true that m+n is a factor [...]"
> The article already begins with some nonsense:
>
Agree.
> How do you define factor at all?
x = a*b (for x e IR)
then a and b are /factors/ of x.
But then for every real number x:
Every real number y =/= 0 is a "factor" of x.
After all, if x and y are real numbers, and y =/= 0, we get that
x = z*y
(with z = x/y).
> So we can say the new calculoose is the greatest math failure in
> human history.
burs...@gmail.com
Nov 5, 2017, 10:03:23 AM11/5/17
to
JG is an absolute imbecil moron spamming super-idiot.
Only annoying nonsense, nothing else.
Only annoying nonsense, nothing else.
John Gabriel
Nov 5, 2017, 10:03:53 AM11/5/17
to
On Sunday, 5 November 2017 10:01:02 UTC-5, burs...@gmail.com wrote:
> You only verified k=k, nothing else.
Shut up idiot. You are too stupid to discuss anything.
> You only verified k=k, nothing else.
burs...@gmail.com
Nov 5, 2017, 10:05:18 AM11/5/17
to
Learn some math, or fuck off.
Zelos Malum
Nov 7, 2017, 10:03:44 AM11/7/17
to
John Gabriel
Nov 7, 2017, 10:42:31 AM11/7/17
to
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 02:30:12 UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote:
Zelos Malum
Nov 7, 2017, 11:12:39 AM11/7/17
to
John Gabriel
Nov 7, 2017, 11:33:12 AM11/7/17
to
****No one has ever matched the clarity of my thinking!****
Even in my sleep-deprived, always hungry and tired state, I think more succinctly than anyone I have ever met.
You are ALL fucking morons - unbelievably stupid, dishonest (Yoohoo Jean Pierre Messager, the BIGGEST piece of SHIT in all of France), ignorant, JEALOUS and incompetent.
DIE YOU MORONS! DIE! DIE IN YOUR OWN VOMIT AND SYPHILIS.
You are ALL scum.
Zelos Malum
Nov 8, 2017, 2:46:52 AM11/8/17
to
John Gabriel
Nov 8, 2017, 2:54:11 AM11/8/17
to
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 02:30:12 UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote:
Zelos Malum
Nov 8, 2017, 3:53:05 AM11/8/17
to
John Gabriel
Nov 8, 2017, 7:15:11 AM11/8/17
to
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 02:30:12 UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjaAMNnMLqM
0 new messages