John Gabriel's Historic Geometric Theorem (HGT) of January 2020 _IS_ most absolutely the Holy Grail of Calculus.

[Eram semper recta]

Don't believe me?

A simple description:

https://www.academia.edu/104512642/A_conversation_with_Anthropic_s_Chat_Bot_Claude_featuring_the_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus_my_Historic_Geometric_Theorem_of_January_2020

Detailed Proof here:

https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020

The ONLY place my identity is published and in a completely different context, that of flawed limit theory and the Lipschitz Condition. Note that while Labarre noticed this identity, he NEITHER PROVED IT, NOR DID HE LINK THE IDENTITY TO THE DEFINITE INTEGRAL.

https://www.academia.edu/44928764/How_stupid_are_mainstream_math_professors

The fucking idiot Labarre never even considered what I recently revealed in a video:

https://youtu.be/6uI74Fx8Yec

More articles:

https://www.academia.edu/104882931/No_f_x_h_f_x_h_is_not_a_rate_of_change_or_an_average_rate_of_change

https://www.academia.edu/104918625/For_the_sake_of_history_and_historical_truth_and_to_discourage_revisionism_by_bad_actors

https://www.academia.edu/105028579/Most_advanced_AI_Claude_admits_my_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020_is_profound_discovery

[markus...@gmail.com]

Your "theorem" is just the mainstream definition of differentiability stated incorrectly.

[Eram semper recta]

Your assertion is just more garbage coming from inside your confused head.

[Eram semper recta]

There is NOT a single record of my theorem having been published or proved anywhere in human history. I, the Great John Gabriel, discovered it first.

[markus...@gmail.com]

There is no record of it because it isn't a theorem and rather just an incorrectly stated definition.

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 19:00:07 UTC-4, markus

> There is no record of it because it isn't a theorem.

It is a theorem and there is no record of it because I was the first to discover it.

Show me even just one publication which defines the identity non-parallel secant line slope = tangent line slope + difference.

You might say Labarre said something similar, but his shit was wrong and stated in the context of limits.

BUT all this aside, no one, NOT even Labarre was able to show how both the derivative and definite integral are related through this identity from my HGT.

Your next thoughtless comment on this thread will be ignored. You're just repeating your drivel and saying "Nah, uh" without any proof whatsoever.

[Eram semper recta]

You ought to be ashamed of yourself. A high school boy explained these things to you.

https://youtu.be/MybLuwVnK24

[markus...@gmail.com]

He did not explain anything. You still have the same issues of defining Q.

[markus...@gmail.com]

The definition is at least 100 years old.

[Eram semper recta]

He explained everything. For the last fucking time, Q(x,h) is very well defined as the slope difference.

Henceforth, you will be ignored.

[markus...@gmail.com]

Yes, but that is true a priori. The issue is that you don't know how much f' and Q is, just their sum. You need a condition on Q in order to know how much either of those are.

You condition, or solution, is that we simply define to be "all the terms with h in them". This only works well for polynomials. I have already explained why that is a problem for you. I have also explained why the limit approach works and is the correct definition. 🫡

[Eram semper recta]

On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 06:51:44 UTC-4, markus...

It is true REGARDLESS.

> The issue is that you don't know how much f' and Q is, just their sum.

Nonsense. You know both because MY theorem tells you which is which.

> You need a con...

YOU need a brain. School boy explained to you but you are a lost cause.

https://youtu.be/MybLuwVnK24

<PLONK>

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 15:20:00 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:

I suppose the next bullshit claim from mainstream math Church is that they knew about my definite integral definition:


Area(x,h) = h*[ f'(x) + Q(x,h)] which is equal to \int_x^{x+h} f'(x) dx in their bullshit calculus of limits.

[Ιωάννης Γαβριήλ]

They never knew these things because it took my genius to realise that area is defined generally as the product of two level magnitudes (also known erroneously as 'arithmetic means' in the bullshit mainstream mathematics community). They have never realised nor has it crossed there syphilitic brains that f'(x) + Q(x,h) is an arithmetic mean of all the y-ordinates of f'(x) in (x, x+h).

I think they might still be searching to see if any of their fellow morons published anything on this.

[markus...@gmail.com]

No, it doesn't. There is no way to separate the difference quotient into f' and an error term using your definition. For functions that aren't polynomials, you use the Taylor series. But that's obviously circular. You can't have a Taylor series without knowing the derivatives.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 8/5/2023 3:30 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 15:52:05 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:

[...]

> He explained everything. For the last fucking time, Q(x,h) is very well defined as the slope difference.
>
> Henceforth, you will be ignored.

You should code up a little example in JavaScript and HTML 5. Then
everybody can try it out without have to use some plugin or something.

[Eram semper recta]

On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 14:28:11 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 8/5/2023 3:30 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 15:52:05 UTC-4,

> [...]
> > He explained everything. For the last fucking time, Q(x,h) is very well defined as the slope difference.
> >
> > Henceforth, you will be ignored.
> You should code up a little example in JavaScript and HTML 5. Then
> everybody can try it out without have to use some plugin or something.

I have already done better than that - I have coded interactive and dynamic GeoGebra applets.

Here' one that explains the mean value theorem being discussed in previous comments. It uses only New Calculus.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLUEY3LWF5aEJaeGM

[Eram semper recta]

On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 12:35:42 UTC-4, markus..

It most certainly does, you crank!

> There is no way to separate the difference quotient into f' and an error term using your definition.

Of course, there is and it is described in the article.

> For functions that aren't polynomials, you use the Taylor series. But that's obviously circular. You can't have a Taylor series without knowing the derivatives.

Like I said and have proved many times, your claim is nonsense because it is true for ALL smooth functions and again, the article contains a proof demonstrating this GEOMETRICALLY. It doesn't use polynomials, you deranged troll!

https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 8/5/2023 11:56 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 14:28:11 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 8/5/2023 3:30 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>> On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 15:52:05 UTC-4,
>> [...]
>>> He explained everything. For the last fucking time, Q(x,h) is very well defined as the slope difference.
>>>
>>> Henceforth, you will be ignored.
>> You should code up a little example in JavaScript and HTML 5. Then
>> everybody can try it out without have to use some plugin or something.
>
> I have already done better than that - I have coded interactive and dynamic GeoGebra applets.

No. Pure JavaScript and HTML 5. NO plugins, no shit.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 8/5/2023 11:56 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 14:28:11 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 8/5/2023 3:30 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>> On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 15:52:05 UTC-4,
>> [...]
>>> He explained everything. For the last fucking time, Q(x,h) is very well defined as the slope difference.
>>>
>>> Henceforth, you will be ignored.
>> You should code up a little example in JavaScript and HTML 5. Then
>> everybody can try it out without have to use some plugin or something.
>
> I have already done better than that - I have coded interactive and dynamic GeoGebra applets.

Just port your applets over. No external libs... You can do it. And when
you are programming it yourself you will get a clearer view of your
technique. ?

[Eram semper recta]

On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 15:41:52 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 8/5/2023 11:56 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 14:28:11 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >> On 8/5/2023 3:30 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 15:52:05 UTC-4,
> >> [...]
> >>> He explained everything. For the last fucking time, Q(x,h) is very well defined as the slope difference.
> >>>
> >>> Henceforth, you will be ignored.
> >> You should code up a little example in JavaScript and HTML 5. Then
> >> everybody can try it out without have to use some plugin or something.
> >
> > I have already done better than that - I have coded interactive and dynamic GeoGebra applets.
> Just port your applets over. No external libs... You can do it.

There are no external libs. It's a plain GeoGebra applet.

> And when you are programming it yourself you will get a clearer view of your technique. ?

You mean YOU might get a clearer view? My view is as clear as it gets.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 8/5/2023 1:49 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 15:41:52 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 8/5/2023 11:56 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 14:28:11 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 8/5/2023 3:30 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 15:52:05 UTC-4,
>>>> [...]
>>>>> He explained everything. For the last fucking time, Q(x,h) is very well defined as the slope difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Henceforth, you will be ignored.
>>>> You should code up a little example in JavaScript and HTML 5. Then
>>>> everybody can try it out without have to use some plugin or something.
>>>
>>> I have already done better than that - I have coded interactive and dynamic GeoGebra applets.
>> Just port your applets over. No external libs... You can do it.
>
> There are no external libs. It's a plain GeoGebra applet.
>
>> And when you are programming it yourself you will get a clearer view of your technique. ?
>
> You mean YOU might get a clearer view? My view is as clear as it gets.

I mean programming it yourself from scratch. Using an applet reminds me
of using Flash.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 8/5/2023 1:49 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 15:41:52 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 8/5/2023 11:56 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 14:28:11 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 8/5/2023 3:30 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 15:52:05 UTC-4,
>>>> [...]
>>>>> He explained everything. For the last fucking time, Q(x,h) is very well defined as the slope difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Henceforth, you will be ignored.
>>>> You should code up a little example in JavaScript and HTML 5. Then
>>>> everybody can try it out without have to use some plugin or something.
>>>
>>> I have already done better than that - I have coded interactive and dynamic GeoGebra applets.
>> Just port your applets over. No external libs... You can do it.
>
> There are no external libs. It's a plain GeoGebra applet.
>
>> And when you are programming it yourself you will get a clearer view of your technique. ?
>
> You mean YOU might get a clearer view? My view is as clear as it gets.

Just program it in JavaScript and HTML5, so everybody can use it. No
need to direct somebody to your google drive, or whatever. Just put it
up on a webpage, without any external libs.

[markus...@gmail.com]

You use Taylor series, which aren't valid without limits.

[Eram semper recta]

On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 17:26:11 UTC-4, markus...

See an opthalmologist soon for eye probems and perhaps also a psychiatrist for delusional disorder. I do not use anything but geometry in the article.

[Eram semper recta]

Nowhere are Taylor series even mentioned, never mind polynomials. Seriously, you might have cataracts? LMAO.

[markus...@gmail.com]

Sure you do. How do you find the derivative of exp(x) without Taylor series?

[Eram semper recta]

> > > See an ophthalmologist soon for eye problems and perhaps also a psychiatrist for delusional disorder. I do not use anything but geometry in the article.

> > Nowhere are Taylor series even mentioned, never mind polynomials. Seriously, you might have cataracts? LMAO.
> Sure you do. How do you find the derivative of exp(x) without Taylor series?

One can use the binomial theorem (which has nothing to do with Taylor series).

However, you need to STOP lying because nowhere in my article do I use polynomials or Taylor's theorem, you fucking psychopath!

Just pinpoint the slide where you see these.

Damn annoying troll and crank that you are!

[markus...@gmail.com]

The binomial thing would still lead to an infinite series, which is a limit.

[Eram semper recta]

No relevance whatsoever. Your claims above are simply FALSE.

[markus...@gmail.com]

The series you obtain using the binomial approach is an infinite sum and requires limits.

[Eram semper recta]

That's your incorrect assertion because the binomial theorem is not an infinite sum of any kind and has NOTHING to do with limits.

In fact, the binomial theorem was used long before the bullshit of limit theory.

You need to STOP lying because nowhere in my article do I use polynomials or Taylor's theorem, you fucking psychopath!

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 15:20:00 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Don't believe me?
>
> A simple description:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/104512642/A_conversation_with_Anthropic_s_Chat_Bot_Claude_featuring_the_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus_my_Historic_Geometric_Theorem_of_January_2020
>
> Detailed Proof here:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
>
> The ONLY place my identity is published and in a completely different context, that of flawed limit theory and the Lipschitz Condition. Note that while Labarre noticed this identity, he NEITHER PROVED IT, NOR DID HE LINK THE IDENTITY TO THE DEFINITE INTEGRAL.
>
> https://www.academia.edu/44928764/How_stupid_are_mainstream_math_professors
>
> The fucking idiot Labarre never even considered what I recently revealed in a video:
>
> https://youtu.be/6uI74Fx8Yec
>
> More articles:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/104882931/No_f_x_h_f_x_h_is_not_a_rate_of_change_or_an_average_rate_of_change
>
> https://www.academia.edu/104918625/For_the_sake_of_history_and_historical_truth_and_to_discourage_revisionism_by_bad_actors
>
> https://www.academia.edu/105028579/Most_advanced_AI_Claude_admits_my_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020_is_profound_discovery

My HGT is the Holy Grail of Calculus. Newton and Leibniz would have kissed my arse for explaining why their monkey methods actually produced the correct results. I, John Gabriel, solved the tangent line and area problem rigorously for the first time in human history.

[Eram semper recta]

My HGT was realised from the New Calculus, a calculus without any bullshit concepts such as infinity, infinitesimals and the circular rot of limit theory.

YES, I do know better than you! ... or anyone else.

[Eram semper recta]

Don't believe me? Study my great works, you fucking stupid, arrogant morons!!!!

[Python]

Crank John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> stupid, arrogant moron

Very nice signature John!

[Eram semper recta]

Use your real name, you dirtbag! What are you afraid of?

[Python]

Crank John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 08:12:50 UTC-4, Jean Pierre Messager aka Python, YBM, JPM wrote:
>> Crank John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
>>> stupid, arrogant moron
>>
>> Very nice signature John!
>
> Use your real name, you dirtbag!

Why do you post such abuses, John?

> What are you afraid of?

Maybe that people knows that I'm loosing my time arguing with cranks on
Usenet, who knows?

Anyway, this is not deserving that much efforts.

[markus...@gmail.com]

The binomial approach gives you an infinite series. The exponential function cannot be written as a finite sum of powers.

[Eram semper recta]

There is no such thing as an infinite series, you moron!

> The exponent...

What? I can't hear you?? Louder!!! LMAO

Kill yourself, you stupid little bastard. You will always be WRONG and I will ALWAYS kick your arse because I am not only older but I am far more
intelligent than you.

Again, why the fuck do you keep coming back for more punishment.

Little queer boy, even if you were right (which YOU are most definitely NOT!), I would rip your head off before allowing you to think you can actually convince me.

I piss and shit on you. That is the depth of my disdain for you.

FUCK OFF YOU QUEER LITTLE BASTARD.

I have NO INTEREST in anything you think or say. You were WRONG from the first time you stalked me and YOU are still wrong.

[Eram semper recta]

On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 09:08:02 UTC-4, Jean Pierre Messager (aka YBM, JPM, Python) wrote:
> Crank John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 08:12:50 UTC-4, Jean Pierre Messager aka Python, YBM, JPM wrote:
> >> Crank John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> >>> stupid, arrogant moron
> >>
> >> Very nice signature John!
> >
> > Use your real name, you dirtbag!
> Why do you post such abuses, John?

You filthy, dirty, lying fucking French Jew scumbag or whatever the fuck you are, this is priceless coming from you!!!

You hypocritical bastard!!!! I have never given you permission to call me 'John'. We were never on a first name basis and you are NOT welcome to call me by my first name.

Why don't you fuck off as well? How about all the abuse that you have posted, you rotten scumbag? And all the trouble you have caused?

I swear that if you ever cross my path, it will be very difficult to restrain myself from wringing your neck.

Dead dog that you are.

FUCK OFF and DIE QUICKLY!!!!!

[markus...@gmail.com]

Since you don't accept infinite series, the exponential function should not be a thing for you. Be consistent. You cannot have anything besides polynomials without limits.

[markus...@gmail.com]

And here you are again, John, calling people "dirty Jews". Are you trying to get federal jail time?

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Is "Eram semper recta" your real name?

[Chris M. Thomasson]

A cry for help, perhaps? Hummm.... ;^o

[Eram semper recta]

Little dickhead. You are sooooo funny. One doesn't go to jail for calling Jews or Frenchmen dirty.

You are one vile, dirty little Swede piece of shit.

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 15:20:00 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Don't believe me?
>
> A simple description:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/104512642/A_conversation_with_Anthropic_s_Chat_Bot_Claude_featuring_the_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus_my_Historic_Geometric_Theorem_of_January_2020
>
> Detailed Proof here:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
>
> The ONLY place my identity is published and in a completely different context, that of flawed limit theory and the Lipschitz Condition. Note that while Labarre noticed this identity, he NEITHER PROVED IT, NOR DID HE LINK THE IDENTITY TO THE DEFINITE INTEGRAL.
>
> https://www.academia.edu/44928764/How_stupid_are_mainstream_math_professors
>
> The fucking idiot Labarre never even considered what I recently revealed in a video:
>
> https://youtu.be/6uI74Fx8Yec
>
> More articles:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/104882931/No_f_x_h_f_x_h_is_not_a_rate_of_change_or_an_average_rate_of_change
>
> https://www.academia.edu/104918625/For_the_sake_of_history_and_historical_truth_and_to_discourage_revisionism_by_bad_actors
>
> https://www.academia.edu/105028579/Most_advanced_AI_Claude_admits_my_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020_is_profound_discovery

People don't be distracted by all the flak. My enemies are uncountable but not indestructible. :-)

[Fritz Feldhase]

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 12:14:36 AM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> Is "Eram semper recta" your real name?

Yes. It means "I am always an asshole."

[Eram semper recta]

Many have tried to trash the theorem or claim that it was already known.

The arch scumbag Prof. Don Redmond was the first to libel and lie about its veracity.

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/LYEhpApA0sg

Nowhere did Labarre prove the identity is true because of a theorem. Labarre, who is the ONLY one to state it exactly like mine, didn't even smell the significance of it! He made no connection to the definite integral and his focus was on some worthless shit called the Lipschitz condition - an unremarkable theorem by another stupid Jew who got recognition just because he is Jewish.

If you are Jewish reading this: A BIG FUCK YOU!!!!!

I am ashamed that my father was Jewish. I know you scum bags better than anyone else. You are mostly vile, jealous reptiles.

[markus...@gmail.com]

Your insults don't change the fact you have no working definition of anything.

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 15:20:00 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Don't believe me?
>
> A simple description:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/104512642/A_conversation_with_Anthropic_s_Chat_Bot_Claude_featuring_the_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus_my_Historic_Geometric_Theorem_of_January_2020
>
> Detailed Proof here:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
>
> The ONLY place my identity is published and in a completely different context, that of flawed limit theory and the Lipschitz Condition. Note that while Labarre noticed this identity, he NEITHER PROVED IT, NOR DID HE LINK THE IDENTITY TO THE DEFINITE INTEGRAL.
>
> https://www.academia.edu/44928764/How_stupid_are_mainstream_math_professors
>
> The fucking idiot Labarre never even considered what I recently revealed in a video:
>
> https://youtu.be/6uI74Fx8Yec
>
> More articles:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/104882931/No_f_x_h_f_x_h_is_not_a_rate_of_change_or_an_average_rate_of_change
>
> https://www.academia.edu/104918625/For_the_sake_of_history_and_historical_truth_and_to_discourage_revisionism_by_bad_actors
>
> https://www.academia.edu/105028579/Most_advanced_AI_Claude_admits_my_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020_is_profound_discovery

The Holy Grail of Calculus:

https://www.academia.edu/105576431/The_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus

[markus...@gmail.com]

Just the mainstream definition. But stated incorrectly.

[Eram semper recta]

Liar. It is nothing like the mainstream definition which is stated incorrectly.

My identity is correct and you've shown otherwise, you scumbag!

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 15:20:00 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Don't believe me?
>
> A simple description:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/104512642/A_conversation_with_Anthropic_s_Chat_Bot_Claude_featuring_the_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus_my_Historic_Geometric_Theorem_of_January_2020
>
> Detailed Proof here:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
>
> The ONLY place my identity is published and in a completely different context, that of flawed limit theory and the Lipschitz Condition. Note that while Labarre noticed this identity, he NEITHER PROVED IT, NOR DID HE LINK THE IDENTITY TO THE DEFINITE INTEGRAL.
>
> https://www.academia.edu/44928764/How_stupid_are_mainstream_math_professors
>
> The fucking idiot Labarre never even considered what I recently revealed in a video:
>
> https://youtu.be/6uI74Fx8Yec
>
> More articles:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/104882931/No_f_x_h_f_x_h_is_not_a_rate_of_change_or_an_average_rate_of_change
>
> https://www.academia.edu/104918625/For_the_sake_of_history_and_historical_truth_and_to_discourage_revisionism_by_bad_actors
>
> https://www.academia.edu/105028579/Most_advanced_AI_Claude_admits_my_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020_is_profound_discovery

There is a bastard called Markus Klyver who keeps repeating that my theorem is now the mainstream theorem stated incorrectly. He is lying and has never shown this to be even remotely true.

To wit, the troll and crank was posting that the theorem was invalid until just a few weeks ago.

Lying dog that he is, he simply reposts his drivel.

Believe him at your peril. What I reveal to you is the Holy Grail of Calculus which no one before me even knew existed.

[markus...@gmail.com]

It is exactly the mainstream definition, but without the limit condition. Which makes the definition useless.

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 15:20:00 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Don't believe me?
>
> A simple description:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/104512642/A_conversation_with_Anthropic_s_Chat_Bot_Claude_featuring_the_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus_my_Historic_Geometric_Theorem_of_January_2020
>
> Detailed Proof here:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
>
> The ONLY place my identity is published and in a completely different context, that of flawed limit theory and the Lipschitz Condition. Note that while Labarre noticed this identity, he NEITHER PROVED IT, NOR DID HE LINK THE IDENTITY TO THE DEFINITE INTEGRAL.
>
> https://www.academia.edu/44928764/How_stupid_are_mainstream_math_professors
>
> The fucking idiot Labarre never even considered what I recently revealed in a video:
>
> https://youtu.be/6uI74Fx8Yec
>
> More articles:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/104882931/No_f_x_h_f_x_h_is_not_a_rate_of_change_or_an_average_rate_of_change
>
> https://www.academia.edu/104918625/For_the_sake_of_history_and_historical_truth_and_to_discourage_revisionism_by_bad_actors
>
> https://www.academia.edu/105028579/Most_advanced_AI_Claude_admits_my_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020_is_profound_discovery

I am also revising Euclid's Elements. Have written the all-important prologue and started on the first Book.

https://www.academia.edu/105917019/The_Revised_Elements_Book_I

Join my Discord here: https://discord.gg/CJ9Ks3WerR

In order to join, you have to take a 10 question test on my Historic Geometric Theorem.

[markus...@gmail.com]

You ruined calculus, now you'll ruin classical geometry too?

[Eram semper recta]

> You fixed calculus, now you'll fix classical geometry too?

Indeed!

[markus...@gmail.com]

fredag 4 augusti 2023 kl. 00:42:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:46:46 UTC-4, markus.. wrote:

> > torsdag 3 augusti 2023 kl. 21:20:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > Don't believe me?
> > >
> > > A simple description:
> > >
> > > https://www.academia.edu/104512642/A_conversation_with_Anthropic_s_Chat_Bot_Claude_featuring_the_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus_my_Historic_Geometric_Theorem_of_January_2020
> > >
> > > Detailed Proof here:
> > >
> > > https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> > >
> > > The ONLY place my identity is published and in a completely different context, that of flawed limit theory and the Lipschitz Condition. Note that while Labarre noticed this identity, he NEITHER PROVED IT, NOR DID HE LINK THE IDENTITY TO THE DEFINITE INTEGRAL.
> > >
> > > https://www.academia.edu/44928764/How_stupid_are_mainstream_math_professors
> > >
> > > The fucking idiot Labarre never even considered what I recently revealed in a video:
> > >
> > > https://youtu.be/6uI74Fx8Yec
> > >
> > > More articles:
> > >
> > > https://www.academia.edu/104882931/No_f_x_h_f_x_h_is_not_a_rate_of_change_or_an_average_rate_of_change
> > >
> > > https://www.academia.edu/104918625/For_the_sake_of_history_and_historical_truth_and_to_discourage_revisionism_by_bad_actors
> > >
> > > https://www.academia.edu/105028579/Most_advanced_AI_Claude_admits_my_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020_is_profound_discovery

> > Your "theorem" is just the mainstream definition of differentiability stated incorrectly.
> Your assertion is just more garbage coming from inside your confused head.
And to re-iterate: it's not a theorem. You have just taken the mainstream definition and removed the limit condition. Doing that, you have rendered the definition meaningless.

[Eram semper recta]

On Tuesday, 29 August 2023 at 02:47:26 UTC-4, markus..

> > > >
> > > > A simple description:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.academia.edu/104512642/A_conversation_with_Anthropic_s_Chat_Bot_Claude_featuring_the_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus_my_Historic_Geometric_Theorem_of_January_2020
> > > >
> > > > Detailed Proof here:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
> > > >
> > > > The ONLY place my identity is published and in a completely different context, that of flawed limit theory and the Lipschitz Condition. Note that while Labarre noticed this identity, he NEITHER PROVED IT, NOR DID HE LINK THE IDENTITY TO THE DEFINITE INTEGRAL.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.academia.edu/44928764/How_stupid_are_mainstream_math_professors
> > > >
> > > > The fucking idiot Labarre never even considered what I recently revealed in a video:
> > > >
> > > > https://youtu.be/6uI74Fx8Yec
> > > >
> > > > More articles:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.academia.edu/104882931/No_f_x_h_f_x_h_is_not_a_rate_of_change_or_an_average_rate_of_change
> > > >
> > > > https://www.academia.edu/104918625/For_the_sake_of_history_and_historical_truth_and_to_discourage_revisionism_by_bad_actors
> > > >
> > > > https://www.academia.edu/105028579/Most_advanced_AI_Claude_admits_my_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020_is_profound_discovery
> > > Your "theorem" is just the mainstream definition of differentiability stated incorrectly.
> > Your assertion is just more garbage coming from inside your confused head.
> And to re-iterate: it's not a theorem.

To re-iterate as it has been pointed out to you many times, but you are a fucking dumb ass, it IS a theorem and was never recorded as such anywhere in ANY mainstream material, even where Labarre used an identical formula, he was not aware that it is the Holy Grail of Calculus.

> You have just taken the mainstream definition and removed the limit condition.

Scumbag! Show me one place where the derivative is defined as:

Lim (h->0) (f(x+h)-f(x))/h = Lim (h->0) f'(x) + Lim (h->0) Q(x,h)

You lying bastard! After pointing this out to you countless times, you still persist in your LIES.

> Doing that, you have rendered the definition meaningless.

DIE QUICKLY, you vile piece of shit! If you are a Jew, I hope you suffer even more. Your whore mother should have strangled you the minute your bloodied skull exited her syphilitic cunt.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 8/29/2023 12:21 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 August 2023 at 02:47:26 UTC-4, markus..

[...]

> DIE QUICKLY, you vile piece of shit! If you are a Jew, I hope you suffer even more. Your whore mother should have strangled you the minute your bloodied skull exited her syphilitic cunt.

You must be a very fun person to work with! ;^o

[markus...@gmail.com]

Thats not the definition. The LHS is the definition, which can be restated in terms of Q.

[Eram semper recta]

On Tuesday, 29 August 2023 at 18:31:35 UTC-4, markus.

That is my definition. The mainstream definition knows nothing about Q(x,h) nor is it ever mentioned in any publications except once in Labarre's Analysis and even there it is not realised as a theorem. I was the first to prove the HGT.

STOP spreading LIES!!!

[markus...@gmail.com]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_increment_lemma

[Eram semper recta]

On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 03:46:08 UTC-4, markus...

LMAO. That is bullshit which Wikipedia morons made up in order to claim that they already knew about my identity, but it's wrong because it is stated in terms of limits.

Check the date on that article and you'll see that the scum on Wikipedia posted it long after I revealed my identity.

Then Google "Fundamental_increment_lemma" and you'll find it appears nowhere else.

But this is to be expected from frauds and cranks like Markus Klyver and Jean Pierre Messager.

In any case, he entry is a piece of junk and says nothing that my theorem says.

It is also another reason why I have stopped revealing knowledge, because the cons in mainstream will always try to claim they knew about it. It's humanity's loss in the end.

Very telling is that there are two references which are from 2007 but my New Calculus has been around for decades.

Crank much?

[Eram semper recta]

I just checked and neither of the references are actually published books, only articles. Moreover, the author of the article
https://web.archive.org/web/20100620155743/http://clem.mscd.edu/~talmanl/PDFs/APCalculus/MultiVarDiff.pdf is one I contacted several years ago, so the scumbag simply assumed this work as his own.

See what I mean people? And then you ask me why I do not share any more knowledge!

Oh, and that is the ONLY reference, not two books as I claimed earlier.

The bastards on Wikipedia deleted my entries because they are not published in book form, but because this anus professor is part of their clique, no problem, suddenly articles are valid references. Who knows, by now talman has probably published a book on this.

Vile, dishonest, rotten, incompetent, ignorant, jealous and incorrigibly stupid are mainstream academics!

[Eram semper recta]

The only 'reference' is 7 pages long. Unbelievable what scum academics are!

[Eram semper recta]

In any case, the lemma is hilarious and says nothing about my theorem. Also it is plain wrong because it uses limit theory which is bullshit.

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 15:20:00 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Don't believe me?

>
> A simple description:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/104512642/A_conversation_with_Anthropic_s_Chat_Bot_Claude_featuring_the_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus_my_Historic_Geometric_Theorem_of_January_2020
>
> Detailed Proof here:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
>
> The ONLY place my identity is published and in a completely different context, that of flawed limit theory and the Lipschitz Condition. Note that while Labarre noticed this identity, he NEITHER PROVED IT, NOR DID HE LINK THE IDENTITY TO THE DEFINITE INTEGRAL.
>
> https://www.academia.edu/44928764/How_stupid_are_mainstream_math_professors
>
> The fucking idiot Labarre never even considered what I recently revealed in a video:
>
> https://youtu.be/6uI74Fx8Yec
>
> More articles:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/104882931/No_f_x_h_f_x_h_is_not_a_rate_of_change_or_an_average_rate_of_change
>
> https://www.academia.edu/104918625/For_the_sake_of_history_and_historical_truth_and_to_discourage_revisionism_by_bad_actors
>
> https://www.academia.edu/105028579/Most_advanced_AI_Claude_admits_my_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020_is_profound_discovery

It won't be the first time a fraudulent mainstream math academic claims my work as their own.

Of course, the "fundamental increment lemma" is an absolute joke and a give away!

Let's see ... Talman sounds like a Jewish name. Why am I not surprised?! Tsk, tsk.

My experiences with both my Jew and Greek brothers have never been good.

Whilst at uni in my computer science course, we had to write a battleship program as main project. My Jew "buddy" whose first name is "Michael" (I don't remember the scum bag's last name) submitted an incomplete project and obtained 95%. That is, he didn't even manage to submit a binary (executable) because his program didn't work. But what did the shit do? He wrote in his assignment that the algorithm which I shared with him was his idea. The corrupt Jew dog wrote a fanciful text on the article and claimed he didn't have time to complete the binary.

In the meantime, it was my algorithm which generated the board tokens without any touching even at the edges as was the requirement. My binary worked 100% and it could play itself or with a human or with two humans. Of course I wrote about my algorithm, but the little Jew swine claimed it was his. Reptile that he was and probably still is if he is still alive.

[Eram semper recta]

There is no mainstream publication apart from the incorrect article written by plagiarist Talman.

"Fundamental increment lemma" LMFAO!!!!

[markus...@gmail.com]

Why do you hate Jews?

[Eram semper recta]

Here's ChatGPT's take:

Gabriel:
What do you know about the Fundamental Increment Lemma?

ChatGPT
The Fundamental Increment Lemma states that for a continuous function f, the change in its integral over an interval [a, b] can be expressed as the product of the integral of its derivative and the length of the interval: ∫[a,b] f'(x) dx = f(b) - f(a).

User
It's not that. Anything else?

ChatGPT
Apologies for any misunderstanding. Could you please provide more context or details about the specific concept you're referring to?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's Anthropic's Claude take:

Gabriel
What do you know about the Fundamental Increment Lemma?

Claude
Unfortunately I do not have specific knowledge about the Fundamental Increment Lemma. However, based on the name, it sounds like it may be a mathematical lemma related to fundamental/elementary increments or increases. Lemmas are helper propositions used to prove larger theorems, so this lemma likely assists in proving some broader mathematical theorem or result. Without more context I cannot provide any deeper insight into what exactly the Fundamental Increment Lemma states or how it is used. I would need more background information about the context in which this lemma appears in order to explain it meaningfully. Let me know if you can provide any additional details!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gabriel:
What do you know about the Fundamental Increment Lemma?

Bard:
The Fundamental Increment Lemma (FIL) is a theorem in single-variable differential calculus that gives a relationship between the derivative of a function f at a point a and the change in the function's value when the input is changed by a small amount.

The lemma states that if f is differentiable at a, then there exists a function φ such that

f(a + h) = f(a) + f'(a) h + φ(h)
where lim_{h → 0} φ(h) = 0.

In other words, the change in the function's value is equal to the product of the derivative and the change in the input, plus a remainder term that approaches zero as the change in the input approaches zero.

The Fundamental Increment Lemma is a fundamental result in calculus, and it has many applications. For example, it can be used to prove the Mean Value Theorem, and it can also be used to approximate the value of a definite integral.

Here is a proof of the Fundamental Increment Lemma:

Let f be differentiable at a. Then, by the definition of the derivative,

lim_{h → 0} \frac{f(a + h) - f(a)}{h} = f'(a)
Let φ(h) = \frac{f(a + h) - f(a)}{h} - f'(a). Then

φ(0) = lim_{h → 0} φ(h) = lim_{h → 0} \frac{f(a + h) - f(a)}{h} - f'(a) = f'(a) - f'(a) = 0
Also, for any nonzero h,

\begin{aligned}
|φ(h)| &= | \frac{f(a + h) - f(a)}{h} - f'(a)| \\
&\le \left| \frac{f(a + h) - f(a)}{h} \right| + |f'(a)| \\
&= \left| \frac{f(a + h) - f(a) - f'(a)h}{h} \right| + |f'(a)| \\
&= \left| \frac{φ(h)}{h} \right| + |f'(a)| \\
&\le \max \{ |φ(h)|, |f'(a)| \}
\end{aligned}
Since lim_{h → 0} φ(h) = 0, we can let δ = \max { |f'(a)|, 1 }. Then, for any nonzero h such that |h| < δ, we have |φ(h)| < δ, so |φ(h)| < |h|. This means that lim_{h → 0} φ(h) = 0, as desired.

The Fundamental Increment Lemma can be generalized to higher dimensions. In multivariable calculus, a function f is said to be differentiable at a point a if there exists a linear function M such that

f(a + h) = f(a) + M(h) + o(|h|)
where o(|h|) is a function such that lim_{h → 0} \frac{o(|h|)}{|h|} = 0.

The Fundamental Increment Lemma in multivariable calculus can be proved using the same method as the proof in single-variable calculus.

Gabriel
What is the source of that information?

Bard:
The information I provided about the Fundamental Increment Lemma comes from the following sources:

Calculus: Early Transcendentals by James Stewart, 9th edition
Differential Calculus by Paul Blanchard, Robert L. Devaney, and Glen R. Hall
Fundamentals of Differential Calculus by William Boyce and Richard DiPrima
The Fundamental Increment Lemma by Wikipedia
I also used my own knowledge of calculus to explain the theorem and its proof.

Gabriel
The first three references do not say anything about the lemma.

Bard:
You are correct. The first three references do not mention the Fundamental Increment Lemma. The lemma is not commonly taught in calculus courses, and it is not mentioned in many calculus textbooks.

The Fundamental Increment Lemma is more commonly taught in advanced calculus courses, such as real analysis and differential geometry. It is also used in many other areas of mathematics, such as differential equations and optimization.

The Wikipedia article on the Fundamental Increment Lemma is a good source of information about the lemma. It provides a clear and concise definition of the lemma, as well as a proof.

Here is a link to the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_increment_lemma

I apologize for the confusion. I am still under development, and I am always learning new things. I will try my best to be more accurate in the future.

Gabriel
Is it mentioned at all in any calculus book?

Bard:
Yes, the Fundamental Increment Lemma is mentioned in some calculus books. Here are a few examples:

Calculus: A Complete Course by Howard Anton and Irl C. Bivens, 10th edition
Calculus: An Intuitive and Physical Approach by Morris Kline, 4th edition
Calculus: Early Transcendentals by James Stewart, 8th edition
Calculus: Concepts and Applications by James Stewart, 8th edition
Calculus: Single Variable by Robert A. Adams and Robert C. Franzosa
The Fundamental Increment Lemma is usually introduced in a chapter on differential calculus, after the derivative has been defined. The lemma is used to prove other theorems in differential calculus, such as the Mean Value Theorem and the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

The Fundamental Increment Lemma is not a central concept in calculus, and it is not essential for understanding the basic concepts of calculus. However, it is a useful tool for proving other theorems, and it is sometimes used in applications of calculus.

Gabriel:
Give me page number of the first source.

Bard:
The Fundamental Increment Lemma is mentioned on page 244 of the 10th edition of Calculus: A Complete Course by Howard Anton and Irl C. Bivens.

The book defines the Fundamental Increment Lemma as follows:

Let f be a function defined on an open interval containing a. Then for any h in the interval, there exists a number k such that

f(a+h)=f(a)+f
′
(a)h+k∣h∣

where k is a constant.

The book then goes on to prove the lemma.

I apologize for the confusion. I was mistaken when I said that the lemma was not mentioned in the first three sources. It is mentioned in the 10th edition of Calculus: A Complete Course by Howard Anton and Irl C. Bivens.

Gabriel:
That information is not true.

Bard:
You are correct. The Fundamental Increment Lemma is not mentioned in the 10th edition of Calculus: A Complete Course by Howard Anton and Irl C. Bivens. I apologize for the error.

I checked the book, and the only lemma that is mentioned on page 244 is the Mean Value Theorem. The Fundamental Increment Lemma is not mentioned in any of the other sources that I listed either.

I am still under development, and I am always learning new things. I will try my best to be more accurate in the future.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turns out that Bard found that information directly from Wikipedia. LMAO.

[Eram semper recta]

I don't hate Jews. I hate reptiles like YOU!

[markus...@gmail.com]

It refutes that you somehow found it first in 2020, given the references are from 2007. It is also just an example. Your "theorem" is stated as a definition in Rudin, definition 9.10 and 9.11 here: https://web.math.ucsb.edu/~agboola/teaching/2021/winter/122A/rudin.pdf and also read 9.13. that has the equation

f(x + h) - f(x) = f'(x)h + r(h).

Your Q is Rudin's r. It is the same equation, except that you remove the limit condition which makes it ill-formed.

Your derivative definition involving n and m are found in Walter Rudin, p. 126 in this PDF: https://web.math.ucsb.edu/~agboola/teaching/2021/winter/122A/rudin.pdf (the same one as before).

Baby Rudin was first released in 1953.

[markus...@gmail.com]

It's not even a paper. It is a write-up lecture note on AP Calculus. Didn't you teach AP Calculus? No wonder you got fired when you don't even know the material, John.

[Eram semper recta]

On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 10:58:01 UTC-4, markus...

No moron, it is NOT r(h). My Q(x,h) is the slope difference.

> It is the same equation, except that you remove the limit condition which makes it ill-formed.

No limit condition is removed because the identity is 100% correct. It is incorrect to insert limit theory.

Whilst I only published the knowledge of the HGT in January 2020, it was known as much as three decades before that date.

[Eram semper recta]

On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 10:58:01 UTC-4, markus...

There is NOTHING about my historic geometric theorem on page 126. You lying douche Bag!!!!

[markus...@gmail.com]

Sure there is, look at exercise 19 for chapter 5.

[markus...@gmail.com]

f(x + h) - f(x) = f'(x)h + h*Q(h).

So r(h) = h*Q(h). It is the same thing.

[Eram semper recta]

On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 19:19:48 UTC-4, markus...

Nonsense. You are lying.

[Eram semper recta]

On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 19:21:21 UTC-4, markus...ta:

No moron, no. They are NOT the same thing. I keep pointing this out to you? What's wrong with your fucking brain, idiot?

Q(x,h) is NOT Q(h).

Moreover, there is no use of limits in my identity (f(x + h) - f(x) )/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) - that would make it WRONG.

https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020

[markus...@gmail.com]

Did you check the exercise out?

[Eram semper recta]

FUCK OFF MORON! You're an idiot.

[markus...@gmail.com]

Q(x, h) is essentially the same as Q(h).

It's like saying that f(x)=x²/y and g(x, y)=x²/y are widely different functions. Sure, they are different functions but not really. In the first case y is fixed, in the second one it is allowed to vary. Are you happier with

f(x + h) - f(x) = f'(x)h + h*Q(x, h).

and r(h) = h*Q(h)? It is the same thing either way.

The same equation and the same definition. You just leave out the limit part, which makes your definition not working.

[markus...@gmail.com]

Check out exercise 19 for chapter 5.

[Eram semper recta]

Once again, idiot:

[Eram semper recta]

There is NO "essentially the same", you blithering idiot.

If there were use of limits in my identity, it would be WRONG. What part of this do you not understand?

non-parallel secant line slope = slope of tangent line + difference in slopes

As simple as 1+1, but you don't understand this also.

[markus...@gmail.com]

I agree with
non-parallel secant line slope = slope of tangent line + difference in slopes.

This has never been the issue. The issue is that you try to define the slope of the tangent line with that, without limits.

You need to say that the difference in slopes goes to zero when h is small. A statement like

non-parallel secant line slope = slope of tangent line + difference in slopes

is obviously and very trivially true. But you don't know what the slope is and what the difference is, individually. You just know their sum. The limit condition makes it so that the difference in slopes become small when you take every decreasing values of h. That's a limit. That's the mainstream definition.

You just state the definition incorrectly.

[markus...@gmail.com]

Are you claiming that f(x)=x²/y and g(x, y)=x²/y are vastly different functions?

Your "theorem" is stated as a definition in Rudin, definition 9.10 and 9.11 here: https://web.math.ucsb.edu/~agboola/teaching/2021/winter/122A/rudin.pdf and also read 9.13. that has the equation

f(x + h) - f(x) = f'(x)h + r(h).

Stating this as

f(x + h) - f(x) = f'(x)h + r(x, h),

f(x + h) - f(x) = f'(x)h + h*Q(h),

f(x + h) - f(x) = f'(x)h + h*Q(x, h),

does not matter.

You are welcome to tell me what the profound difference is between them.

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 06:35:28 UTC-4, markus...https://www.academia.edu/104512642/A_conversation_with_Anthropic_s_Chat_Bot_Claude_featuring_the_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus_my_Historic_Geometric_Theorem_of_January_2020

Straw man arguments again. Do you think that others cannot go over the comments and see that I wrote no such thing?
Really, are you that stupid?

> Your "theorem" is stated as a definition in Rudin, definition 9.10 and 9.11 here: https://web.math.ucsb.edu/~agboola/teaching/2021/winter/122A/rudin.pdf and also read 9.13. that has the equation

No. It is NOT stated there, idiot! It is stated here:

www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
>

<Drivel>

[markus...@gmail.com]

How is that a strawman? There is no difference in Q(h) and Q(x, h). Or rather: it is the same difference as in f(x)=x²/y and g(x, y)=x²/y.

f(x + h) - f(x) = f'(x)h + r(h).

f(x + h) - f(x) = f'(x)h + r(x, h),

f(x + h) - f(x) = f'(x)h + h*Q(h),

f(x + h) - f(x) = f'(x)h + h*Q(x, h).

All these are the same thing.

You also have the lemma on Wikipedia which calls the difference phi instead on Q or r.

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 11:30:01 UTC-4, markus...@

Let's try 6 year old logic - maybe that might work.

4 = 3 + 1

(f(x+h)-f(x))/h = 4
f'(x)=3
Q(x,h)=1

If you take away 1 from the right hand side, then you have 4=3. Can you see a problem with this, moron?

[Eram semper recta]

Hint: You can't take limits because the left hand side doesn't magically become f'(x). Get it douche bag?

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Really?

[...]

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 8/30/2023 6:24 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:

> On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 09:23:23 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 09:10:53 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 03:46:08 UTC-4, markus...
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> A simple description:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/104512642/A_conversation_with_Anthropic_s_Chat_Bot_Claude_featuring_the_Holy_Grail_of_Calculus_my_Historic_Geometric_Theorem_of_January_2020
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Detailed Proof here:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The ONLY place my identity is published and in a completely different context, that of flawed limit theory and the Lipschitz Condition. Note that while Labarre noticed this identity, he NEITHER PROVED IT, NOR DID HE LINK THE IDENTITY TO THE DEFINITE INTEGRAL.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/44928764/How_stupid_are_mainstream_math_professors
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The fucking idiot Labarre never even considered what I recently revealed in a video:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/6uI74Fx8Yec
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> More articles:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/104882931/No_f_x_h_f_x_h_is_not_a_rate_of_change_or_an_average_rate_of_change
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/104918625/For_the_sake_of_history_and_historical_truth_and_to_discourage_revisionism_by_bad_actors
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/105028579/Most_advanced_AI_Claude_admits_my_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020_is_profound_discovery

>> I just checked and neither of the references are actually published books, only articles. Moreover, the author of the article
>> https://web.archive.org/web/20100620155743/http://clem.mscd.edu/~talmanl/PDFs/APCalculus/MultiVarDiff.pdf is one I contacted several years ago, so the scumbag simply assumed this work as his own.
>>
>> See what I mean people? And then you ask me why I do not share any more knowledge!
>>
>> Oh, and that is the ONLY reference, not two books as I claimed earlier.
>>
>> The bastards on Wikipedia deleted my entries because they are not published in book form, but because this anus professor is part of their clique, no problem, suddenly articles are valid references. Who knows, by now talman has probably published a book on this.
>>
>> Vile, dishonest, rotten, incompetent, ignorant, jealous and incorrigibly stupid are mainstream academics!
>

> The only 'reference' is 7 pages long. Unbelievable what scum academics are!

So, 8 pages longer would be better? wow.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

You are the best JG, right? lol. ;^o

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 8/31/2023 8:38 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:

> There is no finite difference of the form (f(x+h)-f(x))/h that will ever give you 3.
>
> Don't believe me? Try to find an example that is not a linear function.


> Jew monkey!

Were you looking in a mirror when you said that out loud? Wow... ;^o

Again, you seem like a wonder to work with. Oh my god. shit... wow.

[markus...@gmail.com]

Let us try this in another way then, John.

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

Say that for some x and h, (f(x+h)-f(x))/h = 4.

Then you could have f'(x) = 3 and Q(x, h) = 1, but you could also have f'(x)=6 and Q(x, h)=-2. You don't know which.

How do we define f' in real mathematics? We say that as h gets small, then Q(x, h) has to be small. So for h=0.001, we might have Q(x, h)=5.9999923. This means that f'(x) is probably 6.

So we have

non-parallel secant line slope = slope of tangent line + difference in slopes.

This has never been the issue. In mainstream math, we say

non-parallel secant line slope = slope of tangent line + difference (or error).

How do we know what the slope of the tangent line is? We know it because if h is small, then the difference in slopes is small:

non-parallel secant line slope = slope of tangent line + small number,

when h is small.

You don't know if you have (f(x+h)-f(x))/h = 3+1 or (f(x+h)-f(x))/h = 6-2.

[markus...@gmail.com]

torsdag 31 augusti 2023 kl. 17:38:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 11:36:08 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:

> There is no finite difference of the form (f(x+h)-f(x))/h that will ever give you 3.
>
> Don't believe me? Try to find an example that is not a linear function. Jew monkey!

"Jew monkey"? When are you going to stop spouting anti-Jewish nonsense online?