One derivative formula - One proof - The historic geometric identity revealed in January 2020.

[Eram semper recta]

The geometric identity which is also a theorem is explained in the following article:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

The new definition is a result of the well-formed concepts in my New Calculus, the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history. What you are about to learn is historic! It has never been realised before. It has never been published anywhere in any form whatsoever and it is almost certain that no other human even came close to realising this knowledge. There is ONE differentiation formula for all functions and the implications are many, but here are just a few:

1. No need to learn limit theory or real analysis and solid proof that the mainstream formulation of calculus is a kludge based on ill-formed concepts. This knowledge reveals without any doubt that limit theory is neither required in calculus, nor is it rigorous. The mainstream calculus was never rigorous.

2. A rigorous and complete geometric derivation that refutes Cauchy’s claim that a derivative cannot be defined by any means other than algebra (*). Cauchy is the main reason that mainstream calculus was never rigorous.

(*) He believed a combination of algebra and limits would be rigorous. He felt that he had to remove algebra by itself as an approach to calculus. You'll see shortly that Cauchy was wrong because algebra is an extension of geometry.

3. Easy to learn using only high school geometry and trigonometry.

4. No need to learn many differentiation rules and techniques. The ONE formula works on any function.

This ingenious idea came to me during my research on how to produce a complete rigorous geometric formulation. Well, the New Calculus is such a formulation, but the most recent revelation is even more primitive in that it could have been realised by my brilliant Ancestors - the Ancient Greeks.

You want to know what is the identity? Study the above article!

[Eram semper recta]

And don't miss the FIX to your broken mainstream formulation of calculus:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y

[Mostowski Collapse]

Did you ever try rice / rum instead of rise / run?

LMAO!

[Me]

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 12:22:07 AM UTC+1, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> Did you ever try rice / rum instead of rise / run?

Or rice / Sake? (Might work too!)

[Python]

Nice post, John! It sums up almost all of your idiotic rant,
fallacies, lies and psychosis. I was a little tired of compiling
multiple posts of yours for my courses. Cheers.

[Dan Christensen]

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 6:18:21 PM UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> The geometric identity which is also a theorem is explained in the following article:
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>

Needs some work, John. Nowhere is there given the necessary and sufficient condition for the existence the derivative of a function at given point. Without that, your system blows up for functions as simple as f(x)=|x|. In this case, you should be able to prove that f'(x) is -1 if x<0, +1 if x>0, and undefined if x=0, as in real-world calculus. Get back to us when you have that sorted out.


Dan

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

[Zelos Malum]

still with your obsession about doodling stuff on papers? grow up!

[Eram semper recta]

Visitors to sci.math (this excludes the local trolls):

Notice that there are ZERO refutations to this new knowledge, only whining and complaints.

There has been a lame attempt to suggest that f'(x) and Q(x,h) can't be realised from the collective sum f'(x)+Q(x,h) - propagated by the chief idiot trolls jean pierre messager and zelos malum.

This is FALSE as they have NOT provided even ONE counter-example and have NOT understood that f'(x)=f2/h and Q(x,h)=f1/h from the geometry.

It is proved in my article that f'(x)=f2/h ONLY contains terms in x because (x,f2) lies on the tangent line which is defined in terms of x ONLY.

OTH: to find f2, one requires both x and h.

[Eram semper recta]

> OTH: to find f2, one requires both x and h (see diagram in article).

Note also that [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f1/h + f2/h

[Dan Christensen]

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 8:46:00 AM UTC-5, Eram semper RECTUM (formerly "John Gabriel" and "Jew Lover") wrote:

>
> Visitors to sci.math (this excludes the local trolls):
>
> Notice that there are ZERO refutations to this new knowledge, only whining and complaints.
>

How does one "refute" gibberish? Until you can present a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of the derivative of a function at a given point in its domain, it is impossible to take you seriously, John.

Whatever you eventually come up with, it should, as a first test, be able to handle simple functions such as f(x)=|x|. Again, in that case, you should be able to prove that f'(x) is -1 if x<0, +1 if x>0 and undefined if x=0.

Think you can do that? If not, now would be a good time to quietly leave sci.math for good. Think how much less stressful your life would be, John.

Dan

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

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, 7 February 2020 09:30:11 UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:

> > Visitors to sci.math (this excludes the local trolls):
> >
> > Notice that there are ZERO refutations to this new knowledge, only whining and complaints.
> >
>

> Until you can present a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of the derivative of a function at a given point in its domain, it is impossible to take you seriously, John.

Poor idiot.

1. When you use the gibberish f'(x)=Lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h, you are ASSUMING a lot of things and also assuming that f'(x) is given because in your verifinition 0<|x-c|<delta => |f(x)-L|<epsilon, f'(x) = L. Do you get this moron?

2. You are ASSUMING that said finite difference quotients [f(x+h_i)-f(x)]/h_i exist because you haven't shown that f(x) is continuous, never mind SMOOTH - both required for differentiability. You assume continuity. HOW DO YOU KNOW MORON, THAT f(x) IS DEFINED OVER THE INTERVAL (x, x+h) ? What if you were trying to find the derivative of 1/(x-1) at x=1? You are ASSUMING that x=1 lies in an interval over which 1/(x-1) is NOT only continuous BUT SMOOTH also. In fact, in this example, you will find a general derivative, that is, -1/(x-1)^2 but there is no derivative at x=1 because a singularity exists there. So you have to still test the general derivative to see if there actually is a tangent line possible at x=1. It's immediate evident that -1/(x-1)^2 is undefined at x=1.

3. Once you verify in your bogus mainstream calculus that left hand lim equals right hand lim, then you have confidence that the function might be continuous at x until you actually check to see if it is defined at x. BUTTT, this says nothing about the differentiability over the entire interval, only at the point x. This is completely unremarkable because all one has to do is find the derivative using your bogus first principles method and then check to see if it is indeed defined at x and then you are done.

"necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of the derivative of a function"

You CANNOT provide this ever. It is a GIVEN. The methods of calculus apply ONLY to SMOOTH functions.

Both the FIX (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y) I provided and The New Calculus (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view) are thousands of years ahead of your bogus mainstream formulation.

These works speak for themselves: a student does not need to study real analysis (a topic heavily flawed and specialising in circular definitions and beliefs), set theory or any other crap.

A high school student with an elementary knowledge of algebra and geometry (trigonometry is part of geometry) can learn calculus in a matter of weeks, not years and usually a lifetime as seen in the case of those few mainstream academics who eventually master the concepts.

This response is NOT for the troll Dan Christensen - it cannot be fixed. It is intended for those who actually know some mathematics.

[Eram semper recta]

[Python]

Demented Crank John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
...

> 1. When you use the gibberish f'(x)=Lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h, you are ASSUMING a lot of things and also assuming that f'(x) is given because in your verifinition 0<|x-c|<delta => |f(x)-L|<epsilon, f'(x) = L. Do you get this moron?

This idiotic claim of yours has been debunked for ages, John.
http://blog.logicalphalluses.net/2017/03/04/math-crankery-with-john-gabriel-cauchys-kludge/

[Dan Christensen]

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 9:53:18 AM UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, 7 February 2020 09:30:11 UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> > > Visitors to sci.math (this excludes the local trolls):
> > >
> > > Notice that there are ZERO refutations to this new knowledge, only whining and complaints.
> > >
> >
> > Until you can present a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of the derivative of a function at a given point in its domain, it is impossible to take you seriously, John.
>
> Poor idiot.
>

> 1. When you use the gibberish f'(x)=Lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h, you are ASSUMING a lot of things and also assuming that f'(x) is given...

Not really. It works like this: If you can determine Lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h for some x in the domain of f, then f'(x) is just that limit. If the limit does not exist, then f'(x) is undefined at x. The existence of this limit is therefore the required necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of the derivative of the function f at x. Get it? Didn't think so. Oh, well...

[snip]

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

"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)
--Oct. 22, 2019


No math genius, our JG!


Interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated December 2019) at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ

[gabriel...@gmail.com]

Everyone who reads that has a good laugh at Dennies Muller. Chuckle. It's a joke. My claim can't be debunked because it is TRUE. In your alternative reality where alternative facts exist, all bets are off I am sorry to say.

You hate it that I am correct because your life is based on falsehoods.

Still waiting for your counter-example crank!

The slope ratios of angle R, that is, f2/h and f1/h, thus depend on x and x + h respectively. Therefore, f1/h will be an expression that contains both x and h, whereas f2/h will only contain x.

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, 7 February 2020 10:07:52 UTC-5, Python wrote:

Savez-vous que le nombre d'abonnés à ma chaîne YT a augmenté de façon exponentielle depuis que le clown Dennis Muller a créé ce site Web avec tout son bavardage sur moi? Beaucoup de ces abonnés sont des professeurs de mathématiques et des étudiants en recherche.

:-))

And now that your imaginary students will be writing articles and creating more web sites purportedly about me, that number will only increase!

[Python]

John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, 7 February 2020 10:07:52 UTC-5, Python wrote:
>> Demented Crank John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
>> ...
>>> 1. When you use the gibberish f'(x)=Lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h, you are ASSUMING a lot of things and also assuming that f'(x) is given because in your verifinition 0<|x-c|<delta => |f(x)-L|<epsilon, f'(x) = L. Do you get this moron?
>>
>> This idiotic claim of yours has been debunked for ages, John.
>> http://blog.logicalphalluses.net/2017/03/04/math-crankery-with-john-gabriel-cauchys-kludge/
>
> Savez-vous que le nombre d'abonnés à ma chaîne YT a augmenté de façon exponentielle depuis que le clown Dennis Muller a créé ce site Web avec tout son bavardage sur moi? Beaucoup de ces abonnés sont des professeurs de mathématiques et des étudiants en recherche.

759 people, mostly ranting idiotic cranks and trolls of your kind, that
is not much, and definitely not exponential given that your stupid
channel existed for several years.

Moreover this is unrelated to the FACT that Muller is right and you're
wrong, John.

[Eram semper recta]

759 subscribers of whom at least 10% are mainstream academics!

>
> Moreover this is unrelated to the FACT that Muller is right and you're
> wrong, John.

It is very much related to the fact that you and Muller are clowns!

Still claiming that "sin x + 2x + h - sin x" IS NOT the same as "2x+h" ???

LMAO.

[Python]

Demented John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Sunday, 9 February 2020 08:43:20 UTC-5, Python wrote:
>> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
>>> On Friday, 7 February 2020 10:07:52 UTC-5, Python wrote:
>>>> Demented Crank John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> 1. When you use the gibberish f'(x)=Lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h, you are ASSUMING a lot of things and also assuming that f'(x) is given because in your verifinition 0<|x-c|<delta => |f(x)-L|<epsilon, f'(x) = L. Do you get this moron?
>>>>
>>>> This idiotic claim of yours has been debunked for ages, John.
>>>> http://blog.logicalphalluses.net/2017/03/04/math-crankery-with-john-gabriel-cauchys-kludge/
>>>
>>> Savez-vous que le nombre d'abonnés à ma chaîne YT a augmenté de façon exponentielle depuis que le clown Dennis Muller a créé ce site Web avec tout son bavardage sur moi? Beaucoup de ces abonnés sont des professeurs de mathématiques et des étudiants en recherche.
>>
>> 759 people, mostly ranting idiotic cranks and trolls of your kind, that
>> is not much, and definitely not exponential given that your stupid
>> channel existed for several years.
>
> 759 subscribers of whom at least 10% are mainstream academics!

Sure, psychologists, psychiatrists, historian of science interested in
history of charlatanism.

>> Moreover this is unrelated to the FACT that Muller is right and you're
>> wrong, John.
>
> It is very much related to the fact that you and Muller are clowns!
>
> Still claiming that "sin x + 2x + h - sin x" IS NOT the same as "2x+h" ???

Here is what brain dead John Gabriel actually claims:

f'(x) = 2x ; Q(x,h) = h
and
f'(x) = sin(x) + 2x ; Q(x,h) = h - sin(x)
are the same.

reference:
> Message-ID: <2c2d2f76-70c6-44b5...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: The New Calculus - the first and only rigorous

> formulation of calculus in human history.

> From: Eram semper recta <thenewc...@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 12:48:47 +0000

> p(x)=sin x, Q(x,h)=2x+h-sin x is the same as:
>
> p(x)=2x, Q(x,h)=h

[gabriel...@gmail.com]

That is a LIE jean pierre messager (full name included so you can be ashamed for the rest of eternity!).

I have no idea where in your psychotic brain you get sin x at all from f(x)=x^2 because on several occasions you were asked to demonstrate this claim and you have yet to come up with anything!

My claim is that [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) and from this it follows that f'(x) = 2x and Q(x,h) = h as PROVED in my article pages 5-8:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

Maybe your bum chum Prof. Gilbert Strang can help you? Just sayin'... LMAO.

[Python]

[gabriel...@gmail.com]

[gabriel...@gmail.com]

[Python]

gabriel...@gmail.com wrote:
...

> My claim is that [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) and from this it
> follows that f'(x) = 2x and Q(x,h) = h as PROVED in my article pages 5-8:

It cannot "follow" as f'(x) = 2x - sin(x) and Q(x,h) = h + sin(x) (for
instance) validate the very same property. End Of Story.

[Python]

gabriel...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 9:12:15 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:

...

>>>> Here is what brain dead John Gabriel actually claims:
>>>>
>>>> f'(x) = 2x ; Q(x,h) = h
>>>> and
>>>> f'(x) = sin(x) + 2x ; Q(x,h) = h - sin(x)
>>>> are the same.
>>>>
>>> That is a LIE
>>
>> > Message-ID: <2c2d2f76-70c6-44b5...@googlegroups.com>
>> > Subject: Re: The New Calculus - the first and only rigorous
>> > formulation of calculus in human history.
>> > From: Eram semper recta <thenewc...@gmail.com>
>> > Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 12:48:47 +0000
>>
>> > p(x)=sin x, Q(x,h)=2x+h-sin x is the same as:
>> >
>> > p(x)=2x, Q(x,h)=h
>
>
> That is a LIE

No, this is a quote. From you, idiot John. Liar John. Hypocrite
stupid crank John.

[gabriel...@gmail.com]

No crank. You still don't get it! Because you are inept at any form of mathematics.

I have pointed out to you crank, that your gibberish f'(x) = 2x - sin(x) and Q(x,h) = h + sin(x) is nonsense.


Like I said, the article proves my theorem. Only a deranged, demented psychopath keeps saying:

f'(x) = 2x - sin(x) and Q(x,h) = h + sin(x) when in fact it is NO different from 2x+h and you haven't demonstrated how to get either f'(x) or Q(x,h) as you pulled out of your arse using f(x)=x^2.

That is how it is. Not your bullshit.

[Python]

gabriel...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 9:18:46 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
>> gabriel...@gmail.com wrote:
>> ...
>>> My claim is that [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) and from this it
>>> follows that f'(x) = 2x and Q(x,h) = h as PROVED in my article pages 5-8:
>>
>> It cannot "follow" as f'(x) = 2x - sin(x) and Q(x,h) = h + sin(x) (for
>> instance) validate the very same property. End Of Story.
>
> No

Yes, sorry but for anyone without the cognitive dissonance of yours,
this is obvious.

> I have pointed out to you crank, that your gibberish f'(x) = 2x - sin(x)
> and Q(x,h) = h + sin(x) is nonsense.

Listen, idiotic crank. If you pretend that a given condition A(p,Q) has
the consequence that p = f' and that you do have a proof of it, then the
proof is necessarily INVALID if another function than f' satisfies it.

THIS IS ELEMENTARY BASIC STUFF, John, come on, stop making a fool of
yourself.

> Like I said, the article proves my theorem.

There is no proof there, it's not even needed to check. Even if I did
so and tried to explain you why.

> f'(x) = 2x - sin(x) and Q(x,h) = h + sin(x) when in fact it is NO different

Again your silly claim, John?
> Message-ID: <2c2d2f76-70c6-44b5...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: The New Calculus - the first and only rigorous

> formulation of calculus in human history.

> From: Eram semper recta <thenewc...@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 12:48:47 +0000

> p(x)=sin x, Q(x,h)=2x+h-sin x is the same as:
>
> p(x)=2x, Q(x,h)=h

> you pulled out of ...

Pulling up is the usual way to find counter example, crank John,
especially when it is as obvious as it is here.

So you can use your alleged proof to wipe the shit out of your
arse, John, it's not good for anything else.

[Dan Christensen]

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 8:58:42 AM UTC-5, Eram semper RECTUM (formerly "John Gabriel" and "Jew Lover") wrote:

> On Sunday, 9 February 2020 08:43:20 UTC-5, Python wrote:

> >
> > 759 people, mostly ranting idiotic cranks and trolls of your kind, that
> > is not much, and definitely not exponential given that your stupid
> > channel existed for several years.
>
> 759 subscribers of whom at least 10% are mainstream academics!
>

Whatever gets you through the night, John.

Say, maybe you can ask them for help formally proving that 2+2=4 or finding the derivative on f(x)=|x|. (Something tells me, they won't be much help. Hee, hee!)


Dan

[Eram semper recta]

On Sunday, 9 February 2020 12:54:50 UTC-5, psycho troll jean pierre messager aka JPM aka YBM aka Python driveled:

> >>> My claim is that [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) and from this it
> >>> follows that f'(x) = 2x and Q(x,h) = h as PROVED in my article pages 5-8:
> >>
> >> It cannot "follow" as f'(x) = 2x - sin(x) and Q(x,h) = h + sin(x) (for
> >> instance) validate the very same property. End Of Story.
> >
> > No
>
> Yes, sorry but for anyone without the cognitive dissonance of yours,
> this is obvious.

No crank. You don't get a pass until I say you do and bad news for you is that you've never had a pass, so things don't look good for you statistically speaking. Chuckle.

Insults and psychotic rants are not arguments.

>
> > I have pointed out to you crank, that your gibberish f'(x) = 2x - sin(x)
> > and Q(x,h) = h + sin(x) is nonsense.
>
> Listen, idiotic crank. If you pretend that a given condition A(p,Q) has
> the consequence that p = f' and that you do have a proof of it, then the
> proof is necessarily INVALID if another function than f' satisfies it.

No moron. It is YOU who should pay attention. Unlike you, there is no pretense in the theorem. If there were any pretense, then it wouldn't be a theorem because wait for it .... theorems are TRUE. There is no assumption made about f'(x) or Q(x,h) in the theorem.

Again moron, study the link although in your case I hold little hope it will penetrate your thick skull:

My claim is that [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) and from this it follows that f'(x) = 2x and Q(x,h) = h as PROVED in my article pages 5-8:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

<drivel>

[Python]

John Garbage, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
...

>>>>> My claim is that [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) and from this it
>>>>> follows that f'(x) = 2x and Q(x,h) = h as PROVED in my article pages 5-8:
>>>>
>>>> It cannot "follow" as f'(x) = 2x - sin(x) and Q(x,h) = h + sin(x) (for
>>>> instance) validate the very same property. End Of Story.
>>>
>>> No
>>
>> Yes, sorry but for anyone without the cognitive dissonance of yours,
>> this is obvious.
>
> No crank. You don't get a pass until I say you do and bad news for you is that you've never had a pass, so things don't look good for you statistically speaking. Chuckle.

A pass to what, cretin? A pass to your psychotic world? No thanks.

> Insults and psychotic rants are not arguments.

These are 100% or your work nevertheless.

>>> I have pointed out to you crank, that your gibberish f'(x) = 2x - sin(x)
>>> and Q(x,h) = h + sin(x) is nonsense.
>>
>> Listen, idiotic crank. If you pretend that a given condition A(p,Q) has
>> the consequence that p = f' and that you do have a proof of it, then the
>> proof is necessarily INVALID if another function than f' satisfies it.
>
> No

Oh, just ask around you, idiotic crank John.

> It is YOU who should pay attention. Unlike you, there is no pretense in the theorem. If there were any pretense, then it wouldn't be a theorem because wait for it .... theorems are TRUE.

Well, here is another theorem as significant as yours then...

for every function f:R->R, \exists g:x->f(x)-x i.e. g(x) = f(x) - x
defines another function of x.

True? Sure. A theorem? You may want to call it so, but in any case, like
your silly claims, it is void of any kind of significance.

You'd better prepare for the trial, Archi Poo is about to sue your to
have "stolen" his idea. I had no doubt you both great minds would meet
once :-)

[Eram semper recta]

That is just desperate drivel emanating from your brain. Its irrelevance is known by all except your birdbrain.

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 6 February 2020 18:18:21 UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> The geometric identity which is also a theorem is explained in the following article:
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> The new definition is a result of the well-formed concepts in my New Calculus, the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history. What you are about to learn is historic! It has never been realised before. It has never been published anywhere in any form whatsoever and it is almost certain that no other human even came close to realising this knowledge. There is ONE differentiation formula for all functions and the implications are many, but here are just a few:
>
> 1. No need to learn limit theory or real analysis and solid proof that the mainstream formulation of calculus is a kludge based on ill-formed concepts. This knowledge reveals without any doubt that limit theory is neither required in calculus, nor is it rigorous. The mainstream calculus was never rigorous.
>
> 2. A rigorous and complete geometric derivation that refutes Cauchy’s claim that a derivative cannot be defined by any means other than algebra (*). Cauchy is the main reason that mainstream calculus was never rigorous.
>
> (*) He believed a combination of algebra and limits would be rigorous. He felt that he had to remove algebra by itself as an approach to calculus. You'll see shortly that Cauchy was wrong because algebra is an extension of geometry.
>
> 3. Easy to learn using only high school geometry and trigonometry.
>
> 4. No need to learn many differentiation rules and techniques. The ONE formula works on any function.
>
> This ingenious idea came to me during my research on how to produce a complete rigorous geometric formulation. Well, the New Calculus is such a formulation, but the most recent revelation is even more primitive in that it could have been realised by my brilliant Ancestors - the Ancient Greeks.
>
> You want to know what is the identity? Study the above article!

What is really pathetic is a mainstream academic claiming that:

"sin x + 2x + h - sin x" is NOT the same as "2x + h".

My new theorem is HISTORIC. It is the FIRST true geometric ONLY derivation of a general derivative formula.

All one needs is f(x) and x. Any h will do and the identity produces f'(x) and Q(x,h) in an elegant, simple and ingenious way.

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

Your French abortion f'(x)= lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h and the stupidity of cauchy is forever revealed.

How I the great John Gabriel did it:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

How I produced a FIX for your bogus mainstream formulation of calculus:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y

Eat your heart out moron!

[Zelos Malum]

You complain about zero refutation yet you couldn't even come with anything against real number constructions.

[Eram semper recta]

Off-topic. I have had this discussion with you and your fundamentalist beliefs are an obstacle which prevent you from understanding:

A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR MAGNITUDE.

MATHEMATICS **IS** ABOUT MEASURE AND NUMBER.

You can't just make up stupid definitions and claim they are valid when the foundations are absent. What is a "set"? Chuckle.

Back on Topic:


The theorem tells us which part is f'(x) and which part is Q(x,h). Study pages 5 - 8 and become wise!

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

Your continual refusal to admit you are wrong in such a simple case speaks volumes about your level of intelligence, dishonesty and jealousy.

[Dan Christensen]

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 8:04:04 AM UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:

>
> A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR MAGNITUDE.
>

Can you use this "definition" of yours to prove even the simplest thing, say that 2+2=4?

NO??? Back to the drawing board, John!

[Zelos Malum]

>Off-topic. I have had this discussion with you and your fundamentalist beliefs are an obstacle which prevent you from understanding

This comes from you whom refuses to understand basic things even when texts from the books demonstrate you are wrong on definitions!

>A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE ****MEASURE**** OF A SIZE OR MAGNITUDE

That is your pet idea, not something in mathematics.

>MATHEMATICS **IS** ABOUT MEASURE AND NUMBER.

That is your idiotic idea, not mathematics.

>You can't just make up stupid definitions and claim they are valid when the foundations are absent. What is a "set"? Chuckle

Objects in ZFC :) I have told you this.

[Eram semper recta]

No use arguing with a moron...

Back on topic:

The theorem tells us which part is f'(x) and which part is Q(x,h). Study pages 5 - 8 and become wise!

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

Your continual refusal to admit you are wrong in such a simple case speaks volumes about your level of intelligence, dishonesty and jealousy.

Are you still claiming your bullshit refutation holds Malum? Chuckle.

[Zelos Malum]

Yepp because we have shown the issues with all your stuff, you just refuse to listen.

[Eram semper recta]

See, this is why no one can take you seriously. You have been shown to be wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence but you refuse to admit you are wrong. Big crank red flag!

[Zelos Malum]

This comes from you, when people show you books and all showing you're wrong and yet you refuse to correct.

[Eram semper recta]

Idiot. I refuted you. All you're doing is saying "Nah Uh". I fucking PROVED to you, (you pathetic cunt!), that you cannot choose p(x) and that the theorem gives you f'(x) and Q(x,h).

Save your whining and bullshit about everything else because it does not convince anyone as you may think.

The one general derivative formula replaces your epsilon-delta bullshit which by the way, I knew about long before your whore mother belched you out.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 4:04:21 PM UTC-8, Python wrote:

> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Thursday, 6 February 2020 18:18:21 UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >> The geometric identity which is also a theorem is explained in the following article:
> >>
> >> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> >>
> >> The new definition is a result of the well-formed concepts in my New Calculus, the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history. What you are about to learn is historic! It has never been realised before. It has never been published anywhere in any form whatsoever and it is almost certain that no other human even came close to realising this knowledge. There is ONE differentiation formula for all functions and the implications are many, but here are just a few:
> >>
> >> 1. No need to learn limit theory or real analysis and solid proof that the mainstream formulation of calculus is a kludge based on ill-formed concepts. This knowledge reveals without any doubt that limit theory is neither required in calculus, nor is it rigorous. The mainstream calculus was never rigorous.
> >>
> >> 2. A rigorous and complete geometric derivation that refutes Cauchy’s claim that a derivative cannot be defined by any means other than algebra (*). Cauchy is the main reason that mainstream calculus was never rigorous.
> >>
> >> (*) He believed a combination of algebra and limits would be rigorous. He felt that he had to remove algebra by itself as an approach to calculus. You'll see shortly that Cauchy was wrong because algebra is an extension of geometry.
> >>
> >> 3. Easy to learn using only high school geometry and trigonometry.
> >>
> >> 4. No need to learn many differentiation rules and techniques. The ONE formula works on any function.
> >>
> >> This ingenious idea came to me during my research on how to produce a complete rigorous geometric formulation. Well, the New Calculus is such a formulation, but the most recent revelation is even more primitive in that it could have been realised by my brilliant Ancestors - the Ancient Greeks.
> >>
> >> You want to know what is the identity? Study the above article!
> >

> > And don't miss the FIX to your broken mainstream formulation of calculus:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
>
> Nice post, John! It sums up almost all of your idiotic rant,
> fallacies, lies and psychosis. I was a little tired of compiling
> multiple posts of yours for my courses. Cheers.

Take half of Newton and half of Leibniz,
a bit of finite differences and a twist
on a contour integral, paint "Cadylak" on it,
roll it in hate and dump it off the overpass.

It's a recipe for a dead end.

[Sergio]

John does dumpster math.

[Eram semper recta]

You poor repressed and closeted homosexual. Tsk, tsk.

Your long rants are boring and void. Can you find fault in my work?

NO. So shut the fuck up Fingayson. You are insignificant and of no consequence.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

What's funny though is that line-drawing makes another
model of a continuous domain, or "reals", "real numbers",
as after the complete ordered field, then also for a
signal continuity as for the rationals altogether "almost"
being continuous and doubling them being a continuous
signal domain, that there are at least three models of
continuous domains (and in foundations):
line continuity
field continuity
signal continuity.

Quite all of "standard", "modern" mathematics is stood up
with just the one, field continuity, as it suffices for
formalizing all the real analysis that it does, then that
after Vitali and Hausdorff, for measure theory and dynamical
measure theory, many of the notions of Newton, Leibniz,
Peano, Veronese, Stolz, Brouwer for infinitesimals and
about a continuum of real numbers and continua, that
a richer, fuller (and, better) mathematics is arrived at
with formalizing and for foundations that Eudoxus/Cauchy/Dedekind
"field continuity" is not the only means of arriving at
continuous domains, and indeed that line continuity and
signal continuity and then the transfer in results among
these domains, makes for a more complete mathematics.

Nobody told me about these though and I had to
formalize them myself.


TL;DR: "too long, can't read".

[Ross A. Finlayson]

"Give me the tangent, I gave you the derivative", is wrong.

After some numerical methods of Newton Coates,
the JG-bot ("Chinese infinite foul toot") was
rebooted with another howler, about rise/run,
then started 2020 with yet another (incompatible,
inonsequential) howler twisting a bit of finite
differences and a riddle about a contour integral,
with usually enough stealing bits of Newton's development
and not finishing and stealing bits of Leibniz' and
not finishing and mashing them together and raising
the mess of glue and broken glass and pigeon feathers
to the alley-way dumpster line that once or twice a
year is lit by a ray from the foggy sun, that the
cropojective howler troll howls its howl.

It's kind of like a primitive medicine mystic,
but, mostly just a rude crazy nut. (The troll, or bot.)

What will it reboot next? Probably it will have to
be deconstructed, placed in context, and otherwise
cleared up so that its (mathematical) flaws are laid
open then that the howler's de-fanged.

(And mind those monkeys, they sure do bite.)

[Dan Christensen]

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 8:11:03 AM UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 February 2020 18:18:21 UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > The geometric identity which is also a theorem is explained in the following article:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> >
> > The new definition is a result of the well-formed concepts in my New Calculus, the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history. What you are about to learn is historic! It has never been realised before. It has never been published anywhere in any form whatsoever and it is almost certain that no other human even came close to realising this knowledge. There is ONE differentiation formula for all functions and the implications are many, but here are just a few:
> >
> > 1. No need to learn limit theory or real analysis and solid proof that the mainstream formulation of calculus is a kludge based on ill-formed concepts. This knowledge reveals without any doubt that limit theory is neither required in calculus, nor is it rigorous. The mainstream calculus was never rigorous.
> >
> > 2. A rigorous and complete geometric derivation that refutes Cauchy’s claim that a derivative cannot be defined by any means other than algebra (*). Cauchy is the main reason that mainstream calculus was never rigorous.
> >
> > (*) He believed a combination of algebra and limits would be rigorous. He felt that he had to remove algebra by itself as an approach to calculus. You'll see shortly that Cauchy was wrong because algebra is an extension of geometry.
> >
> > 3. Easy to learn using only high school geometry and trigonometry.
> >
> > 4. No need to learn many differentiation rules and techniques. The ONE formula works on any function.
> >
> > This ingenious idea came to me during my research on how to produce a complete rigorous geometric formulation. Well, the New Calculus is such a formulation, but the most recent revelation is even more primitive in that it could have been realised by my brilliant Ancestors - the Ancient Greeks.
> >
> > You want to know what is the identity? Study the above article!
>

It STILL needs some work, John. Nowhere is there given the necessary and sufficient condition for the existence the derivative of a function at given point. Without that, your system blows up for functions as simple as f(x)=|x|. In this case, you should be able to prove that f'(x) is -1 if x<0, +1 if x>0, and undefined if x=0, as in real-world calculus. Get back to us when you have that sorted out.

[Eram semper recta]

Give me the tangent line and I'll give you f'(x) and Q(x,h) is CORRECT, you idiot!

When you say f'(x)=lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h, you are saying much, much more than just "give a tangent and I'll give you...", fucking moron!

You are assuming a lot of things: continuity, smoothness and defined at x on the interval (x-h, x+h).

Stupid fuck is what you are Fingayson.

<gay monkey scat>

[Python]

Pathetic John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:

> Give me the tangent line and I'll give you f'(x)

In other words: "give me f' and I give you f'"

Impressive!

[Dan Christensen]

You have it backwards. You get the tangent line FROM the derivative. No wonder your "system" is so messed up!

> When you say f'(x)=lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h, you are saying much, much more than just "give a tangent and I'll give you...", fucking moron!
>

You are not saying that at all. Again, you have it backwards.

> You are assuming a lot of things: continuity, smoothness and defined at x on the interval (x-h, x+h).
>

Wrong again, John. Unlike your wonky "definition," the real definition can handle discontinuities and non-smoothness at any point in the domain of the function in question. Using the real definition, we can, for example, obtain the derivative of the function f(x)=|x|. In this case, f'(x) is -1 if x<0, +1 if x>0 and undefined only if x=0. This is impossible in your "system." Fix it or scrap it.

[Sergio]

...more dumpster math...

where did you get "signal continuity" from ?

[Eram semper recta]

On Sunday, 16 February 2020 08:52:52 UTC-5, Psychopath jean pierre messager aka JPM aka YBM aka Python wrote:

>
> > Give me the tangent line and I'll give you f'(x)
>
> In other words: "give me f' and I give you f'"

Yes idiot. You finally got it. Isn't this what you do when you use

Lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h ??

You can't help it that you are so stupid and a psychopath as well eh?

You SAY:

"Give me f and I give you Lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h"

I SAY:

"Give me f and I give you f'(x)"

No limit bullshit, no ill-formed concepts, no crap. Period.

[Python]

Mentally ill John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
...

>>> Give me the tangent line and I'll give you f'(x)
>>
>> In other words: "give me f' and I give you f'"
>
> Yes

So it is absolutely useless.

> Isn't this what you do when you use
>
> Lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h ??

Not at all: it's providing f' from f.

> You SAY:
>
> "Give me f and I give you Lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h"
>
> I SAY:
>
> "Give me f and I give you f'(x)"

Exactly and it works. Quite the contrary of your bullshit about
getting f' from ... f'.

You're not going well these days, are you John?

[Dan Christensen]

Ooops! Missed this one...

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 9:53:18 AM UTC-5, Eram semper RECTUM (formerly "John Gabriel" and "Jew Lover" wrote:

> On Friday, 7 February 2020 09:30:11 UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> > > Visitors to sci.math (this excludes the local trolls):
> > >
> > > Notice that there are ZERO refutations to this new knowledge, only whining and complaints.
> > >
> >

> > Until you can present a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of the derivative of a function at a given point in its domain, it is impossible to take you seriously, John.
>
> Poor idiot.
>
> 1. When you use the gibberish f'(x)=Lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h, you are ASSUMING a lot of things and also assuming that f'(x) is given because in your verifinition 0<|x-c|<delta => |f(x)-L|<epsilon, f'(x) = L. Do you get this moron?

Wrong again, John. f'(x) is NOT given. It is derived using the rules of algebra and various limit theorems.

>
> 2. You are ASSUMING that said finite difference quotients [f(x+h_i)-f(x)]/h_i exist because you haven't shown that f(x) is continuous, never mind SMOOTH - both required for differentiability.

[snip]

Unlike your goofy little system, real-world calculus can handle discontinuous or non-smooth functions, e.g. f(x)=|x|. Your wonky definition blows up in this case. One reason you can't handle it is that you have not established the necessary and sufficient condition(s) for the existence of the derivative at a point.

Fix it or scrap it, John!


>
> 3. Once you verify in your bogus mainstream calculus that left hand lim equals right hand lim,

This is the case with f(x)=|x|. Since the left and right-hand limits differ at x=0, the limit and therefore the derivative does not exist there. It is, of course, defined everywhere else since the limit IS defined everywhere else.

[snip]

>
> "necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of the derivative of a function"
>
> You CANNOT provide this ever.

Liar. It is given by the usual definition, your hated lim(h-->0):(f(x+h) - f(x))/h. If it exists, that limit is the value of the derivative at x. If it does not exist there (e.g. if the left and right limits differ or f is discontinuous there), then neither does the derivative exist there.

[Eram semper recta]

On Sunday, 16 February 2020 16:44:02 UTC-5,Loser jean pierre messager aka Python wrote:

> >>
> >> In other words: "give me f' and I give you f'"
> >
> > Yes
>

> So I am absolutely useless.

You are absolutely useless. Yes.

>
> > Isn't this what you do when you use
> >
> > Lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h ??
>
> Not at all: it's providing f' from f.

Moron: You use the above bullshit in a delusional process called the first principles method and you are GIVEN f, you fucking idiot.

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 6 February 2020 18:18:21 UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> The geometric identity which is also a theorem is explained in the following article:
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> The new definition is a result of the well-formed concepts in my New Calculus, the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history. What you are about to learn is historic! It has never been realised before. It has never been published anywhere in any form whatsoever and it is almost certain that no other human even came close to realising this knowledge. There is ONE differentiation formula for all functions and the implications are many, but here are just a few:
>
> 1. No need to learn limit theory or real analysis and solid proof that the mainstream formulation of calculus is a kludge based on ill-formed concepts. This knowledge reveals without any doubt that limit theory is neither required in calculus, nor is it rigorous. The mainstream calculus was never rigorous.
>
> 2. A rigorous and complete geometric derivation that refutes Cauchy’s claim that a derivative cannot be defined by any means other than algebra (*). Cauchy is the main reason that mainstream calculus was never rigorous.
>
> (*) He believed a combination of algebra and limits would be rigorous. He felt that he had to remove algebra by itself as an approach to calculus. You'll see shortly that Cauchy was wrong because algebra is an extension of geometry.
>
> 3. Easy to learn using only high school geometry and trigonometry.
>
> 4. No need to learn many differentiation rules and techniques. The ONE formula works on any function.
>
> This ingenious idea came to me during my research on how to produce a complete rigorous geometric formulation. Well, the New Calculus is such a formulation, but the most recent revelation is even more primitive in that it could have been realised by my brilliant Ancestors - the Ancient Greeks.
>
> You want to know what is the identity? Study the above article!

What is truly astounding is the stupidity of those who comment here on this newsgroup (a prize idiot called jean pierre messager aka Python and his sidekick Zelos malum).

You can't refute a theorem, you incorrigible morons! A theorem is TRUE.

[Dan Christensen]

You can refute a theorem by, among other things, presenting a count-example to what it claims. You claim your method works for EVERY function, but it does NOT work for f(x)=|x|. It is a trivial matter in calculus to prove that, in this case, f'(x) is -1 if x<0, +1 if x>0, and undefined if x=0. It seems, however, to be impossible in your "system."

You can fix it or scrap it, John. Which will it be?

[Eram semper recta]

On Sunday, 16 February 2020 22:24:47 UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 7:00:22 PM UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Thursday, 6 February 2020 18:18:21 UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > The geometric identity which is also a theorem is explained in the following article:
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> > >
> > > The new definition is a result of the well-formed concepts in my New Calculus, the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history. What you are about to learn is historic! It has never been realised before. It has never been published anywhere in any form whatsoever and it is almost certain that no other human even came close to realising this knowledge. There is ONE differentiation formula for all functions and the implications are many, but here are just a few:
> > >
> > > 1. No need to learn limit theory or real analysis and solid proof that the mainstream formulation of calculus is a kludge based on ill-formed concepts. This knowledge reveals without any doubt that limit theory is neither required in calculus, nor is it rigorous. The mainstream calculus was never rigorous.
> > >
> > > 2. A rigorous and complete geometric derivation that refutes Cauchy’s claim that a derivative cannot be defined by any means other than algebra (*). Cauchy is the main reason that mainstream calculus was never rigorous.
> > >
> > > (*) He believed a combination of algebra and limits would be rigorous. He felt that he had to remove algebra by itself as an approach to calculus. You'll see shortly that Cauchy was wrong because algebra is an extension of geometry.
> > >
> > > 3. Easy to learn using only high school geometry and trigonometry.
> > >
> > > 4. No need to learn many differentiation rules and techniques. The ONE formula works on any function.
> > >
> > > This ingenious idea came to me during my research on how to produce a complete rigorous geometric formulation. Well, the New Calculus is such a formulation, but the most recent revelation is even more primitive in that it could have been realised by my brilliant Ancestors - the Ancient Greeks.
> > >
> > > You want to know what is the identity? Study the above article!
> >
> > What is truly astounding is the stupidity of those who comment here on this newsgroup (a prize idiot called jean pierre messager aka Python and his sidekick Zelos malum).
> >
> > You can't refute a theorem
>
> You can refute a theorem by, among other things, presenting a count-example to what it claims.

Right. And so far you haven't come close to a counter-example.

> You claim your method works for EVERY function, but it does NOT work for f(x)=|x|.

It does! You are simply too stupid to do it.

An intelligent person knows how to do it.

You've made similar claims in the past and I proved you wrong. And the examples were simple that you couldn't manage on your own.

f(x)=sqrt(x^2)

Now use the theorem with this to see how it works. Do your homework!

[Dan Christensen]

On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 8:31:45 AM UTC-5, Eram semper RECTUM (formerly "John Gabriel" and "Jew Love") wrote:
> On Sunday, 16 February 2020 22:24:47 UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:

> > >
> > > You can't refute a theorem
> >
> > You can refute a theorem by, among other things, presenting a count-example to what it claims.
>
> Right. And so far you haven't come close to a counter-example.
>

STILL in denial, I see.

> > You claim your method works for EVERY function, but it does NOT work for f(x)=|x|.
>
> It does!
>

Liar.

We are STILL waiting for your proof, John. No, I won't hold my breath.

[Python]

Le 17/02/2020 à 15:57, Dan Christensen a écrit :
> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 8:31:45 AM UTC-5, Eram semper RECTUM (formerly "John Gabriel" and "Jew Love") wrote:
>> On Sunday, 16 February 2020 22:24:47 UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:

...

>>> You claim your method works for EVERY function, but it does NOT work for f(x)=|x|.
>>
>> It does!
>>
>
> Liar.
>
> We are STILL waiting for your proof, John. No, I won't hold my breath.

The kook should be quite busy at that time, likely he is writing a paper
for the cranky vixra Web site about how to get f' from f' or about
to publish a astounding geometrical proof that a function of two
variables x,h minus a function of x is a function of x,h.

[gabriel...@gmail.com]

The liar is YOU.


I am still waiting for you to produce a counter-example where a specific f(x) will produce a different f'(x).

Cranks like you are so laughable! Do you see anyone who knows anything about mathematics trying to refute my argument? NO. Know why? Because they KNOW I am RIGHT.

Choke on a ballsack jean.

[gabriel...@gmail.com]

On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 9:58:06 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 8:31:45 AM UTC-5, Eram semper RECTUM (formerly "John Gabriel" and "Jew Love") wrote:
> > On Sunday, 16 February 2020 22:24:47 UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > You can't refute a theorem
> > >
> > > You can refute a theorem by, among other things, presenting a count-example to what it claims.
> >
> > Right. And so far you haven't come close to a counter-example.
> >
>
> STILL in denial, I see.
>
>
> > > You claim your method works for EVERY function, but it does NOT work for f(x)=|x|.
> >
> > It does!
> >
>
> Liar.
>
> We are STILL waiting for your proof, John. No, I won't hold my breath.
>

The theorem is proved for ALL functions, you incorrigible troll!

Do you understand what this means???!!?! Idiot!!!

[Dan Christensen]

Nope. Not for f(x)=|x|. You are soooooo busted, Troll Boy. (Hee, hee!)

[Sergio]

prove it by showing your steps using your math on this function;


f(x) = sin(x^2)/ln(x-7)

[Sergio]

On 2/9/2020 3:35 PM, Python wrote:

> John Garbage, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> ...

>>>>>> My claim is that  [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)  and from this it
>>>>>> follows that f'(x) = 2x and Q(x,h) = h as PROVED in my article
>>>>>> pages 5-8:
>>>>>
>>>>> It cannot "follow" as f'(x) = 2x - sin(x) and Q(x,h) = h + sin(x) (for
>>>>> instance) validate the very same property. End Of Story.
>>>>
>>>> No
>>>
>>> Yes, sorry but for anyone without the cognitive dissonance of yours,
>>> this is obvious.
>>
>> No crank. You don't get a pass until I say you do and bad news for you
>> is that you've never had a pass, so things don't look good for you
>> statistically speaking. Chuckle.
>
> A pass to what, cretin? A pass to your psychotic world? No thanks.
>
>> Insults and psychotic rants are not arguments.
>
> These are 100% or your work nevertheless.
>
>>>> I have pointed out to you crank, that  your gibberish f'(x) = 2x -
>>>> sin(x)
>>>> and Q(x,h) = h + sin(x)  is nonsense.
>>>
>>> Listen, idiotic crank. If you pretend that a given condition A(p,Q) has
>>> the consequence that p = f' and that you do have a proof of it, then the
>>> proof is necessarily INVALID if another function than f' satisfies it.
>>
>> No
>
> Oh, just ask around you, idiotic crank John.
>
>> It is YOU who should pay attention. Unlike you, there is no pretense
>> in the theorem. If there were any pretense, then it wouldn't be a
>> theorem because wait for it .... theorems are TRUE.
>
> Well, here is another theorem as significant as yours then...
>
> for every function f:R->R, \exists g:x->f(x)-x i.e. g(x) = f(x) - x
> defines another function of x.
>
> True? Sure. A theorem? You may want to call it so, but in any case, like
> your silly claims, it is void of any kind of significance.
>
> You'd better prepare for the trial, Archi Poo is about to sue your to
> have "stolen" his idea. I had no doubt you both great minds would meet
> once :-)
>

Lawsuit !! good for you AP, finally an end to JG stealing your IP.


JG can explain to the Judge and Jury how his math replaces modern math
and all the corruption...

and AP can outline and fully describe his IP....

[FromTheRafters]

Gonna need expert witnesses to verify the correctness of the math. Is
BKK available? Wonder.

[Zelos Malum]

>Idiot. I refuted you

You wish, you have never refuted me.

>All you're doing is saying "Nah Uh"

Projection again.

>I fucking PROVED to you, (you pathetic cunt!), that you cannot choose p(x) and that the theorem gives you f'(x) and Q(x,h).

You have yet to show a method to limit p so it is unique which is needed to declare it f'

[Eram semper recta]

Idiot. I am done educating you. In the link below, one of your compatriots agrees with me:

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/thenewcalculus_never-in-the-history-of-mathematics-was-there-activity-6635214490436804609-UZJ0

Prof. Natalia Karlsson has a PhD in mathematics. Chuckle. I suppose she can't be that good eh? You poor stupid son of a bitch!

[Python]

John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
...

> Idiot. I am done educating you. In the link below, one of your compatriots agrees with me:
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/thenewcalculus_never-in-the-history-of-mathematics-was-there-activity-6635214490436804609-UZJ0
>
> Prof. Natalia Karlsson has a PhD in mathematics.

She probably kept her phone in her pocket, it was a butt "like",
or maybe she was drunk :-D

[Sergio]

On 2/9/2020 8:23 AM, Python wrote:
> gabriel...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 9:12:15 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> ...
>>>>> Here is what brain dead John Gabriel actually claims:
>>>>>
>>>>>         f'(x) = 2x ; Q(x,h) = h
>>>>>         and
>>>>>         f'(x) = sin(x) + 2x ; Q(x,h) = h - sin(x)
>>>>>         are the same.
>>>>>
>>>> That is a LIE
>>>
>>>   > Message-ID: <2c2d2f76-70c6-44b5...@googlegroups.com>
>>>   > Subject: Re: The New Calculus - the first and only rigorous

>>>   > formulation of calculus in human history.

>>>   > From: Eram semper recta <thenewc...@gmail.com>
>>>   > Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 12:48:47 +0000
>>>
>>>   > p(x)=sin x, Q(x,h)=2x+h-sin x  is the same as:
>>>   >
>>>   > p(x)=2x, Q(x,h)=h
>>
>>
>> That is a LIE
>
> No, this is a quote. From you, idiot John. Liar John. Hypocrite
> stupid crank John.
>
>
>
>

at least he can still post.

Soon, JG's advancing degeneration will cause 0 posts.

his fingers will swell up into huge Pods, like on Frogs

his remaining mind will wonder why Q(x,h) ??

As Mr Rectum + Mr Chuckle regress back into the dark continent....


years from now, we will be able to use "google search" to re-read JG's
posts in these newsgroups, after his final sequester.

[Eram semper recta]

Well, that just tells us that even her butt is smarter than you!

Poor mentally ill jean pierre messager.... Tsk, tsk.

[Dan Christensen]

Yeah, since I have found a counter-example, it means you made a COLOSSAL blunder. Fix it or scrap, John. Those are you only options at this point.

Dan

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

PS: I may be offline for several days starting some time this week, and may not be able to reply for a while.

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 6 February 2020 18:18:21 UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> The geometric identity which is also a theorem is explained in the following article:
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> The new definition is a result of the well-formed concepts in my New Calculus, the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history. What you are about to learn is historic! It has never been realised before. It has never been published anywhere in any form whatsoever and it is almost certain that no other human even came close to realising this knowledge. There is ONE differentiation formula for all functions and the implications are many, but here are just a few:
>
> 1. No need to learn limit theory or real analysis and solid proof that the mainstream formulation of calculus is a kludge based on ill-formed concepts. This knowledge reveals without any doubt that limit theory is neither required in calculus, nor is it rigorous. The mainstream calculus was never rigorous.
>
> 2. A rigorous and complete geometric derivation that refutes Cauchy’s claim that a derivative cannot be defined by any means other than algebra (*). Cauchy is the main reason that mainstream calculus was never rigorous.
>
> (*) He believed a combination of algebra and limits would be rigorous. He felt that he had to remove algebra by itself as an approach to calculus. You'll see shortly that Cauchy was wrong because algebra is an extension of geometry.
>
> 3. Easy to learn using only high school geometry and trigonometry.
>
> 4. No need to learn many differentiation rules and techniques. The ONE formula works on any function.
>
> This ingenious idea came to me during my research on how to produce a complete rigorous geometric formulation. Well, the New Calculus is such a formulation, but the most recent revelation is even more primitive in that it could have been realised by my brilliant Ancestors - the Ancient Greeks.
>
> You want to know what is the identity? Study the above article!

As you can all see, my theorem is beautiful, elegant and simple all at once.

No one before me had the intellectual ability to realise this knowledge. So this makes it a very big deal.

Being the kind and generous man that I am, I shared it with the world. But there is much, much more that I have never shared with anyone and chances are I won't.

Sound knowledge is based on well-formed concepts.

[Zelos Malum]

>Idiot. I am done educating you

You've never educated me. For that you'd need to be more educated, which you are not :)

[Eram semper recta]

On Wednesday, 19 February 2020 01:32:22 UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:
> >Idiot. I am done educating you
>
> You've never educated me. For that you'd need to be more educated, which you are not :)

See a psychiatrist soon!

[Zelos Malum]

Why? You're the one that is mentally ill, narcissism amongst many things.

[Eram semper recta]

Stupid Swede cunt, I have no interest in your drivel.

What part of "FUCK OFF AND DON'T SPEW YOUR SHIT IN MY THREADS" do you not understand. You have a lower IQ than a snail.

Jealousy is the most stinky cologne and you are pathologically jealous of me.

[Zelos Malum]

I will stop posting, the moment you stpo :) I won't let your idiocy go unchallanged and I will show you wrong everywhere I can.

[Eram semper recta]

Never going to happen you delusional idiot!

> I won't let my idiocy go unchallanged and I will show how wrong I am everywhere I can.

You're doing a great job! After all, if there is no incorrigible idiot for me to correct, universities will continue rolling out more idiots like you - a disease that spreads faster than the coronavirus.

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 6 February 2020 18:18:21 UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> The geometric identity which is also a theorem is explained in the following article:
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> The new definition is a result of the well-formed concepts in my New Calculus, the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history. What you are about to learn is historic! It has never been realised before. It has never been published anywhere in any form whatsoever and it is almost certain that no other human even came close to realising this knowledge. There is ONE differentiation formula for all functions and the implications are many, but here are just a few:
>
> 1. No need to learn limit theory or real analysis and solid proof that the mainstream formulation of calculus is a kludge based on ill-formed concepts. This knowledge reveals without any doubt that limit theory is neither required in calculus, nor is it rigorous. The mainstream calculus was never rigorous.
>
> 2. A rigorous and complete geometric derivation that refutes Cauchy’s claim that a derivative cannot be defined by any means other than algebra (*). Cauchy is the main reason that mainstream calculus was never rigorous.
>
> (*) He believed a combination of algebra and limits would be rigorous. He felt that he had to remove algebra by itself as an approach to calculus. You'll see shortly that Cauchy was wrong because algebra is an extension of geometry.
>
> 3. Easy to learn using only high school geometry and trigonometry.
>
> 4. No need to learn many differentiation rules and techniques. The ONE formula works on any function.
>
> This ingenious idea came to me during my research on how to produce a complete rigorous geometric formulation. Well, the New Calculus is such a formulation, but the most recent revelation is even more primitive in that it could have been realised by my brilliant Ancestors - the Ancient Greeks.
>
> You want to know what is the identity? Study the above article!

I am still waiting for your counter-example. Chuckle.


Please show me how you get f'(x)=sin(x) and Q(x,h)=2x+h-sin(x) from f(x)=x^2.

i. Firstly the theorem tells us that EVERY term in Q(x,h) must have a factor of h. Oh, 1 or h/h does not count as a factor I am afraid to say. Hmm, seems you missed this eh psycho moron?

ii. Secondly, the theorem tells us that f'(x) can contain only terms in x. Hmm, seems you missed this eh psycho moron?

iii. Thirdly, the slope function produces a UNIQUE sum f'(x)+Q(x,h). What this means is that you don't get to choose what f'(x) or Q(x,h) looks like. We'll ignore the fact that you actually thought in your diseased brain that one could obtain a sum that is a different. You see idiot, sin(x)+2x+h-sin(x) is no different to 2x+h, notwithstanding the fact that there is no possible way to get sin(x) in that sum at all. I'm afraid that adding ZERO (sin(x)-sin(x)) has no effect on the sum, because wait for it moron ... zero is not actually a number! LMAO. Adding zero is bullshit that you are taught in your mainstream mythmatics. There is no sort of nonsense like this in real mathematics. Hmm, seems you missed this eh psycho moron?


These responses are NOT for a psychotic piece of shit like you. Rather to make the naive think twice before they fall for your poisonous libel and drivel.

[Zelos Malum]

>Never going to happen you delusional idiot!

I know, your ego won't allow you.

>You're doing a great job! After all, if there is no incorrigible idiot for me to correct, universities will continue rolling out more idiots like you - a disease that spreads faster than the coronavirus

As always you're dishonest and change quotes, no wonder you accuse all others of being dishonest when you are it constantly.

[Eram semper recta]

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 6 February 2020 18:18:21 UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> The geometric identity which is also a theorem is explained in the following article:
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> The new definition is a result of the well-formed concepts in my New Calculus, the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history. What you are about to learn is historic! It has never been realised before. It has never been published anywhere in any form whatsoever and it is almost certain that no other human even came close to realising this knowledge. There is ONE differentiation formula for all functions and the implications are many, but here are just a few:
>
> 1. No need to learn limit theory or real analysis and solid proof that the mainstream formulation of calculus is a kludge based on ill-formed concepts. This knowledge reveals without any doubt that limit theory is neither required in calculus, nor is it rigorous. The mainstream calculus was never rigorous.
>
> 2. A rigorous and complete geometric derivation that refutes Cauchy’s claim that a derivative cannot be defined by any means other than algebra (*). Cauchy is the main reason that mainstream calculus was never rigorous.
>
> (*) He believed a combination of algebra and limits would be rigorous. He felt that he had to remove algebra by itself as an approach to calculus. You'll see shortly that Cauchy was wrong because algebra is an extension of geometry.
>
> 3. Easy to learn using only high school geometry and trigonometry.
>
> 4. No need to learn many differentiation rules and techniques. The ONE formula works on any function.
>
> This ingenious idea came to me during my research on how to produce a complete rigorous geometric formulation. Well, the New Calculus is such a formulation, but the most recent revelation is even more primitive in that it could have been realised by my brilliant Ancestors - the Ancient Greeks.
>
> You want to know what is the identity? Study the above article!

We can prove that f'(x) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - Q(x,h) as follows.

Let t(x) be the equation of the tangent line which we don't yet know.

Then [t(x+h)-t(x)]/h = f2/h = f'(x) from the geometry theorem.

This means that f'(x) contains no terms in h because t(x) is a straight line.

But f1/h = [f(x+h)-f(x)-f2]/h and so f2/h = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - f1/h

Thus, f'(x)= [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - f1/h which implies that f1/h = Q(x,h).

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

Since the secant line slope [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h contains the sum of f'(x) and Q(x,h), it follows that Q(x,h) has terms with factors of h because f'(x) consists of terms that don't contain h.

The following article demonstrates how this historic theorem eliminates limit theory from your bogus mainstream calculus:

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

[Eram semper recta]

Euler's Blunder has infected every aspect of mainstream mathematics:

1. Arithmetic: morons believe that there are infinite series which can actually be summed to produce a limit. e.g. {0.3; 0.03; 0.003; ...}

2. Differentiation: The fallacious f'(x)=lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h definition is in fact the limit of finite difference quotients, ALL of which NEVER represent the derivative. This is similar to the arithmetic idea in (1) except it is a sequence of finite differences:

[f(x+h_1)-f(x)]/h_1; [f(x+h_2)-f(x)]/h_2; ...; [f(x+h_n)-f(x)]/h_n; ...

The idea here is that somehow at infinity, that is, as h becomes infinitely small, the "infiniteth" finite difference will suddenly become the derivative, even though a 4 years old knows that there is no finite difference possible when h=0.

3. Integration: In this case, the orangutans of mainstream academia are looking at the limit of areas or products which take the form of rectangles. The irony here is that in order to arrive at the limit, each rectangle would have to become a 'line' which has no area. The baboons imagine summing up all these "infinitely many" lines or areas (?) to get the total area. e.g. 0+0+0+0+... = Area.

Fascinating how this Swiss cunt changed the history of mainstream mathematics. He looked like a moron and he was one. No offense to those who weren't as ugly as Euler. This blunder alone dulls ALL the shine out of his remaining accomplishments.

To learn about the first rigorous formulation of calculus in human history:

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

My most recently revealed geometric theorem places the final nail in the coffin of bogus mainstream calculus:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

Being the kind and caring genius that I am, I show you how to fix your bogus mainstream calculus formulation:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y

[Dan Christensen]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 7:39:08 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:

> 2. Differentiation: The fallacious f'(x)=lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h definition is in fact the limit of finite difference quotients, ALL of which NEVER represent the derivative.

Nothing "fallacious" about it. This definition makes easy work of simple functions that apparently present intractable problems for you goofy little system (e.g simple functions like f(x)=|x| and f(x)=x^3).

Fix it or scrap it, John. Preferably scrap it, cut your losses and get on with your life. You aren't getting any younger.

[Michael Moroney]

Eram semper recta <thenewc...@gmail.com> writes:

>Euler's Blunder has infected every aspect of mainstream mathematics:

Why do you continue to blame Euler for your mistakes? Euler didn't scribble
anything on his works with a red crayon, nor did he use a computer to do your
scribbling.

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 6 February 2020 18:18:21 UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> The geometric identity which is also a theorem is explained in the following article:
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> The new definition is a result of the well-formed concepts in my New Calculus, the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history. What you are about to learn is historic! It has never been realised before. It has never been published anywhere in any form whatsoever and it is almost certain that no other human even came close to realising this knowledge. There is ONE differentiation formula for all functions and the implications are many, but here are just a few:
>
> 1. No need to learn limit theory or real analysis and solid proof that the mainstream formulation of calculus is a kludge based on ill-formed concepts. This knowledge reveals without any doubt that limit theory is neither required in calculus, nor is it rigorous. The mainstream calculus was never rigorous.
>
> 2. A rigorous and complete geometric derivation that refutes Cauchy’s claim that a derivative cannot be defined by any means other than algebra (*). Cauchy is the main reason that mainstream calculus was never rigorous.
>
> (*) He believed a combination of algebra and limits would be rigorous. He felt that he had to remove algebra by itself as an approach to calculus. You'll see shortly that Cauchy was wrong because algebra is an extension of geometry.
>
> 3. Easy to learn using only high school geometry and trigonometry.
>
> 4. No need to learn many differentiation rules and techniques. The ONE formula works on any function.
>
> This ingenious idea came to me during my research on how to produce a complete rigorous geometric formulation. Well, the New Calculus is such a formulation, but the most recent revelation is even more primitive in that it could have been realised by my brilliant Ancestors - the Ancient Greeks.
>
> You want to know what is the identity? Study the above article!

Crank Alert! Psycho Dan Christensen took a dump on this thread.

[Zelos Malum]

>1. Arithmetic: morons believe that there are infinite series which can actually be summed to produce a limit. e.g. {0.3; 0.03; 0.003; ...}

We can define a meaningful sum for it so whats the issue?

>2. Differentiation: The fallacious f'(x)=lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h definition is in fact the limit of finite difference quotients, ALL of which NEVER represent the derivative.

You think for some h it has to reach the function?

>This is similar to the arithmetic idea in (1) except it is a sequence of finite differences:

Given h is a real number, it'd be more accurate to say it is a net but the difference between the two is irrelevant here. Though then again, you don't nkow what a net is anyway.

>The idea here is that somehow at infinity, that is, as h becomes infinitely small, the "infiniteth" finite difference will suddenly become the derivative, even though a 4 years old knows that there is no finite difference possible when h=0.

Nope, no one thinks that. The limit is asking "What function can we get arbitrarily close to?", to which the answer is "f'" and we then say "That is our derivative then"

>3. Integration: In this case, the orangutans of mainstream academia are looking at the limit of areas or products which take the form of rectangles. The irony here is that in order to arrive at the limit, each rectangle would have to become a 'line' which has no area. The baboons imagine summing up all these "infinitely many" lines or areas (?) to get the total area. e.g. 0+0+0+0+... = Area.

This shows you have not actually studied what they say, if you read the classical integration it is the upper and lower limit of nets of rectangled areas. None of which has length 0.

Maybe study something before you complain?

[Eram semper recta]

On Wednesday, 1 April 2020 02:08:13 UTC-4, Zelos Malum wrote:
> >1. Arithmetic: morons believe that there are infinite series which can actually be summed to produce a limit. e.g. {0.3; 0.03; 0.003; ...}
>
> We can define a meaningful sum for it so whats the issue?

There is nothing more ridiculous than defining the series to be its limit. This is classic Euler S = Lim S. It's not meaningful in any way whatsoever.

>
> >2. Differentiation: The fallacious f'(x)=lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h definition is in fact the limit of finite difference quotients, ALL of which NEVER represent the derivative.
>
> You think for some h it has to reach the function?

No, but it's rather strange to anyone with common sense that the very slope required is NEVER represented by a finite difference = rise/run, after all, this is what is a derivative: the slope of a tangent line which is a 'ratio' of rise to run and there is no ratio [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h which produces the slope. Of course, ignorant and unteachable cranks like you prefer to believe in an "ultimate ratio". Chuckle.

>
> >This is similar to the arithmetic idea in (1) except it is a sequence of finite differences:
>
> Given h is a real number,

No such thing as a real number, idiot.

> it'd be more accurate to say it is a net but the difference between the two is irrelevant here.

??

> Though then again, you don't nkow what a net is anyway.

You're right! I reject idiot concepts. My bullshit detector is fully operational at all times. LMAO.

>
> >The idea here is that somehow at infinity, that is, as h becomes infinitely small, the "infiniteth" finite difference will suddenly become the derivative, even though a 4 years old knows that there is no finite difference possible when h=0.
>
> Nope, no one thinks that.

They don't have to think anything. They know their theory is bullshit and hand waving is required to cover up the bullshit.

> The limit is asking "What function can we get arbitrarily close to?",

No such thing.

> to which the answer is "f'" and we then say "That is our derivative then"
>
> >3. Integration: In this case, the orangutans of mainstream academia are looking at the limit of areas or products which take the form of rectangles. The irony here is that in order to arrive at the limit, each rectangle would have to become a 'line' which has no area. The baboons imagine summing up all these "infinitely many" lines or areas (?) to get the total area. e.g. 0+0+0+0+... = Area.
>
> This shows you have not actually studied what they say, if you read the classical integration it is the upper and lower limit of nets of rectangled areas.

Nope. If you even understood mainstream theory, you would know that is wrong.

The 'area' is considered to be sandwiched between lower and upper limits as in the squeeze theorem. The 'function' is the curve itself, not some ethereal bullshit you imagine has to be found. Riemannian integration is in fact the product of two arithmetic means and easily proved as in my article:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLTmdXRV9PYlFzOUk

>None of which has length 0.

Of course, because then the mythical "infinite sum" becomes 0!

>
> Maybe study something before you complain?

Maybe try to understand before you make a fool of yourself every time?