Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
I rarely make silly mistakes, but Euler made a huge blunder in S = Lim S
Replies:
1
Last Post:
Oct 2, 2017 6:38 AM




Re: I rarely make silly mistakes, but Euler made a huge blunder in S = Lim S
Posted:
Oct 2, 2017 6:38 AM


Den måndag 2 oktober 2017 kl. 08:41:32 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel: > On Monday, 2 October 2017 01:03:08 UTC5, Zelos Malum wrote: > > Den fredag 29 september 2017 kl. 15:43:41 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel: > > > This blunder will forever be a stain on Euler's record. > > > > > > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulersworstdefinitionlimjohngabriel > > > > > > However, the mythmaticians of the last 400 years will be remembered in infamy when my New Calculus becomes the standard. > > > > > > So many morons tried to produce a rigorous formulation of calculus before me BUT I have destroyed their ridiculous and absurd theories. > > > > > > The New Calculus is not worthy of one Abel prize but of 10 Abel prizes. The academic who recommends me will be noted in history even though I will probably never win the prize given that absolute scum the likes of Gilbert Strang and Jack Huizenga sit on the Abel Prize committee. I am under no illusion that I will ever win. By the time someone comes along and realises how great is my work, I will be long gone. > > > > > > Comments are unwelcome and will be ignored. > > > > > > Posted on this newsgroup in the interests of public education and to eradicate ignorance and stupidity from mainstream mythmatics. > > > > > > gilstrang@gmail.com (MIT) > > > huizenga@psu.edu (HARVARD) > > > andersk@mit.edu (MIT) > > > david.ullrich@math.okstate.edu (David Ullrich) > > > djoyce@clarku.edu > > > markcc@gmail.com > > > > You make mistakes everytime you post anything, I can't even count them on my fingers and you do that in matter of minutes. > > Assertions are not proofs and your opinions are just that  baseless assertions.
Want me to point them out for you? Well that will take me a long while but how about you claim that your "cuts" are dedekinds cuts, but they fail the basic property of if p is in the cut, and q<p, then q is in the cut? I can give plenty of rational numbers that are less than at least one in your cut, but is not in your cut. Ergo it is not a dedekinds cut.



