The Math Forum

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

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View

Posts: 1,176
Registered: 9/18/17
Re: I rarely make silly mistakes, but Euler made a huge blunder in S
= Lim S

Posted: Oct 2, 2017 6:38 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Den måndag 2 oktober 2017 kl. 08:41:32 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel:
> On Monday, 2 October 2017 01:03:08 UTC-5, 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > (MIT)
> > > (HARVARD)
> > > (MIT)
> > > (David Ullrich)
> > >
> > >

> >
> > 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.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.