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



Re: I rarely make silly mistakes, but Euler made a huge blunder in S = Lim S
Posted:
Oct 4, 2017 6:43 AM


On Wednesday, 4 October 2017 05:59:16 UTC4, Zelos Malum wrote: > Den tisdag 3 oktober 2017 kl. 01:02:48 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel: > > On Monday, 2 October 2017 06:38:57 UTC4, Zelos Malum wrote: > > > 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, > > > > Moron! p is always the cut. It is not "in the cut" as you write you dumb pussy. It is the schnitt you baboon! > > > > You quoted the Dedekind Completion without realising that you are supporting my claim. But how could you  a moron never knows anything. > > > > > 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. > > > > Learn to write English properly so that you can stop making a fool of yourself. > > > > The only place you know to point to is your arse hole. You are an idiot and will always be an idiot. > > You are so god damn stupid you do not even know the definition, one of the criteria is if a rational number p is in the cut (focus only on the lower), then for a rational number q<p, then q must ALSO be in the cut. Then riddle me this you moron. > > Why is it I can easily find a q, for every fucking set of yours, that is not in your set? If they were dedekinds cuts, I shouldn't be able to find this q, but I can.
Hey Stupid. Even "Me" has finally understood that my definition is a D. Cut. Ask him to explain to you moron!
L={1 < x < pi} and R={pi < x < 4} where x \in Q
is a valid D Cut.
You can choose any other elements m and n such that m < pi < n and it will conform as follows:
L={m < x < pi} and R={pi < x < n} where x \in Q
END OF DISCUSSION.



