John Gabriel wrote: > On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 14:28:46 UTC-5, Python wrote: >> Me wrote: >> ... >>> Actually, your "exposition" of your "New Calculus" is a BIG MESS. >>> As we can see here you are still using theorems derived in "standard" >>> calculus to JUSTIFY claims stated (but not proved) in the context >>> of your "New Calculus". >>> >>> It's quite "confusing", to say the least. >> >> >> A very nice résumé of John Gabriel's method: >> >> Yeah, this is how Gabriel works in a nutshell: >> >> He takes a mathematical concept with a proper definition which he >> either doesn?t know, like or understand (or any non-empty subset of >> the three), >> >> he visualizes or interprets it in some vague way (?making things >> equal through redistribution?), >> >> he insists on his ill-defined vague interpretation to be the actual >> definition (even though it?s hand-wavy, vague nonsense), >> >> he labels everything outside of his vague interpretation as >> ?meaningless? and therefore void and draws absurd conclusions from >> his ?definition?, >> >> he proclaims that he has found the ultimate real meaning of the >> mathematical concept and rails against stupid academia. >> >> It?s glorious in its arrogance and ignorance. >> >> from: >> http://blog.logicalphalluses.net/2017/02/23/math-crankery-with-john-gabriel-the-dunning-kruger-effect-in-a-nutshell/ >> >> (You may notice that Mr Gabriel never even tried to refute any >> of the criticism about his work you can read on this blog) > > I see you are getting more desperate with each comment because you > know your arse will soon meet dirt. Chuckle.
Absolutely not, Mr Gabriel, I just contemplate the way you are digging deeper and deeper in your own inconsistencies. I am quite worry concerning your mental and physiological health by the way.
> Is there any function you can find in which m+n is not a factor? LMAO.
Talking about factors in a non-factorial ring like function is meaningless, everything is a factor as long as it is about functions. You use the silly tricks of Taylor series (while you need the "mainstream" calculus to do so in the first place, as it has been pointed out by many) or you use the silly trick to deny the validity of piecewise function (the easiest way to find counter-example of your loosy "new calculus").
There is actually a counter example you've always evading, x -> e^(-1/x^2) at x = 0
Those who understand calculus know very well why you're silly tricks and false proofs couldn't make it there. Do you know why, John?