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

Topic: Sci.math morons still struggling to prove that m+n is ALWAYS a
factor of New Calculus derivative!

Replies: 4   Last Post: Nov 8, 2017 4:01 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 350
Registered: 8/16/16
Re: Sci.math morons still struggling to prove that m+n is ALWAYS a
factor of New Calculus derivative!

Posted: Nov 8, 2017 3:23 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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:
>> (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?

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 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.