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: 2   Last Post: Nov 9, 2017 4:26 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
zelos.malum@gmail.com

Posts: 895
Registered: 9/18/17
Re: Sci.math morons still struggling to prove that m+n is ALWAYS a
factor of New Calculus derivative!

Posted: Nov 9, 2017 4:25 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Den torsdag 9 november 2017 kl. 09:57:48 UTC+1 skrev John Gabriel:
> On Thursday, 9 November 2017 02:31:28 UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:
> > Den onsdag 8 november 2017 kl. 14:26:24 UTC+1 skrev John Gabriel:
> > > On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 08:12:44 UTC-5, burs...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > We are still waiting:
> > > >
> > > > So what is then:
> > > >
> > > > d ln(x)/dx = ?
> > > >
> > > > integ 1/x dx = ?
> > > >

> > >
> > > It was given many, many decades ago long before you were spewed out of your mother's filthy cunt:
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLVWlXQ3NTYlZadVE
> > >
> > > Study it you fucking troll!!!!!!!!!!!!

> >
> > You are using limit there when you ay "By letting n -> oo", you can't do that as you reject limits.

>
> The LUB became the limit much later and I have never rejected limits that are *rational numbers*. What I do reject are limits which are not rational numbers.
>
> Moreover, in such cases, I do not deny the limit exists, except that there is no number which describes it, because there are no irrational numbers. So no valid construction of real numbers.
>
> If you weren't so clueless, you would have known this because I've made it clear many times.


You reject the limit concept as a whole considering you have claimed that the concept is "invalid", despite the issue is you cannot read FOL.

As for your "no valid construction", again, Deoduxus construction is valid and works just fine.



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.