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.