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
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
It doesn't matter how you word your shit because shit by any other name is still shit.
Replies:
1
Last Post:
Nov 11, 2017 10:00 AM




Re: It doesn't matter how you word your shit because shit by any other name is still shit.
Posted:
Nov 11, 2017 10:00 AM


When will you fix your crippled new calculoose? Currently its just a new caculost very much.
Please show us your derivative of:
f(x) = sqrt(x^2)
Does it divide by (n+m)? Does your bird brain function in any way mathematical?
For how long do you already spew your nonsense bird brain John Gabriel? Some struggle with some
guys from M.I.T. from 4/7/2014? Really? Will your new calculoose never get mature?
John Gabriel schrieb: > On Saturday, 11 November 2017 08:59:38 UTC5, John Gabriel wrote: >> f(x) = x^2 >> >> f'(x) = Lim_{h > 0} 2x + h >> >> When you do this: f'(x) = Lim_{h > 0} 2x + h = 2x + 0 = 2x >> >> You have done ALL of the following: >> >> i. Divided by 0 >> ii. Changed the meaning of the finite difference quotient >> iii. Claim that h is not 0 and h is 0 which is IMPOSSIBLE. >> >> Now it doesn't matter how much hand waving crap like >> >> 0 < x  c < delta => f(x)  L < epsilon [CRAP] >> >> you introduce because you are simply explaining the process in a different way which doesn't make it any more rigorous whatsoever! Chuckle. >> >> [CRAP] means h = 0 and you have done some monkey business. >> >> It's pretty obvious that if the distance between x and c decreases and a corresponding decrease happens between f(x) and L, then L must be a limit. But that is what setting h=0 DOES for you MOOOOOOROOOOOOOON ASSES!!! >> >> It has been over 200 years and the academic trash heap has never once questioned these bogus ideas. Weierstrass was a drunk like most of you. He knew shit about mathematics and so do you! >> >> Nothing can save you from your stupidity except the New Calculus. > > Get the full scoop here where I take Anders Kaesorg to task: > > http://web.mit.edu/andersk/Public/JohnGabriel.pdf > > The funniest part is on page 27: > > "Why can?t you understand the difference between assuming that f'(x)=3x^2, as a ?fact? upon which to build further proofs, and hypothesizing f'(x) that might > equal 3x^2, as a guess to be treated with extreme suspicion and checked using the definition before I?m allowed to write f'(x)=3x^2?" > > i. I don't know about others, but assuming something as "fact" is never a good thing unless you intend to prove it is NOT a fact. Chuckle. > > ii. How can anyone build further "proofs" by assuming facts, unless of course they are proofs by contradiction? Chuckle. I suppose this is a new kind of proof: the MIT proof by assumption? Bwaaa haaa haaa > > iii. As for hypothesizing, I don't think hypotheses have a place outside of mathematical statistics. > > iv. Kaesorg then writes "as a guess to be treated with extreme suspicion"  well, guessing has no place in sound mathematics. Maybe in a casino? Chuckle. > > v. So, to summarise: > > Derivative > = Assumptions + hypotheses + guesses + suspicion + illformed definition > > Yes! Now that is one hell of an explanation by an MIT graduate!!! >



