Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

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

 Jan Burse Posts: 1,472 Registered: 4/12/05
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.

f(x) = sqrt(x^2)

Does it divide by (n+m)? Does your bird brain
function in any way mathematical?

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 UTC-5, 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/John-Gabriel.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 + ill-formed definition
>
> Yes! Now that is one hell of an explanation by an MIT graduate!!!
>