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: Re: It doesn't matter how you word your shit because shit by any
other name is still shit.

Replies: 5   Last Post: Nov 11, 2017 12:02 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 1,432
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 10:09 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

When are your functions smooth?
When they smell like a smoothy?

Smoothy drink - Posted by esmee on 17 Jun 2012
http://www.ehabweb.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/041021-159.jpg

j4n bur53 schrieb:
> To begin with, if you are not able to define what
> it means for a function f(x) to be differentiable
>
> at some point x=a, one of the many things that are
> ill-formed is your calculoose. Respectively
>
> it will have a definition missing, you always
> start with "for a smooth function f(x) bla bla..."
>
> but you nowhere define it rigorously. So I
> guess new calculoose is incompletely defined,
>
> lets take this as a form of ill-formedness. How
> do you define your smooth without limit?
>
> j4n bur53 schrieb:

>> 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 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!!!
>>>

>>
>




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.