>You don't even understand the most basic concepts. They are alien to you.
I actually do, the issue is that you don't. You got your own made up versions that you demand to be the real one rather than go by what is established. You are willfully crippling communication.
>Huh?! That follows from k = (f(x+m)-f(x-n))/(m+n). Let me use number to show you because you are very stupid:
By that reasoning all functions have all letters, no matter what, no matter what number, no matter anything, as a factor, which makes it an uninteresting thing and trivial.
>I have already shown you that m+n divides sin (x+n) - sin (x-m) by using the series for sine. The same is true for ANY function.
The power series derived from calculus, making it circular.
>Pay attention IDIOT: I have read more mathematics books than you will ever read in your life and they are NOT basic. My level of English is far higher than yours you incredibly stupid Scandinavian piece of shit. You have proved that you don't understand basic definitions as shown by my disproof of Dedekind which professors of mathematics have called ingenious. This man is a mathematician on LinkedIn who has endorsed my proof you fucking BIG MOUTH cunt!!!
Yeah no, you haven't and you know it. If you did you wouldn't so fundamentally misunderstand even the most basic of things. You don't understand functions, definitions or anything so you are caught lying here.
Congratulation, you got one professor that is another crank, big whoop. When you get the majority you can talk. Albeit if he think that is ingenious then his level of knowledge is clearly very limited as it is so fundamentally broken.
>Where do you get off disrespecting me you vile dog!
You are a vile despicable worthless old arrogant ignorant narcissist, you deserve no respect.
>I am the great John Gabriel
You are not great, you are a worthless loser that has accomplished nothing of important in your life so you make up excuses like any crank to feel better about yourself. You are a very sad example of what people do with their lives, wasting it on having to feel great.
>discoverer of the New Calculus.
Which many of us has pointed out is fundamentally flawed on many levels. There are many better ways that are not even dependent on real numbers, because they are generalizations that extends beyond them. Now those are much more impressive because they are general.
>A piece of insignificant shit who will NEVER produce anything but crap on sci.math.
Once I do my publications I will have bested you, because I will have made an actual contribution while you have not.
You will of course just make up more excuses as to why it doesn't count because deep down you are jealous of those who have done something and you have not.
>GET OFF this forum and go and learn some mathematics you piece of shit.
Follow your own advice, old man :)
>You understood NOTHING. You didn't even try. Your only objection is that I don't use the definition and it is FALSE!!!!!
It is true however, your S_n and L_n are not dedekinds cuts as I can find rational numbers missing in them, which dedekinds cuts either forbid, or at most, allows only 1 rational number to be missing, but we can find infinitely many that you did miss.