
Re: Why do we need those real nonconstructible numbers?
Posted:
Nov 14, 2017 1:33 PM


On Monday, 13 November 2017 11:30:19 UTC5, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> So, continuity doesn't exist because infinity doesn't exist either, and the assumption of existence of continuity was a total brain fart, but an artificial deliberate continuity was adopted by fabricating those (EpsilonDelta) Distances just for practical needs which aren't truly any mathematics for sure
Epsilonics are just a ruse from what's really going on: the inability of anyone before me to formulate a rigorous calculus.
You see, if you try to emulate the new calculus using the bogus mainstream formulation, you get for f(x)=x^2:
f'(x) = lim_{h > 0} 2x + Q(h) where Q(h) = h
In the bogus calculus Q(h) is meaningless bullshit, but let's set it to zero as we can do in the rigorous new calculus, then f'(x)=2x+h = 2x+0 = 2x.
Setting h=0 is EQUIVALENT to finding the limit!
But that is banned terminology. You can say things like:
i. The value approached by the finite differences is the derivative/limit. ii. As the distance is made arbitrarily small between f(x) and L, then the distance between x and c (point of tangency) also gets close to 0. iii. 0<xc<delta => f(x)L<epsilon where epsilon>0 and delta>0. This is required just in case the orangutans need to have a hole at c.
ad nauseum...
At the end of the day, all that is being said is that setting h=0 produces the limit. (iii) is often misunderstood especially by morons on the internet as being a definition, but it is nothing of the sort. It's merely a "verifinition", that is, a restatement of what is actually being done: showing that L is the right guess. It's very circular and rigour has nothing to do with it. > BKK

