Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Topic:
Axiom mistakes of Euclidean Plane Geometry #1 Unitextbook 6th ed.: TRUE CALCULUS; without the phony limit concept
Replies:
10
Last Post:
Jun 23, 2013 3:30 PM




Re: Libelows Clown ,KIng of Dishwashers plutonium Lacks the Manhood, the Honesty to face his Miserable Life: Stil Desperate for Attention away from his Failed Life.
Posted:
Jun 19, 2013 6:07 PM


On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 1:31:07 PM UTC4:30, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Alright I am happy with the High School textbook
And high school level is still above your head, you worthless fuck.
of 10 pages long and > > now will write the University or College textbook.
So you have failed at everything, you have no degree, no friends, and now you want to go on with this charade to BS yourself otherwise.
Good deal, there i8s a shortage of toilet paper on the market, asshole.
I want both texts > > consolidated into one book.
That way people can not read one book, instead of two.
The Uni text should be 40 pages or less, > > so the entire text is 50 pages or less. > > > > Too many errors and mistakes are taught both to the High School and > > University students. The three largest and gravest errors are these > > three: >
0) You were born. Biggest waste possible put a remedy to it, asshole. > > > 1) no borderline between finite and infinity, thus prompting shoddy > > mathematicians to impose a limit concept, a utterly fake and phony > > concept which may allow these shoddy mathematicians to talk about > > Calculus, even though they fail to know and understand true calculus >
Go hang yourself, you worthless fuck. Tell me, you wasteofafucking life, how this concept is phony. > > > 2) never a correction of the mistakes of the axioms of Euclidean > > geometry and its modern day revision as that of the Hilbert axioms
An axiom cannot be incorrect, you imbecile. Learn some basic concepts before dumping your diarrhea, or, even better, hang yourself and stop dumping your misery on others here. > > > > 3) failure to realize the derivative must be a part of the actual > > function graph and not a separate independent entity
Failure to realize you're a failure from A to Z, LOSER. > > > > This college and university text of True Calculus addresses those > > major mistakes and flaws of Calculus and teaches the student what > > Calculus truly is.
If you had any manhood, you would not be dumping this on us. If you had anything
of real value, you would have published it. But you have no guts, no manhood,
no honesty to face up to the complete failure your life is.
This book is the very best book written on Calculus > > since Leibniz and Newton discovered the Calculus circa 1684 (Nova > > methodus) and 1671 (Methodus Fluxionum) respectively.
Yes, because you said so, right, asshole? Find me _one_ other person
who agrees with you. LOSER. > > > > I start this Uni text where I left off with the HS (High School) text,
None of which anyone gives a FUCK about.
> > talking about the errors and mistakes of the Euclidean Plane Geometry > > axioms.
Error in " a axiom"? What an imbecile. Shows you lack the basic understanding
of everything. > > > > Let us focus on two axioms of Euclidean Plane Geometry and as stated > > in Hilbert's vast revision of those axioms.
Let you go fuck yourself. > > > > Points of geometry >
Point of your life? None. Face up to it, be a man for once inb your life. > > > Lines and line segments of geometry > > > > > > In the Hilbert axioms of geometry, and all other axiom sets, they had > > that a point has no length, no width, no depth, yet they also had that > > a line or line segment has no width, no depth, but does have length.
False. But your whole layout is based on falsehoods and lies. Just like
your entire life.
> > > > Neither Hilbert nor all the mathematicians after Hilbert, realized > > that their axioms of line and line segment and point were > > contradictory, for you cannot have a line with length composed of > > points with no length.
False. Maybe if you read beyond a paragraph on Wikipedia and if you were not an imbecile..... Maybe.
>To escape that logical contradiction,
That you have made up, with no basis...
you must > > impose the idea that length comes about by the concept of empty space > > between points, so that a line is composed of not just points but of > > points with empty space between successive points. > > > > So to correct Hilbert we have this: > > > > point axiom: a point has no length, no width, no depth > > > > line axiom: a line or line segment is composed of successive points > > with empty space between the points and the line has no width, no > > depth, but has length due to the summation of the empty spaces
Yes! You solved the problem! . Empty space has area and volume. Brilliant! > > > > Now the sloppy and shoddy mathematicians reconciled the line having > > length by considering the idea of the enormous density of points that > > compose a line or line segment.
False. Keep up the lie, asshole.
> Their flawed reasoning
The one you made up, to cover the failure your life is.
was that if the > > density of points with no length, no width, no depth if that enormous > > density went into composing a line or line segment that it would have > > length due to that density. But then, if you make a silly arguement of > > density for length, then there is no stopping you from saying the line > > or line segment has width and depth due to density of points. > > > > So, in one fell swoop, we find the Euclidean Plane Geometry axioms > > with its Hilbert revision as totally flawed and need of major repair.
One fell swoop: no major paradoxes, tremendous mathematical development;
both theoretical and applied. A failure you never bothered described,
because you lack the manhood . Keep hiding in your bubble, you wasteof
a fucking life.
> > We find the repair to be that the axioms of geometry need to have > > points as successive points with empty space in between successive > > points. Much like the Integers of mathematics are successive points as > > that of 1 then 2 then 3 then 4 then 5, etc. So between 1 and 2 is > > empty space and a line that is 5 units long, has length, not because > > it has number points of 0,1,2,3,4,5, but because it has those empty > > spaces between 0 and 1 then 1 and 2, etc. In this text of True > > Calculus, the integers are too large of empty space, so in this text > > we find that successive number points of 1*10^603 fits perfectly for > > mathematics. > > > > So we start this Calculus text for college and university students,
Which no one will ever read. Kill yourself, you wasteofafuckinglife,
or at least get the fuck out of sci.math so people can discuss actual
Mathematics. > > True Calculus by correcting a major error and flaw of Old Math of > > their Euclidean Geometry axioms. It is a major flaw for it prevents us > > from achieving or attaining True Calculus, and is such a sad flaw that > > it encourages the retention of the phony and fake limit concept. When > > you have Fake Calculus, you need textbooks that are hundreds of pages > > long, for most college texts on Calculus such as Strang, Stewart, > > Fisher & Ziebur, Ellis & Gulick are approaching or exceeding 700 > > pages, because they have to devote most of their time on the phony > > limit concept. When you have True Calculus, it can be explained and > > done with in 10 pages. Fake Calculus takes about 700 pages, and True > > Calculus takes but 10 pages. > > > >  > > > > More than 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google > > newsgroups author search archive from May 2012 to May 2013. Drexel > > University's Math Forum has done a far better job and many of those > > missing Google posts can be seen here: > > > > http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986 > > > > Thanks to Google for returning the option of crossposting, for > > yesterday, 18 June 2013 Google allowed only singular newsgroups and no > > crossposting. > > > > Archimedes Plutonium > > http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium > > whole entire Universe is just one big atom > > where dots of the electrondotcloud are galaxies



