On Sunday, 23 February 2014 10:05:33 UTC+2, Moron-Of-Oz wrote: > John Gabriel <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in > news:email@example.com: > > On Sunday, 23 February 2014 08:59:57 UTC+2, Wizard-Of-Oz wrote: > >> John Gabriel <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in > >> news:email@example.com: > >> http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/math/4507-0-999-equal-one-560.html#post27297
> Yes it is. I note that you did not point out any errors in the above
I pointed out the errors, but you didn't understand them. I can't help you there.
> Neither did I above. Yet you claim it is not correct.
Of course you did. You divided by 0 when you are not allowed to divide by 0 in Cauchy's Kludge. One of the errors I pointed out to you. See error no. 3.
> As can old calculus. Nothing new there.
I showed it's not possible and you continue to be so obtuse.
> There is no difference in the 'kludges'. In both cases we rewrite the > function and then substitute h=0 or m=n=0 accordingly when there is no > division by h or m, n
You should pay more attention to detail.
> That's what I said. So you claim what I said is nonsense and then agree > with it. Typical of a troll.
Are you sure? Go back and read what I said.
> It is identical when m = 0
m is never equal to 0 in the New Calculus difference quotient unless it has been simplified.
> In fact Cauchy's definition cannot be translated to the New > Calculus.
> Noone said that you do. That's your own stupid idea.
You implied it. Troll!
> So you just plagiarised the mean value theorum and claimed it as your > own. Nice of you to admit it.
Actually no. The mean value theorem is not the same as the secant theorem, but nice try!!
> You do not allow a differential at a point of inflection, so there are > fewer places your method can supposedly work.
Of course not. The New Calculus is sound. There is no derivative (not differential idiot!) at an inflection point because no tangent line can be constructed there.
> And having both m and n is more complex than just having h. You get the same > answers that the 'old' calculus gives, so there is nothing new.
For a simpleton like you, it makes no difference.
If you read my opening comment, you would have realised it stated that I do not welcome trolls.
For other simpletons, here is a detailed comparison of the transformations involved: