On Sunday, 23 February 2014 11:34:57 UTC+2, Wizard-Of-Oz wrote: > John Gabriel <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in > > news:email@example.com: > > > > > 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- > > 56 > > >> >> 0.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. > > > > I made no errors, you pointed none out > > > > >> Neither did I above. Yet you claim it is not correct. > > > > > > Of course you did. > > > > Nope > > > > > 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. > > > > I did not do that at all. Point out the line where there is a division > > by zero. Funny, you've snipped all the lines where I show you wrong. > > > > >> As can old calculus. Nothing new there. > > > > > > I showed it's not possible and you continue to be so obtuse. > > > > No .. you're just fooling yourself, but not anyone else > > > > >> 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. > > > > I did > > > > >> 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. > > > > Yes. I said the only difference was the change in pronumeral names > > which is insignificant. You said that was nonsense and the the > > pronumeral names had nothing to do with it. So you argreed with what > > you claimed was nonsense. > > > > >> It is identical when m = 0 > > > > > > m is never equal to 0 in the New Calculus difference quotient unless > > > it has been simplified. > > > > And then it is identical. Just like in the old calculus. Nothing new > > > > >> In fact Cauchy's definition cannot be translated to the New > > >> Calculus. > > > > > >> Noone said that you do. That's your own stupid idea. > > > > You are dishonestly quoting me out of context. Typical troll behaviour > > > > > You implied it. > > > > No. > > > > I did not at all imply that one should set h = (m+n), that was your > > idea, not mine. > > > > >Troll! > > > > Indeed you are > > > > >> 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 plagiarised both then. Regardless, you offer nothing new. > > > > >> 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. > > > > It is not new > > > > > There is no derivative (not > > > differential idiot!) at an inflection point > > > > There is a derivative. And your formula gives one, but you don't allow > > it. > > > > > because no tangent line > > > can be constructed there. > > > > One doe not need a tangent line for a derivative > > > > >> 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. > > > > There is nothing new > > > > > If you read my opening comment, you would have realised it stated that > > > I do not welcome trolls. > > > > YOU are the troll, not me. As is evidenced be your dishonest snipping > > and quoting out of context > > > > > For other simpletons, here is a detailed comparison of the > > > transformations involved: > > > > > http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/math/4507-0-999-equal-one- > > 563.html#post27341 > > > > So you show that your new calculus is nothing more or less than the mean > > value theorum. Nothing new at all. You've just stolen an old idea and > > changed a few pronumerals (which, as we agree, makes no difference) > > > > And I showed that setting m = 0 in your new calculus gives the old > > calculus, and as the new calculus requires you setting m=n=0 effectively > > there is no difference between them. > > > > \
You saying it ain't so, does not make it true. Therefore, unless you can prove me wrong, I suggest you move on. Again, this thread is not for trolls.
Your assertions are not facts. Furthermore, if you want a response in future, limit your questions to one. I have no interest in reading your rot. Others can see that I am correct and you are obtuse. That's all I care about. Discussion over. Please DO NOT comment here again, unless you obey the rules. Create your own thread if you like! Call it "John Gabriel's not new calculus" or whatever shit you please. But once again, I am asking you nicely: Please, DO NOT comment here again. I have reported every one of your comments as SPAM. I would have not even bothered responding to you if I could delete your comments. You are in one word, a dunce.