
Re: John Gabriel's Thread on Mathematics.
Posted:
Feb 23, 2014 5:26 AM


John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> wrote in news:c126aa161cac44bf8950ab69f055c89a@googlegroups.com:
> On Sunday, 23 February 2014 11:34:57 UTC+2, WizardOfOz wrote: >> John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> wrote in >> >> news:47d13a88203f4fd8ab6a016de06046d2@googlegroups.com: >> >> >> >> > On Sunday, 23 February 2014 10:05:33 UTC+2, MoronOfOz wrote: >> >> >> John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> wrote in >> >> >> news:1d4b101f734a45a1936c2e7cb4341202@googlegroups.com: >> >> >> > On Sunday, 23 February 2014 08:59:57 UTC+2, WizardOfOz wrote: >> >> >> >> John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> wrote in >> >> >> >> news:b1b7cab9af7d4e008c1729acec7ae05c@googlegroups.com: >> >> >> >> http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/math/45070999equal 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 t > here >> >> >> 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/45070999equalone >> >> 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 effectiv > ely >> >> there is no difference between them. >> >> >> >> \ > > You saying it ain't so, does not make it true.
The facts do
> Therefore, unless you > can prove me wrong, I suggest you move on. Again, this thread is not > for trolls.
Then stop posting in it > Your assertions are not facts.
They are. Dmonstrable facts
> Furthermore, if you want a response in > future, limit your questions to one. I have no interest in reading > your rot.
You're the one with rot.
> Others can see that I am correct and you are obtuse.
No
> That's > all I care about. Discussion over. Please DO NOT comment here again,
Not your call
> unless you obey the rules.
You don't get to make 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 ignore your request
> I have reported every one of your comments as SPAM.
Typical dishonesty on your part. Noone cares about what you report.
> I would have not > even bothered responding to you if I could delete your comments. You > are in one word, a dunce.
You are a fucking moron. Two words > Thank you for your cooperation in advance!
Fuck you, in advance.

