Date: Oct 4, 2017 5:59 AM
Author: zelos.malum@gmail.com
Subject: Re: I rarely make silly mistakes, but Euler made a huge blunder in S<br> = Lim S

Den tisdag 3 oktober 2017 kl. 01:02:48 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel:
> On Monday, 2 October 2017 06:38:57 UTC-4, Zelos Malum wrote:
> > Den måndag 2 oktober 2017 kl. 08:41:32 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel:
> > > On Monday, 2 October 2017 01:03:08 UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:
> > > > Den fredag 29 september 2017 kl. 15:43:41 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel:
> > > > > This blunder will forever be a stain on Euler's record.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel
> > > > >
> > > > > However, the mythmaticians of the last 400 years will be remembered in infamy when my New Calculus becomes the standard.
> > > > >
> > > > > So many morons tried to produce a rigorous formulation of calculus before me BUT I have destroyed their ridiculous and absurd theories.
> > > > >
> > > > > The New Calculus is not worthy of one Abel prize but of 10 Abel prizes. The academic who recommends me will be noted in history even though I will probably never win the prize given that absolute scum the likes of Gilbert Strang and Jack Huizenga sit on the Abel Prize committee. I am under no illusion that I will ever win. By the time someone comes along and realises how great is my work, I will be long gone.
> > > > >
> > > > > Comments are unwelcome and will be ignored.
> > > > >
> > > > > Posted on this newsgroup in the interests of public education and to eradicate ignorance and stupidity from mainstream mythmatics.
> > > > >
> > > > > gilstrang@gmail.com (MIT)
> > > > > huizenga@psu.edu (HARVARD)
> > > > > andersk@mit.edu (MIT)
> > > > > david.ullrich@math.okstate.edu (David Ullrich)
> > > > > djoyce@clarku.edu
> > > > > markcc@gmail.com

> > > >
> > > > You make mistakes everytime you post anything, I can't even count them on my fingers and you do that in matter of minutes.

> > >
> > > Assertions are not proofs and your opinions are just that - baseless assertions.

> >
> > Want me to point them out for you? Well that will take me a long while but how about you claim that your "cuts" are dedekinds cuts, but they fail the basic property of if p is in the cut,

>
> Moron! p is always the cut. It is not "in the cut" as you write you dumb pussy. It is the schnitt you baboon!
>
> You quoted the Dedekind Completion without realising that you are supporting my claim. But how could you - a moron never knows anything.
>

> > and q<p, then q is in the cut? I can give plenty of rational numbers that are less than at least one in your cut, but is not in your cut. Ergo it is not a dedekinds cut.
>
> Learn to write English properly so that you can stop making a fool of yourself.
>
> The only place you know to point to is your arse hole. You are an idiot and will always be an idiot.


You are so god damn stupid you do not even know the definition, one of the criteria is if a rational number p is in the cut (focus only on the lower), then for a rational number q<p, then q must ALSO be in the cut. Then riddle me this you moron.

Why is it I can easily find a q, for every fucking set of yours, that is not in your set? If they were dedekinds cuts, I shouldn't be able to find this q, but I can.