Date: Nov 11, 2017 10:06 AM
Author: Guest
Subject: Re: It doesn't matter how you word your shit because shit by any<br> other name is still shit.

To begin with, if you are not able to define what
it means for a function f(x) to be differentiable

at some point x=a, one of the many things that are
ill-formed is your calculoose. Respectively

it will have a definition missing, you always
start with "for a smooth function f(x) bla bla..."

but you nowhere define it rigorously. So I
guess new calculoose is incompletely defined,

lets take this as a form of ill-formedness. How
do you define your smooth without limit?

j4n bur53 schrieb:
> When will you fix your crippled new calculoose?
> Currently its just a new caculost very much.
>
> Please show us your derivative of:
>
> f(x) = sqrt(x^2)
>
> Does it divide by (n+m)? Does your bird brain
> function in any way mathematical?
>
> For how long do you already spew your nonsense
> bird brain John Gabriel? Some struggle with some
>
> guys from M.I.T. from 4/7/2014? Really? Will
> your new calculoose never get mature?
>
> John Gabriel schrieb:

>> On Saturday, 11 November 2017 08:59:38 UTC-5, John Gabriel wrote:
>>> f(x) = x^2
>>>
>>> f'(x) = Lim_{h -> 0} 2x + h
>>>
>>> When you do this: f'(x) = Lim_{h -> 0} 2x + h = 2x + 0 = 2x
>>>
>>> You have done ALL of the following:
>>>
>>> i. Divided by 0
>>> ii. Changed the meaning of the finite difference quotient
>>> iii. Claim that h is not 0 and h is 0 which is IMPOSSIBLE.
>>>
>>> Now it doesn't matter how much hand waving crap like
>>>
>>> 0 < |x - c| < delta => |f(x) - L| < epsilon [CRAP]
>>>
>>> you introduce because you are simply explaining the process in a
>>> different way which doesn't make it any more rigorous whatsoever!
>>> Chuckle.
>>>
>>> [CRAP] means h = 0 and you have done some monkey business.
>>>
>>> It's pretty obvious that if the distance between x and c decreases
>>> and a corresponding decrease happens between f(x) and L, then L must
>>> be a limit. But that is what setting h=0 DOES for you
>>> MOOOOOOROOOOOOOON ASSES!!!
>>>
>>> It has been over 200 years and the academic trash heap has never once
>>> questioned these bogus ideas. Weierstrass was a drunk like most of
>>> you. He knew shit about mathematics and so do you!
>>>
>>> Nothing can save you from your stupidity except the New Calculus.

>>
>> Get the full scoop here where I take Anders Kaesorg to task:
>>
>> http://web.mit.edu/andersk/Public/John-Gabriel.pdf
>>
>> The funniest part is on page 27:
>>
>> "Why can?t you understand the difference between assuming that
>> f'(x)=3x^2, as a ?fact? upon which to build further proofs, and
>> hypothesizing f'(x) that might
>> equal 3x^2, as a guess to be treated with extreme suspicion and
>> checked using the definition before I?m allowed to write f'(x)=3x^2?"
>>
>> i. I don't know about others, but assuming something as "fact" is
>> never a good thing unless you intend to prove it is NOT a fact. Chuckle.
>>
>> ii. How can anyone build further "proofs" by assuming facts, unless
>> of course they are proofs by contradiction? Chuckle. I suppose this is
>> a new kind of proof: the MIT proof by assumption? Bwaaa haaa haaa
>>
>> iii. As for hypothesizing, I don't think hypotheses have a place
>> outside of mathematical statistics.
>>
>> iv. Kaesorg then writes "as a guess to be treated with extreme
>> suspicion" - well, guessing has no place in sound mathematics. Maybe
>> in a casino? Chuckle.
>>
>> v. So, to summarise:
>>
>> Derivative
>> = Assumptions + hypotheses + guesses + suspicion + ill-formed
>> definition
>>
>> Yes! Now that is one hell of an explanation by an MIT graduate!!!
>>

>