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!!!

>>

>