Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: 1.82 - Troll Dan Christensen
Replies: 1   Last Post: Jul 30, 2014 7:12 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View  
Dan Christensen

Posts: 2,503
Registered: 7/9/08
Re: 1.82 - Troll Dan Christensen
Posted: Jul 30, 2014 7:12 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:05:41 AM UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote:
> So Christensen sends this email message to Hanspeter Guettinger:
>
>
>
> Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca
>
>
>
> Kommentar
>
>
>
> Are you aware that in John Gabriel's "New Calculus," which he says you have endorsed, the derivative of even a simple linear function like y=x is undefined everywhere? And that the derivative of at any point of inflection on a curve is also undefined?
>
>
>
> Since he does not admit irrational numbers in his system, the distance between the points (0,0) and (1,1), for example, is also undefined.
>
>
>
> In his strange number system supposedly based on Euclid, he cannot even prove that 2+2=4.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> I have already addressed all these lies and misrepresentations and am ignoring Christensen because one cannot reason with an irrational mind.
>
>
>
> Are you aware that in John Gabriel's "New Calculus," which he says you have endorsed, the derivative of even a simple linear function like y=x is undefined everywhere?
>
>
>
> False. In the New Calculus: f(x)=x has a derivative everywhere:
>
>
>
> f'(c)= c+n - (c-m) / m+n = (m+n)/(m+n) = 1
>
>


A baffling climb-down from your previous position, but there is still the matter of the f'(0) when f(x)=x^3.



>
> And that the derivative of at any point of inflection on a curve is also undefined?
>
>
>
> False. The derivative is very well defined because the tangent line owns the pair (0,0). However, there is no tangent line at a point of inflection.


Yes, there is, John Gabriel. The fact that your tortured logic led you to this bizarre conclusion should have tipped you off that you had come to yet another dead end.


>
> Since he does not admit irrational numbers in his system, the distance between the points (0,0) and (1,1), for example, is also undefined.
>
>
>
> False. That distance denoted by sqrt(2) is NOT a number.


To the rational mind mind -- not to you, I'm afraid -- root 2 is an exact number.



> It is an incommensurable magnitude and is normally represented as a rational approximation, that is, 1.414.


Another dead end, John Gabriel.


>
>
>
> There is NO such thing as an irrational number.
>


See what I mean, folks?


>
>
> In his strange number system supposedly based on Euclid, he cannot even prove that 2+2=4.
>
>
>
> False. I showed this in an earlier comment. And because it's not important, I won't bother addressing again.
>


How about the link to where you supposedly proved that 2+2=4, John Gabriel? Can't seem to find it at the moment? HA, HA, HA!

Dan



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.