Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.



Re: 1.82  Troll Dan Christensen
Posted:
Jul 30, 2014 7:12 AM


On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:05:41 AM UTC4, 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  (cm) / m+n = (m+n)/(m+n) = 1 > >
A baffling climbdown 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



