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



Re: It doesn't matter how you word your shit because shit by any other name is still shit.
Posted:
Nov 11, 2017 10:06 AM


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 illformed 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 illformedness. 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 UTC5, 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/JohnGabriel.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 + illformed >> definition >> >> Yes! Now that is one hell of an explanation by an MIT graduate!!! >> >



