The Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


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

Topic: Re: It doesn't matter how you word your shit because shit by any
other name is still shit.

Replies: 5   Last Post: Nov 11, 2017 12:02 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Guest

Watch Watch this User
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
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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!!!
>>

>




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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.