Discussion:
Where are all the so-called professors on this forum? You have nothing to say about my new theorem, you reptiles?
Add Reply
Eram semper recta
2020-02-21 20:05:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The historic theorem:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

How it fixes your bogus mainstream formulation:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y

I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
Alan Mackenzie
2020-02-21 20:51:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks
or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise
the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
Perhaps it is because your "theorem" is lacking in theoremhood, or says
nothing of note, or isn't original to you. That you falsely characterise
standard calculus as "bogus" does nothing to encourage scrutiny of your
"theorem". If it were truly significant you'd've heard from the
professors by now, who would have thanked you and congratulated you, etc.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Eram semper recta
2020-02-21 21:39:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks
or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise
the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
Perhaps it is because your "theorem" is lacking in theoremhood, or says
nothing of note, or isn't original to you.
Oh look! Dumbest Scotsman spews out his ignorance again.

The theorem is original, you dead dog! You can't state any publication that mentions it before I revealed it.
Post by Alan Mackenzie
That you falsely characterise standard calculus as "bogus" does nothing to encourage scrutiny of your "theorem".
It shows just how BOGUS is your mainstream calculus.
Post by Alan Mackenzie
If it were truly significant you'd've heard from the professors by now,
I have moron... I was talking about professors on THIS FORUM.
Post by Alan Mackenzie
who would have thanked you and congratulated you, etc.
They know it's significant but they abstain because it exposes their ignorance, stupidity and incompetence. Not to mention their pathological jealousy.
Post by Alan Mackenzie
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Alan Mackenzie
2020-02-21 21:59:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks
or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise
the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
Perhaps it is because your "theorem" is lacking in theoremhood, or says
nothing of note, or isn't original to you.
Oh look! Dumbest Scotsman spews out his ignorance again.
The theorem is original, you dead dog! You can't state any publication
that mentions it before I revealed it.
I haven't even looked at your "theorem" - you have a reputation, you
know, and I've only got so much time to waste here. Besides, as I've
told you before, I don't read drivel.google.com.
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Alan Mackenzie
That you falsely characterise standard calculus as "bogus" does
nothing to encourage scrutiny of your "theorem".
It shows just how BOGUS is your mainstream calculus.
Post by Alan Mackenzie
If it were truly significant you'd've heard from the professors by now,
I have moron... I was talking about professors on THIS FORUM.
They've commented at length on your "theorem", basically ripping it to
shreds.
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Alan Mackenzie
who would have thanked you and congratulated you, etc.
They know it's significant but they abstain because it exposes their
ignorance, stupidity and incompetence. Not to mention their
pathological jealousy.
Not at all. It's just one more crank's delusory outpourings that they
have to sidestep in order to have time to get their work done.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Eram semper recta
2020-02-21 22:46:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks
or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise
the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
Perhaps it is because your "theorem" is lacking in theoremhood, or says
nothing of note, or isn't original to you.
Oh look! Dumbest Scotsman spews out his ignorance again.
The theorem is original, you dead dog! You can't state any publication
that mentions it before I revealed it.
I haven't even looked at your "theorem" - you have a reputation,
Liar. (Libel by scum like you) =/= (reputation)
Post by Alan Mackenzie
you know, and I've only got so much time to waste here.
You couldn't fool anyone douchebag! It's clear you have a lot of time to waste writing out elaborate bullshit responses!

< Bullshit up to the ears >
Alan Mackenzie
2020-02-22 08:33:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Eram semper recta
The theorem is original, you dead dog! You can't state any
publication that mentions it before I revealed it.
I haven't even looked at your "theorem" - you have a reputation,
Liar. (Libel by scum like you) =/= (reputation)
How many times have you got to be told that I don't lie on Usenet? I
don't libel, either. You do indeed have a reputation on this newsgroups,
and it's not a good one.
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Alan Mackenzie
you know, and I've only got so much time to waste here.
You couldn't fool anyone douchebag! It's clear you have a lot of time
to waste writing out elaborate bullshit responses!
I only respond every now and then. You appear to spend your entire days
posting here, presumably for lack of anything better to do.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Eram semper recta
2020-02-22 13:03:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Eram semper recta
The theorem is original, you dead dog! You can't state any
publication that mentions it before I revealed it.
I haven't even looked at your "theorem" - you have a reputation,
Liar. (Libel by scum like you) =/= (reputation)
How many times have you got to be told that I don't lie on Usenet?
You just lied!!!!!!!!!

Whether you do it intentionally or through ignorance (we know you are very ignorant!), you have lied several times in every comment you wrote.

You're a sad, pathetic loser.
Sergio
2020-02-22 18:46:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Eram semper recta
The theorem is original, you dead dog! You can't state any
publication that mentions it before I revealed it.
I haven't even looked at your "theorem" - you have a reputation,
Liar. (Libel by scum like you) =/= (reputation)
How many times have you got to be told that I don't lie on Usenet? I
don't libel, either. You do indeed have a reputation on this newsgroups,
and it's not a good one.
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Alan Mackenzie
you know, and I've only got so much time to waste here.
You couldn't fool anyone douchebag! It's clear you have a lot of time
to waste writing out elaborate bullshit responses!
I only respond every now and then. You appear to spend your entire days
posting here, presumably for lack of anything better to do.
JG likes to insult people
Eram semper recta
2020-02-21 21:48:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks
or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise
the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
That you RIGHTLY characterise standard calculus as "bogus" does nothing to encourage scrutiny of your "theorem".
Oh, but it does! You wouldn't understand because you're a nobody. BUT, mainstream academics hate nothing more than to be shown they are WRONG and loathe correction. LMAO.

I won't stop shoving this in their faces until they can't take it any more.

FACT: The theorem exposes your religious Cauchy-ite bullshit:

f'(x) =/= Lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h

RATHER:

f'(x) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - Q(x,h)

No infinity, no infinitesimals, no ghosts of departed quantities, no ultimate ratios (LMAO at the moron Newton!), no limit theory (which states unremarkable properties disguised as "proof"). NO MORE BULLSHIT.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
There should be a new Nuremberg trials where are mainstream academics who refuse to admit their errors are tried and hanged.
Mostowski Collapse
2020-02-21 21:57:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Can you make an example where:

f'(x) =/= Lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h

LMAO!
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks
or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise
the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
That you RIGHTLY characterise standard calculus as "bogus" does nothing to encourage scrutiny of your "theorem".
Oh, but it does! You wouldn't understand because you're a nobody. BUT, mainstream academics hate nothing more than to be shown they are WRONG and loathe correction. LMAO.
I won't stop shoving this in their faces until they can't take it any more.
f'(x) =/= Lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h
f'(x) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - Q(x,h)
No infinity, no infinitesimals, no ghosts of departed quantities, no ultimate ratios (LMAO at the moron Newton!), no limit theory (which states unremarkable properties disguised as "proof"). NO MORE BULLSHIT.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
There should be a new Nuremberg trials where are mainstream academics who refuse to admit their errors are tried and hanged.
Eram semper recta
2020-02-21 22:50:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Birdbrain jan burse, still struggling with S = Lim S?

<shit follows>
Post by Eram semper recta
f'(x) =/= Lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h
LMAO!
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks
or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise
the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
That you RIGHTLY characterise standard calculus as "bogus" does nothing to encourage scrutiny of your "theorem".
Oh, but it does! You wouldn't understand because you're a nobody. BUT, mainstream academics hate nothing more than to be shown they are WRONG and loathe correction. LMAO.
I won't stop shoving this in their faces until they can't take it any more.
f'(x) =/= Lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h
f'(x) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - Q(x,h)
No infinity, no infinitesimals, no ghosts of departed quantities, no ultimate ratios (LMAO at the moron Newton!), no limit theory (which states unremarkable properties disguised as "proof"). NO MORE BULLSHIT.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
There should be a new Nuremberg trials where are mainstream academics who refuse to admit their errors are tried and hanged.
Alan Mackenzie
2020-02-21 22:12:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks
or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise
the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
That you characterise standard calculus as "bogus" does nothing to
encourage scrutiny of your "theorem".
Oh, but it does! You wouldn't understand because you're a nobody. BUT,
mainstream academics hate nothing more than to be shown they are WRONG
and loathe correction. LMAO.
I'm educated in maths. I've been close enought to academics to see them
delight in new ideas, new approaches. But they don't like cranks wasting
their time. Who would?
Post by Eram semper recta
I won't stop shoving this in their faces until they can't take it any more.
You mean, until they give up reading sci.maths? I think you'll find that
cranks have already achieved that effect, largely, and it happened a long
time ago.
Post by Eram semper recta
f'(x) =/= Lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h
f'(x) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - Q(x,h)
No infinity, no infinitesimals, no ghosts of departed quantities, no
ultimate ratios (LMAO at the moron Newton!), no limit theory (which
states unremarkable properties disguised as "proof"). NO MORE BULLSHIT.
Things which lie beyond your understanding. You don't understand
advanced maths, and you never will.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Eram semper recta
2020-02-21 22:49:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
I'm educated in maths.
Joke of the century! Chuckle.

That you falsely characterise yourself as educated does nothing to help your drivel.

<Shit>
Zelos Malum
2020-02-24 06:26:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks
or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise
the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
That you RIGHTLY characterise standard calculus as "bogus" does nothing to encourage scrutiny of your "theorem".
Oh, but it does! You wouldn't understand because you're a nobody. BUT, mainstream academics hate nothing more than to be shown they are WRONG and loathe correction. LMAO.
I won't stop shoving this in their faces until they can't take it any more.
f'(x) =/= Lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h
f'(x) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - Q(x,h)
No infinity, no infinitesimals, no ghosts of departed quantities, no ultimate ratios (LMAO at the moron Newton!), no limit theory (which states unremarkable properties disguised as "proof"). NO MORE BULLSHIT.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
There should be a new Nuremberg trials where are mainstream academics who refuse to admit their errors are tried and hanged.
Distorting quotes only shows hwo dishoenst you are.
Eram semper recta
2020-02-21 22:51:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
No professor at all?! Chuckle.

Vile dogs. I'll keep exposing your stupidity without any mercy.
Eram semper recta
2020-02-22 13:11:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
Do not respond with your opinions which are worth less than dung.

If you choose to respond, then address the subject with FACTS, not assertions and ignorance! Study the articles first.

The two local idiots (jean pierre messager and zelos malum) have tried to refute the theorem. Here are a couple of feeble attempts by these psychopaths:

Messager (aka Python) believes that h is a factor of (h/h) x object. I can't think of much cognitive dissonance that surpasses this stupidity.

i. h/h x object does not make h a factor of object. If this were so, then h would be a factor of everything!

Malum and Messager have claimed that the sum f'(x)+Q(x,h) is not unique. This is so ridiculous because if this were the case, the same problem would exist in your bogus mainstream formulation: f'(x) = Lim_{h->0} [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h. These poor morons don't get it. The following demonstrates their diseased thinking:

ii. sin x + 2x + h - sin x ACTUALLY equals 2x+h and adding ZERO does not change the UNIQUE value of f'(x)+Q(x,h)

When asked to show how they can actually obtain sin(x) in the slope function using f(x)=x^2, they are silent, because they know what they have written is absolute drivel. Messager is a failed computer programmer from France, but Malum claims to have a Master Degree in mathematics! Shocking to say the least!
bassam karzeddin
2020-02-22 14:15:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
Where are all the so-called professors on this forum? You have nothing to say about my new theorem, you reptiles?
All those true imbeciles have run away from here many years ago and are hiding in very well-protected and very moderated sites especially the Stalk Exchange, Quora, Reddit, ..., rubish, etc where nobody is ever allowed to touch their so sensitive feelings about their fucked up alleged intelligence

But there are many of them are still hiding here on this site under many fake names or maybe silent readers as well

Here and since it is the only site in the whole world I know about they simply can't protect their well-documented global ignorance and huge brain fart, which is why they spoiled this site reputation because it was the only site that has exposed clearly their mathematics

And throw out my long experience on Usenet and the sci. math forum, SE, Quora, etc, since 2004, I become very experienced with their true traits that are indeed too shameful to an unbelievable degree of (stupidity, stubbornness, thefts, ignorance, liers, inferiority complex, failures, fiction lovers, denials, joules, slaves to authorities, ..., etc)

Those alleged theoretical science categories like a top (philosophers, physicians, logicians and not to exclude the worst academic mathematicians) are indeed the biggest shame on all human kinds

They usually love and admire the dead people or the living idiots masters who are enforced on them by their highest authorities

They are ready to waste their entire life span with very long tounges argumentations about many wrong silly issues that must be understood immeadeatly once stated from the titles

But luckily for them that they are rarely noticed by the general public attention and never comparable with even a little skilled footballer boy for example

And their alleged honesty, nobility, to uprise any true discoveries is actually existing in many fake history books with many ridiculous and tragedic stories that were well-fabricated for the FOOLS to believe

Their most top figures aren't at all different from drug smugglers and criminal dirty minds just to keep control of their illegal lengthy and so unnecessary business that is worth nothing at the end but so insulting and harmful to normal human minds

Their pride in their meaningless and untrue intelligence is actually

the ever biggest shame that is printed on their empty foreheads with their broken shoulders

And despite all that technical progress not generally made by themselves, they are still behaving worse than any elapsed century

Languages are truly incapable of well-described them,

And their worst figures are those who do well-understand the truth but keep cowardly so silent and never appear in a picture
BKK
Python
2020-02-22 14:23:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
IDIOT, SHAMELESS IDIOT, bassam karzeddin wrote:
...
Post by bassam karzeddin
Languages are truly incapable of well-described them,
You're not that good when it comes to language Mr Karheddin.

By "them" are you qualifying the kind of people who posts a
question on Quora then *change* the question in a kind of
drastic way? Then you are right, Mr Bassam Karheddin: you
are a kind of scume that language may fail to properly
describe. So are Mr Gabriel and Herr Mueckenheilm by the way.
bassam karzeddin
2020-02-22 14:38:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Python
...
Post by bassam karzeddin
Languages are truly incapable of well-described them,
You're not that good when it comes to language Mr Karheddin.
By "them" are you qualifying the kind of people who posts a
question on Quora then *change* the question in a kind of
drastic way? Then you are right, Mr Bassam Karheddin: you
are a kind of scume that language may fail to properly
describe. So are Mr Gabriel and Herr Mueckenheilm by the way.
Python physic mental case is the best out of those I do well-describe

What do I mean, this type of them is still the best since they simply react and express themselves

This type like Python case may be of an innocent type (where I truly doubt it) since he was engaged in so many earlier hot discussions with myself and many others where he exhausted us to pick up any hint throughout all those years
But I think He is indeed a true classic infidel who refuse stubbornly to learn from superior public natural and true sources like here

Nothing he is willing to accept despite confessing many guilts in his narrow understanding

BKK
Eram semper recta
2020-02-22 17:53:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam karzeddin
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
Where are all the so-called professors on this forum? You have nothing to say about my new theorem, you reptiles?
All those true imbeciles have run away from here many years ago and are hiding in very well-protected and very moderated sites especially the Stalk Exchange, Quora, Reddit, ..., rubish, etc where nobody is ever allowed to touch their so sensitive feelings about their fucked up alleged intelligence
Right. Those are the "moderated" sites where any dissent or opposing view sees you banned. I have been banned from all those RUBBISH sites.
Post by bassam karzeddin
But there are many of them are still hiding here on this site under many fake names or maybe silent readers as well
Here and since it is the only site in the whole world I know about they simply can't protect their well-documented global ignorance and huge brain fart, which is why they spoiled this site reputation because it was the only site that has exposed clearly their mathematics
And throw out my long experience on Usenet and the sci. math forum, SE, Quora, etc, since 2004, I become very experienced with their true traits that are indeed too shameful to an unbelievable degree of (stupidity, stubbornness, thefts, ignorance, liers, inferiority complex, failures, fiction lovers, denials, joules, slaves to authorities, ..., etc)
Those alleged theoretical science categories like a top (philosophers, physicians, logicians and not to exclude the worst academic mathematicians) are indeed the biggest shame on all human kinds
They usually love and admire the dead people or the living idiots masters who are enforced on them by their highest authorities
They are ready to waste their entire life span with very long tounges argumentations about many wrong silly issues that must be understood immeadeatly once stated from the titles
But luckily for them that they are rarely noticed by the general public attention and never comparable with even a little skilled footballer boy for example
And their alleged honesty, nobility, to uprise any true discoveries is actually existing in many fake history books with many ridiculous and tragedic stories that were well-fabricated for the FOOLS to believe
Their most top figures aren't at all different from drug smugglers and criminal dirty minds just to keep control of their illegal lengthy and so unnecessary business that is worth nothing at the end but so insulting and harmful to normal human minds
Their pride in their meaningless and untrue intelligence is actually
the ever biggest shame that is printed on their empty foreheads with their broken shoulders
And despite all that technical progress not generally made by themselves, they are still behaving worse than any elapsed century
Languages are truly incapable of well-described them,
And their worst figures are those who do well-understand the truth but keep cowardly so silent and never appear in a picture
BKK
r***@siu.edu
2020-02-22 15:39:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
Your new theorem isn't that new. It can be found, for example, in Labarre, Intermediate Math Analysis (1968).

Don
Eram semper recta
2020-02-22 17:51:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@siu.edu
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
Your new theorem isn't that new. It can be found, for example, in Labarre, Intermediate Math Analysis (1968).
Liar. If it were true, then you would no doubt quote it with page and number.

But being the loser swine that you are, you've tried this before too when you claimed that my constructive proof of the mean value theorem was not the first.

In both cases, you lied. Why is that so Don?
Post by r***@siu.edu
Don
Alan Mackenzie
2020-02-22 19:04:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by r***@siu.edu
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say
thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who
comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
Your new theorem isn't that new. It can be found, for example, in
Labarre, Intermediate Math Analysis (1968).
Liar. If it were true, then you would no doubt quote it with page and number.
Were you courteously to have asked him, he no doubt would have supplied
you with a more accurate reference.
Post by Eram semper recta
But being the loser swine that you are, you've tried this before too
when you claimed that my constructive proof of the mean value theorem
was not the first.
So, this is the response that professors can expect from you - abuse.
You can't be particularly surprised if most of them decline to waste
their time trying to help you.
Post by Eram semper recta
In both cases, you lied. Why is that so Don?
I doubt very much Don lied. When no other type of abuse will work, you
call people liars.
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by r***@siu.edu
Don
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Eram semper recta
2020-02-22 19:18:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Saturday, 22 February 2020 14:04:41 UTC-5, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
<drivel>

Shut up moron. Speak only when you are spoken to.
Alan Mackenzie
2020-02-22 19:34:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
<drivel>
Shut up moron. Speak only when you are spoken to.
You need to learn some manners, and you need to learn to show respect for
other people. The world does not rotate about your ego, your delusions
and your coarseness.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Michael Moroney
2020-02-22 22:24:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Eram semper recta
<drivel>
Shut up moron. Speak only when you are spoken to.
You need to learn some manners, and you need to learn to show respect for
other people. The world does not rotate about your ego, your delusions
and your coarseness.
Listen to Alan, Gabriel. You are in no position to insult your betters like
that.
Eram semper recta
2020-02-23 00:32:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Eram semper recta
<drivel>
Shut up moron. Speak only when you are spoken to.
You need to learn some manners, and you need to learn to show respect for
other people.
I don't respect idiots like you. I have nothing but the utmost disdain and contempt for clueless fools who lie all the time, misrepresent and pretend they know when they actually know nothing. I am describing YOU!
Post by Alan Mackenzie
The world does not rotate about your ego, your delusions
and your coarseness.
Go fuck yourself idiot. You are once again projecting yourself onto me. If I have an ego, I bloody well deserve to be proud. That's something an utter failure and loser like you can never understand.
Post by Alan Mackenzie
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Alan Mackenzie
2020-02-23 09:54:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Eram semper recta
<drivel>
Shut up moron. Speak only when you are spoken to.
You need to learn some manners, and you need to learn to show respect
for other people.
I don't respect idiots like you.
You don't respect anybody. The only people you'll talk to without using
curse words are those who stroke your ego. There aren't too many of
those in this group.

And when a mild mannered professor, Don Redmond, responds to your
specific request, and has the decency to point out that your "discovery"
is indeed a theorem, but has long been known, you empty a bucket of slime
over him.

As I say, you need to learn manners and respect.
Post by Eram semper recta
I have nothing but the utmost disdain and contempt for clueless fools
who lie all the time, misrepresent and pretend they know when they
actually know nothing. I am describing YOU!
Hahahahahaha! You don't even understand what the word lie means.
Yesterday you were talking about "unintentional lying". I suggest you
look the word up in a dictionary.

And, as I keep having to tell you, I don't lie on Usenet. Neither do I
misrepresent things or my state of knowledge. These are more in your
department.
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Alan Mackenzie
The world does not rotate about your ego, your delusions and your
coarseness.
Go fuck yourself idiot. You are once again projecting yourself onto me.
If I have an ego, I bloody well deserve to be proud.
You are just an empty shell, divorced from reality. You don't even have
a degree in maths, and thus lack the background to pronounce on so many
of the things you falsely affect expertise in.
Post by Eram semper recta
That's something an utter failure and loser like you can never
understand.
Hahahahahaha! Look at who's projecting now.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Eram semper recta
2020-02-23 13:08:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sunday, 23 February 2020 04:54:50 UTC-5, world's dumbest Scotsman Alan Mackenzie wrote:

<bullshit...>
Post by Alan Mackenzie
And when a mild mannered professor, Don Redmond, responds to your
specific request, and has the decency to point out that your "discovery"
is indeed a theorem, but has long been known, you empty a bucket of slime
over him.
Redmond is a LIAR - just like YOU! If he had any evidence, he would have stated page numbers. I pointed out his ignorance and inability to understand what he read.

You don't have a clue what Redmond and I are talking about, you uneducated, stupid, annoying piece of shit! Therefore, shut the fuck up moron.


<whining and excessive drivel>
Alan Mackenzie
2020-02-23 14:06:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Alan Mackenzie
And when a mild mannered professor, Don Redmond, responds to your
specific request, and has the decency to point out that your
"discovery" is indeed a theorem, but has long been known, you empty a
bucket of slime over him.
Redmond is a LIAR - just like YOU!
If either of us could be bothered, you'd get wiped out in a libel court.
Remember: you don't even understand what the word liar means.
Post by Eram semper recta
If he had any evidence, he would have stated page numbers. I pointed
out his ignorance and inability to understand what he read.
Evidence? For crying out loud! He knows something you don't, and
informs you about it. If you wanted chapter and verse from him, the
appropriate reaction would have been to thank him for his help and ask
for those details. This is now normal educated people communicate and
debate contentious things. It is a way of resolving misunderstandings,
and generally adding to the sum of ones knowledge. You being an abnormal
uneducated person, it is also beyond your capabilities.
Post by Eram semper recta
You don't have a clue what Redmond and I are talking about,
No, not really, but I suspect you're not talking to him any more. You've
given him very good reasons never to discuss anything with you ever
again. Why should he waste any more of his time on you?
Post by Eram semper recta
you uneducated, stupid, annoying piece of shit! Therefore, shut the
fuck up moron.
As I said, you're an abnormal uneducated boor.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Garcon Lévêque
2020-02-23 14:11:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Eram semper recta
On Sunday, 23 February 2020 04:54:50 UTC-5, world's dumbest Scotsman
Post by Alan Mackenzie
And when a mild mannered professor, Don Redmond, responds to your
specific request, and has the decency to point out that your
"discovery" is indeed a theorem, but has long been known, you empty a
bucket of slime over him.
Redmond is a LIAR - just like YOU!
If either of us could be bothered, you'd get wiped out in a libel court.
Remember: you don't even understand what the word liar means.
please don't misjudge us. I know how your capitalist, santa claus
christianity, syphilitic brain works. If I want a christian, I go to
orthodox christianity.
Eram semper recta
2020-02-23 15:18:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Garcon Lévêque
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Eram semper recta
On Sunday, 23 February 2020 04:54:50 UTC-5, world's dumbest Scotsman
Post by Alan Mackenzie
And when a mild mannered professor, Don Redmond, responds to your
specific request, and has the decency to point out that your
"discovery" is indeed a theorem, but has long been known, you empty a
bucket of slime over him.
Redmond is a LIAR - just like YOU!
If either of us could be bothered, you'd get wiped out in a libel court.
Remember: you don't even understand what the word liar means.
please don't misjudge us. I know how your capitalist, santa claus
christianity, syphilitic brain works. If I want a christian, I go to
orthodox christianity.
Well said my friend! A Frenchman with a brain at last!
Sergio
2020-02-23 18:38:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Garcon Lévêque
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Eram semper recta
On Sunday, 23 February 2020 04:54:50 UTC-5, world's dumbest Scotsman
Post by Alan Mackenzie
And when a mild mannered professor, Don Redmond, responds to your
specific request, and has the decency to point out that your
"discovery" is indeed a theorem, but has long been known, you empty a
bucket of slime over him.
Redmond is a LIAR - just like YOU!
If either of us could be bothered, you'd get wiped out in a libel court.
Remember: you don't even understand what the word liar means.
please don't misjudge us. I know how your capitalist, santa claus
christianity, syphilitic brain works. If I want a christian, I go to
orthodox christianity.
JG wants to be Jew like Bernie Sanders, and get free money from "rich"
people.

Anyone making over $12,000 a year is "rich" according to Bernie, and
needs to pay his fair share, (50%) + let Bernie's Government decide what
to do with their money, not you.

did you know Bernie Sanders initials are BS ?
Eram semper recta
2020-02-23 19:50:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sergio
Post by Garcon Lévêque
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Eram semper recta
On Sunday, 23 February 2020 04:54:50 UTC-5, world's dumbest Scotsman
Post by Alan Mackenzie
And when a mild mannered professor, Don Redmond, responds to your
specific request, and has the decency to point out that your
"discovery" is indeed a theorem, but has long been known, you empty a
bucket of slime over him.
Redmond is a LIAR - just like YOU!
If either of us could be bothered, you'd get wiped out in a libel court.
Remember: you don't even understand what the word liar means.
please don't misjudge us. I know how your capitalist, santa claus
christianity, syphilitic brain works. If I want a christian, I go to
orthodox christianity.
JG wants to be Jew like Bernie Sanders,
Unfortunately I am a Jew, BUT I am also a Greek and an Italian and a few other things too...
Post by Sergio
and get free money from "rich" people.
Bullshit as usual.

<PLONK>
Post by Sergio
Anyone making over $12,000 a year is "rich" according to Bernie, and
needs to pay his fair share, (50%) + let Bernie's Government decide what
to do with their money, not you.
did you know Bernie Sanders initials are BS ?
Yes idiot. Those are the first letters of his first and last name respectively.

Your real initials are also BS, but yours stands for Big Shit.
Eram semper recta
2020-02-23 15:25:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sunday, 23 February 2020 09:06:22 UTC-5, Alan Mackenzie driveled shit.

James Gregory?? Was he the last great Scots mathematician? He helped Taylor with his crappy polynomial.

Today we have the Gabriel polynomial - a closed form polynomial.


Taylor who??? LMAO.


I've met some smart Scots. You Mackenzie, are truly a fucking moron sod. Tsk, tsk.
Eram semper recta
2020-02-22 18:06:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@siu.edu
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
Your new theorem isn't that new. It can be found, for example, in Labarre, Intermediate Math Analysis (1968).
Just read the piece of junk you quoted:

https://ia801905.us.archive.org/27/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.134298/2015.134298.Intermediate-Mathematical-Analysis.pdf

If you are thinking of the Lipschitz condition, you are fucking deluded. That has nothing to do with my theorem.

You probably misunderstood what you read on page 118. It is not saying the same thing as my theorem, nor is anything remotely similar to my theorem.

You vile, lying, disgusting dog!!!!

It seems that this is the same source which you claimed contained a constructive proof of the mean value theorem on page 130.

Man, you are a true mainstream crank!
Post by r***@siu.edu
Don
bassam karzeddin
2020-02-23 11:41:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by r***@siu.edu
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
Your new theorem isn't that new. It can be found, for example, in Labarre, Intermediate Math Analysis (1968).
https://ia801905.us.archive.org/27/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.134298/2015.134298.Intermediate-Mathematical-Analysis.pdf
If you are thinking of the Lipschitz condition, you are fucking deluded. That has nothing to do with my theorem.
You probably misunderstood what you read on page 118. It is not saying the same thing as my theorem, nor is anything remotely similar to my theorem.
You vile, lying, disgusting dog!!!!
It seems that this is the same source which you claimed contained a constructive proof of the mean value theorem on page 130.
Man, you are a true mainstream crank!
Post by r***@siu.edu
Don
As I did expect and analyzed correctly many times earlier

The headquarter mathematical gunges authorities are very keen on keeping every new discovery under their illegal control

By many suspected devices in advance like Donkeypedia, Stalk Exchange, Quora,..., etc and even this seemingly free site as sci. math

Where, whenever any new original issue is sparkling at any farm from those sites you immeadeatly observe the yellow pages of Donkeypedia stage are sparkling accordingly immeadeatly with many revisions provided with many tonnes of irrelevant historical sources run by mostly many anonymous thieves working behind the scene mainly and only for one thing which is to prevent and close any door for any public source or a genius to come up with anything new no matter if the whole mathematics is collapsed apart

Since for them, mathematics is basically a pure business trade where once allowed public superior source to be under light then they lose everything as a subsequent event in accordance with their surficial and very stupid and materialistic business thinking,

Adding to that the fake reputation they do illegally enjoy by exploiting innocent minds of students and the total unawareness of all educated people about their closed business

And the case isn't so different with those book authors or very secretive researchers that appear suddenly in big issues and pretending that they have never heard about it from any reputable sources, which is to legalize stealing anything from any public sources with complete blessing and encouragement of their main masters working secretly behind the scene

To illustrate the idea we have to enlarge the picture size is an example

A proof of FLT with hundreds of pages and tonnes of references that rarely a Ph.D. person understand a little part of it is called a century proof where almost every academic mainstream with degrees appreciate and refer to in his argument, just because it was their production

Now imagine if such a proof were exactly published in this free site for example and then you would see those same common academic mainstream sheep describing the provers of being the most idiots and biggest historical cranks ever occurred in the human history, (as simple as that)

Whereas if by chance a clever school student would write a very short rigorous proof that can even convince a non-mathematician about its validity, then you would certainly see the same sheep-like shape academic mainstream mathematicians fighting against the proof with all their strength and lies and so and so just to spoil it completely in order to be taken cleverly later by one of those figures with a very long tongue that is capable to convey it in a very long interesting and fabricated story

Mainstream academic sheeple generally don't process that level of self-respect and esteem, nor do they have the minimum ethical honesty and nobility but they have all the contrary traits of low human being standards to (spoiler, alter, steal, cheat, lie, hide, ..., etc) the issue since don't have independent thinking yet

The main problem is mostly the huge ignorant mainstream standard thinking and general behaviors and reactions towards superior being to themselves

And only due to the internet, and fast communication era those abnormal creatures have been badly exposed, where soon every educated person must realize their truth and down level thinking and standards

And this experienced attitude is heavily supported mainly from their so shameful history where they do generally reword their grat living masters when there is no tooth left in their mouth or mostly years after they do classify them to death

But imagine for a while if you were a young skilled footballer or a young singer with nice throat how things would change drastically with normal mainstream people then? wonders!

And they did blame me to raise those three world wars against those abnormal devilish creatures who spoiled the entire meaning of justice on earth in all its aspects basically by denying the equal sign and replacing it with many meaningless terms that is a pure insult and district to all true human being minds FOR SURE

Bassam Kareddin
Eram semper recta
2020-02-23 13:17:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam karzeddin
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by r***@siu.edu
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
Your new theorem isn't that new. It can be found, for example, in Labarre, Intermediate Math Analysis (1968).
https://ia801905.us.archive.org/27/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.134298/2015.134298.Intermediate-Mathematical-Analysis.pdf
If you are thinking of the Lipschitz condition, you are fucking deluded. That has nothing to do with my theorem.
You probably misunderstood what you read on page 118. It is not saying the same thing as my theorem, nor is anything remotely similar to my theorem.
You vile, lying, disgusting dog!!!!
It seems that this is the same source which you claimed contained a constructive proof of the mean value theorem on page 130.
Man, you are a true mainstream crank!
Post by r***@siu.edu
Don
As I did expect and analyzed correctly many times earlier
The headquarter mathematical gunges authorities are very keen on keeping every new discovery under their illegal control
By many suspected devices in advance like Donkeypedia, Stalk Exchange, Quora,..., etc and even this seemingly free site as sci. math
Where, whenever any new original issue is sparkling at any farm from those sites you immeadeatly observe the yellow pages of Donkeypedia stage are sparkling accordingly immeadeatly with many revisions provided with many tonnes of irrelevant historical sources run by mostly many anonymous thieves working behind the scene mainly and only for one thing which is to prevent and close any door for any public source or a genius to come up with anything new no matter if the whole mathematics is collapsed apart
Since for them, mathematics is basically a pure business trade where once allowed public superior source to be under light then they lose everything as a subsequent event in accordance with their surficial and very stupid and materialistic business thinking,
Adding to that the fake reputation they do illegally enjoy by exploiting innocent minds of students and the total unawareness of all educated people about their closed business
And the case isn't so different with those book authors or very secretive researchers that appear suddenly in big issues and pretending that they have never heard about it from any reputable sources, which is to legalize stealing anything from any public sources with complete blessing and encouragement of their main masters working secretly behind the scene
To illustrate the idea we have to enlarge the picture size is an example
A proof of FLT with hundreds of pages and tonnes of references that rarely a Ph.D. person understand a little part of it is called a century proof where almost every academic mainstream with degrees appreciate and refer to in his argument, just because it was their production
Now imagine if such a proof were exactly published in this free site for example and then you would see those same common academic mainstream sheep describing the provers of being the most idiots and biggest historical cranks ever occurred in the human history, (as simple as that)
Whereas if by chance a clever school student would write a very short rigorous proof that can even convince a non-mathematician about its validity, then you would certainly see the same sheep-like shape academic mainstream mathematicians fighting against the proof with all their strength and lies and so and so just to spoil it completely in order to be taken cleverly later by one of those figures with a very long tongue that is capable to convey it in a very long interesting and fabricated story
Mainstream academic sheeple generally don't process that level of self-respect and esteem, nor do they have the minimum ethical honesty and nobility but they have all the contrary traits of low human being standards to (spoiler, alter, steal, cheat, lie, hide, ..., etc) the issue since don't have independent thinking yet
The main problem is mostly the huge ignorant mainstream standard thinking and general behaviors and reactions towards superior being to themselves
And only due to the internet, and fast communication era those abnormal creatures have been badly exposed, where soon every educated person must realize their truth and down level thinking and standards
And this experienced attitude is heavily supported mainly from their so shameful history where they do generally reword their grat living masters when there is no tooth left in their mouth or mostly years after they do classify them to death
But imagine for a while if you were a young skilled footballer or a young singer with nice throat how things would change drastically with normal mainstream people then? wonders!
And they did blame me to raise those three world wars against those abnormal devilish creatures who spoiled the entire meaning of justice on earth in all its aspects basically by denying the equal sign and replacing it with many meaningless terms that is a pure insult and district to all true human being minds FOR SURE
Bassam Kareddin
Do you notice how the fucking imbeciles start out?

Jean Pierre Messager: "Not a true theorem..." - when the pisshead knows nothing about even the basics of mathematics."

Mackenzie: "Bla, bla, bla shit. You have no manners ..."

Jan Burse Birdbrain: "Still struggling to understand S = Lim S"

Jean Pierre Messager: "Okay ... true, but of no significance..."

Zelos Malum: " sin x + 2x + h - sin x" =/= "2x + h"

Don Redmond: "It's not new" (but shows no evidence. Redmond tried this with me before also, but it didn't work. The lying scumbag stated that I was not the first to prove the mean value theorem constructively. I am the first!)

In any case, the link I provided shows there is no theorem similar to mine in the book he mentioned. Not even remotely similar. But because I am far more intelligent than all these pissers combined, I know how their syphilitic brains work and am 100 steps ahead of all them. They are mentally ill and consumed with pathological jealousy and ignorance.

-----------------------------------

Then they expect to be treated with "respect" when they treat everyone else like shit, ban them from their moderated forums, libel my name whenever and wherever the filthy bastards get a chance. The dishonest pigs categorise anyone who rejects their bullshit as a crank when there is nothing more cranky than them.

They are "hatap al nar" in my opinion. I hate the lot of them with a perfect hatred. Worthless, lying, dishonest, ignorant, stupid, jealous, filthy scum - ALL of them.
bassam karzeddin
2020-02-23 14:26:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by bassam karzeddin
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by r***@siu.edu
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
Your new theorem isn't that new. It can be found, for example, in Labarre, Intermediate Math Analysis (1968).
https://ia801905.us.archive.org/27/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.134298/2015.134298.Intermediate-Mathematical-Analysis.pdf
If you are thinking of the Lipschitz condition, you are fucking deluded. That has nothing to do with my theorem.
You probably misunderstood what you read on page 118. It is not saying the same thing as my theorem, nor is anything remotely similar to my theorem.
You vile, lying, disgusting dog!!!!
It seems that this is the same source which you claimed contained a constructive proof of the mean value theorem on page 130.
Man, you are a true mainstream crank!
Post by r***@siu.edu
Don
As I did expect and analyzed correctly many times earlier
The headquarter mathematical gunges authorities are very keen on keeping every new discovery under their illegal control
By many suspected devices in advance like Donkeypedia, Stalk Exchange, Quora,..., etc and even this seemingly free site as sci. math
Where, whenever any new original issue is sparkling at any farm from those sites you immeadeatly observe the yellow pages of Donkeypedia stage are sparkling accordingly immeadeatly with many revisions provided with many tonnes of irrelevant historical sources run by mostly many anonymous thieves working behind the scene mainly and only for one thing which is to prevent and close any door for any public source or a genius to come up with anything new no matter if the whole mathematics is collapsed apart
Since for them, mathematics is basically a pure business trade where once allowed public superior source to be under light then they lose everything as a subsequent event in accordance with their surficial and very stupid and materialistic business thinking,
Adding to that the fake reputation they do illegally enjoy by exploiting innocent minds of students and the total unawareness of all educated people about their closed business
And the case isn't so different with those book authors or very secretive researchers that appear suddenly in big issues and pretending that they have never heard about it from any reputable sources, which is to legalize stealing anything from any public sources with complete blessing and encouragement of their main masters working secretly behind the scene
To illustrate the idea we have to enlarge the picture size is an example
A proof of FLT with hundreds of pages and tonnes of references that rarely a Ph.D. person understand a little part of it is called a century proof where almost every academic mainstream with degrees appreciate and refer to in his argument, just because it was their production
Now imagine if such a proof were exactly published in this free site for example and then you would see those same common academic mainstream sheep describing the provers of being the most idiots and biggest historical cranks ever occurred in the human history, (as simple as that)
Whereas if by chance a clever school student would write a very short rigorous proof that can even convince a non-mathematician about its validity, then you would certainly see the same sheep-like shape academic mainstream mathematicians fighting against the proof with all their strength and lies and so and so just to spoil it completely in order to be taken cleverly later by one of those figures with a very long tongue that is capable to convey it in a very long interesting and fabricated story
Mainstream academic sheeple generally don't process that level of self-respect and esteem, nor do they have the minimum ethical honesty and nobility but they have all the contrary traits of low human being standards to (spoiler, alter, steal, cheat, lie, hide, ..., etc) the issue since don't have independent thinking yet
The main problem is mostly the huge ignorant mainstream standard thinking and general behaviors and reactions towards superior being to themselves
And only due to the internet, and fast communication era those abnormal creatures have been badly exposed, where soon every educated person must realize their truth and down level thinking and standards
And this experienced attitude is heavily supported mainly from their so shameful history where they do generally reword their grat living masters when there is no tooth left in their mouth or mostly years after they do classify them to death
But imagine for a while if you were a young skilled footballer or a young singer with nice throat how things would change drastically with normal mainstream people then? wonders!
And they did blame me to raise those three world wars against those abnormal devilish creatures who spoiled the entire meaning of justice on earth in all its aspects basically by denying the equal sign and replacing it with many meaningless terms that is a pure insult and district to all true human being minds FOR SURE
Bassam Kareddin
Do you notice how the fucking imbeciles start out?
Jean Pierre Messager: "Not a true theorem..." - when the pisshead knows nothing about even the basics of mathematics."
Mackenzie: "Bla, bla, bla shit. You have no manners ..."
Jan Burse Birdbrain: "Still struggling to understand S = Lim S"
Jean Pierre Messager: "Okay ... true, but of no significance..."
Zelos Malum: " sin x + 2x + h - sin x" =/= "2x + h"
Don Redmond: "It's not new" (but shows no evidence. Redmond tried this with me before also, but it didn't work. The lying scumbag stated that I was not the first to prove the mean value theorem constructively. I am the first!)
In any case, the link I provided shows there is no theorem similar to mine in the book he mentioned. Not even remotely similar. But because I am far more intelligent than all these pissers combined, I know how their syphilitic brains work and am 100 steps ahead of all them. They are mentally ill and consumed with pathological jealousy and ignorance.
-----------------------------------
Then they expect to be treated with "respect" when they treat everyone else like shit, ban them from their moderated forums, libel my name whenever and wherever the filthy bastards get a chance. The dishonest pigs categorise anyone who rejects their bullshit as a crank when there is nothing more cranky than them.
They are "hatap al nar" in my opinion. I hate the lot of them with a perfect hatred. Worthless, lying, dishonest, ignorant, stupid, jealous, filthy scum - ALL of them.
The main problem isn't basically with those many visible characters either their true identity names or usually hiding under masked names,

In fact, and despite all that very bad deads they usually do shame themselves and comment openly but they are still far better than those mainstream academic cowards who did realize the truth silently and are never visible in any picture, but keeping so silents being so shocked as if a very dirty shoes in their wide mouth is placed permanently

Those are most likely hired agents for bigger gauges or purely traditional TROLLS

The main problem with the academic mathematicians and alike that they can't understand very elementary proofs that are indeed a mid-school level

I mean they can't alone understand anything but they can well-memorize many written things

This is a true tragedy of all centuries with brainwashed human-like shapes, who never respect another human idea nor the intellectual properties which are permanently violated by those insignificant creatures

How many times they had been challenged here on sci. math to come up with true refutation to many and very serious claims that are still standing on their faces and perpetually touching and exposing them to their rusted bones

The problem is always there and mainly with the people who are authorized as the best living knowledgable people in any field

Human old and wrong heritage and inherited diseases with disorder behaviors of the common majorities of mainstream inferiors can't simply go away by any technological progress made by practical successful people

Even brain surgery operations may not be helpful with mathematicians

Only the hope lies upon new clever artificial beings with no blue human blood that would certainly spoil it completely for sure

BKK
Eram semper recta
2020-02-23 15:22:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam karzeddin
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by bassam karzeddin
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by r***@siu.edu
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
Your new theorem isn't that new. It can be found, for example, in Labarre, Intermediate Math Analysis (1968).
https://ia801905.us.archive.org/27/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.134298/2015.134298.Intermediate-Mathematical-Analysis.pdf
If you are thinking of the Lipschitz condition, you are fucking deluded. That has nothing to do with my theorem.
You probably misunderstood what you read on page 118. It is not saying the same thing as my theorem, nor is anything remotely similar to my theorem.
You vile, lying, disgusting dog!!!!
It seems that this is the same source which you claimed contained a constructive proof of the mean value theorem on page 130.
Man, you are a true mainstream crank!
Post by r***@siu.edu
Don
As I did expect and analyzed correctly many times earlier
The headquarter mathematical gunges authorities are very keen on keeping every new discovery under their illegal control
By many suspected devices in advance like Donkeypedia, Stalk Exchange, Quora,..., etc and even this seemingly free site as sci. math
Where, whenever any new original issue is sparkling at any farm from those sites you immeadeatly observe the yellow pages of Donkeypedia stage are sparkling accordingly immeadeatly with many revisions provided with many tonnes of irrelevant historical sources run by mostly many anonymous thieves working behind the scene mainly and only for one thing which is to prevent and close any door for any public source or a genius to come up with anything new no matter if the whole mathematics is collapsed apart
Since for them, mathematics is basically a pure business trade where once allowed public superior source to be under light then they lose everything as a subsequent event in accordance with their surficial and very stupid and materialistic business thinking,
Adding to that the fake reputation they do illegally enjoy by exploiting innocent minds of students and the total unawareness of all educated people about their closed business
And the case isn't so different with those book authors or very secretive researchers that appear suddenly in big issues and pretending that they have never heard about it from any reputable sources, which is to legalize stealing anything from any public sources with complete blessing and encouragement of their main masters working secretly behind the scene
To illustrate the idea we have to enlarge the picture size is an example
A proof of FLT with hundreds of pages and tonnes of references that rarely a Ph.D. person understand a little part of it is called a century proof where almost every academic mainstream with degrees appreciate and refer to in his argument, just because it was their production
Now imagine if such a proof were exactly published in this free site for example and then you would see those same common academic mainstream sheep describing the provers of being the most idiots and biggest historical cranks ever occurred in the human history, (as simple as that)
Whereas if by chance a clever school student would write a very short rigorous proof that can even convince a non-mathematician about its validity, then you would certainly see the same sheep-like shape academic mainstream mathematicians fighting against the proof with all their strength and lies and so and so just to spoil it completely in order to be taken cleverly later by one of those figures with a very long tongue that is capable to convey it in a very long interesting and fabricated story
Mainstream academic sheeple generally don't process that level of self-respect and esteem, nor do they have the minimum ethical honesty and nobility but they have all the contrary traits of low human being standards to (spoiler, alter, steal, cheat, lie, hide, ..., etc) the issue since don't have independent thinking yet
The main problem is mostly the huge ignorant mainstream standard thinking and general behaviors and reactions towards superior being to themselves
And only due to the internet, and fast communication era those abnormal creatures have been badly exposed, where soon every educated person must realize their truth and down level thinking and standards
And this experienced attitude is heavily supported mainly from their so shameful history where they do generally reword their grat living masters when there is no tooth left in their mouth or mostly years after they do classify them to death
But imagine for a while if you were a young skilled footballer or a young singer with nice throat how things would change drastically with normal mainstream people then? wonders!
And they did blame me to raise those three world wars against those abnormal devilish creatures who spoiled the entire meaning of justice on earth in all its aspects basically by denying the equal sign and replacing it with many meaningless terms that is a pure insult and district to all true human being minds FOR SURE
Bassam Kareddin
Do you notice how the fucking imbeciles start out?
Jean Pierre Messager: "Not a true theorem..." - when the pisshead knows nothing about even the basics of mathematics."
Mackenzie: "Bla, bla, bla shit. You have no manners ..."
Jan Burse Birdbrain: "Still struggling to understand S = Lim S"
Jean Pierre Messager: "Okay ... true, but of no significance..."
Zelos Malum: " sin x + 2x + h - sin x" =/= "2x + h"
Don Redmond: "It's not new" (but shows no evidence. Redmond tried this with me before also, but it didn't work. The lying scumbag stated that I was not the first to prove the mean value theorem constructively. I am the first!)
In any case, the link I provided shows there is no theorem similar to mine in the book he mentioned. Not even remotely similar. But because I am far more intelligent than all these pissers combined, I know how their syphilitic brains work and am 100 steps ahead of all them. They are mentally ill and consumed with pathological jealousy and ignorance.
-----------------------------------
Then they expect to be treated with "respect" when they treat everyone else like shit, ban them from their moderated forums, libel my name whenever and wherever the filthy bastards get a chance. The dishonest pigs categorise anyone who rejects their bullshit as a crank when there is nothing more cranky than them.
They are "hatap al nar" in my opinion. I hate the lot of them with a perfect hatred. Worthless, lying, dishonest, ignorant, stupid, jealous, filthy scum - ALL of them.
The main problem isn't basically with those many visible characters either their true identity names or usually hiding under masked names,
In fact, and despite all that very bad deads they usually do shame themselves and comment openly but they are still far better than those mainstream academic cowards who did realize the truth silently and are never visible in any picture, but keeping so silents being so shocked as if a very dirty shoes in their wide mouth is placed permanently
Those are most likely hired agents for bigger gauges or purely traditional TROLLS
The main problem with the academic mathematicians and alike that they can't understand very elementary proofs that are indeed a mid-school level
I mean they can't alone understand anything but they can well-memorize many written things
This is a true tragedy of all centuries with brainwashed human-like shapes, who never respect another human idea nor the intellectual properties which are permanently violated by those insignificant creatures
How many times they had been challenged here on sci. math to come up with true refutation to many and very serious claims that are still standing on their faces and perpetually touching and exposing them to their rusted bones
The problem is always there and mainly with the people who are authorized as the best living knowledgable people in any field
Human old and wrong heritage and inherited diseases with disorder behaviors of the common majorities of mainstream inferiors can't simply go away by any technological progress made by practical successful people
Even brain surgery operations may not be helpful with mathematicians
Only the hope lies upon new clever artificial beings with no blue human blood that would certainly spoil it completely for sure
:-)) Good one Bassam! You know, it doesn't matter if what I say is correct to them. All that matters is that I said it.

You see, I have exposed their flawed ideas on an unprecedented scale. They hate me, but what they don't realise is that I would take their eyes out in a heartbeat and feed them to wild pigs. What good are eyes that refuse to see? Tsk, tsk.


Very sad because I have so much to offer future mathematics student. I am no doubt the greatest mathematician ever. This very FACT drives them insane with jealousy and rage. Chuckle.
Post by bassam karzeddin
BKK
Sergio
2020-02-22 18:47:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@siu.edu
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
Your new theorem isn't that new. It can be found, for example, in Labarre, Intermediate Math Analysis (1968).
Don
JG has yet to accept that he laid an egg.
Eram semper recta
2020-02-23 15:48:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@siu.edu
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
Your new theorem isn't that new. It can be found, for example, in Labarre, Intermediate Math Analysis (1968).
Perhaps you can provide page numbers and explain why you think my theorem isn't new?

Or will you continue to be a lying, clueless idiot like your colleague Jack Huizenga?

Waiting with baited breath. LMAO.
Post by r***@siu.edu
Don
Eram semper recta
2020-02-23 15:52:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@siu.edu
Post by r***@siu.edu
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
Your new theorem isn't that new.
And if it pleases you, O "mild-mannered" man, explain what you mean by "that new"? Something is either new or it is not. Chuckle. Too funny!
Post by r***@siu.edu
It can be found, for example, in Labarre, Intermediate Math Analysis (1968).
Damn LIAR!!!!
Post by r***@siu.edu
Perhaps you can provide page numbers and explain why you think my theorem isn't new?
Or will you continue to be a lying, clueless idiot like your colleague Jack Huizenga?
Waiting with baited breath. LMAO.
Post by r***@siu.edu
Don
Eram semper recta
2020-02-25 23:13:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@siu.edu
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
Your new theorem isn't that new. It can be found, for example, in Labarre, Intermediate Math Analysis (1968).
Don
We are still waiting for page numbers Don.

https://ia801905.us.archive.org/27/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.134298/2015.134298.Intermediate-Mathematical-Analysis.pdf

I know you're lying, but others will know it too if you don't respond soon where you saw my historic theorem published before I revealed it to you.

Waiting with baited breath from the guy who wrote that he doesn't know if the New Calculus is sound, but he thinks it isn't! Chuckle.

Oh Donnie, I think you deleted that comment of yours. Pray tell, why? Are you now having second thoughts like Jack Huizenga?
Mostowski Collapse
2020-02-25 23:15:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Poor boy, still struggling with 0.333... = 1/3.

Thats funny. LMAO!

Did you try reading Euler, he wrote
a nice booklet, even for the public.
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by r***@siu.edu
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
Your new theorem isn't that new. It can be found, for example, in Labarre, Intermediate Math Analysis (1968).
Don
We are still waiting for page numbers Don.
https://ia801905.us.archive.org/27/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.134298/2015.134298.Intermediate-Mathematical-Analysis.pdf
I know you're lying, but others will know it too if you don't respond soon where you saw my historic theorem published before I revealed it to you.
Waiting with baited breath from the guy who wrote that he doesn't know if the New Calculus is sound, but he thinks it isn't! Chuckle.
Oh Donnie, I think you deleted that comment of yours. Pray tell, why? Are you now having second thoughts like Jack Huizenga?
Eram semper recta
2020-02-25 23:19:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tuesday, 25 February 2020 18:14:05 UTC-5, Swiss moron troll jan Burse aka Mostowski Collapse driveled:

<shit>

Still struggling with my historic new geometry theorem eh?


S = Lim S is the psychotic definition you inherited from Swiss moron Leonhard Euler:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel/
Mostowski Collapse
2020-02-25 23:30:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I agree your halucination "S = Lim S" is
quite psychotic. Maybe you suffer scurvy?
Post by Eram semper recta
<shit>
Still struggling with my historic new geometry theorem eh?
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel/
Eram semper recta
2020-02-26 13:14:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by r***@siu.edu
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
Your new theorem isn't that new. It can be found, for example, in Labarre, Intermediate Math Analysis (1968).
Don
We are still waiting for page numbers Don.
https://ia801905.us.archive.org/27/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.134298/2015.134298.Intermediate-Mathematical-Analysis.pdf
I know you're lying, but others will know it too if you don't respond soon where you saw my historic theorem published before I revealed it to you.
Waiting with baited breath from the guy who wrote that he doesn't know if the New Calculus is sound, but he thinks it isn't! Chuckle.
Oh Donnie, I think you deleted that comment of yours. Pray tell, why? Are you now having second thoughts like Jack Huizenga?
Yooohooo Donnie? Still waiting for the page numbers... you pathetic lying cranky "mild-mannered" fool! Chuckle.
Eram semper recta
2020-02-27 12:19:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by r***@siu.edu
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
Your new theorem isn't that new. It can be found, for example, in Labarre, Intermediate Math Analysis (1968).
Don
We are still waiting for page numbers Don.
https://ia801905.us.archive.org/27/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.134298/2015.134298.Intermediate-Mathematical-Analysis.pdf
I know you're lying, but others will know it too if you don't respond soon where you saw my historic theorem published before I revealed it to you.
Waiting with baited breath from the guy who wrote that he doesn't know if the New Calculus is sound, but he thinks it isn't! Chuckle.
Oh Donnie, I think you deleted that comment of yours. Pray tell, why? Are you now having second thoughts like Jack Huizenga?
Yooohooo Donnie? Still waiting for the page numbers... you pathetic lying cranky "mild-mannered" fool! Chuckle.
I guess Donnie is too ashamed of his ignorance and stupidity. He can't provide page numbers because there is nothing else that is similar to my monumental theorem.

Keep searching your bullshit books and literature Donnie! You won't find any of my ideas therein. Thank the gods I am not like any of you morons.
Peter Percival
2020-02-23 20:59:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
What you are posting to is not a forum, it is a newsgroup.
Eram semper recta
2020-02-23 22:01:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
What you are posting to is not a forum, it is a newsgroup.
Who cares idiot? Forum, newsgroup, chat, blog ... it makes no fucking difference. Morons like you are everywhere.
Sergio
2020-02-24 01:24:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks
or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise
the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
What you are posting to is not a forum, it is a newsgroup.
someone tell JG his math is a steaming lawn rocket,
MR. Chuckle, you did fail,
Mr Rectum, your Math is pathetically flawed.
failure is hard to accept, Jew Lover
now is the time to leave behind the crap and move
Move back to Africa, they need you there
Eram semper recta
2020-02-24 01:27:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
Very telling how I always have to remind trolls they are off-topic.
Eram semper recta
2020-02-24 12:43:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
It's pretty obvious that my theorem is sound and that there are zero refutations, only drivel from psycho trolls.
Zelos Malum
2020-02-25 06:45:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
It's pretty obvious that my theorem is sound and that there are zero refutations, only drivel from psycho trolls.
Logical fallacy, no one needs to refute it. you need to demonstrate it
Eram semper recta
2020-02-25 12:22:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
It's pretty obvious that my theorem is sound and that there are zero refutations, only drivel from psycho trolls.
Logical fallacy, no one needs to refute it. you need to demonstrate it
Has been done. The fallacy lies with cranks who claim otherwise.
Zelos Malum
2020-02-26 06:27:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
It's pretty obvious that my theorem is sound and that there are zero refutations, only drivel from psycho trolls.
Logical fallacy, no one needs to refute it. you need to demonstrate it
Has been done. The fallacy lies with cranks who claim otherwise.
It hasn't, that is why you're in no fucking journal. And yes, you are gonna go on about the great conspiracy now.
Eram semper recta
2020-02-26 13:13:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
It's pretty obvious that my theorem is sound and that there are zero refutations, only drivel from psycho trolls.
Logical fallacy, no one needs to refute it. you need to demonstrate it
Has been done. The fallacy lies with cranks who claim otherwise.
It hasn't, that is why you're in no fucking journal. And yes, you are gonna go on about the great conspiracy now.
It has been done. Journals are irrelevant moron. They are controlled by those who reject any ideas different to their own.

There is no conspiracy because the mainstream attacking me is REAL. Do you understand the difference, you idiot?
Zelos Malum
2020-02-27 06:34:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
It's pretty obvious that my theorem is sound and that there are zero refutations, only drivel from psycho trolls.
Logical fallacy, no one needs to refute it. you need to demonstrate it
Has been done. The fallacy lies with cranks who claim otherwise.
It hasn't, that is why you're in no fucking journal. And yes, you are gonna go on about the great conspiracy now.
It has been done. Journals are irrelevant moron. They are controlled by those who reject any ideas different to their own.
There is no conspiracy because the mainstream attacking me is REAL. Do you understand the difference, you idiot?
There is the conspiracy, as predicted. Every conspiratard think their conspiracy is real.
Alan Mackenzie
2020-02-27 18:13:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[ .... ]
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
It hasn't, that is why you're in no fucking journal. And yes, you are
gonna go on about the great conspiracy now.
It has been done. Journals are irrelevant moron. They are controlled by
those who reject any ideas different to their own.
No, they reject things not relevant to their topic matter. Incorrect
"maths" is always irrelevant to them. Maths at school level will also be
irrelevant to nearly all of them.
Post by Eram semper recta
There is no conspiracy because the mainstream attacking me is REAL.
You clearly don't understand the word "conspiracy". I suggest you look
it up in a dictionary, once you've looked up "lie". Hint: a conspiracy
is not dependent on the reality or otherwise of any attack.
Post by Eram semper recta
Do you understand the difference, you idiot?
I suspect Zelos does. I recommend you to learn it.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Eram semper recta
2020-02-27 22:08:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
[ .... ]
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
It hasn't, that is why you're in no fucking journal. And yes, you are
gonna go on about the great conspiracy now.
It has been done. Journals are irrelevant moron. They are controlled by
those who reject any ideas different to their own.
No, they reject things not relevant to their topic matter.
Shut up crank. You have nothing of value to say.
Zelos Malum
2020-03-02 06:25:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Alan Mackenzie
[ .... ]
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
It hasn't, that is why you're in no fucking journal. And yes, you are
gonna go on about the great conspiracy now.
It has been done. Journals are irrelevant moron. They are controlled by
those who reject any ideas different to their own.
No, they reject things not relevant to their topic matter.
Shut up crank. You have nothing of value to say.
watch out! The men in black are after you!
Eram semper recta
2020-02-27 22:10:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
Of course my historic theorem will be rejected by the apes in mainstream academia - it destroys their bogus calculus formulation.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Xez3SN6uETbH/
Jan
2020-02-28 05:09:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
This is gobbledygook addressing a non-issue. Calculus has ceased to have ANY
problems whatsoever more than 100 years ago. This is elementary
mathematics, researchers today are light years ahead of this sort
of museum pieces.
It's not bogus, it's 100% correct, you simply don't understand it. Consider
changing your hobby, you're just not good at this thing. Do something
you're good at, it will work much better for you.

--
Jan
Eram semper recta
2020-02-28 11:31:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
This is gobbledygook addressing a non-issue.
You lying bastard. YOU are gobbledygook. It's a shame you are still teaching in the Bay Area, you dumb gay cunt.
Post by Jan
Calculus has ceased to have ANY problems whatsoever more than 100 years ago.
Suck it swine! My theorem proves otherwise and YOU will learn it if you know what is good for you!
Post by Jan
This is elementary
mathematics, researchers today are light years ahead of this sort
of museum pieces.
Chuckle. You can't even understand elementary mathematics. What are you talking about moron?
Post by Jan
It's not bogus, it's 100% correct, you simply don't understand it. Consider
changing your hobby, you're just not good at this thing. Do something
you're good at, it will work much better for you.
Consider getting an education because you've said nothing about the theorem or the mathematics except that you don't like it.

Well, that's too bad gay boy. You better learn it!
Post by Jan
--
Jan
Jan
2020-02-29 04:42:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
This is gobbledygook addressing a non-issue.
You lying bastard. YOU are gobbledygook. It's a shame you are still teaching in the Bay Area, you dumb gay cunt.
You are just wasting your life away on stuff which to you seems advanced bit
is in fact simple undergrad mathematics. None of the issues you raise exist.
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
Calculus has ceased to have ANY problems whatsoever more than 100 years ago.
Suck it swine! My theorem proves otherwise and YOU will learn it if you know what is good for you!
Gobbledygook. Don't waste your time on this, you just don't have the
talent for that sort of thing. It's fine, there is nothing wrong with not
having a talnet for something. For example, I have no talent for music
composition. That's why you DON'T see me on music groups criticising
Bach.

Pick something you can be good at instead.

--
Jan
Eram semper recta
2020-02-29 12:18:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
This is gobbledygook addressing a non-issue.
You lying bastard. YOU are gobbledygook. It's a shame you are still teaching in the Bay Area, you dumb gay cunt.
You are just wasting ...
It's clear you are a stupid troll and a crank. No further response to you is necessary. I may have mistaken you for someone else.
Jan
2020-02-29 23:07:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
This is gobbledygook addressing a non-issue.
You lying bastard. YOU are gobbledygook. It's a shame you are still teaching in the Bay Area, you dumb gay cunt.
You are just wasting ...
It's clear you are a stupid troll and a crank. No further response to you is necessary. I may have mistaken you for someone else.
It's not a big deal, you just should not waste your time on a doomed monomania.

--
Jan
Eram semper recta
2020-03-01 02:23:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
This is gobbledygook addressing a non-issue.
You lying bastard. YOU are gobbledygook. It's a shame you are still teaching in the Bay Area, you dumb gay cunt.
You are just wasting ...
It's clear you are a stupid troll and a crank. No further response to you is necessary. I may have mistaken you for someone else.
It's not a big deal, you just should not waste your time on a doomed monomania.
Go fuck yourself moron.
Post by Jan
--
Jan
Jan
2020-03-01 04:27:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
This is gobbledygook addressing a non-issue.
You lying bastard. YOU are gobbledygook. It's a shame you are still teaching in the Bay Area, you dumb gay cunt.
You are just wasting ...
It's clear you are a stupid troll and a crank. No further response to you is necessary. I may have mistaken you for someone else.
It's not a big deal, you just should not waste your time on a doomed monomania.
Go fuck yourself moron.
Why are you doing this? There are so many cool things out there. Also, why do you
get so upset over this? This is not a normal adult reaction either. What's the point
of chasing nonexistent phantoms? What kind of fulfilment can one get from it?
It's all very strange, people insisting on doing precisely the things they have
no talent for. All that results is nonsense and frustration, nothing to do with reality
and truth. It's all just one big stifling fog.

--
Jan
Dan Christensen
2020-03-01 04:58:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan
Why are you doing this? There are so many cool things out there. Also, why do you
get so upset over this? This is not a normal adult reaction either. What's the point
of chasing nonexistent phantoms? What kind of fulfilment can one get from it?
It's all very strange, people insisting on doing precisely the things they have
no talent for. All that results is nonsense and frustration, nothing to do with reality
and truth. It's all just one big stifling fog.
Very poetic!
Post by Jan
--
Jan
Sergio
2020-03-01 06:14:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by Jan
Why are you doing this? There are so many cool things out there. Also, why do you
get so upset over this? This is not a normal adult reaction either. What's the point
of chasing nonexistent phantoms? What kind of fulfilment can one get from it?
It's all very strange, people insisting on doing precisely the things they have
no talent for. All that results is nonsense and frustration, nothing to do with reality
and truth. It's all just one big stifling fog.
Very poetic!
Post by Jan
--
Jan
Agree and Excellent!
Michael Moroney
2020-03-01 04:58:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan
Post by Eram semper recta
Go fuck yourself moron.
Why are you doing this? There are so many cool things out there. Also, why do you
get so upset over this? This is not a normal adult reaction either.
Maybe he's upset and nasty because it's very frustrating pretending to be a
math genius when he's just isn't very good at math?
Eram semper recta
2020-03-01 12:42:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Jan
Post by Eram semper recta
Go fuck yourself moron.
Why are you doing this? There are so many cool things out there. Also, why do you
get so upset over this? This is not a normal adult reaction either.
Maybe he's upset and nasty because it's very frustrating pretending to be a
math genius when he's just isn't very good at math?
I am a genius. It's fact.

What is frustrating and upsetting is trying to educate lesser mortals like you.

What is even more frustrating is that you are DISHONEST, IGNORANT, STUPID and JEALOUS.

You are lying, hateful, despicable bastards who are wasting resources.
Eram semper recta
2020-03-01 12:38:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
This is gobbledygook addressing a non-issue.
You lying bastard. YOU are gobbledygook. It's a shame you are still teaching in the Bay Area, you dumb gay cunt.
You are just wasting ...
It's clear you are a stupid troll and a crank. No further response to you is necessary. I may have mistaken you for someone else.
It's not a big deal, you just should not waste your time on a doomed monomania.
Go fuck yourself moron.
Why are you doing this? There are so many cool things out there. Also, why do you
get so upset over this? This is not a normal adult reaction either. What's the point
of chasing nonexistent phantoms? What kind of fulfilment can one get from it?
It's all very strange, people insisting on doing precisely the things they have
no talent for. All that results is nonsense and frustration, nothing to do with reality
and truth. It's all just one big stifling fog.
--
Jan
Stupid fuck. When you don't know any mathematics, you should do the right thing and shut the fuck up you incorrigible MORON.
Erasmo Scobee
2020-03-01 12:46:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
It's all very strange, people insisting on doing precisely the things
they have no talent for. All that results is nonsense and frustration,
nothing to do with reality and truth. It's all just one big stifling
fog. -- Jan
Stupid fuck. When you don't know any mathematics, you should do the
right thing and shut the fuck up you incorrigible MORON.
I can't see the tensor equation, you two guys are debating the solution
of. Without rigorous PDE and tensorial description of the model/problem,
I can't state anything. Try again.
Sergio
2020-03-01 20:08:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Erasmo Scobee
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
It's all very strange, people insisting on doing precisely the things
they have no talent for. All that results is nonsense and frustration,
nothing to do with reality and truth. It's all just one big stifling
fog. -- Jan
Stupid fuck. When you don't know any mathematics, you should do the
right thing and shut the fuck up you incorrigible MORON.
I can't see the tensor equation, you two guys are debating the solution
of. Without rigorous PDE and tensorial description of the model/problem,
I can't state anything. Try again.
no tensors at all, need to step *way down to high school math*.


JG can't figure out the slope of a line, let him show you how his math
works on y = tan(x) + Ln(x) + e^(-x)
Eram semper recta
2020-03-01 23:13:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sergio
Post by Erasmo Scobee
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
It's all very strange, people insisting on doing precisely the things
they have no talent for. All that results is nonsense and frustration,
nothing to do with reality and truth. It's all just one big stifling
fog. -- Jan
Stupid fuck. When you don't know any mathematics, you should do the
right thing and shut the fuck up you incorrigible MORON.
I can't see the tensor equation, you two guys are debating the solution
of. Without rigorous PDE and tensorial description of the model/problem,
I can't state anything. Try again.
no tensors at all, need to step *way down to high school math*.
JG can't figure out the slope of a line, let him show you how his math
works on y = tan(x) + Ln(x) + e^(-x)
Trump moron eh?
Zelos Malum
2020-03-02 06:26:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Sergio
Post by Erasmo Scobee
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
It's all very strange, people insisting on doing precisely the things
they have no talent for. All that results is nonsense and frustration,
nothing to do with reality and truth. It's all just one big stifling
fog. -- Jan
Stupid fuck. When you don't know any mathematics, you should do the
right thing and shut the fuck up you incorrigible MORON.
I can't see the tensor equation, you two guys are debating the solution
of. Without rigorous PDE and tensorial description of the model/problem,
I can't state anything. Try again.
no tensors at all, need to step *way down to high school math*.
JG can't figure out the slope of a line, let him show you how his math
works on y = tan(x) + Ln(x) + e^(-x)
Trump moron eh?
notice how you never take anyone up on the challenge on showing your thing on more complicated functions?
Eram semper recta
2020-03-02 12:30:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Sergio
Post by Erasmo Scobee
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
It's all very strange, people insisting on doing precisely the things
they have no talent for. All that results is nonsense and frustration,
nothing to do with reality and truth. It's all just one big stifling
fog. -- Jan
Stupid fuck. When you don't know any mathematics, you should do the
right thing and shut the fuck up you incorrigible MORON.
I can't see the tensor equation, you two guys are debating the solution
of. Without rigorous PDE and tensorial description of the model/problem,
I can't state anything. Try again.
no tensors at all, need to step *way down to high school math*.
JG can't figure out the slope of a line, let him show you how his math
works on y = tan(x) + Ln(x) + e^(-x)
Trump moron eh?
notice how you never take anyone up on the challenge on showing your thing on more complicated functions?
Because it has been done many times, you dishonest piece of filth.
Alan Mackenzie
2020-03-02 19:11:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Sergio
Post by Erasmo Scobee
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
It's all very strange, people insisting on doing precisely the
things they have no talent for. All that results is nonsense
and frustration, nothing to do with reality and truth. It's
all just one big stifling fog. -- Jan
Stupid fuck. When you don't know any mathematics, you should do
the right thing and shut the fuck up you incorrigible MORON.
I can't see the tensor equation, you two guys are debating the
solution of. Without rigorous PDE and tensorial description of
the model/problem, I can't state anything. Try again.
no tensors at all, need to step *way down to high school math*.
JG can't figure out the slope of a line, let him show you how his
math works on y = tan(x) + Ln(x) + e^(-x)
Trump moron eh?
notice how you never take anyone up on the challenge on showing your
thing on more complicated functions?
Because it has been done many times, you dishonest piece of filth.
Not by you, it hasn't. Exccept, once or twice you've dishonestly
expanded a transcendental function as an infinite series (which is
itself derived from derivatives). So come on, now, show us how your
theorem (which is likely derivative rather than being original) works on
Zelos's function. This would be a first from you.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Eram semper recta
2020-03-02 21:06:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Sergio
Post by Erasmo Scobee
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
It's all very strange, people insisting on doing precisely the
things they have no talent for. All that results is nonsense
and frustration, nothing to do with reality and truth. It's
all just one big stifling fog. -- Jan
Stupid fuck. When you don't know any mathematics, you should do
the right thing and shut the fuck up you incorrigible MORON.
I can't see the tensor equation, you two guys are debating the
solution of. Without rigorous PDE and tensorial description of
the model/problem, I can't state anything. Try again.
no tensors at all, need to step *way down to high school math*.
JG can't figure out the slope of a line, let him show you how his
math works on y = tan(x) + Ln(x) + e^(-x)
Trump moron eh?
notice how you never take anyone up on the challenge on showing your
thing on more complicated functions?
Because it has been done many times, you dishonest piece of filth.
Not by you, it hasn't.
Oh look, it's the world's dumbest Scotsman again!

If it were not done by me, then by whom you stupid sod? No one knew about the theorem until I revealed it.

<shit follows>
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Exccept, once or twice you've dishonestly
expanded a transcendental function as an infinite series (which is
itself derived from derivatives). So come on, now, show us how your
theorem (which is likely derivative rather than being original) works on
Zelos's function. This would be a first from you.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Zelos Malum
2020-03-03 06:33:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Sergio
Post by Erasmo Scobee
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
It's all very strange, people insisting on doing precisely the things
they have no talent for. All that results is nonsense and frustration,
nothing to do with reality and truth. It's all just one big stifling
fog. -- Jan
Stupid fuck. When you don't know any mathematics, you should do the
right thing and shut the fuck up you incorrigible MORON.
I can't see the tensor equation, you two guys are debating the solution
of. Without rigorous PDE and tensorial description of the model/problem,
I can't state anything. Try again.
no tensors at all, need to step *way down to high school math*.
JG can't figure out the slope of a line, let him show you how his math
works on y = tan(x) + Ln(x) + e^(-x)
Trump moron eh?
notice how you never take anyone up on the challenge on showing your thing on more complicated functions?
Because it has been done many times, you dishonest piece of filth.
It hasn't, you avoid it because you know you can't.
Eram semper recta
2020-03-03 12:23:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Sergio
Post by Erasmo Scobee
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
It's all very strange, people insisting on doing precisely the things
they have no talent for. All that results is nonsense and frustration,
nothing to do with reality and truth. It's all just one big stifling
fog. -- Jan
Stupid fuck. When you don't know any mathematics, you should do the
right thing and shut the fuck up you incorrigible MORON.
I can't see the tensor equation, you two guys are debating the solution
of. Without rigorous PDE and tensorial description of the model/problem,
I can't state anything. Try again.
no tensors at all, need to step *way down to high school math*.
JG can't figure out the slope of a line, let him show you how his math
works on y = tan(x) + Ln(x) + e^(-x)
Trump moron eh?
notice how you never take anyone up on the challenge on showing your thing on more complicated functions?
Because it has been done many times, you dishonest piece of filth.
It hasn't, you avoid it because you know you can't.
Talking about your inability to provide any counter-example eh?
Zelos Malum
2020-03-03 12:38:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Sergio
Post by Erasmo Scobee
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
It's all very strange, people insisting on doing precisely the things
they have no talent for. All that results is nonsense and frustration,
nothing to do with reality and truth. It's all just one big stifling
fog. -- Jan
Stupid fuck. When you don't know any mathematics, you should do the
right thing and shut the fuck up you incorrigible MORON.
I can't see the tensor equation, you two guys are debating the solution
of. Without rigorous PDE and tensorial description of the model/problem,
I can't state anything. Try again.
no tensors at all, need to step *way down to high school math*.
JG can't figure out the slope of a line, let him show you how his math
works on y = tan(x) + Ln(x) + e^(-x)
Trump moron eh?
notice how you never take anyone up on the challenge on showing your thing on more complicated functions?
Because it has been done many times, you dishonest piece of filth.
It hasn't, you avoid it because you know you can't.
Talking about your inability to provide any counter-example eh?
show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the derivative of f(x)=ln x.
konyberg
2020-03-03 12:46:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Sergio
Post by Erasmo Scobee
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
It's all very strange, people insisting on doing precisely the things
they have no talent for. All that results is nonsense and frustration,
nothing to do with reality and truth. It's all just one big stifling
fog. -- Jan
Stupid fuck. When you don't know any mathematics, you should do the
right thing and shut the fuck up you incorrigible MORON.
I can't see the tensor equation, you two guys are debating the solution
of. Without rigorous PDE and tensorial description of the model/problem,
I can't state anything. Try again.
no tensors at all, need to step *way down to high school math*.
JG can't figure out the slope of a line, let him show you how his math
works on y = tan(x) + Ln(x) + e^(-x)
Trump moron eh?
notice how you never take anyone up on the challenge on showing your thing on more complicated functions?
Because it has been done many times, you dishonest piece of filth.
It hasn't, you avoid it because you know you can't.
Talking about your inability to provide any counter-example eh?
show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the derivative of f(x)=ln x.
JG can't do that without evaluate a maclaurin series which uses what (ln x)' is. So he need to know what (ln x)' is in beforehand!
KON
g***@gmail.com
2020-03-03 12:52:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by konyberg
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Sergio
Post by Erasmo Scobee
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
It's all very strange, people insisting on doing precisely the things
they have no talent for. All that results is nonsense and frustration,
nothing to do with reality and truth. It's all just one big stifling
fog. -- Jan
Stupid fuck. When you don't know any mathematics, you should do the
right thing and shut the fuck up you incorrigible MORON.
I can't see the tensor equation, you two guys are debating the solution
of. Without rigorous PDE and tensorial description of the model/problem,
I can't state anything. Try again.
no tensors at all, need to step *way down to high school math*.
JG can't figure out the slope of a line, let him show you how his math
works on y = tan(x) + Ln(x) + e^(-x)
Trump moron eh?
notice how you never take anyone up on the challenge on showing your thing on more complicated functions?
Because it has been done many times, you dishonest piece of filth.
It hasn't, you avoid it because you know you can't.
Talking about your inability to provide any counter-example eh?
show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the derivative of f(x)=ln x.
JG can't do that without evaluate a maclaurin series which uses what (ln x)' is.
It's perfectly fine to use MacLaurin series or any other logical means ONCE the theorem is established and my theorem is beyond question.

[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
Post by konyberg
So he need to know what (ln x)' is in beforehand!
Bullshit. How can I know it if I need to use series to show it? Gosh, but you are a prize idiot.

Again, think what you are saying my stupid one! To get MacClaurin series, the derivative is already established. There is NO circularity.

Take not monkey!

f'(x) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - Q(x,h) <---- The derivative is ALREADY established and any idiot knows how to differentiate terms in x.

Grow a brain you fucking moron.
Post by konyberg
KON
konyberg
2020-03-03 13:49:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by konyberg
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Sergio
Post by Erasmo Scobee
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
It's all very strange, people insisting on doing precisely the things
they have no talent for. All that results is nonsense and frustration,
nothing to do with reality and truth. It's all just one big stifling
fog. -- Jan
Stupid fuck. When you don't know any mathematics, you should do the
right thing and shut the fuck up you incorrigible MORON.
I can't see the tensor equation, you two guys are debating the solution
of. Without rigorous PDE and tensorial description of the model/problem,
I can't state anything. Try again.
no tensors at all, need to step *way down to high school math*.
JG can't figure out the slope of a line, let him show you how his math
works on y = tan(x) + Ln(x) + e^(-x)
Trump moron eh?
notice how you never take anyone up on the challenge on showing your thing on more complicated functions?
Because it has been done many times, you dishonest piece of filth.
It hasn't, you avoid it because you know you can't.
Talking about your inability to provide any counter-example eh?
show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the derivative of f(x)=ln x.
JG can't do that without evaluate a maclaurin series which uses what (ln x)' is.
It's perfectly fine to use MacLaurin series or any other logical means ONCE the theorem is established and my theorem is beyond question.
[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
Post by konyberg
So he need to know what (ln x)' is in beforehand!
Bullshit. How can I know it if I need to use series to show it? Gosh, but you are a prize idiot.
Again, think what you are saying my stupid one! To get MacClaurin series, the derivative is already established. There is NO circularity.
Take not monkey!
f'(x) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - Q(x,h) <---- The derivative is ALREADY established and any idiot knows how to differentiate terms in x.
Grow a brain you fucking moron.
Post by konyberg
KON
Ok. Then show how you find (ln(x))'
Without knowing (ln(x))' beforehand. And don't try maclaurin series, because then you use (ln(x))' to find (ln(x))' .
KON
Eram semper recta
2020-03-03 16:21:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by konyberg
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by konyberg
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Sergio
Post by Erasmo Scobee
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
It's all very strange, people insisting on doing precisely the things
they have no talent for. All that results is nonsense and frustration,
nothing to do with reality and truth. It's all just one big stifling
fog. -- Jan
Stupid fuck. When you don't know any mathematics, you should do the
right thing and shut the fuck up you incorrigible MORON.
I can't see the tensor equation, you two guys are debating the solution
of. Without rigorous PDE and tensorial description of the model/problem,
I can't state anything. Try again.
no tensors at all, need to step *way down to high school math*.
JG can't figure out the slope of a line, let him show you how his math
works on y = tan(x) + Ln(x) + e^(-x)
Trump moron eh?
notice how you never take anyone up on the challenge on showing your thing on more complicated functions?
Because it has been done many times, you dishonest piece of filth.
It hasn't, you avoid it because you know you can't.
Talking about your inability to provide any counter-example eh?
show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the derivative of f(x)=ln x.
JG can't do that without evaluate a maclaurin series which uses what (ln x)' is.
It's perfectly fine to use MacLaurin series or any other logical means ONCE the theorem is established and my theorem is beyond question.
[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
Post by konyberg
So he need to know what (ln x)' is in beforehand!
Bullshit. How can I know it if I need to use series to show it? Gosh, but you are a prize idiot.
Again, think what you are saying my stupid one! To get MacClaurin series, the derivative is already established. There is NO circularity.
Take not monkey!
f'(x) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - Q(x,h) <---- The derivative is ALREADY established and any idiot knows how to differentiate terms in x.
Grow a brain you fucking moron.
Post by konyberg
KON
Ok. Then show how you find (ln(x))'
Without knowing (ln(x))' beforehand. And don't try maclaurin series, because then you use (ln(x))' to find (ln(x))' .
x=e^y (same as y=ln(x))
<=> dx/dy = e^y We know e^x from binomial (1+xn)^(1/n).

So dx/dy = x <=> dy/dx = 1/x <=> (ln(x))' = 1/x.

And now you can use Maclaurin and prove that [f(x+h)-f(x)]=f'(x)+Q(x,h).

But how will you use your bogus first principles method to show that (ln(x))' = 1/x ? LMAO. You cannot!

See, even in this easy proof, your bogus calculus does not use the first principles method. Also, you break several of your syphilitic rules, i.e. you divide by differentials when you claim that dy/dx is NOT a ratio of numbers being the UTTER incorrigible moronic fools that you are!

In the New Calculus and my recent theorem, dy and dx are NUMBERS meaning well-formed differentials.

I doubt you will understand any of this because you are still the same idiot. But the response is not for you!
Post by konyberg
KON
konyberg
2020-03-03 17:05:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by konyberg
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by konyberg
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Sergio
Post by Erasmo Scobee
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
It's all very strange, people insisting on doing precisely the things
they have no talent for. All that results is nonsense and frustration,
nothing to do with reality and truth. It's all just one big stifling
fog. -- Jan
Stupid fuck. When you don't know any mathematics, you should do the
right thing and shut the fuck up you incorrigible MORON.
I can't see the tensor equation, you two guys are debating the solution
of. Without rigorous PDE and tensorial description of the model/problem,
I can't state anything. Try again.
no tensors at all, need to step *way down to high school math*.
JG can't figure out the slope of a line, let him show you how his math
works on y = tan(x) + Ln(x) + e^(-x)
Trump moron eh?
notice how you never take anyone up on the challenge on showing your thing on more complicated functions?
Because it has been done many times, you dishonest piece of filth.
It hasn't, you avoid it because you know you can't.
Talking about your inability to provide any counter-example eh?
show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the derivative of f(x)=ln x.
JG can't do that without evaluate a maclaurin series which uses what (ln x)' is.
It's perfectly fine to use MacLaurin series or any other logical means ONCE the theorem is established and my theorem is beyond question.
[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
Post by konyberg
So he need to know what (ln x)' is in beforehand!
Bullshit. How can I know it if I need to use series to show it? Gosh, but you are a prize idiot.
Again, think what you are saying my stupid one! To get MacClaurin series, the derivative is already established. There is NO circularity.
Take not monkey!
f'(x) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - Q(x,h) <---- The derivative is ALREADY established and any idiot knows how to differentiate terms in x.
Grow a brain you fucking moron.
Post by konyberg
KON
Ok. Then show how you find (ln(x))'
Without knowing (ln(x))' beforehand. And don't try maclaurin series, because then you use (ln(x))' to find (ln(x))' .
x=e^y (same as y=ln(x))
<=> dx/dy = e^y We know e^x from binomial (1+xn)^(1/n).
So dx/dy = x <=> dy/dx = 1/x <=> (ln(x))' = 1/x.
And now you can use Maclaurin and prove that [f(x+h)-f(x)]=f'(x)+Q(x,h).
But how will you use your bogus first principles method to show that (ln(x))' = 1/x ? LMAO. You cannot!
See, even in this easy proof, your bogus calculus does not use the first principles method. Also, you break several of your syphilitic rules, i.e. you divide by differentials when you claim that dy/dx is NOT a ratio of numbers being the UTTER incorrigible moronic fools that you are!
In the New Calculus and my recent theorem, dy and dx are NUMBERS meaning well-formed differentials.
I doubt you will understand any of this because you are still the same idiot. But the response is not for you!
Post by konyberg
KON
You are correct that I don't understand this! Because it is just bullshit!
Nothing makes sense, and you still need to use maclaurin?
KON
konyberg
2020-03-03 17:31:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by konyberg
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by konyberg
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Sergio
Post by Erasmo Scobee
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
It's all very strange, people insisting on doing precisely the things
they have no talent for. All that results is nonsense and frustration,
nothing to do with reality and truth. It's all just one big stifling
fog. -- Jan
Stupid fuck. When you don't know any mathematics, you should do the
right thing and shut the fuck up you incorrigible MORON.
I can't see the tensor equation, you two guys are debating the solution
of. Without rigorous PDE and tensorial description of the model/problem,
I can't state anything. Try again.
no tensors at all, need to step *way down to high school math*.
JG can't figure out the slope of a line, let him show you how his math
works on y = tan(x) + Ln(x) + e^(-x)
Trump moron eh?
notice how you never take anyone up on the challenge on showing your thing on more complicated functions?
Because it has been done many times, you dishonest piece of filth.
It hasn't, you avoid it because you know you can't.
Talking about your inability to provide any counter-example eh?
show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the derivative of f(x)=ln x.
JG can't do that without evaluate a maclaurin series which uses what (ln x)' is.
It's perfectly fine to use MacLaurin series or any other logical means ONCE the theorem is established and my theorem is beyond question.
[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
Post by konyberg
So he need to know what (ln x)' is in beforehand!
Bullshit. How can I know it if I need to use series to show it? Gosh, but you are a prize idiot.
Again, think what you are saying my stupid one! To get MacClaurin series, the derivative is already established. There is NO circularity.
Take not monkey!
f'(x) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - Q(x,h) <---- The derivative is ALREADY established and any idiot knows how to differentiate terms in x.
Grow a brain you fucking moron.
Post by konyberg
KON
Ok. Then show how you find (ln(x))'
Without knowing (ln(x))' beforehand. And don't try maclaurin series, because then you use (ln(x))' to find (ln(x))' .
x=e^y (same as y=ln(x))
<=> dx/dy = e^y We know e^x from binomial (1+xn)^(1/n).
So dx/dy = x <=> dy/dx = 1/x <=> (ln(x))' = 1/x.
And now you can use Maclaurin and prove that [f(x+h)-f(x)]=f'(x)+Q(x,h).
But how will you use your bogus first principles method to show that (ln(x))' = 1/x ? LMAO. You cannot!
No?
Here it comes!
(ln(x))'
= lim(h->0)[ln(x+h)-ln(x)/]/h
= lim(h->0)ln[(x+h)/x]/h
= lim(h->0)(1/h)ln(1+h/x)
= lim(h->0)(1+h/x)^(1/h)
(t=h/x gives)
lim(h->0)[ln(1+t)^(1/tx)]
= 1/x*ln[lim(t->0)(1+t)^(1/t)]
= 1/x*ln(e) = 1/x.
qed
KON
Post by Eram semper recta
See, even in this easy proof, your bogus calculus does not use the first principles method. Also, you break several of your syphilitic rules, i.e. you divide by differentials when you claim that dy/dx is NOT a ratio of numbers being the UTTER incorrigible moronic fools that you are!
In the New Calculus and my recent theorem, dy and dx are NUMBERS meaning well-formed differentials.
I doubt you will understand any of this because you are still the same idiot. But the response is not for you!
Post by konyberg
KON
g***@gmail.com
2020-03-03 12:48:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Sergio
Post by Erasmo Scobee
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
It's all very strange, people insisting on doing precisely the things
they have no talent for. All that results is nonsense and frustration,
nothing to do with reality and truth. It's all just one big stifling
fog. -- Jan
Stupid fuck. When you don't know any mathematics, you should do the
right thing and shut the fuck up you incorrigible MORON.
I can't see the tensor equation, you two guys are debating the solution
of. Without rigorous PDE and tensorial description of the model/problem,
I can't state anything. Try again.
no tensors at all, need to step *way down to high school math*.
JG can't figure out the slope of a line, let him show you how his math
works on y = tan(x) + Ln(x) + e^(-x)
Trump moron eh?
notice how you never take anyone up on the challenge on showing your thing on more complicated functions?
Because it has been done many times, you dishonest piece of filth.
It hasn't, you avoid it because you know you can't.
Talking about your inability to provide any counter-example eh?
show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the derivative of f(x)=ln x.
Not until you admit you are wrong. I have shown you many examples, but you are a dishonest, stubborn little swine. If you were in my class, I would throw you out as toxic material.

My theorem is 100% correct. The beauty about GEOMETRY is that you can't debate it as you do the bullshit of set theory and propositional logic. It is either correct or it is not. No in between. There are NO rules or beliefs (axioms) in sound mathematics which is based on FACT.

Do you even realise that you are harming thousands of your countrymen who couldn't put up with the bullshit you had to memorise in college? Stop thinking about yourself for once and think about others. Why should they have to endure the same bullshit you did? By supporting the orangutans who brainwashed you, you are simply continuing the cycle of intellectual abuse and destroying thousands of lives in the process. Students are not as stupid as you think! Even those who are uneducated can sense bullshit from a great distance.

99% of your ideas and the way you think, is just drivel. You have a very superficial understanding which is equivalent to NO understanding.

Mathematics is about measure and number. Anything else is NOT mathematics.
Sergio
2020-03-03 14:49:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Sergio
Post by Erasmo Scobee
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Jan
It's all very strange, people insisting on doing precisely the things
they have no talent for. All that results is nonsense and frustration,
nothing to do with reality and truth. It's all just one big stifling
fog. -- Jan
Stupid fuck. When you don't know any mathematics, you should do the
right thing and shut the fuck up you incorrigible MORON.
I can't see the tensor equation, you two guys are debating the solution
of. Without rigorous PDE and tensorial description of the model/problem,
I can't state anything. Try again.
no tensors at all, need to step *way down to high school math*.
JG can't figure out the slope of a line, let him show you how his math
works on y = tan(x) + Ln(x) + e^(-x)
Trump moron eh?
notice how you never take anyone up on the challenge on showing your thing on more complicated functions?
Because it has been done many times, you dishonest piece of filth.
It hasn't, you avoid it because you know you can't.
Talking about your inability to provide any counter-example eh?
show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the derivative of f(x)=ln x.
Not until you admit you are wrong.
JG => show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the
derivative of f(x)=ln(x).

Show us NOW. If you do not, we declare your math phony, fake,
unworkable, discard it totally.

SO show us up, and find f'(x) for f'(x) = ln(x)
and show all the steps.



I have shown you many examples, but you are a dishonest, stubborn little
swine.

JG => show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the
derivative of f(x)=ln(x).

Show us NOW. If you do not, we declare your math phony, fake,
unworkable, discard it totally.

SO show us up, and find f'(x) for f'(x) = ln(x)
and show all the steps.
Post by g***@gmail.com
If you were in my class, I would throw you out as toxic material.
JG => show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the
derivative of f(x)=ln(x).

Show us NOW. If you do not, we declare your math phony, fake,
unworkable, discard it totally.

SO show us up, and find f'(x) for f'(x) = ln(x)
and show all the steps.
Post by g***@gmail.com
My theorem is 100% correct.
JG => show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the
derivative of f(x)=ln(x).

Show us NOW. If you do not, we declare your math phony, fake,
unworkable, discard it totally.

SO show us up, and find f'(x) for f'(x) = ln(x)
and show all the steps.
Post by g***@gmail.com
The beauty about GEOMETRY is that you can't debate it as you do the bullshit of set theory and propositional logic.
JG => show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the
derivative of f(x)=ln(x).

Show us NOW. If you do not, we declare your math phony, fake,
unworkable, discard it totally.

SO show us up, and find f'(x) for f'(x) = ln(x)
and show all the steps.
Post by g***@gmail.com
It is either correct or it is not.
JG => show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the
derivative of f(x)=ln(x).

Show us NOW. If you do not, we declare your math phony, fake,
unworkable, discard it totally.

SO show us up, and find f'(x) for f'(x) = ln(x)
and show all the steps.
Post by g***@gmail.com
No in between.
JG => show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the
derivative of f(x)=ln(x).

Show us NOW. If you do not, we declare your math phony, fake,
unworkable, discard it totally.

SO show us up, and find f'(x) for f'(x) = ln(x)
and show all the steps.
Post by g***@gmail.com
There are NO rules or beliefs (axioms) in sound mathematics which is based on FACT.
JG => show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the
derivative of f(x)=ln(x).

Show us NOW. If you do not, we declare your math phony, fake,
unworkable, discard it totally.

SO show us up, and find f'(x) for f'(x) = ln(x)
and show all the steps.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Do you even realise that you are harming thousands of your countrymen who couldn't put up with the bullshit you had to memorise in college?
JG => show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the
derivative of f(x)=ln(x).

Show us NOW. If you do not, we declare your math phony, fake,
unworkable, discard it totally.

SO show us up, and find f'(x) for f'(x) = ln(x)
and show all the steps.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Stop thinking about yourself for once and think about others.
JG => show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the
derivative of f(x)=ln(x).

Show us NOW. If you do not, we declare your math phony, fake,
unworkable, discard it totally.

SO show us up, and find f'(x) for f'(x) = ln(x)
and show all the steps.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Why should they have to endure the same bullshit you did?
JG => show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the
derivative of f(x)=ln(x).

Show us NOW. If you do not, we declare your math phony, fake,
unworkable, discard it totally.

SO show us up, and find f'(x) for f'(x) = ln(x)
and show all the steps.
Post by g***@gmail.com
By supporting the orangutans who brainwashed you, you are simply continuing the cycle of intellectual abuse and destroying thousands of lives in the process.
JG => show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the
derivative of f(x)=ln(x).

Show us NOW. If you do not, we declare your math phony, fake,
unworkable, discard it totally.

SO show us up, and find f'(x) for f'(x) = ln(x)
and show all the steps.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Students are not as stupid as you think!
JG => show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the
derivative of f(x)=ln(x).

Show us NOW. If you do not, we declare your math phony, fake,
unworkable, discard it totally.

SO show us up, and find f'(x) for f'(x) = ln(x)
and show all the steps.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Even those who are uneducated can sense bullshit from a great distance.
JG => show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the
derivative of f(x)=ln(x).

Show us NOW. If you do not, we declare your math phony, fake,
unworkable, discard it totally.

SO show us up, and find f'(x) for f'(x) = ln(x)
and show all the steps.
Post by g***@gmail.com
99% of your ideas and the way you think, is just drivel.
JG => show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the
derivative of f(x)=ln(x).

Show us NOW. If you do not, we declare your math phony, fake,
unworkable, discard it totally.

SO show us up, and find f'(x) for f'(x) = ln(x)
and show all the steps.
Post by g***@gmail.com
You have a very superficial understanding which is equivalent to NO understanding.
JG => show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the
derivative of f(x)=ln(x).

Show us NOW. If you do not, we declare your math phony, fake,
unworkable, discard it totally.

SO show us up, and find f'(x) for f'(x) = ln(x)
and show all the steps.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Mathematics is about measure and number.
JG => show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the
derivative of f(x)=ln(x).

Show us NOW. If you do not, we declare your math phony, fake,
unworkable, discard it totally.

SO show us up, and find f'(x) for f'(x) = ln(x)
and show all the steps.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Anything else is NOT mathematics.
JG => show us how, using your method, we find and/or confirm the
derivative of f(x)=ln(x).

Show us NOW. If you do not, we declare your math phony, fake,
unworkable, discard it totally.

SO show us up, and find f'(x) for f'(x) = ln(x)
and show all the steps.
Eram semper recta
2020-02-28 17:40:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
A civil response to an ignorant, dishonest, vile, filthy academic called Jan.
Post by Jan
This is gobbledygook addressing a non-issue.
You KNOW that you are lying. What's more, YOU do not get to decide what is an issue or a non-issue. The theorem PROVES your mainstream formulation is BOGUS, therefore it is an ISSUE.
Post by Jan
Calculus has ceased to have ANY problems whatsoever more than 100 years ago.
You are lying. The ability of students to learn calculus is obstructed by its bad formulation. That there is a crises in calculus education is sufficient evidence of this FACT. All the same, even those who teach it, never actually understand why the methods work. You are a CLASSIC example.
Post by Jan
This is elementary mathematics,
Elementary mathematics which you NEVER got right! Chuckle.
Post by Jan
researchers today are light years ahead of this sort of museum pieces.
Nonsense. Researchers today are absolute morons like you!
Post by Jan
It's not bogus, it's 100% correct, you simply don't understand it.
Anyone who studies my articles will know that you are a fool. Who the fuck are you to tell me I don't understand, you swine! That is your syphilitic opinion and your disparagement of my character and credibility. It won't work Jan.
Post by Jan
Consider changing your hobby, you're just not good at this thing.
Consider shutting the fuck up when you don't understand and cannot be honest.
Post by Jan
Do something you're good at, it will work much better for you.
Kill yourself and only then might you escape learning the New Calculus and my recent historic theorem. But I guarantee you one thing - you will learn the right way to teach mathematics and YOU will learn my way of thinking because I am much smarter than you could ever be, you poor ignorant sod.
Post by Jan
--
Jan
Jan
2020-02-29 04:42:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
A civil response to an ignorant, dishonest, vile, filthy academic called Jan.
I'm not an academic. Your stuff is junk pseudoscience.

--
Jan
Erasmo Scobee
2020-02-29 09:57:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
A civil response to an ignorant, dishonest, vile, filthy academic called Jan.
I'm not an academic. Your stuff is junk pseudoscience.
you can't prove it. There are no graph and pictures showing it.
bassam karzeddin
2020-02-29 12:44:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Erasmo Scobee
Post by Jan
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
A civil response to an ignorant, dishonest, vile, filthy academic called Jan.
I'm not an academic. Your stuff is junk pseudoscience.
you can't prove it. There are no graph and pictures showing it.
The Academic mainstream Trolls of mathematics and all theoretical sciences can't and impossible to understand or decide alone so many irrefutable proofs that are half or one-page proofs for so many years

They can't even understand too many self proven statements

But so utterly they always keep asking for proofs, especially the very long ones that they claim to understand, which is too funny to believe and for sure

They simply resort to this kind of stupidity to keep everything so hidden from the innocent school students attention with general public in all walks of life

Because of the public attention become so aware of such subtle long historical and of course, inherited stupidity, then certainly they would follow them with all kinds of dirty shows hitting their so empty heads untill it sounds loud for sure

Nothing remained absolutely true in their entire math magic except the Pythagorian theorem (which is originally-thousands of years erlier- Summerian's and Babilion's theorem) and few old correct results in geometry and number theory as well

And even the same Pythagorian theorem can refute most of the so-called modern maths, which means that they rarely understood this lonely true theorem untill this date and they are truly so proud of such unbelievable stupidity (strictly in true mathematics)

They aren't more than a hollow minds parrots that never understand what do they say, and not only strictly in the English language but also in all their languages as well, and FOR (100%) SURE

References: My public free published posts

sci. math so many daily topics (plus all other relevant sections)

And they would keep arguing aimlessly untill they pass away as ignorants as their alleged greatest masters (who didn't have many chances to learn the truth about the truth of their broken maths)

No, proofs mustn't be made at all for Trolls, don't ever ask for proofs, since you can't comprehend anything true yet, but better believe it and defend it (as always as usual)

BKK
Eram semper recta
2020-02-29 13:43:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bassam karzeddin
Post by Erasmo Scobee
Post by Jan
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
A civil response to an ignorant, dishonest, vile, filthy academic called Jan.
I'm not an academic. Your stuff is junk pseudoscience.
you can't prove it. There are no graph and pictures showing it.
The Academic mainstream Trolls of mathematics and all theoretical sciences can't and impossible to understand or decide alone so many irrefutable proofs that are half or one-page proofs for so many years
They can't even understand too many self proven statements
But so utterly they always keep asking for proofs, especially the very long ones that they claim to understand, which is too funny to believe and for sure
They simply resort to this kind of stupidity to keep everything so hidden from the innocent school students attention with general public in all walks of life
Because of the public attention become so aware of such subtle long historical and of course, inherited stupidity, then certainly they would follow them with all kinds of dirty shows hitting their so empty heads untill it sounds loud for sure
Nothing remained absolutely true in their entire math magic except the Pythagorian theorem (which is originally-thousands of years erlier- Summerian's and Babilion's theorem) and few old correct results in geometry and number theory as well
And even the same Pythagorian theorem can refute most of the so-called modern maths, which means that they rarely understood this lonely true theorem untill this date and they are truly so proud of such unbelievable stupidity (strictly in true mathematics)
They aren't more than a hollow minds parrots that never understand what do they say, and not only strictly in the English language but also in all their languages as well, and FOR (100%) SURE
References: My public free published posts
sci. math so many daily topics (plus all other relevant sections)
And they would keep arguing aimlessly untill they pass away as ignorants as their alleged greatest masters (who didn't have many chances to learn the truth about the truth of their broken maths)
No, proofs mustn't be made at all for Trolls, don't ever ask for proofs, since you can't comprehend anything true yet, but better believe it and defend it (as always as usual)
BKK
I mistook this "Jan" guy for someone else. Wasted my time with the moron - he doesn't know shit about mathematics.
bassam karzeddin
2020-02-29 15:07:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
Post by bassam karzeddin
Post by Erasmo Scobee
Post by Jan
Post by Eram semper recta
On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 12:05:27 PM UTC-8, Eram semper recta
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
A civil response to an ignorant, dishonest, vile, filthy academic called Jan.
I'm not an academic. Your stuff is junk pseudoscience.
you can't prove it. There are no graph and pictures showing it.
The Academic mainstream Trolls of mathematics and all theoretical sciences can't and impossible to understand or decide alone so many irrefutable proofs that are half or one-page proofs for so many years
They can't even understand too many self proven statements
But so utterly they always keep asking for proofs, especially the very long ones that they claim to understand, which is too funny to believe and for sure
They simply resort to this kind of stupidity to keep everything so hidden from the innocent school students attention with general public in all walks of life
Because of the public attention become so aware of such subtle long historical and of course, inherited stupidity, then certainly they would follow them with all kinds of dirty shows hitting their so empty heads untill it sounds loud for sure
Nothing remained absolutely true in their entire math magic except the Pythagorian theorem (which is originally-thousands of years erlier- Summerian's and Babilion's theorem) and few old correct results in geometry and number theory as well
And even the same Pythagorian theorem can refute most of the so-called modern maths, which means that they rarely understood this lonely true theorem untill this date and they are truly so proud of such unbelievable stupidity (strictly in true mathematics)
They aren't more than a hollow minds parrots that never understand what do they say, and not only strictly in the English language but also in all their languages as well, and FOR (100%) SURE
References: My public free published posts
sci. math so many daily topics (plus all other relevant sections)
And they would keep arguing aimlessly untill they pass away as ignorants as their alleged greatest masters (who didn't have many chances to learn the truth about the truth of their broken maths)
No, proofs mustn't be made at all for Trolls, don't ever ask for proofs, since you can't comprehend anything true yet, but better believe it and defend it (as always as usual)
BKK
I mistook this "Jan" guy for someone else. Wasted my time with the moron - he doesn't know shit about mathematics.
The vast majority of them (0.999...) can't yet understand the following too elementary mathematics about the fake one (0.999..) and what was the devilish truer purpose of suddenly replacing one by no one like this no one (0.999...)

They act mentally retarded that the whole issue is only a decimal notation dot denoted by (.) which only blocks all their heads untill they pass away as true imbeciles as their alleged greatest cheaters masters as well

They still are incapable to understand that (0.9 = 9/10, 0.99 = 99/100, ..., 0.9999999999 = 9999999999/10^10, 0.999...(n)...999 = 999...(n)...999/10^n), where the later (0.999...(n)...999) is a 9 digit in 10-base number system in endless decimal ratiional number

and they can't yet understand that they can never stop calling this repeated digits of 9's as not a natural number (999...(n)...999)

They are still unaware and too incapable to comprehend that there is no such fiction like infinity is waiting thereafter their natural numbers ends despite being no number nor anything else

And they are still mentally suffering a lot in understanding that this form

(0.999...) is identical to this same form (999.../1000...), where utterly they openly confess that the latter form is actually not any true or existing number since nither this a number (999...) nor that a number (1000...), (what types of unintelligent beings? wonders

And on sci. math mainly there were thousands of proofs for things that are truly wrong mathematical statements only from the first look

And they don't know yet that (0.999...) from their fart myth magic is solely based upon this ever greatest ass fart of insulting the human minds so badly without mercy or any regret but with great fake proud of such unbelievable historical and well-documented stupidity (with much of copyrights as well as greatest scandals) of all the times

And still, the very poor minds (most likely alleged genius with long proven earthy records) would keep acting Donkeys and Monkeys as they truly are

What kinds of unintelligent beings are those? wonders!

And utterly they keep hiding illegally behind many other successful categories like Scientists and Engineers who never work with their very stupid definitions nor do they need perfect theoretical solutions for their earthy problem solving by approximations

And they would come back and tell you about their sh*t approximations by epsilon, delta, convergence, intermediate, Cuashy, Dedekind, Newton's, limits, ... and thousands of very similar sh*ts endlessly (without any end)

And if they are so, then let us shame them perpetually for at least the so many rare unpleasant things they truly enjoy without any existing limits

like their (stupidity, dishonesty, stubbornness, jealousy, salivary nature self cowardice, thieve's true talents, abnormality, exaggerations, submissive natures, ..., etc)

This isn't any forged history written politely by themselves but a true record of natural historical future records and investigations about abnormal academics persons almost in all fields for purely unnecessary business on the shoulders of innocent school kids and societies they belong to besides being a rare wonderful piece of evidence and true fun for the future intelligent beings that would soon replace them certainly

BKK
Dan Christensen
2020-02-29 05:38:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eram semper recta
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
I see you are ALL scum. Not a single one coming forward to say thanks or congratulate me - this speaks volumes about the vermin who comprise the Church Of Academia (mainstream academics).
I'm no professor, but I do know that, before you can prove theorems about derivatives, you must first formally define what they are, i.e. you must provide the necessary and sufficient condition(s) for the existence the derivative at any given point in the domain of the function in question. You have repeatedly refused to do so. How can anyone take you seriously, John?


Besides, even at your advanced age (60+?), you are STILL struggling with basic, elementary-school arithmetic. As you have repeatedly posted here:

"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017

“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015

"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
--October 28, 2017

"Zero is not a number."
-- Dec. 2, 2019

"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017

“There is no such thing as an empty set.”
--Oct. 4, 2019

“3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
--Oct. 22, 2019


No math genius our JG, though he actually lists his job title as “mathematician” at Linkedin.com. Really!


Interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated December 2019) at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Loading...