Apparently he has more 'knowledge' to filibuster with, if only we'd just roll over and accept everything he says as fact.

Results 1 to 10 of 18

- 03-07-2016, 04:45 PM #1

- Join Date
- Jan 2016
- Posts
- 1,074

## Mathnerd vs John Gabriel: the filibustering crank

Has any actual math been discussed in the past week? It seems that all we have been doing is dealing with John Gabriel spamming every single thread, which disturbs the flow of any discussion. It's fine if he wants to express his views and it's even fine if he wants to call people names, but what he is doing now makes it near impossible to have any sort of debate.

- 03-07-2016, 10:44 PM #2

- Join Date
- Jan 2016
- Posts
- 1,074

## Re: John Gabriel: the filibustering crank

Apparently he has more 'knowledge' to filibuster with, if only we'd just roll over and accept everything he says as fact.

- 03-08-2016, 09:27 AM #3

- Join Date
- Oct 2014
- Posts
- 2,200

- 03-08-2016, 11:40 AM #4

- Join Date
- Jan 2016
- Posts
- 1,074

- 03-08-2016, 05:35 PM #5

- Join Date
- Jan 2016
- Posts
- 1,074

## New knowledge from the king crank

New knowledge from the king crank:

Secret from the past, my ass. That's a secret from the third grade.

I should add that one is not allowed to subtract negative numbers in John Gabriel's goofy mathematics. The distributive law has also been waived as he doesn't believe in that. He also can't factor simple expressions like 2x-2.Last edited by mathnerd; 03-08-2016 at 05:38 PM.

- 03-09-2016, 02:12 AM #6

- Join Date
- Jan 2016
- Posts
- 1,074

## Re: New knowledge from the king crank

Don't forget to read up on John Gabriel's new opinions about the parabola on the "greatest mathematician since Archimedes" thread. Apparently, one is not allowed to subtract negative numbers and not allowed to negate numbers because it's "stupid".

- 04-09-2016, 02:51 PM #7

- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- Santa Barbara, CA
- Posts
- 2,766

## Re: New knowledge from the king crank

"Genmathematician" (John Gabriel) is an idiot who doesn't realize that the derivative needs two dimensions, so a derivative function can be defined for all lines of a different slope, not just A in the equation y = Ax + B, so that y= f(x) = f'(x)x + B

This requires two dimensions (at least), Cartesian or Polar. The derivative of a second order equation is linear, either in x or r.

He is setting up straw men (a single fractional line) and won't even consider a fractional plane, unless it consists solely of circles defined by Pythagorean triples (since these are the only versions that map integers to the x and y axis - which are expressed in the L.C.D. of unity).

He has NO concept of function variables in two dimensions (x,f(x)), (x,y) or (r,)

In fact, he can only calculate a single result on his fractional line, since it must be expressed in terms of a unique L.C.D. (except integers, for which the L.C.D. = 1)

Although he professes a love of Descartes, he doesn't understand a word of Descartes work as the foundation of Analytic Geometry, since he hasn't progressed beyond Plane Geometry and is confused by even that (since one runs into irrational numbers using normal arithmetic operations.)

It is unbelievable that someone could be this ignorant about even the basics of high school mathematics, and that dogmatic about his ignorance and his refusal to admit Descartes' results in terms of his misunderstood concept of "magnitudes", "reification", etc. In all his work, he is only defending the concept of a fraction number line in a single dimension, which means the he ignores any geometric object (including lines) as functions in two dimensions. Not only the diagonals of squares, but any form of curvature...

It is really hard to believe, but he really is that stupid (and desperate to convince others that he is not)..._______________________________________

"Flamenco Chuck" Keyser

The Relativistic Unit Circle**03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST**

Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates**03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST**

**Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.**

- 04-17-2016, 08:33 AM #8
## Re: New knowledge from the king crank

Plang alang, plang alang, plangalang lang.

Try refuting any of this:

The applet explains dynamically how the relationship between the point of tangency and the horizontal distances to the endpoints of a parallel secant line works.

I gave mathnerd an exercise he could not complete.

The answers are:

Note that the pairs are well defined and there is no use of any preconceived notions as some ignoramuses claim here on this thread.

mathnerd couldn't do this, so I gave him the answers. His next homework assignment is to find an auxiliary equation for sin(x) and then he might by some strange luck understand how the derivative is always cos(x) or not...

Gabriel's new calculus is not a passing fad. It is already being used by mathematicians, scientists, engineers and educators around the world. It's the future of calculus.

Followed by nothing but stupidity, platitudes and irrelevancies by the dozen on your part?**The more I publish the truth, the more society hates me.**

**There is no sympathy for those who expose deeply flawed mainstream ideas.**

The official New Calculus site

The 9 applet New Calculus course

Die Neue Analysis

**新微积分**

- 04-17-2016, 08:36 AM #9
## Cranks calling John Gabriel a crank. Too funny.

Nonsense. You need the limit apparatus. Without it you never have the slope of the tangent line, only a non-parallel secant line.

1. The finite difference does represent the slope of the tangent line somewhere in an interval.**Poppycock.**You need the mean value theorem for that and it does not support the bogus calculus definition of derivative because f ' (x) is not the same as the f ' (c) where x<c<x+h. You obviously haven't even gotten close to thinking about these things.

Making the interval sufficiently small results in the finite difference approaching the slope of the tangent line at a point.

I ask again, what is your definition of the slope of the tangent line in the form of a mathematical expression? I have given you the standard definition.

For the fucking last time:

is the slope of a tangent line at x.

You missed parts of my previous comment because you are in a hurry to run your mouth:

1. The finite difference NEVER represents the slope of a tangent line - NOT EVEN AT THE POINT OF TANGENCY.

2. The limit apparatus is a feeble attempt to define the slope in terms of ALL the slopes in the neighborhood containing the point of tangency.

3. The limit apparatus pretends to know what is a "real" number when such an object does not exist.

4. Illegal arithmetic (division by 0) is used to find the slope.

5. The definition is circular because the limit apparatus requires prior knowledge of it.**The more I publish the truth, the more society hates me.**

**There is no sympathy for those who expose deeply flawed mainstream ideas.**

The official New Calculus site

The 9 applet New Calculus course

Die Neue Analysis

**新微积分**

- 04-17-2016, 10:02 AM #10

- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- Santa Barbara, CA
- Posts
- 2,766

## Re: Cranks calling John Gabriel a crank. Too funny.

John Gabriel's intensive research on triangles...

Maybe circles, some day....._______________________________________

"Flamenco Chuck" Keyser

The Relativistic Unit Circle**03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST**

Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates**03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST**

**Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.**

## Bookmarks