Re: Gabriel's Theorem
From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 02/23/05
- Next message: bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com: "Re: above bounded set but does not include the least upper bound.. how??"
- Previous message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Jason: "Gabriel's Theorem"
- Next in thread: John Gabbriel: "Re: Gabriel's Theorem"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 09:24:14 -0600
On 22 Feb 2005 17:00:55 -0800, "Jason" <logamath@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Disclaimer: I am not endorsing any of Gabriel's work. Neither am I
>absolutely certain that all of it is correct without any doubt.
>However, I am interested in his average sum theorem and in particular,
>a special case of it which leads to what he calls the average tangent
>theorem (ATT). The ATT (or Average Derivative) if true can be used to
>prove the mvt and ftoc and several others.
This thread is not going to work out any more favorably than
any of the others.
>His theorems are found at:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/john_gabriel
>
>for those who are looking at this thread the first time.
>
>I have to agree that calling it the Average 'Tangent' theorem is a bit
>of a curveball, so perhaps we can understand it better as the Average
>Derivative Theorem.
>
>Some facts I have established:
>
>- Not a single contributor has been able to show me one reference of
>Gabriel's theorem being stated before Gabriel in any shape or form.
>About the closest resemblance is the Average Value Theorem and these
>are not the same. In 1980 which is way before most of the contributors
>on this forum were born, the Average Value theorem did not exist.
Many contributors have pointed out that it's an utterly trivial
consequence of results in first-semester calculus. The fact
that you reply to these posts with insults doesn't make them
incorrect.
>You will no doubt find a lot of comments posted on this forum mostly by
>fools who believe it is their sole job to disrupt and cause chaos in
>this forum. Please ignore all comments from contributors like:
>
> wade
> oliver
> hammick
> rodgers
> chapman
> ullrich
> gabbriel (an alias created by some idiot on this forum)
Here's a curious question: Why do you imagine it is that _all_
of the replies you've got have been from fools?
(And regardless of the reason why: Surely you've noticed by now
that _every_ participant here is an idiot. So why do you keep
posting this stuff? Why not find somewhere where you can
discuss it all with actual competent mathematicians?)
>My name is Jason Wells. You can also respond directly to me at my email
>address.
************************
David C. Ullrich
- Next message: bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com: "Re: above bounded set but does not include the least upper bound.. how??"
- Previous message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Jason: "Gabriel's Theorem"
- Next in thread: John Gabbriel: "Re: Gabriel's Theorem"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
