Re: Possible proof of Gabriel's Theorem?

From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 03/07/05 

Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 07:25:32 -0600

On 6 Mar 2005 16:43:32 -0800, "Jason" <logamath@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Facinating. A minute ago I saw a post from _you_ admitting
>> that in fact f' need not be continuous:
>> "Have just thought of an example where f' may not be continuous."
>
>Yes, I did say this. But, I am telling you that gabriel's theorem does
>not require f' to be continuous at x+w. I see no discrepancies here.
>
>> So far you've called me uninformed for my opinion on this
>> question. Above you say it makes my real analysis go down
>> the toilet and question whether I should be a professor.
>> Now it turns out that you were wrong about this (and
>> you _admit_ you were wrong). But there's been no apology
>> yet for the things you said.
>
>Actually I have been the only one that's forthright thus far. You were
>wrong about gabriel's definition containing two variables

Nope.

>and you are
>still wrong about a lot of other things. you can be absolutely sure we
>disagree on most things but this doesn't say that you are particularly
>good at anything. So far, you have made several unsubstantiated claims:
>
> - You have said Gabriel's derivative definitioin contains more
> than one variable. You are wronog!
> - You have ignorantly stated that gabriel's theorem is a
> trivial consequence of the ftoc. You are wrong!

Nope. _If_ we add the assumption that f' is continuous then
it _is_ a trivial consequence of ftoc. As many people have
pointed out, in varying degrees of detail.

>Did you admit to any of this? No. I don't think so. As for complaining,
>I am bothered when supposedly educated men like you say things like:
>*You don't know what you are talking about.*

That's a fact, that you prove with every post, whether it bothers
you or not.

>I really don't care what
>most people on this forum say. I have little or no respect for them.
>Shouldn't they be apologizing? Daivd, every time you see you are wrong
>about something,

Huh? It has not happened yet that I've seen I was wrong about
anything that's come up between the two of us.

>you conveniently bring up an issue with the other
>posters on this forum. Again, their opinions mean nothing to me.
>
>Me a crackpot? Giggle, are you reading any of the other comments?
>Please tell me what on earth a contributor's opinion of me (troll, or
>whatever) has to do with the fucking subkect I am discussing. They can
>all go to hell for all I care. Anyone who is rude, who attacks the
>character of someone else without knowing jack*** can in fact get
>stuffed!

Do you read _your_ posts? People who are rude can get stuffed.

>Trust me David, I don't lose any sleep over anyone's opinion -
>not in this forum or any other. And hey, am I the only one to make
>mistakes? You have all made mistakes.

Yes. Doesn't change the fact that more or less everything you've
said about all this is wrong.

>Please spare me the sanctimonious
>'better than thou' crap. Just answer the questions as I have tried to
>answer your questions. So far, you have answered nothing and have made
>a few serious mistakes.
>Forget about my character:

I don't recall ever saying anything about your character.

>None of you on this site even have a clue of
>what kind of individual I am. And I would not bother with you in any
>other situation were it outside this forum.
>
>If you think my messages are so annoying, then why do you respond?
>if I have offended you so much, why on earth do you bother?

If anyone's curious, this is the part that made me decide to reply
to this message instead of just dropping it as hopeless. Back to
Jason:

Huh? What makes you think that I find your messages annoying?
I haven't told _you_ to get stuffed, I've just commented on the
math.

In fact I don't find your messages annoying, I find them hilarious.
In case you didn't know, so do a lot of people - every time you
make a post here it leads to people all over the planet rolling
on the floor.

Honest.

>Troll: I have not left any annoying messages on this forum yet I get
>the likes of *real trolls* like feldman and hale and whoever else
>frequents this forum being guilty of exactly what they accuse JSH and
>me. Now I have not read JSH's posts and know little about what he is
>trying to achieve - this is not the point. Point is you are in fact
>guilty of what you accuse others to be and not the other way around.
>
>Make a useful contribution or shut up I say.

I have. The fact that you keep saying I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong.

>The choice is yours. I am
>responding to you because I still respect you. All the other assholes
>are not going to get a response from me. I asked you to take this
>offline with me so that we can discuss it without all the two cents
>worth of every tom, *** and harry in this forum. I know they are all
>basically very stupid. Have sent you a private email but so far you
>have not responded. Why don't you take this off-line with me? Too
>afraid I might convince you? :-)

No. The reason is that it was clear long ago that there's no
possibility anyone will ever convince you that you're wrong
about more or less everything, so there would be no point to
an offline "discussion".

As opposed to the online stuff, where one point is that it's
public - when people make incorrect statements in a place
like this where others come to learn about math then it's
proper for others to point out the errors. Also it's all
extremely amusing - wouldn't be anything funny about an
offline exchange because nobody else would be able to see it.

>Truth is you may end up convincing me
>that gabriel is indeed wrong because I still have some questions. What
>really keeps me going is the fact neither you nor anyone else has been
>able to disprove or prove *anything* aside from rhetoric, ignorant
>posts and irrelevant troll-like comments.

I don't believe that anyone has _said_ that his theorem is false
as stated. But nobody has given a proof of it, and people
_suspect_ it's false, for example if there does indeed exist
a non-constant differentiable f such that f'(r) = 0 for all
rational r, as I suspect, then the theorem's certainly false.

>So let's see what you are really made of David - all talk or just
>another troll on sci.math...

************************

David C. Ullrich

Quantcast