Re: How many mathematicians ...


"Uncle Ben" <ben@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9edf5893-ffc3-4c1b-8630-5c205d62e2a6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 23, 11:09 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Uncle Ben" <b...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:b34580cf-7bd2-4777-a326-3f4b75f015de@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 23, 3:25 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





"Uncle Ben" <b...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:40d80617-79b7-4d0d-965c-33158da745a2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 23, 1:29 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Uncle Ben" <b...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:b1448358-3ddc-42ca-99c6-277cd68c3f7f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 23, 11:25 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:>
"Uncle Ben" <b...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:3e6bd23a-c795-429b-9098-e53fcf219548@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 22, 11:39 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
...

1/7 = 0.\142857\ + h

If we multiply both sides by 7, we get
1 = 0.\999999\ + 7h
QED.

...

So,

1 = 0.\99999\ + 7h

and earlier

1 = 0.\99999\ + h

Subtracting,

0 = 6h
============================
h/7 < h and see lemma 1 (which you agreed was fine), h cannot
be divided by 7 before multiplying by 6.

What are you talking about?
Who is trying to divide h by 7?
Not me. I multiplied it by 7.
======================================
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You multiplied 1h by 7 and got 6h for the answer. Well done, Bonehead,
and thanks for the laugh!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, I didn't. 7h - h = 6h.

=========================
Yes you did.
6 * (h/7) -> 5.9\9\ * h but (h/7) is an illegal operation as per my fine
lemma.
What are you talking about, Not thee, thou multipliest by 7?

Try the memory test, it's fun, and you appear to have forgotten you
rested
your case:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theoneshow/consumer/2009/04/20/how_sharp_i...
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I said

1/7 = 0.\142857\ + h. Multiply by 7 ---
So 1= 0.\999999\ + 7h ........................................1

But 1 = 0.\9999999\ +h ........................................2

Subtract equals from equals: 1-1=0; 7h-h=6h
So 0 = 6h.

Look back and you will see.

Nightie-night! Sleep tight!

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

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Your honour, my dishonourable unlearned friend rested his case and
now wishes to run in circles, digging himself an even deeper hole. I
call Jimmy Black, a relativistic colleague of my unlearned friend as an
expert witness in this matter. Perhaps your honour would like a recess
to review the record?

Look back and you will see:



Let's work an example: Let f(x) = x^2

Then f(x+h) = x^2 + 2xh + h^2
and f(x+h) - f(x) = 2xh + h^2
and [f(x+h) - f(x)]/h = 2x + h
The limit as h->0 of 2x + h is simply 2x.
So f'(x) = 2x. No division by zero.

=======================================
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[f(x+h) - f(x)]/h = f(x+h)/h - f(x)/h

= x^2/h + 2xh/h + h^2/h - x^2/h
= 2xh/h + h^2/h
But according to the drooling "Dr." Bonehead Green, h = 0,
so we are stuck and cannot proceed.

However, h isn't zero (being the smallest number greater than
zero), so we proceed and the limit as h->0 of 2x + h is
simply 2xh/h+h^2/h = 2x+h, which it has to be because h never
gets to zero even if Bonehead wishes it so.

The piss poor moron Bonehead Green Ph.D. Johns Hopkins 1956
divides by h and then claims no division by zero at the same time
claiming h is zero, typical of a dumb relativist who claims the speed
of light is c in all frames of reference.

(Crap snipped )

Be reassured by the word of Androcles, who believes that there
is a smallest positive number greater than zero.

Don't be reassured by the ranting of Uncle Bonehead, who believes that
there is a positive number for the area of a circle of unit radius. But
the illogical fuckin' idiot won't tell us what it is.

Don't be reassured by the raving of Uncle Bonehead, who believes that
there is a positive number for the base of the natural logarithm. But
the
illogical fuckin' cretin won't tell us what it is.

Don't be reassured by the bull*** of Uncle Bonehead, who believes that
there is a complex number for the square root of minus one. But the
useless ignorant troll won't tell us what it is.

Uncle Bonehead:
If proof by contradiction befuddles you, John,
==================================================
It doesn't, so
[snip]

If proof by Einstein-said-so befuddles you, "Dr." Bonehead, I'm not
sorry
to have taxed your brain, you obviously don't have one and would argue
trivialities.
The way it goes, you see, is as follows: One proves
something false by assuming it to be true and then showing that that
assumption leads to a contradiction, such as "light is always propagated
in
empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state
of
motion of the emitting body" leading to "the speed of light is c in all
inertial
frames" -- about which Uncle Bonehead says "Harry is right. And
Androcles did indeed read Einstein's paper more carefully than I
did." --bwhahahaha!

Of course, Uncle Bonehead is so smart he knew all along that Einstein
was disproving his own postulate by reductio-ad-absurdum, but Uncle
Bonehead is too stupid to realise Androcles has outsmarted him with
something as trivial as
Quote/
1. Assume that there exists a smallest number greater than zero: Call it
h.
2. But h/2 is smaller than h
/unquote -- Uncle Bonehead

Therefore line 2 is false, a proof by contradiction.

A. Assume that the green "Dr." Bonehead has a Ph. D. in mathematics.
Therefore the assumption in line A is false, he didn't claim to and he's
ignorant of the subject.
What he DID claim was a Ph. D. in physics.

Here's a real challenge to your intellect, green Uncle "Dr." Bonehead:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lightcurve.xls
I call it a real challenge because that light curve is empirical data.
Change the value in cell Q2 to 3 to see it modelled.
Change it back to 0 and you can play with the values in cells K2-P2
and see the effect they have.
And please, no stupid lectures about "closing speed", this is called
research and defending a thesis.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Androcles,

If you ever happen to learn the definition of a "limit" in modern
mathematics, we can revisit this subject. Until then, all
discussionis hopeless.

======================================
Queer Bonehead,
If you ever happen to learn the definition of a "bull***" in modern
physics, we can revisit this subject. Until then, all discussion is futile,
you sanctimonious cretin.







.