New Calculus

What the ruling elite has done is treasonous - they have blurred the line between socialism and communism, influencing the sheeple to think they are the same. Trump's followers are a prime example of this. Hear the word socialism, cry communism! They are not the same thing at all. Get a dictionary and look up the words! Socialism is an economic and political concept advocating for collective or public ownership of the means of production, rather than private ownership. It seeks to reduce economic inequality by prioritizing human needs and equitable resource distribution over corporate profit. Communism is a political and economic concept advocating for the elimination of private property and social classes. It envisions a stateless, moneyless society where the community collectively owns the means of production (e.g., factories, land, and resources), and wealth is distributed equitably based on individual need. The difference: The fundamental difference is that socialism is an economic pathway where workers collectively own the means of production, while communism is the ultimate, stateless, and classless end goal of that pathway. In short, all communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists. 1. Wealth Distribution Socialism: Resources are distributed based on individual contribution and effort. You are compensated based on the value of your labor. Communism: Wealth is distributed based entirely on need. People receive what they require to survive, regardless of their personal labor output, summarized as: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." 2. Ownership of Property Socialism: Major industries and resources are owned collectively or by the state, but individuals can still own personal property (houses, cars, personal belongings). Communism: All private property is eliminated. Everything, including housing and all means of production, is owned communally by the public. 3. Government and Class Socialism: A central government usually manages the economy, redistributes wealth, and facilitates the transition toward equality. Communism: In its purest, theoretical form, the government and state "wither away" because classes and money no longer exist to be managed or regulated.

The fact that anyone thinks a trillionaire is going to make sure we all have “universal high income” is pure cope. The ruling class is not going to save us. We have to save ourselves.

It's a shame they're not freezing acceptance into mainstream mathematics programs, which ceased being mathematics over 150 years ago. I have never voted for Trump but if I knew he would shut down the lot of mainstream math departments, I'd vote for him not only for a third term, but fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh if he lives that long. Not to be offensive, but the dumbest people I have ever met are those in mainstream mathematics academia - their stupidity is breathtaking. Literally.

This is a canary in the coal mine ofr the rest of academia. Its going to be a hard decade. hpherald.com/evening_digest…

"Legit mathematician"? By what measure? Because you passed examinations, wrote an essay they called a thesis, and an institution stamped its approval? That is not what makes a mathematician. A mathematician is made by great works — results that stand on their own, that cannot be refuted, that advance genuine understanding. Your credential is a permission slip, not an achievement. And "unmatched brilliance" at UChicago? I have direct experience of what passes for brilliance there. A certain Prof. Jack Huizenga posted a blistering public critique of my New Calculus — the first genuinely rigorous formulation of calculus in human history — and when I demonstrated point by point that he was wrong, he quietly retracted it. No apology. No acknowledgement. Just silence. This man, whom the institution presumably regards as one of its sharper minds, was not even aware that sine and cosine series accept only radians as input. That is not brilliance. That is credentialled ignorance wearing a lanyard. As for you — I would be genuinely curious to watch you respond to a simple observation: your field axioms are fiction. Not incomplete. Not approximate. Fiction. Field Axiom 9, the multiplicative identity, asserts that a·1 = a for every element a in the field. Apply that to π. The unit 1 cannot measure π exactly — it fails, necessarily and demonstrably. So your axiom simultaneously asserts P and NOT P. That is not mathematics. That is mythology with notation. academia.edu/167937272/Fiel… You are not a hard-core mathematician. You are a hard-core believer in a system you have never once examined from the ground up." Blocking me will be an open admission of ignorance and inability to defend your beliefs. Please, feel free to defend your beliefs.

@social_brains I'm a hard core (legit) mathemetician so I am not sure how I feel abt this because all the minds that study at UChicago -regardless of program - are unmatched in their brilliance. As a general rule.

That is drivel. Nothing created math because math is independent of the human mind or any other mind. Mathematics is the abstract science of MEASURE and NUMBER. Nothing else. Mainstream math cranks (your math professors and teachers) haven't done any math in the last 200 years and even what they know is not well comprehended by them. They're ALL fake mathematicians. Valid mathematics is discovered. Not created. Not invented. It was, is and always will be.

@Charlie157874 @SpringerMath Fact: maths was invented because of monies. Courtesy of PBS. youtu.be/wJEi1lVD-gk?si…

Is mathematics invented or discovered?

Judge what I say. Who I am is irrelevant. I am not like them and probably more like you than you think! :-) The problem does not lie with your inability to master mathematics. Rather it lies in their inability to do any math at all. They are 100% fakes. Every year they award themselves prizes for anti-mathematical rot such as their asswipe papers in topology, set theory or some other non-mathematical rot. These scums have done no mathematics in the last 200 years. Take a few of their asswipe PhD dissertations and you'll notice a common trend - they're all fiction!

π = π x 1 means π is measurable by unity and hence a rational number.

@MathsMastery People, I am trying to enlighten you. You can only understand and learn new knowledge if you keep an open mind. Pay attention to what I say. Who I am is irrelevant.

Multiplication and division facts are the building blocks for many areas of mathematics, making supporting pupils to develop fluency in this area vital. Fact Foundations is a mini programme, within Mathematics Mastery Primary, designed to support the automatic recall of multiplication and division facts up to the 12 times table. Partner with Mathematics Mastery to get instant access to all of the resources included in the subject excellence programme. See a preview of resources: ow.ly/QLZO50YZxLK Book a call to learn more about our partnership: ow.ly/u2et50YZxKZ

People, I am trying to enlighten you. You can only understand and learn new knowledge if you keep an open mind. Pay attention to what I say. Who I am is irrelevant.

Many of you think that I am saying π is a rational number, but you're wrong! I am categorically stating that π is not a rational number or any well-formed number at all. What I am saying is that π cannot be equal to π x 1, because if it were, then π would be a rational number. Alas, we can prove that π is not a number. There is no need to use the adjective "rational" in front of "number" because rational implies number and vice-versa. The fake multiplicative identity axiom of mainstream math field axioms makes this contradictory claim: π = π x 1. But such a claim implies RATIONALITY because multiplication by 1 is the same as division by 1, and division by 1 means "measured exactly by 1 and/or equal parts of 1". Do you understand now? Your incorrigibly stupid, arrogant, ignorant and pathologically jealous mathematics professors and teachers hate me because I expose their failures. Will you hate me for this too? Will you call me a crank and attribute mental diseases to me which I do not have? What is wrong with you people? You love lies above truth. You desire falsehoods and myths instead of clarity and correctness.

@PanicBuyer31 @Science_TechTV That is a part of intelligence, not the whole of it or even the main aspect of intelligence.

@CalculusNe75865 @Science_TechTV .. it means the best way to have learnt it** as in you are able to teach it to someone else. Intelligence is forming complex ideas and being able to put them into their simplest forms so even the most mediocre person can understand it. Basically teaching.

"The best way to learn something is to have to teach it." - John Archibald Wheeler

@Anthony_Bonato For those of you who haven't studied math, the modern foundations of math refer to Peano's "Axioms" in the derivation of number, and are used by prime idiots like Terrence Tao in his "real ANALysis" textbook.

Yes, indeed. That is the von Neuman drivel. It just makes my mind numb to think that math academics are so incorrigibly stupid as to accept this drivel as something of value. The next most drivelous is that of the idiot Peano: 0, S(0), S(1), ..., S(9). The fools of the mainstream math cult can't see the obvious problems there. youtu.be/lAD-pfSNdSs Guiseppe ate too much spaghetti. All that starch accumulated in his skull And also in his bowel Causing constipation and making him dull. In dire straits, he asked Bertrand Russell for advice And was told to smoke cigars and drink more coffee. At last, he produced five huge turds which he thought were nice. When mainstream math cranks smelled these turds, they worshiped Guiseppe. Adapted from an old poem I wrote on sci.math long before AI: groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/1…

I like counting to ten to help me sleep

Interesting that arithmetic is more than 3/4, isn't it?! This is the case because people do not understand arithmetic or the concept of number. This is a result of the poisonous fruits of formalism where you have fake beliefs (multiplicative identity axiom) and decrees such as the chain rule that are not understood by any. I have the answers to all of those problems, but is anyone listening... Where arithmetic comes from: academia.edu/124828666/Gabr… What indeed is a number? academia.edu/129216430/The_… I completed what Euclid could not: academia.edu/168587594/Afte… I taught an AI the best way to teach you! academia.edu/167932642/Math… Why your mainstream calculus works: academia.edu/81300370/Mains…

Arithmetic is not big enough

You cannot negotiate with a psychopath. If you haven't started building nuclear weapons and a means of delivery, you can rest assured that Putin and his rabid dog Medvedev will use them against you. Once you have nuclear weapons, you can lay down an ultimatum - stop the war, or we will end it in whichever way is necessary, even if it means neither survives. That is the only language that thugs understand.

We offered Putin to meet anywhere where real decisions to end the war could be made. He does not want it. We discussed with the U.S. and France the possibility of a meeting with Russia around the G7, with all democratic nations represented. Putin does not want it. Yesterday, we discussed with President Trump that such a meeting could be organized in the U.S. – in a format where Putin would find it much harder to refuse at least to President Trump. We will see what comes of it. If Russia refuses this chance as well, additional pressure will be needed. From an intervention at the EU Intergovernmental Conference. (3/3)

"Name one thing smarter than Trump." That's a category error. Before you can compare something's intelligence to Trump's, you would first have to establish that Trump is capable of thought. Since that premise is itself open to question, the comparison cannot even get off the ground.

GO‼️

@gregbacon @Anthony_Bonato Hopefully not and nor should they! academia.edu/145540651/Cant… academia.edu/104961795/Is_G… academia.edu/69779925/Gödel…

@Anthony_Bonato Have these people even heard of Kurt Gödel?

No

@Anthony_Bonato No, it does not, but it does mean your career of fraud and deception is nearing its end. This is a good thing.

@VvorticVvertere "I also believe The Uncaused made the Universe to cure loneliness!" I have entertained that idea many times. It's quite plausible. The Uncaused wants company, but not automatons.

@CalculusNe75865 I also believe The Uncaused made the Universe to cure loneliness! But I think of the Cosmos as 1 even if that undermines how we get number from a ratio of magnitudes.

Thought for the day: In the beginning ... there was magnitude and the Creator saw it and said it was good. The Creator said that magnitude is all alone and we need to give it a partner so we can easily identify it. Suddenly, there was ratio.

@Godsx2023 @mathemetica Nonsense. He wasn't even one tenth of the stature of the mathematician that I am. Yes, he was above average compared to all the other mainstream math imbeciles, but he was an amateur next to me. Gauss never reshaped anything. I did.

@mathemetica Even as a teenager, he was solving problems that stumped full-grown mathematicians. By the time he was 22, he was already producing work that basically reshaped algebra,

On This Day in Mathematics – June 16, 1799 Carl Friedrich Gauss received his PhD at just 22 years old. He earned the degree from the University of Helmstedt without taking any oral exam and without even being there in person. In his thesis, Gauss gave the first complete and correct proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra. This important theorem says that every polynomial equation always has solutions if we allow complex numbers.

"In his thesis, Gauss gave the first complete and correct proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra." That is a brazen lie! I provided the first complete and correct proof of the Mean Value Theorem from which the Fundamental Theorem is derived in ONE step. academia.edu/41616655/An_In… See page 90-96 for the flawed mainstream derivation using limit theory. See page 115-119 for the first rigorous formulation of calculus in human history - the New Calculus.

"Infinitesimal thickness" - what does that even mean? Do you love to frolic in your absurdity? The reason that formula works has NOTHING to do with the garbage known as "infinitesimals". The volume is simply the product of the arithmetic mean of the disc areas and the interval width. That is all. The word "infinitesimal" contributes precisely nothing here except a veneer of profundity over what is a straightforward geometric fact. And it actively misleads: by claiming the formula is justified by slices of "infinitesimal" width, you smuggle in a concept you cannot define rigorously. What IS an infinitesimal width? You do not say, because you cannot. The disc is a cylinder. Its area is determined exactly at each cross-section. The integral takes the arithmetic mean of these exactly determined cylindrical areas and multiplies it by the interval width to arrive at volume. There is no mystery here, no passage to a "limit", no hand-waving about things being "almost" cylinders. The formula works because the volume is the product of the arithmetic mean of the disc areas and the interval width. That is the geometric fact. Everything else is vacuabulary. If you can't see this immediately, then calculate what you've parroted as the "average value" (a misnomer for arithmetic mean which is a misnomer for 'level magnitude') of the disc areas and multiply it by the interval width. Also, that formula is a misguided way of writing in a form that demonstrates understanding: The better way to write that formula is V = ∫ab π(v'(x))² Δx, and here is why: The function f(x) in the standard notation is anonymous — it tells you nothing about the geometric role it plays. Writing v'(x) makes explicit that the radius of each disc is the slope of the tangent line to the curve V at x. That is its geometric meaning. "Rate of change" is the mainstream's kinematic corruption of a purely geometric concept. The tangent line slope at each point determines the radius of the disc, and v'(x) makes that relationship visible in the formula itself.

"Elementary Calculus: An Infinitesimal Approach" is an interesting introduction to calculus that presents familiar topics from a different perspective. The book covers limits, derivatives, integrals, and infinite series, but develops them using infinitesimals rather than the approach found in most standard calculus textbooks. Even for readers already familiar with calculus, it offers a fresh way of thinking about some of its central concepts. It is a worthwhile read for anyone interested in calculus, mathematical foundations, and alternative viewpoints on limits, derivatives, and integrals. people.math.wisc.edu/~hkeisler/calc…