Most mathematician will never ... because

[Mr_Reasonable]

You’re a hack lady.

[ladyjane]

Now if you’ll excuse me, Calculus demands a burnt offering.

hahaha
calculus demonstrates deans claim beautifully

as it was illogical contradictory and meaningless the way newtown and leibniz formulated it -yet it worked

then it was reformulated to make it logicall

hahaha
gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … nality.pdf

Absurdities or meaninglessness or irrationality is no hindrance [sic] to something being 'true' rationality, or, Freedom from contradiction or paradox is not a necessary an/or sufficient condition for 'truth': mathematics and science examples

THE DEAN THEOREM
“Examples from mathematics and science show the theorem: contradiction, or inconsistency within and explanation as well as mutual contradiction, or incommensurability [sic] between explanations does not preclude the explanation or both explanations from being ‘true’”

“Newton and Leibniz developed the calculus…. Their ideas were attacked for being full of paradoxes.” Newton’s formulation of calculus was self-contradictory yet it worked. Newton worked with small increments going of to a zero limit. Berkeley showed that this leads to logical inconsistency. The main problem Bunch notes was “that a quantity was very close to zero, but not zero, during the first part of the operation then it became zero at the end.” These paradoxes where resolved by the time old expediency of mathematics by defining them away in the nineteenth century by Cauchy and Weierstrass. Up until then calculus was used pragmatically such that “instead of having demonstrations justify results, results were used to justify demonstrations.”

HAHAHAHA

[IrvingWashington]

I take it you never bothered to respond to my point about types of meaning. Actually, I know you didn’t. The calculus as developed by Leibniz and Newton is a paradigm case of something that had physical, non-logical, meaning.

[ladyjane]

The calculus as developed by Leibniz and Newton is a paradigm case of something that had physical, non-logical, meaning.

yet it was meaningless
if you where around at the time
the hack you are would never have seen or cared less what berkely et al saw

hacks like you keep us in the dark

[IrvingWashington]

I’d rather be a hack than incapable of participating in reasonable intellectual discussion.