Draft talk:John Gabriel

What is Rational Wiki about?
"Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;" "Documenting the full range of crank ideas;" https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki

This entry does none of these things. It's a smear on the individual's character and the sources are highly questionable. 199.115.114.74 (talk)

Third sentence in opening paragraph is opinion
"Unfortunately, he does not seem to understand the concepts of a limit, an innumerable set, and irrational numbers,[3] which one learns about in an introductory course on real analysis. "

Do you really think that any critically minded individual will read past the first paragraph by citing Mark Chu Carrol's Blog? I don't think you are serious. The fact that one rejects real analysis does not mean one does not understand. Gabriel states clearly that he rejects real analysis because it is based on a non-existent object called a "real" number, which in turn requires the prior establishment of irrational numbers. Gabriel claims there is no valid construction of "irrational number" and hence no "real numbers" are possible. He debunks both Dedekind and Cauchy constructions. Gabriel is not alone in his opinions. Several mainstream academics such as Prof. Wildberger and Prof. W. Mueckenheim are in agreement with his opinions in this direction. Just so you know, both these professors taught real analysis for decades as part of their work.

As for the second sentence, Gabriel nowhere argues that he should receive an Abel prize. Rather he asks that he be nominated. That's quite different to arguing. Hot sauce (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And your prophet allegedly debunked irrational numbers by drowning his student. Why is Pythagorean dogma so important to you? Accept that maths has grown beyond integers and ratios between them.86.141.180.13 (talk)
 * The fact that the square root of 2 cannot be expressed as the ratio of two integers is really easy to prove. Heck, I can prove it, and I have not had anything to do with that level of math since leaving high school another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe he knows that, what he cannot accept is retroactively calling the OG numbers "integers" and "natural numbers", he prefers to label these newcomer irrationals "magnitudes" and other confusing BS either unaware of dismissing that "magnitude" is already widely in use in physics and engineering and would cause unnecessary confusion. The concepts and theorems he dismisses have been a backbone for physics and engineering for centuries. Einstein's general relativity (did you know he was a Jew?) solved the unusual perihelion precession of Mercury and time dilation must taken into account in satellites, JG's GPS runs on Jewish math and science or maybe he doesn't drive due to the snake oil in gasoline conspiracy which is funded by reptilians. Hey JG, do you think if New Calculus was invented at the time of Isaac Newton and Leibniz, we would have colonized the moon and reach Mars now? Maybe even further?--86.141.180.13 (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * My, but you can talk a lot of rubbish hey? Einstein's theories solved nothing and produced nothing at all. GPS adjustments have nothing to do with time dilation (which is a fraudulent concept) or any of Einstein's relativity crap. As for reaching the moon and other bodies, all those trajectories were already calculated by Newton long before Einstein, and none required calculus outside of the conics. In fact, calculus is both null and void unless a given curve is both continuous and smooth, but that's not something I would have expected you to know. If the New Calculus was discovered (nothing is ever invented) at the time of Newton, we would probably have spaceships that travel 20 times faster than those we have already. But that is nothing compared to the progress that could have already been realised in various other fields of science and technology. 108.66.5.27 (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "I would have expected you to know. If the New Calculus was discovered (nothing is ever invented) at the time of Newton, we would probably have spaceships that travel 20 times faster than those we have already. But that is nothing compared to the progress that could have already been realised in various other fields of science and technology." Oh last messenger of Pythagoras, John Gabriel (Pi shall not be upon you 'cause it's irrational), how accurate is the estimate of "20 times faster"? Shall we take this as a mathematical Hadith or a verse of the Qu'rational aka The New Calculus? I'd like to see you engineer a spacecraft using your New Calculus to prove to the infidels that there are no numbers besides rationals and John Gabriel is their messenger. Rationalu Akbar. Yes prophet John Gabriel (Pi shall not be upon you 'cause it's irrational), you tell 'em that GPS doesn't use time dilation, these infidels don't even know how their own technology works. The truth is, Mercury has a weird orbit because there is a planet called Vulcan that exists between it and the Sun!--86.141.180.13 (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Blaspheme not! another (((zionist))) conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Lawsuit
John is currently threatening a lawsuit. His section needs substantial citations or removal. Anyone up for the challenge? tmtoulouse 05:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a post about Gabriel by Mark C. Chu-Carroll on ScienceBlogs; Chu-Carroll calls him a "crank" and "batshit insane" in the article and in the comments Chu-Carroll also calls him "a raging loonie of an antisemite". There's a thread with posts by Gabriel on spacetimeandtheuniverse.com which discusses Chu-Carroll and includes various antisemitic comments from Gabriel including a rant claiming "Jewish lawyers are especially prone to a devastating side-effect of this disease called MPD induced filth syndrome. They become lax about cleaning their anuses" and other entertaining things. Annquin (talk) 08:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sir Elephant (whoever he is) has a lengthy critique on his blog which again calls him a "crank" and a "crackpot" and discusses Chu-Carroll. There's a thread on XKCD forums, a sci.math newsgroup thread, and a Metafilter thread about him, all of which at least show what other people have said about Gabriel. Sadly Gabriel seems to have deleted much of his former online content. Someone called John Gabriel insults Einstein in a comment on this CNN article. Annquin (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You, who know where to look; can any of his now-deleted content be reached via the internet Wayback Machine? Goat speed.
 * @Trent OMG it's Trent! A little starstruck right now... *AHEM* Is it too soon to add him to RW:Pissed at us (under the lawsuits section)? If it's not too soon, just provide us with the relevant emails/letters/what have you, and I'll get to work. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The RW:PISSED lawsuit section always felt a little bit likeasking for it :/ 15:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How so? The whole RW:Pissed article gets populated by people who are already mad at us. It's not the RW:Pissed article that made them pissed, it's our general content and belittling stance towards their genius. Besides, in the US, when you are being contacted without having solicited said contact, you're always free to publish the material therein. When people decide to angrily drop babies-in-baskets on Trent's doorstep in the middle of the night, he's got no moral course of action avaliable to him than to have a photo of the kid's face smacked on next morning's milk cartons. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The biggest issue was that there were no citations. Feel free to add anything back in that we can support with citation, or if quoting others make it clear where it comes from. As written there was no support so I removed it. Feel free to put stuff back in. tmtoulouse 16:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I accept the challenge. But since it was decided that we should have an essay on John Gabriel rather then a section or a regular article on him, it is going to take a while. I am so far the only contributor to that essay, which is not to say that other editors have not been sharing some very useful links, for which I am grateful. Nerd271 (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 'To section' has a specific meaning in UK-English. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

E-mail Text
Below are the texts of the e-mails he has sent.

First e-mail:

The following which is found under "Practioners" contains false and defamatory information. None of what is written there is true. It was posted by a user called Nerd who is malicious and also posts on sci.math and other forums. I deleted the comment and he later reinstalled it.

I have copied a legal team which will be representing me, so they can take this matter up as well.

Please remove that false and misleading paragraph as soon as possible. I am not an antisemite, nor a neo-pythagorean and my math certainly cannot be classified as pseudomath. The entire paragraph is false.

Second e-mail:

False information about me (John Gabriel) has been written in the above entry. I have sent you an email asking you to remove my name and the lies and defamation you have written about me.

If you do not remove this within 7 days, you will be hearing from my attorney.

I am NOT an antisemite and my work has nothing to do with pseudomath.

Your "administrators" Nerd and Reverend Black have been reinstating the false entry about me.

Your actions are causing me great distress and harming my reputation. You will end up in court if you refuse to remove the rot you have printed and it will cost you dearly.

This is your second and final warning.

Comments on the e-mails
Disclaimer: By commenting or taking action on this site, I am not in any way representing the RationalMedia Foundation or the board of trustees — nor do they endorse anything I state — unless specifically specified. Yeah, like edits of this nature from a random BoN who specifically neglects taking all avaliable steps to identify himself to us, nor to provide us with any edit summary in the dedicated field provided (we're asking for a rationale behind edits), are kosher? I will agree, however, that the contested segments of the article text were uncited, and as long as they were to remain uncited, I personally do not contest but indeed support their removal in agreement with the complaint above and the action since taken by Trent. However, in accordance with Trent's opinion, I also support any possible future citing of sourced material. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * (Disclaimer, I'm also acting in the capacity of an editor not a board member here) I've tried to review the basis for calling him an anti-semite, and it seems that there's a number of users elsewhere consistently reposting attributed antisemitic quotes on various forums, but very hard to find anything resembling a reliable primary or secondary source. In light of that, I feel the section removal is entirely warranted with or without a pending lawsuit.  A nominal warning ought to be given to user:Nerd too about including such claims carelessly.  Unfortunately, the context makes this look a lot like rationalwiki being used as platform for possibly-specious claims that are also disseminated elsewhere.  Not good. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Most of those quotes attributed to me in your abortion called an "essay" are not true. There has been a lot of forged header activity on sci.math, particularly by a psychopathic troll called Dan Christensen, who continually trashes my comments with the same repetitive rot (all lies, libel and distortions of what I wrote). What I can't understand is how your scum moderators (Rev. Black, Nerd, etc) don't want my ideas on this pile of dung and yet there is this unflattering "essay" containing 95% lies and libel. So why not remove the entire page? You can't refute any of my mathematics, so you attack my character and try to soil my reputation. How do you think that makes you look? Unfortunately, not all readers are smart enough to realise your agenda. Come on, what purpose could this shit page have except to denigrate my character and make me look bad just because you don't like me? Sheeesh, I wouldn't give any of you a first thought if we ever met in person. What's the obsession with me all about? Remove this page immediately. I shall never give you permission to write about my new calculus because none of you have the intellectual ability to fully understand it even though 8th grade students can. Moreover, you are biased and brainwashed, so forget about me ever granting you permission to write about the new calculus. I will not be drawn into any lengthy discussions with any of you morons. Hot sauce (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well why don't you simply fuck off?--JorisEnter (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (Disclaimer: The following are my views and mine alone. As such they by no means represent RationalWiki.) I'm afraid you are wrong here, . I was not the one who added that paragraph concerning John Gabriel. An anonymous user did. Another anonymous user replaced this with "I removed a paragraph about John Gabriel which is completely untrue. John Gabriel is a living person and lies about his work and character will lead to lawsuits." They should have put this in the edit summary or perhaps this talk page rather than the main text of the article. And that was why I reverted this edit. Nerd271 (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

A note on how we've approached this sort of issue before
(speaking in my capacity as an editor)

First, don't panic :-)

Very first thing is for editors to go through the article. Cite it to the phrase level, remove anything that isn't cited. That's how we've approached these cases in the past (e.g. Kevin Martin, Kent Hovind). Section 230 applies, but note that's immunity for the RationalMedia Foundation, not for individual editors, and the RMF would have to answer a properly-served subpoena for IPs, etc should one arrive. This is why Category:Living people notes that stringent application of best practices is the standard we need to work to - David Gerard (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good to hear from you, mate! I was about to do that before Cat removed everything. Due an an edit conflict, I was unable to submit my changes, for which I did some careful reading in preparation. I cannot express how angry and disappointed I am. Nerd271 (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Remaining potentially controversial statements
None of these are references to Gabriel -- they are just elsewhere in the article. 01:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Dunno if you're still talking about John Gabriel, but if so — there are perfectly citable sources where he's called a crank outright, e.g. this entry from ScienceBlogs. Also, in this MIT source, he's called an amateur. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * He stated that MIT mathematician Gilbert Strang apologized to him for misdemeanor. Not sure if the email he produced is authentic, though. Nerd271 (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We should certainly ask Strang about that on twitter, facebook or via e-mail. I wouldn't trust Gabriel to give me the time of day without skewering into something completely different, never mind trust him to inform us about anything else. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Great idea! Could you do this, David Gerard? You are responsible for our social media pages, right? Nerd271 (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Doing so in the official RMF function, that's a bad idea in this case! It should definitely be individual interestsed editors doing it in their capacity as individuals, for this purpose. Note how I'm not touching the article myself - David Gerard (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, some individual ought to undertake this. Not by our recommendation, but as a private person contacting Strang. It would be nice if that person also let the community know what the reply was, and also asked Strang if he's fine with being quoted by us on that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Video
John Gabriel's (tedious) video about this article. 11:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And for all his genius, he decided to record his voiceover next to a highway overpass or something. Gotta get that sweet ambience, son! The wind and the dust and the sound of a nearby sawmill. Not just his spoken word, but a natural acoustic setting as well. True visionary. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Skip to 16 minutes in where he says (of RationlWiki editors) "these people don't deserve to live, in my opinion", plus namedrops you & Nerd. 12:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * He also says he "hates us with a perfect hatred" — though, still not as much as he loves attention. He just called me "Reverend Black", skipping a third of my name. Talk about this guy clearly understanding the concept of mathematical precision. There's hardly a living meme so spicy as that of a man — judging from the photo, in his late sixties — emotionally contorting his way around the simple fact that he's wasted his life, and that the only people interested in maintaining his legacy for posterity are us. The apparent 50 view average on his videos speaks volumes on this fact. Semper fi, old timer. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @Weaseloid: Thanks for the new link!
 * @Reverend Black Percy: Even if his photo is not recent or otherwise unreliable, we know he must be older than 40 years of age, since he is not demanding the Fields Medal. Just how this person can justify his belief that he is on par with the beautiful mind of John Forbes Nash Jr., who earned the Abel Prize (just before he died in a car accident in New Jersey last year) is beyond me. Nerd271 (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * He's issuing threatening statements in a video online about our users and he's suing us? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you see, quote: people like [us] don't deserve to live, in [his] opinion (end quote). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

[We have academics who are, uh, primates, running the system of education in most countries in the world ]. I see a cquote. 15:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ...So does that mean atleast he's a proponent of evolution? Also, if you want a cquote, "These people don't deserve to live, in my opinion. I hate them with a perfect hatred." (—John Gabriel on the people who frequent RationalWiki) is about as good as it gets. Source here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

In response to "Using RW to attack non-notable people is cyberbullying"
If this was someone who had only expressed some opinions on a forum, I would tend to agree. However, looking over John Gabriel's website I would say he definitely worthy of attention. He claims to have made various mathematical breakthroughs & theorems which the academic world refuses to recognise, & which he is promoting himself. That makes him notable, in my opinion, even if he remains relatively unknown. 11:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, check out this MIT document on Gabriel. In it, he's debating several professors in mathematics. I implore you to please pay attention to what a nice person he seems to be. Just a nice guy, a friendly person, not at all vitriolic or toxic, but a most agreeable fellow. No fallacies either. He seems like the type of person who, if I was seated next to him at a dinner party, I wouldn't change my seat instantly, but I'd plant myself there, because he's just so inclusive and humble in the way he interacts with other human beings. One can tell he has a lot of experience doing that, and that he is quite successful at it too. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is someone who has his own website for him to espouse his theories, and who engages other mathematicians in debates, then we should definitely have an article refuting his claims - politely and inclusively in this case; aggressive wrongians can be treated less tenderly, I feel. On the other hand, if he was some youtube talking head with a (relative) handful of followers, then we probably shouldn't, as many deletion discussions down the years have established. Bicycle  wheel Toxic mowse.gif 16:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, he has both a YouTube channel and his own website in which he claims to lay out his "new calculus". I have also compiled quite a few links concerning this guy. We no longer mention him on Pseudomathematics. I am, however, working on an essay intended to debunk his claims. Nerd271 (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Debunk Gabriel's claims? I don't think so. Many have tried and failed. But I for one, eagerly await your "debunking" - only if it promises to be entertaining. You're the same as mathnerd on Space Time and The Universe where Gabriel gave you a few good lessons, yes? Unfortunately, your only response was "Nah-Uh". That's too bad. As for the invitation to others on editing the article, it seems you have no takers. Eagerly awaiting your "debunking" with baited breath. Hot sauce (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

He's not related to
John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, is he? 16:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

List of links on JG, so far
16:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) http://johngabrie1.wixsite.com/newcalculus
 * 2) https://sirelephantblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/pseudomathematics-part-1/
 * 3) http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2010/02/04/so-remember-back-in/
 * 4) http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/math/4507-0-999-equal-one-378-print.html
 * 5) http://echochamber.me/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=51224&start=40&sid=c29980dcdaf518b2346855dc7766a2f8
 * 6) http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/07/no-einstein-older-people-innovate-too/
 * 7) http://sci.math.narkive.com/lZw8fnzO/theatrical-physicists-are-livid-at-john-gabriel-polchinski-has-been-outed-as-idiot
 * 8) http://www.metafilter.com/88104/Calculus-of-Averages
 * 9) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0HmxyqRm2A
 * Thanks! I no longer doubt you have my back on this one. By the way, while I removed the claim that JG was anti-Semitic since that JG may be a different personal altogether, it turns out that he in fact made at least one such comment. Therefore, that entire section of JG was true, in spite of the total lack of citations. Nerd271 (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Replacing "essay" with "draft"
See:

draft

essay

Thoughts, Nerd? 18:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Nerd271 (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I also lowered the level of protection in order to encourage more people to join editing. Nerd271 (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Obviously a biased site not interested in truth at all
Partitioned by FCP.

Limits
"Unfortunately, he does not seem to understand the concepts of a limit, an innumerable set, and irrational numbers,[3] which one learns about in an introductory course on real analysis." - IR-RationalWiki

So, I, John Gabriel, don't understand limits? Chuckle. How about you include the following links in your essay?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLd254Nlh1bTVQVU0

I created that applet which I use in my classes to teach the ill-formed concept of limit. Still think I don't understand? Tsk, tsk. As for innumerable sets, they are Cantorian nonsense and there are several mainstream professors who are in agreement with me: Prof. W. Mueckenheim and Prof. Wildberger. There are others who are too afraid to state this in public because of vile fools such as Nerd and Reverend Black Percy.

Hot sauce (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Irrational
Irrational numbers do not exist. How about including these links in your essay?

Story of numbers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT82zT5U37U

Academic ignorance and Stupidity - PART 29

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI6DzF2JyMM

No valid construction of real numbers:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU

Hot sauce (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

13 fallacies of mythmatics
The 13 fallacies that form the foundation of mythmatics (mainstream mathematics):

(LInks are refutation of these fallacies)

1. Infinity is a well-formed concept.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00YcPd3Uqk4

2. There is an infinite set.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYTL_xKvsoM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iee95_L_WI

3. Non-terminating radix representation can be used to represent any "real number".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSEN3PsiBcI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAdtI4MIotg

4. There are irrational numbers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI6DzF2JyMM

5. An infinite sum is possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgN_q7-PPis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se_Ik7GIQ34

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGFy3JdiTSQ

6. 1/3 = 0.333...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrpzXn9MRC0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hulvl3GgGk

7. 1 = 0.999...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp2qHW48Yaw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TETq2tRqqzo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWUHgoUJFGM

8. The integral is an infinite sum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUJOxBMFD4g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2mkR7T5if0

9. Numbers can be derived using sets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkSE6NoOptQ

The first major stumbling block is that in order to define rational numbers using set theory, we already need to know how to "count".

That's right, you need to be able to compute the cardinality of a given set. Unless you are one of Cantor's delusional followers, cardinal value means NUMBER, not bijective cardinality myths involving sets whose members are not distinct, that is, the illusion of infinitely many points.

Now, do you have any clue what effort went into deriving the machinery of counting numbers which came long after ratios of MAGNITUDES ?

Of course you don't. Chances are good you're a retard who has been brainwashed to believe in the nonsens that you do.

Unless you have my read my article, you don't have a clue what it means to be a "number":

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-we-got-numbers-john-gabriel?trk=seokp_posts_primary_cluster_res_photo

After reading that article, ask yourself O moron, does set theory require the natural numbers to be in place? Hint: YES

Does the von Neumann ordinal approach make any sense at all? Hint: NO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkSE6NoOptQ

Is there any valid construction of irrational number? Hint: NO

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU

Since there is no valid construction of irrational number, can there be any valid mathematical concept for real number? Hint: NO

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.math/doJLTXFuMOI

10. The derivative is a limit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6roMXD4w3RY

11. Natural numbers came first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT82zT5U37U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ENN47E_j_4

12. dy/dx is an instantaneous rate of change. ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgUB0pILNj8

13. The "real" numbers can be thought of as points on the number line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lzrynm8Wjo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ENN47E_j_4

Hot sauce (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 14. 4 sides in a day. 90.205.108.150 (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What is point 14 even supposed to mean? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * They're comparing it to Time Cube. 22:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Gabriel says 13 fallacies so where does the 14th one come from? The comparison to Time Cube is a joke. There is no comparison. Well, Nerd and his cohort Rev Black should have more than sufficient material to attempt an essay. Be careful what you write! Hot sauce (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Be careful!
I shall not debate any of you morons because I consider you to be far beneath me. But be very careful! If you call me an anti-semite or publish any other defamatory remark, then be prepared for the consequences. Yes, I look upon the lot of you vile reptiles with the utmost disdain and contempt. You are not worthy of the air you breathe. You are dishonest, liars, jealous, ignorant, incompetent, stupid and lacking morality. I piss and shit on the lot of you. Please, publish what I have written in your essay and include links that show you are a bunch of ignoramuses, not only the crap written by Chu Carroll and the rest of your filthy ilk. Hot sauce (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Who or what is Chu Carroll? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You have nothing to say
Say, how is it you've said nothing about my math? Oh, that's right. You have nothing to say! Hot sauce (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

He's still mad
22:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, at his age, he's gotta do something to run down the clock. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

This guy reminds me of the troll Rome Viharo
Like Rome Viharo, if you dare criticize John Gabriel he replies with thousands of words, threatens you with (fake) lawsuits and then fabricates the claim he's been "cyberbullied".Schizophrenic (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Your musings, opinions or ad hominem are of zero interest. Are you going to contribute to the "essay" or not? A lot of talk is useless. Hot sauce (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, Hot sauce is quite clearly Mr. Gabriel. In my opinion, he is quite free to whine elsewhere. 04:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * --JorisEnter (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Math isn't my field, so I've stayed out of this argument. However, I have to concur: Hot Sauce is John Gabriel, and he's now dropping the sock puppet act he had at first. --Maxus (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is painfully obvious that we are the only people in the world who could give two fucks about John Gabriel's "work" aside from himself. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh the irony! Reverend Percy Black? I see that the page has been updated with a quote that does not belong to John Gabriel. Comments on other forums are not reliable sources. Have you heard of forged headers? On sci.math, this type of activity occurs frequently. While "feeble Jew" is not antisemitism, it can imply antisemitism. Is that all that you morons can come up with? Gabriel has Jewish ancestry but the majority of you are nothing but idiotic Goyim. May I suggest another try? :-) Such an "essay" is clearly unacceptable to an erudite mind. Since when did social forums and newsgroups become reliable sources? Sad. Very sad. Yes, I am John Gabriel, but even an idiot would have figured that out a long time ago. I am amusing myself with the likes of idiots such as you. Don't take my presence here for granted. Either get serious with the essay so I can correct you, or lose me. Chuckle. Hot sauce (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi there, thanks for coming out. I see you have settled on a most worthwhile way of spending your autumn years. Still on the topic of your constant use of race based slurs, are we? Let me give you a hint there, Goebbels — ambulating between calling people "feeble Jews" and "idiotic goyim" doesn't exactly paint you as less of an old coot than being consistent with your racism would. You may not have invented jack shit worth paying attention to when it comes to mathematics, however — that doesn't tarnish your outstanding talent for melodramatic speech writing. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no "sock puppet act". He identified himself as John Gabriel in his first post with this account, just a couple of threads up from here.  17:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And yet the guy refers to "John Gabriel"; himself in the third person (see above). I suspect this guy went out to lunch and never came back, you feel me? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good to know that not all the idiots are chumps like Rev. Black and Nerd. Well done Weaseloid! Your fellow primates are so blinded by jealousy and hate that they missed that comment. Hot sauce (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, fully aware that you unironically write the exact way Newman from Seinfeld talks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@RBP: I personally disagree. According to several of my friends, he's a known subject of ridicule. 01:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey! I want in. Gabe - may I call you Gabe? - Your math sucks and you are a bigot. Please insult me, it might amuse me. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yada, yada, yada.
As I predicted, all we have are stretched anuses - very red, swollen and hurting. It's not about my math, but rather about the fact these poor dimwits do not like me. Any one with a modicum of common sense will see through their bullshit. All it takes is one look at this talk page and the essay which has nothing to do with math but ad hominem directed to John Gabriel. They just keep shooting themselves in the head! Chuckle. Buh bye morons! I may or may not check back. If I do, it will be your last chance.

The only section which might matter, "On the validity of John Gabriel's Claims" remains quite tellingly empty. Tsk, tsk.

Hot sauce (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You are adorable. 0.9999999999....(ad infinitum) does indeed equal one. You learn that in High School. Well, you apparently did not, but well that's just one failure. It's only tragic that you are spreading your stuff. And I would write more into the essay if I could be arsed to work my way through your dreck, but honestly, the little I've seen does not make that seem like a particularly entertaining prospect. At least with the moon landing denialists you can have a nice chuckle every once in a while. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You again my little twerp? The essay is supposedly about John Gabriel's New Calculus. WRT 0.999..., there is no doubt that 0.999... is NOT equal to 1 - in this universe or any other. The question to be asked here is whether it's a good idea to define 0.999... as being equal to 1. I don't suppose you've ever heard of Euler's Elements of Algebra? Does S = Lim S ring a bell? Nah. Enough time wasted. This topic has been debunked over and over again. Hot sauce (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just found the perfect quote for the concluding remarks segment. Thank you. (Though, I suppose it could work equally as a summary quote on the typical quality and nature of your theories, generally). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Courtesy improves arguments.

Rev BP - would pont 24 at apply here? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Self-appointed prophets who deliver elliptically-worded warnings will be politely asked to phrase their utterances in plainer terms. If said prophet refuses the request, a five-year-old child will be asked to explain the meaning of the prophecy."? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is more truth in some of the 'Evil Overlord and related lists' than in some of the proponents discussed by RW. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yawn
"A man of modesty, Gabriel openly implores the public on his green ink website that he should be nominated for the Abel Prize in mathematics already."

So now the IR-rationalWiki Morons don't like any other colour besides Black. How British, how fucking boring. I suppose they'll take the gay flag as a symbol of a fruitcake too now? Tsk, tsk. Perhaps what the gay community should do now is establish a new flag with various shades of gray and black? What absolute IR-rationalWiki imbeciles are, stepping into it every time some muck squishes around between their ears. Sigh,...&mdash; Unsigned, by: Hot sauce / talk / contribs
 * - 02:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hot sauce - I have added the square brackets so your ignorance can be enlightened. (And 'O Tannenbaum' should be written in deepest red or scarlet according to taste). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should rename ourselves Complex Wiki or Quaternion Wiki. He can't stand REALity.--86.141.180.13 (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Two songs using the same tune


 * O Christmas Tree, O Christmas Tree,
 * Your branches green delight us!
 * Beneath its shade we'll live and die,
 * Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
 * We'll keep the red flag flying here. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Every one else can edit the Slur (Essay?) except Gabriel of course!
The chimpanzees who control IR-RationalWiki don't want Gabriel editing his own essay. Nay, it must be the opinion and the feelings of fools and insignificant nobodies. Sad, very sad. Hot sauce (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read our RationalWiki:Guide for individuals or companies we cover. 07:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, you are free to write your own essay on RW. In any color you wish. If it is nominated for deletion, I will personally vote to keep it. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Bwaaa haaa haaaa. I would not want anything about me published on this dung heap. Seriously? Chuckle. The current essay is such a load of crap that no one will take anything you say seriously. Good. You have nothing worthwhile to say anyway. 108.66.5.27 (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, the offer stands. Take it or leave it. If you think you can get a more generous offer at other wikis, go right ahead. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Just publish any of your wrong opinions and call them facts and you will soon find out what will happen. I piss and shit on the lot of your morons. Hot sauce (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Is that supposed to be a threat? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Whichever annoys you the most. If threat is what annoys you the most, then it is a threat. If something else, then something else. Hot sauce (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Isn't he cute? another (((zionist))) conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Mr. Gabriel, you need to look into adult diapers if you piss and shit all willy-nilly that much. It's nothing to be ashamed of, age gets us all...Just try to manage your descent into second infanthood with a bit of grace. --Maxus (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gabriel - 00:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

More whining
Attention IR-RationalWiki Moderators:

Delete both the Essay and Talk page because it is a bunch of lies. If not, then it's only fair that I retaliate with math. I have no time for your ignorance and bullshit. Remove your shit and then I don't care if you remove this section on the new calculus. I would rather you didn't even mention my name on your crappy site.

Learn the single variable New Calculus using only 8th grade algebra:

We can prove that if f(x) is a function with tangent line equation t(x)=kx+b and a parallel secant line equation s(x)=[{f(x+n)-f(x-m)}/(m+n)] x + p, then f'(x)={f(x+n)-f(x-m)}/(m+n).

Proof:

Let t(x)=kx+b be the equation of the tangent line to the function f(x).

Then a parallel secant line is given by s(x)=[{f(x+n)-f(x-m)}/(m+n)] x + p

So,   k={f(x+n)-f(x-m)}/(m+n)   because the secant lines are all parallel to the tangent line.

But the derivative f'(x) of f(x), is given by the slope of the tangent line t(x).

Therefore f'(x)={f(x+n)-f(x-m)}/(m+n). Q.E.D.

Proof that m+n is a factor of the expression f(x+n)-f(x-m):

From k(m+n)=f(x+n)-f(x-m), it follows that m+n divides the LHS exactly. But since m+n divides the left hand side exactly, it follows that m+n must also divide the RHS exactly. Hence, m+n is a factor of the expression f(x+n)-f(x-m).

This means that if we divide f(x+n)-f(x-m) by m+n, the expression so obtained must be equal to k. This is only possible if the sum of all the terms in m and n are 0. Q.E.D

How about the New Calculus integral? Read about it here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLdnljbmJkc0t0RWc

Hot sauce (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

12:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If only it was math, and not ********... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I chuckled. Also, why does John Gabriel think he needs to give us permission to write about "new calculus"? I am not the Ombud's man 19:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

How about having a side by side
To get this back on the math track (though reading through Hot Sauce's throngs of insults is genuinely funny), why don't we make a side by side of Gaby's claims and the real math? I am not the Ombud's man 19:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Now that would be very useful indeed. Even I would support that. Isn't that better than slandering and libeling my name? I'll cease legal action if you follow that route, but as of now, this "essay" is defamatory and has only one purpose: to bring disrepute to my name and work. My character, views and opinions have nothing to do with the facts of mathematics. Only one caveat: you will not be misquoting my math because that is just as bad. If I disagree with any of your "quotes", you will be forced to remove them. But I am not fooled to think you will make such an undertaking, simply because my math is real and your ideas are bogus. Chuckle. Hot sauce (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey last messenger of Pythagoras (Pi shall not be upon you 'cause it's irrational), regardless of fictionality, did Hippasus deserve to be drowned for discovering the sodomic shaitan-influenced jahiliyya that are irrational numbers?--31.205.130.62 (talk) 07:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This article doesn't do Rational Wiki's reputation any good. I think it should be deleted. It says a lot more about Gabriel's opponents than it says anything about Gabriel himself. What's the point of slurs and all these unflattering statements about Gabriel? 70.174.125.144 (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

More whining again
Since I last visited, more untruths have been posted. You WILL remove all the untruths. In particular, the New Calculus derivative has NOTHING in common with the secant method.

One never resorts to the use of limits in the New Calculus. There are no "infinite series" in the New Calculus, only a partial sum followed by an ellipsis and it does not have anything to do with "infinity" in the New Calculus.

It is false that Taylor series or the sine series requires any knowledge of calculus or limits because the sine series discovered by Newton involves no calculus whatsoever.

I know a bunch of cranks run this site, but you can be liable for misinformation! At least have the decency to quote my work correctly and not libel me as you do.

My free eBook is available at this link:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view

66.171.37.94 (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Your demands have been duly processed and promptly ignored. 15:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Who is in charge of this site? Can you provide an email address? I don't wish to deal with mental midgets such as GrammarCommie.


 * Also it is clear that the cranks on this site don't know what is the "secant method" which has not been "around for centuries" (sic), never mind the fact that it has nothing to do with the New Calculus derivative.


 * There is no contact phone number on this crank site, is there? I am not worried about intelligent people who instantly dismiss your rot, only about the stupid masses who will be discouraged from studying my work because of your untruths and libel. 66.171.37.94 (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to calm down and read the disclaimer in this essay. 16:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I dunno. I think we should do what this guy says. Otherwise he might retaliate with math. 16:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't address me as "Sir", you reptile. It's an insult to me. I don't care about your "disclaimer". Through your lies, untruths and misrepresentations of my work, you continue to damage my reputation in the eyes of those who can't see through the same - and that's the majority who I am trying to enlighten. I am not a crank so why is there an entry about me on your trashy site? Remove this entire entry about me because it is not at all 'harmless' as you assert. It's not even funny in any way whatsoever.


 * For the record: I have never dismissed mainstream calculus, only its formulation which has never been rigorous. Rejecting the mainstream view does not make me a 'crank'. I know the view well, only I am not convinced it is correct and that is why I formulated a New Calculus based only on sound mathematics. So there are many falsehoods in this entry. Either correct or remove the same or even better - delete this entry. I do not want ANY association with you. Hope I've made myself clear. 66.171.37.94 (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sir, I must again request that you calm down over what amounts to an opinion column. 16:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems you don't understand the difference between the words "opinion" and "libel". Do you have a dictionary or would you like me to explain the meanings to you? Again, who is the person I can contact who has the authority to remove this libelous and false entry? Is that too hard for you to understand? 66.171.37.94 (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, given your previous comments on this talkpage, it seems you understand neither of these terms beyond the fact that one has negative connotations and you can therefore try to use it as a legal bludgeon to (try to) silence criticism of your bullshit. This is an actual defamatory tactic that is extremely unethical and potentially illegal. Especially given that this page is not mere opinion, as I have toned down to in my previous comments, but in fact an essay, a word you seem bizarrely ignorant of. 12:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So Johnny Boy, here's the thing. If you keep threatening me, I'll keep being an asshole to you (It's my standard social policy to return that which I am shown to the best of my ability.) You may think that laws are bludgeon with which to hurt others, but I don't think that way at all. So, Fuck you, you son of a whore. As I said before, your actions are unethical and potentially illegal, so... Yeah. Fuck off, you abusive twit. I might have helped you out had you not be an self entitled prick. 01:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Damn, get his ass, GC. 02:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A) First amendment right to free speech. B) You were going to sue us for daring to disagree with you either way, so why exactly would I do anything other than point out how shitty your plan is? C) Prove the cited comments aren't from you. D), And this is just because I'm petty, you really are quite thin skinned aren't you? Searching for any mention of yourself, threatening to sue anyone who doesn't either shut up or write a fluff piece... I mean, I'm a loser, but that takes the cake. What a truly pathetic existence you must lead... 00:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * --Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)