The Historic Geometric Theorem (HGT) was discovered from my New Calculus. The HGT is not New Calculus, but is realised from it: https://www.academia.edu/41616655/An_Introduction_to_the_Single_Variable_New_Calculus A link to the original article here: https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020 A conversation with a ChatBot: https://www.academia.edu/105028579/Most_advanced_AI_Claude_admits_my_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020_is_profound_discovery Almost 200 articles here: https://independent.academia.edu/JohnGabriel30 The first attempt to discredit me and steal my work: https://www.academia.edu/44928764/How_stupid_are_mainstream_math_professors Want to get instant updates for the newest math around? Join our discord server! https://discord.gg/CJ9Ks3WerR Merchandise Store: https://new-calculus.printify.me/products ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk99l6E_BDU

When the cult of mainstream mathematics academia breaks common sense, they need to issue new decrees (rules or executive orders) in order to keep their bullshit afloat. Link to article used in presentation: https://www.academia.edu/76786923/The_idiocy_behind_the_teaching_of_limit_theory_in_mainstream_mathematics The hilarious act of massaging an expression (through multiplication by 1) which the prima donnas of mainstream mathematics don't understand in order so they can actually replace a symbol with the bullshit concept of "infinity number" doesn't even occur to the baboons of mainstream mathematics academia or the trash heap I call the BIG STUPID. Ironically, the morons call 1 the "multiplication identity element". This kind of thinking becomes the norm when people totally inept at mathematics (such as MIT math professors and the like) are awarded doctorates for producing exquisite bowel movements on topology and set theory, both anti-mathematical bullshit. The typical monkey business one finds in mainstream mathematics is demonstrated well by this video: https://youtu.be/NeZmqpL4aiA In the video, the presenter imagines that the function f(x)=sqrt(x^2+ax) - sqrt(x^2+bx) does not have a limit when x becomes indefinitely large since ∞ - ∞ =/= 0. He reaches this conclusion by trying f(∞) and quickly realises that the function limit cannot be determined this way, so then he "rationalises" (multiplies by 1 and inadvertently changes the expression which is stated in terms of *symbols* and not *variables* as is commonly believed) the numerator to arrive at: f(x)=((a-b))/( sqrt(1+a/x) + sqrt(1+b/x) in which he UNDEFINES f(0) but in his dysfunctional brain somehow defines f( ∞). MAGIC! ? Algebra is not as sound as geometry. For example, when he divides through by x, isn't he in the least concerned that he is "dividing by 0 (a non-number)" or does he choose to forget? Chuckle. lim (x → ∞) ( ((a-b))/( sqrt(1+a/x) + sqrt(1+b/x) ) = (a-b)/2 But this is not the same as the lim (x → ∞) (sqrt(x^2+ax) - sqrt(x^2+bx)). Multiplying by 1 should never change the value of sqrt(x^2+ax) - sqrt(x^2+bx). However, in his example, what he does is equivalent to x = ∞ once the new expression is obtained. This is the same monkey business in the example: lim (x→1) (x^2-1)/(x-1) which simplifies to lim (x→1) x+1. Now if f(1)=2 when f(x)=x+1, then f(1) must still equal to 2 after f(x) is multiplied by 1. In his example f(∞) is undefined and suddenly defined after he multiplies by 1. While it is correct to say that f(x) has a limit of (a-b)/2, the arithmetic he used suggests that it's fine to think of the limit as f(∞)=(a-b)/2 which works for one form but not the other, meaning that the two forms cannot be the same. This nons ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zh8IzChCJY