The most accurate description of π is that it is a constant measure that is realised when attempting to measure a circle's circumference using its diameter as unit.
There is no magnitude π. There is no number π. A constant rational number is realised in any failed attempt at measure of the ratio circumference length : diameter length.
Synopsis:
1. The fake foundations of mainstream mathematics.
2. Philosophical influence.
We see how the foundations of mathematics are laid and also the rot of mainstream theory influenced by well-known deluded academics.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G90EEiT827c
A differential is simply a difference. A derivative is a fraction of differences.
Given that fractions can be equivalent, we call dy and dx symbolic differentials meaning they can take on any value as long as dy/dx is an equivalent fraction so obtained.
There is no such thing as an infinitesimal or infinity - both are junk concepts.
To claim as do the ignorant fools of mainstream mathematics academia that dy = f'(x) dx is a definition for a differential is CIRCULAR, but this should not surprise because in their sewer brains there is a lot of circularity! :-)
If Newton and Leibniz used angle for slope, then all smooth functions would have derivative functions whose ranges fall into the interval (-π/2, π/2) and vertical lines would have a slope.
The New Calculus:
https://www.academia.edu/41616655/An_Introduction_to_the_Single_Variable_New_Calculus
https://www.academia.edu/video/joX821
My historic geometric theorem which exposes Newton's and Leibniz's fraudulent formulation:
https://www.academia.edu/62358358/My_historic_geometric_theorem_of_January_2020
What exactly are differentials?
https://www.academia.edu/75882879/What_exactly_are_differentials_in_calculus
Six simple reasons why mainstream calculus formulation is flawed:
https://www.academia.edu/79881709/Six_simple_reasons_why_the_mainstream_derivative_definition_of_calculus_is_flawed
Theory of number, fractions and arithmetic:
https://www.academia.edu/44820487/Discovering_the_concept_of_number_a_personal_journey
Find many interesting articles here:
https://independent.academia.edu/JohnGabriel30
Thank me for enlightening you by contributing money here:
https://gofund.me/af8a5312
I am hated by mainstream math academics because I expose their ignorance, incompetence, unbelievable stupidity and arrogance. The more I reveal new knowledge and publish truth, the more I am persecuted and hated.
The truth is that I do know better than anyone else. Don't believe me! Prove that my claims are indeed true.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeTUrXSfYk8
The Wikipedia Moronica states in its main entry for line integral:
"In mathematics, a line integral is an integral where the function to be integrated is evaluated along a curve."
Knowing this is not correct, I decided to browse the Talk page where I found this question:
What is it? (meaning what is a line integral).
"I have to say that this article offers no basic explanation or definition as called for by WP:MSM. It states that it "is an integral where the function to be integrated is evaluated along a path or curve," which doesn't really offer an definition that would be understandable to someone who doesn't already know what it is, because it's too vague and ambiguous to really understand. I definitely think the introduction should be rewritten."
So being somewhat free on that day and energetic, I wrote a response to just this individual (it was civil too! Chuckle). Before 5 minutes were up, the response was deleted with extreme prejudice. This speaks volumes about how my enemies on Wikipedia know that I am gunning for them! Exposing their ignorance, stupidity and incompetence has become a source of amusement for me. These academics remind me of Trump's supporters - defiant and stubborn in the face of overwhelming evidence.
A scientific study was conducted on such fools many years ago:
www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds
Link to article used in video:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z9x76zm_meMIqo4Re4E3Owl0f_YI9CVK
To learn more about my New Calculus, download my free eBook:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLNjzlRf9Bg
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." -Tolstoy
What I showed in this video is the difference with how idiots mainstream math academics in their ignorance treat similar functions such the one described and their beloved absolute value function f(x)=|x|. They are so ignorant and stupid that they can't see outside their echo chambers.
Don't emulate your idiot math professors and math teachers unless you too want to be an idiot like them.
Link to video being discussed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lDqOjDALiw
Thank me for enlightening you by donating credits or currency here:
https://odysee.com/@NewCalculus:1
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUnm6AMRCPs
There is no such thing as an "instantaneous" rate of change unless a time differential is involved. And even then, it is never "instantaneous" because causal systems are not based on any particular mathematical model.
To talk about how fast a function is changing is absurd.
Read more about Prof. Gilbert Strang here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.math/1rGbFury97Q
You will be surprised as he is neither brilliant nor a good teacher. In fact, Strang is considered a felon in US law. Strang is a cowardly bastard who belongs behind bars.
I shall not forget or forgive his vile and disgusting behaviour on sci.math. As long as I breathe, I shall warn others of this low-life scum whom I absolutely loathe with every fibre of my being. He is not worthy of the air he breathes. The filthy pig will retire wealthy even though he has done substantial damage to my reputation and good character. This is the kind of trash that MIT hires and the same kind of trash that sits on committees such as the Abel Prize committee. Truly abhorrent and disgusting.
If I had the money, I'd hire a filthy lawyer and take every last penny I could from him.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgUB0pILNj8
In today's video, I discussed Magnitude, Ratio, and Proportion. A magnitude is the idea of size, dimension, or extent. We ask questions such as "How far?", "How heavy?", etc. A ratio is literally a comparison of magnitudes. This is required in order to distinguish the antecedent magnitude from other magnitudes. By convention, the antecedent magnitude is the primary magnitude of concern in any ratio, whereas the consequent magnitude is auxiliary. This kind of comparison is purely qualitative in terms of measure and is not necessarily accurate or sufficient. The Ancient Greeks could have chosen the other way round and it wouldn't have made any difference, that is, ratio = consequent : antecedent. But, remember that the accepted way is: ratio = antecedent : consequent. The Greeks chose line segments because these were the easiest to compare! A proportion is best described by a comparison of two ratios of magnitudes. Whilst a proportion exists between the aliquot parts of each ratio, one cannot tell much about the proportion until it is compared to a third ratio. The third ratio might consist of the aliquot parts' sum or difference. If not, then at the very minimum three magnitudes are required to gain an understanding of the proportion. Please leave any questions or comments for this video. Thank you for watching.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gyqZqJMxKI
In the video we see how any circle circumference which is itself deemed equinumerous to the "interval" (-∞, ∞), is cycled infinitely many times when mapped to the range of tan(x) which is (-∞, ∞).
Flags are not all well-defined elements because most distances have no number that describe the same. So much for the delusional Georg Cantor and his rot of bijective cardinality.
Links to videos used in this applet:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17IWYfBmAxDHgRAxdDCcUchGC9J7cF14e
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BF4Xxnsdngphdy2_Tm3J66px8x4Nfix2
Download my free eBook which is the most important mathematics book ever written:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfLS9ySOqHs
There are no axioms in Greek geometry:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/part-1-axioms-postulates-mathematics-john-gabriel
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/part-2-axioms-postulates-mathematics-john-gabriel
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/part-3-axioms-postulates-mathematics-john-gabriel
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/part-4-axioms-postulates-mathematics-john-gabriel
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/part-5-axioms-postulates-mathematics-john-gabriel
My free eBook includes a chapter called "There are no axioms":
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view
Derivation of the first two REQUIREMENTS from nothing:
https://youtu.be/5BvgrMEc-E0
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmtYPiUtZ6E