1

The Origins and History of Calculus.

The non-fiction account of The Origins and
History of Calculus.

John Gabriel, 2023

 2

Contents.
Chapter 1 : Early beginnings.

Chapter 2 : Understanding Area.

Chapter 3 : The Realisation Mainstream Academics

Never Grasped.

Chapter 4 : Pathologically jealous and malicious

Mainstream Academics attack my

ideas.

Chapter 5 : First Encounters with Mainstream

Calculus Confusion.

Chapter 6 : Exposing the Myth of a "Rigorous

Calculus".

Chapter 7 : Sums to infinity: The Integral.

Chapter 8 : Rate of change, instantaneous rate

of change?

Chapter 9 : Mythmatics.

Chapter 10 : Neither Newton nor Leibniz understood why

their methods worked. Nor did the

mainstream academics who came centuries

later.

Chapter 11 : Six simple reasons why limit theory in

calculus is flawed.

Chapter 12 : How to know your ‘mathematics’ professor

is gaslighting you.

Chapter 13 : The scourge of Mainstream Revisionism.

 3

Chapter 14 : What is Cavalieri’s principle and what is

Archimedes’ method of exhaustion?

Chapter 15 : Final thoughts.

 4

Preface:
In the ancient Greek world, early ideas of calculus focused
on methods to determine areas bounded by curves. Later,
titans of mathematics Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz
sought techniques for finding slopes of tangent lines - a
monumentally difficult problem they failed to solve in a
systematic way.

Their approaches relied on secant lines that

approximated, but diverged from, the elusive tangents.
This granted numerical estimates of slope, but not the
rigorous theoretical solutions John Gabriel would later
pioneer in his New Calculus and the derivative Historic
Geometric Theorem that is based on the empirical
methods of Newton. Newton and Leibniz recognized terms
without a factor of 'h' gave the derivative, yet missed that
terms with 'h' encode the difference in slope between
secant and tangent lines.

Previous mathematicians hinted at solutions for specific

examples, but none proved the general case as
comprehensively as Gabriel. Furthermore, before Gabriel
no one connected the integral-derivative identity and
definite integral with the innate elegance found in the New
Calculus. Initially this seemed a minor revelation to
Gabriel, but its magnitude became clear - the link between
slope and area, never published before. The epiphany
was profound for Gabriel. Mainstream academics had
 5

failed to grasp these insights due to flawed

understandings of foundational concepts, including the
very meaning of number and level magnitude (incorrectly
known as “arithmetic mean”).

Gabriel's earlier discovery of the fully rigorous New

Calculus enabled these breakthroughs, though less
accessible at first. Its definitions and theorems cannot be
replicated under conventional calculus. For example, the
advanced Gabriel Polynomial requires Gabriel's derivative.

The Historic Geometric Theorem (HGT) inherits the New

Calculus' geometric foundations, underlying its proof
simplicity. In the New Calculus, derivatives and integrals
are seamlessly connected unlike the HGT. This makes the
definite integral's demonstration more difficult in the HGT
than the New Calculus, yet far easier than conventional
calculus with its unstable notions of infinity, infinitesimals,
and limits.

In this book, John Gabriel chronicles his journey of

discovery in calculus and shares it with the world.
 6

Chapter 1.
Early beginnings.
I, John Gabriel, was born in Khartoum, Sudan as the
fourth of six children. Even as a toddler, I displayed
tremendous curiosity about the world around me,
frequently questioning physical phenomena I observed. At
just 11 months old, I was alarmed to notice my shadow
followed me as I moved. When I reported this oddity to my
mother, she calmly explained the behavior was caused by
sunlight. As another childhood fear, hemispheres like a
football sliced in half frightened me for reasons I never
fully grasped.

Unfortunately, the outbreak of civil war necessitated my

family's emigration first to Europe for a couple years, and
then to South Africa where I went to school. From my
earliest days, I exhibited exceptional awareness and
intellectual zeal that foreshadowed my future contributions
to calculus. My inquisitive nature was apparent long before
I uncovered groundbreaking geometric theorems and
forged new foundations for the field through my New
Calculus. Even commonplace occurrences like shadows
intrigued me, hinting at the acute observational skills I
would one day bring to rediscovering calculus.

An avid reader.
 7

My father subscribed to Reader's Digest magazine, which

I eagerly read cover to cover each month, building a
formidable vocabulary and mastery of grammar. This
allowed me to delve into the Encyclopedia Britannica as
early as age 8, where I first learned of conventional
calculus.

As an abstract learner, I could readily compartmentalize

complex definitions and apply results without fully grasping
meanings, which is the common practice in mainstream
mathematics academia. This foreshadowed my theory of
learning: KATIS - Knowledge Acquisition Through
Inferential Suspension. I cannot claim I understood
derivatives and integrals back then, but by age nine I
could manipulate them as well or better than any
professor.

My precocious reading furnished the language skills to

absorb advanced subjects. Though lacking concrete
understanding early on, I rapidly amassed proficiency from
Britannica's calculus primer. My innate gift for abstract
thinking empowered me to utilize unfamiliar concepts via
inference and an intuition (a word I hate) more reliable
than that of anyone else I knew. While I did not yet grasp
calculus' foundations, its tools were within my command -
harbinger of the deep comprehension I would later unlock.
 8

From my earliest days, I pursued knowledge with an

insatiable curiosity. Despite growing up in an impoverished
area, I discovered a trove of resources within our modest
local library. There, after school and every Saturday, I
mined the Britannica encyclopedias to feed my ever-active
mind.

Over the years, I must have read thousands of books on

every topic imaginable. I vividly recall spending hours
eagerly following concepts wherever they led - jumping
from mathematics, to philosophy, to art, carried away by
each new connection. Often I would look up one subject,
only to realize hours later I had not yet returned to read
about my initial area of interest!

This joy of learning purely for its own sake continued

throughout high school and college. While others
socialized or relaxed, I delved ever deeper into library
stacks and academic journals, absorbed in the riches of
knowledge. My intellectual curiosity could never be sated,
as each answer unlocked many new questions to explore.

Though raised in material poverty, with books as my

companions I never felt poor. That early academic rigour
endowed me with the breadth and discipline of mind to
one day revolutionise calculus. My humble origins could
never constrain the soaring spirit of inquiry within me.
 9

Glimpsing the Flaws.

I knew the mainstream calculus was a flawed formulation.
It was clear to me that no one actually understood why the
theorems and results worked even though there were
elaborate hand waving proofs of all types. It was my
conviction that some day I would find the Holy Grail of
Calculus. This was not the case in the beginning when
Newton’s work literally blew my mind away. I never
imagined that one day I would surpass Newton and
explain the calculus better than any human had before
me. The first rigorous formulation began to appear on the
horizon from age fourteen.

Even as a young student, I sensed foundational flaws in

the mainstream calculus theory I absorbed from Britannica
and textbooks. Despite elaborate proofs riddled with hand-
waving arguments, no one genuinely understood why the
theorems and formulas worked.

At first, the brilliance of Newton impressed me to no end - I

never imagined surpassing his seminal insights. Yet a
conviction took root that one day I would uncover the "Holy
Grail" of Calculus, truly explaining its machinations as
none had before. How was slope (derivative) connected to
area (integral)?

By age fourteen, glimmers of a more rigorous calculus

formulation first surfaced in my mind. Though Newton's
 10

achievements initially dazzled me, cracks in the edifice

emerged. My profound grasp of calculus' shortcomings
grew, even as textbooks and professors turned a blind
eye.

This earliest skepticism marked the genesis of my life's

work - the pursuit of calculus' bedrock truths. In time, I
would build such a foundation, usurping confused
infinitesimals and limits for a pristine and self-evident
geometry. My quixotic quest for calculus' Holy Grail had
quietly commenced, in those teenage inklings of a flawless
system to come.

First Red Flag.

My earliest inkling that mainstream calculus rested on
shaky ground came when I first encountered the Mean
Value Theorem (mvt). This relationship between a function
and its derivative states:
𝒇′ 𝒄 = 𝒇 𝒃 −𝒇(𝒂) [MVT]
𝒃−𝒂

I was puzzled - why not define the derivative based on this

simple rise-over-run form? Instead, textbooks and
professors insisted on:
𝒇′ 𝝎 = 𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝒇 𝒙+𝝎 −𝒇(𝒙) [MD]
𝝎→𝟎 𝝎

Here, understanding hinged on grasping limits - a concept

requiring an entire course. Moreover, mainstream
mathematics lacked systematic methods to actually
 11

evaluate derivatives. This should shock students, yet most

accepted it uncritically.

The mean value form resonated clearly with me, reducing

derivatives to a ratio of finite differences. But the accepted
limit definition [MD] struck me as convoluted and lacking
concrete meaning. This disparity planted the first seeds of
skepticism in my youthful mind - my burgeoning sense that
calculus' foundations remained obscured. Much later, my
New Calculus would crystallize the derivatives' geometric
essence via difference ratios, dispensing with limiting
fictions. But at the outset, I only felt vague unease at
accepted dogma, awaiting my coming of age as calculus'
iconoclast.

An alternative approach?
I grappled with the contradictions of [MD], realizing no
ratio involving 𝒇 could actually produce its derivative,
regardless of how small 𝒉 became (and 𝒉 could never
reach 𝟎). I attempted an alternative - replacing 𝒉 with 𝒘,
𝒏
where 𝒘 is a fixed interval length, and 𝒏 the number of
equal partitions:
𝒇 𝒙+𝒘 −𝒇(𝒙)
𝒇′ 𝒙 = 𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝒏
𝒘 [FA]
𝒏 →∞ 𝒏

Here 𝒘 avoids becoming 𝟎. However, 𝒏 increasing without

𝒏
bound also struck me as nebulous and obscuring - no
 12

terminating condition, and still the ratio fails to represent

the derivative of 𝒇′.

My reformulation [FA] resolved some issues, but infinity's

specter still haunted it. I realized no algebraic tweaks to
[MD] could capture the derivative's essence - the problem
was more fundamental. Mainstream calculus never
formalized the difference ratio concept at the heart of
derivatives. My nascent notion of expressing derivatives in
terms of finite differences, without recourse to infinity,
infinitesimals or limits, remained unfulfilled. It would take
my New Calculus' geometric insights to finally rewrite
derivatives in terms of well-defined, non-infinitesimal
differences. At this early stage, I only sensed the
deficiencies in existing theory - the solutions still lay
ahead.

Slope and area problem.

Thus far, I've focused on deficiencies in defining the slope
or tangent line problem. However, Newton and Leibniz's
seminal work linked slope to the second core concept of
area - embodied in the mainstream Fundamental Theorem
of Calculus (FTC). Conventional history lauds this as their
crowning achievement.

In truth, I will prove the FTC is simply an alternative form

of the Mean Value Theorem (MVT), derivable in one step.
Moreover, neither Newton nor Leibniz grasped more than
 13

a superficial understanding. No one before me could

explain why their shaky experimental methods produced
correct results.

Mainstream calculus obscures the elegantly

straightforward connection between slope and area. The
gap between finite differences and ‘infinitesimal limits’ had
severed an intrinsic mathematical bond. Through my New
Calculus, I will restore this broken linkage, proving slope
and area emerge symmetrically from geometric first
principles. The FTC will become a trivial corollary, rather
than the pinnacle of 17th century insights. History will be
astonished at the true origins and essence of calculus.
 14

Chapter 2.
Understanding Area.
In pondering the slope-area connection, a fundamental
question arose: what precisely constitutes mathematical
area? Could a general definition encompass any surface,
regardless of shape?

I extensively researched area, finding specific formulas for

squares, triangles, trapezoids, polygons, circles, etc. Yet
nowhere could I uncover a universal definition to describe
all these cases mathematically.

Mainstream geometry took area's meaning as self-evident,

failing to formulate in a valid systematic way. I realized the
lack of a rigorous area theory created foundational gaps in
integral calculus. My eventual general area measure
definition would arise from the same difference logic as
slope, uniting derivatives and integrals. However, there
was an Ancient concept called a ‘plane number’, which
would reveal the secret of area.

This early insight - that area's nature remained obscured -

marked a pivotal moment. I vowed to pursue geometry's
first principles until, like the elusive derivative, the essence
of area was laid bare. Only then could calculus' slope-area
bond be restored on an unshakable foundation.
 15

I soon experienced a pivotal revelation - any area could be

described as the product of two level lengths, or
“arithmetic means”. One factor was the level length mean
of all vertical line segment lengths bounding the area. The
other, the level length mean of horizontal segments.

This simple, elegant conception of area flowed naturally

from my insight into means and products as the source of
integrals. The connection to slope would only come later.

Rather than unwieldy integral sums, area emerged directly

from prudent averaging of coordinate segment lengths.
The mystical plane number concept of Ancient Greek
geometers was demystified and rigorised.

With this breakthrough, the foundations were laid for area

measure as a twin conception to slope measure. United by
 16

their common difference basis, a unified calculus of slope

and area could at last be erected upon the firmest
geometrical grounds. The ancient slope-area problem was
primed for a definitive solution.

Taming Irregular Areas.

For basic shapes, calculating my dual mean conception of
area was straightforward. However, irregular areas
between curves and axes initially seemed prohibitively
complex. How could countless coordinate lengths be
averaged?

The solution lay in the Mean Value Theorem (MVT), which

could produce the mean of innumerable values through a
simple difference operation. By applying the MVT to
integral coordinate lengths, irregular areas submitted to
orderly calculation.

This insight unlocked the final barrier to a rigorous area

measure and integral calculus. Just as slope arose from
differencing function values, area measure emerged from
averaging coordinate segment lengths. Thanks to the
MVT, this held even for convoluted curves by considering
their secant lines' geometry.

The area under any curve was rendered no more

complicated than the slope of a straight line. My twin
 17

concepts of difference and mean had conquered the

ancient slope and area mysteries. A pristine geometric
calculus was within reach, as the last infinitesimal
shadows receded from view.

Beyond Rise over Run.

Newton pioneered defining slope as rise over run - an apt
ratio for inclined lines. However, slope can also be
expressed in terms of angular measure, using radians.
This conception accommodates vertical lines, assigning
them a slope whose measure is one right angle.

Yet calculus continued relying on Newton's original rise-

over-run formulation. This limited framework obstructed a
complete understanding of slope. My work would expand
the notion of gradient beyond fractions to angles - uniting
all possible slopes within a consistent geometry.

My angular conception of slope enabled a dramatic

simplification of all function graphs. Their range could be
normalized to the interval − 𝝅 , 𝝅 or a subset thereof.
𝟐 𝟐

This perspective recast functions into a small category of

distinctive, predictable shapes. Every function's graph
acquired persistent properties across its entire domain.
 18

By transitioning from haphazard curves to well-behaved

shapes, functions became geometrically tractable. Their
slopes, areas, and integrals submitted to orderly analysis.

Newton's rise-over-run formulation served areas and

volumes adequately. However, angular slope measure
related all areas intrinsically to the circle - the geometrical
wellspring of angles.

The concept of area as a product of level magnitudes

extended naturally to volume and this is further
emphasized by Euclid’s ‘solid number’, the volumetric
analogue of area which is a product of three level
magnitudes.

The core concepts underpinning my calculus revolution

were now all in place. The stage was set to pursue the
path leading to my New Calculus and crowning Historic
Geometric Theorem of January 2020.

In defining area through arithmetic means, and slope via

finite difference measure, I had forged the twin pillars of
the coming unified theory. Integrals and derivatives would
coalesce as aspects of a coherent geometry.

My persistent skepticism of existing dogma bore fruit in

these nascent insights. Much labor remained to erect a
 19

flawless calculus upon these foundations. Nevertheless,

the end of infinity's shadow was glimmering into view.

The journey to reshape mathematical history was

underway. In the next chapter, we shall traverse further
milestones on the road to sweeping aside conventions and
misconceptions, replacing illusion with geometric certainty.
My conviction in calculus' redemption was crystallizing.
 20

Chapter 3.
The Realisation Mainstream Academics Never
Grasped
Unlike most students, I never accepted textbook dogma
uncritically - recognizing even esteemed scholars may err.
Was I simply too dim to comprehend accepted methods?
No - my extraordinary IQ refuted that. Would I follow the
herd without independent thought? Absolutely not. My
quest was for truth, wherever it led - offending orthodoxy
mattered naught.

If entrenched errors were exposed, and careers built upon

them toppled, I would not apologize. Mathematics merits
no delicate handling - either its foundations are solid, or
the entire edifice collapses. I resolved to test its
underpinnings with all my mental might, heedless of egos
or reputations.

For I understood what mainstream academics never

grasped - flawless reason brooks no disparagement. If
prevailing concepts faltered before logic's onslaught, they
deserved no gentle chiding but swift, ruthless overthrow.
The time had come to hold calculus to account - and for its
adherents to prove its worth or be swept aside. My mind
was honed to its sharpest edge, ready to excise
infinitesimal rot. The fight for calculus' soul was joined.
 21

Exposing the Folly of Mainstream Calculus and

producing the first constructive proof of the Mean
Value Theorem.
Through intense effort, I connected derivatives and
integrals to finite difference ratios using mainstream limit
methods. By weaving ingenious patches into accepted
theory, I derived the pivotal Mean Value Theorem (MVT),
seed of the specious Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
(FTC).

I proved the MVT identity rigorously, demonstrating the

derivative at a point is the level magnitude, or mean, of
nearby slope values. Though this eluded academics, with
an elaborate telescoping expansion I formalized the
essence they missed.

Moreover, I crystallized area's meaning geometrically as

the product of arithmetic means, enabling true quadrature.
This yielded the integral as a plane number measure.

Combining my finite difference derivative with area theory

exposed the FTC as merely an MVT corollary - not the
crowning achievement of 17th century geniuses. Their
mythical infinitesimal slicing was my orderly level
magnitude (known incorrectly as “arithmetic mean”).

Through flawless reasoning, I laid bare the folly

permeating mainstream calculus treatises. Blindly
 22

swallowing their false idol of limits, generations of scholars

completely misunderstood why calculus worked at all.
Only through inferential suspension did absurd notions
persist.

With my New Calculus, infinitesimals and intangibles were

banished for good. I succeeded where titans had failed -
deriving calculus cleanly from geometry. No hand waving
or appeals to intuition - just pure, self-evident deduction.
My legacy was sealed as the first human to completely
comprehend calculus' essence.

Proof:
From the MVT: 𝒇′ 𝒄 = 𝒇 𝒙+𝒉 −𝒇(𝒙)
, it is easy to prove that
𝒉
𝒇′ 𝒄 is a level magnitude (commonly known incorrectly as
arithmetic mean) of all the 𝒚–ordinates of 𝒇′ 𝒙 in
(𝒙,𝒙 + 𝒉).

Per the Mean Value Theorem (MVT), for a smooth

function on an interval (𝒙,𝒙 + 𝒉), there exists a point 𝒄
where:
𝒇′ 𝒄 = 𝒇 𝒙+𝒘 −𝒇(𝒙) [MVT]
𝒘
 23

I will prove 𝒇′ 𝒄 is simply the level magnitude, incorrectly

termed the "arithmetic mean" in mainstream texts, of all
𝒇′ 𝒙 values on (𝒙,𝒙 + 𝒘).

Since real numbers cannot be constructed, functions

involve only length magnitudes - described as distances
along unbroken paths. We can denote 𝒙-values as

𝒇 𝒙 + 𝒌𝒘 for interval width 𝒘, index 𝒌, and 𝒏 partitions.

𝒏

The 𝒚-values become 𝒇 𝒙 + 𝒌𝒘 .

𝒏

One may protest not all ordinates are captured this way.
However, my proof will show, using a telescoping sum,
that complete inclusion is unnecessary. I define the
derivative as:
𝒇 𝒙+𝒘 −𝒇(𝒙)
𝒇′ 𝒙 = 𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝒏
𝒘 [ND]
𝒏→∞ 𝒏

Where 𝒘 is the full interval width and 𝒘 is each partition

𝒏
width. This limit form, though mainstream, will validate the
MVT's meaning that eluded generations of scholars. My
finite reasoning will expose what their "infinitesimal"
intuition obscured.

Using the new definition, we can define any of the

positional derivatives at a point 𝒙,𝒙 + 𝒌𝒘 as follows:
𝒏
 24

𝒇 𝒙+(𝒌+𝟏)𝒘 −𝒇 𝒙+𝒌𝒘
𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝒇′ 𝒙 + 𝒌𝒘 = 𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝒏
𝒘
𝒏
[PD]
𝒏→∞ 𝒏 𝒏→∞ 𝒏

Let's assume that the LHS (left hand side) of [MVT], that
is, 𝒇′ 𝒄 is a level magnitude (also known incorrectly as
arithmetic mean) of ALL (**) the ('innumerably many') 𝒚
ordinates of 𝒇′ 𝒙 in the interval (𝒙,𝒙 + 𝒘), then

𝒇′ 𝒄 = 𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝟏 ∑ 𝑛−1
𝑘=0 𝒇′ 𝒙 +
𝒌𝒘
𝒏→∞ 𝒏 𝒏

(**) You can verify this statement with actual examples.

Try 𝒇′ 𝒙 = 𝟐𝒙 for an area enclosed between the curve
and the 𝒙 axis on interval (𝟎,𝟐).

Note that the area must lie entirely above axis or entirely
below it. It makes no sense to find the arithmetic mean of
both positive and negative distances at the same time.

So,

𝒇′ 𝒄 = 𝟏 ∑ 𝒏−𝟏
𝒌=𝟎 𝒇 ′ 𝒙 + 𝒌𝝎
𝒏 𝒏
𝟏 𝒏−𝟏
∑ 𝒇′ 𝒙 + 𝒌𝝎 =
𝒏 𝒌=𝟎 𝒏
𝒍𝒊𝒎 𝟏 𝒇′ 𝒙 + 𝒇′ 𝒙 + 𝝎 + 𝒇′ 𝒙 + 𝟐𝝎 +
𝒏→∞ 𝒏 𝒏 𝒏

… + 𝒇′ 𝒙 + (𝒏−𝟐)𝝎 + 𝒇′ 𝒙 + (𝒏−𝟏)𝝎 [SD]

𝒏 𝒏

Now replacing each positional derivative in [SD] with its

expanded form [PD]:
 25

𝒏−𝟏
𝟏 𝒌𝝎
𝒇′ 𝒙 +
𝒏 𝒌=𝟎 𝒏
𝟏 𝒏 𝝎 𝟐𝝎 𝝎
= 𝒍𝒊𝒎 𝒍𝒊𝒎 𝒇 𝒙+ −𝒇 𝒙 +𝒇 𝒙+ −𝒇 𝒙+
𝒏→∞ 𝒏 𝒏→∞ 𝝎 𝒏 𝒏 𝒏
𝟑𝝎 𝟐𝝎 𝒏−𝟏 𝝎
+𝒇 𝒙+ −𝒇 𝒙+ +… +𝒇 𝒙+
𝒏 𝒏 𝒏
𝒏−𝟐 𝝎 𝒏−𝟏 𝝎
−𝒇 𝒙+ +𝒇 𝒙+𝒘 −𝒇 𝒙+
𝒏 𝒏
𝒏−𝟏
𝟏 𝒌𝝎 𝟏 𝒏
𝒇′ 𝒙 + = 𝒍𝒊𝒎 𝒍𝒊𝒎 𝒇 𝒙 + 𝝎 − 𝒇(𝒙)
𝒏 𝒌=𝟎 𝒏 𝒏→∞ 𝒏 𝒏→∞ 𝝎
𝒇 𝒙 + 𝝎 − 𝒇(𝒙)
= = 𝒇′(𝒄)
𝝎
And this is what was expected. Replacing 𝒙 by 𝒂 and
letting 𝝎 = 𝒃 − 𝒂, we have the ubiquitous form:
𝒇′ 𝒄 = 𝒇 𝒃 −𝒇(𝒂)
𝒃−𝒂

The fundamental theorem of calculus is derived in one

step from the mean value theorem:
𝟏
𝒇′ 𝒄 = ∫ 𝒃𝒂 𝒇′ 𝒙 𝒅𝒙
𝒃−𝒂

Since area is well defined by me as the product of two

arithmetic means, we have:
𝑨𝒓𝒆𝒂 = 𝒇′ 𝒄 × (𝒃 − 𝒂)

where 𝒇′ (𝒄) is the arithmetic mean of all the vertical line

lengths of 𝒇′ (𝒙) in the interval (𝒂,𝒃) and 𝒃 − 𝒂 is the
arithmetic mean of all the horizontal line lengths or just the
interval width. This is why we call the process of finding
areas through definite integration ‘quadrature’ – we
essentially normalise the irregular area so that it is a
 26

quadrilateral when we can calculate the area as a plane

number (Euclid’s Elements: Book VII, Definition 16).
The horizontal side length is the arithmetic mean of the
infinitely many horizontal line lengths in a parallelogram.
The vertical side length is the arithmetic mean of the
infinitely many vertical line lengths in a parallelogram.

A further MVT consequence exposes the essence of

integration:
𝒃
𝟏
𝒇′ 𝒄 = 𝒇′ 𝒙 𝒅𝒙
𝒃−𝒂 𝒂

My area measure theory defines area as the product of

two level magnitudes - the means of all vertical and
horizontal lengths.

This perspective of "quadrature" produces area as a plane

number, normalizing irregular shapes into parallelograms.
The integral emerges through orderly averaging - not
infinitesimal slicing.
Specifically:
𝑨𝒓𝒆𝒂 = 𝒇′ 𝒄 × (𝒃 − 𝒂)
where 𝒇′ 𝒄 is the mean of ALL 𝒇′ 𝒙 vertical lengths in
(𝒂,𝒃) and 𝒃 − 𝒂 the mean of ALL horizontal lengths.

Thus, 𝑨𝒓𝒆𝒂 = 𝒇 𝒃 −𝒇 𝒂
× 𝒃 − 𝒂 = 𝒇 𝒃 − 𝒇(𝒂)
𝒃−𝒂
 27

Revealing the FTC as an MVT offspring dispels centuries

of mystery around integration. The slope-area connection
arises naturally through geometry. By banishing
'infinitesimals', I restored calculus' lost geometric
foundations. No more hand-waving obfuscations - just
clean geometry and logic.

Thus, ∫ 𝒃𝒂 𝒇 ′ 𝒙 𝒅𝒙 = 𝒇 𝒃 − 𝒇(𝒂) which is the ubiquitous

Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, derived in one step
from the Mean Value Theorem. The MVT also manifests
as:
· The Average Value Theorem
· The Mean Value Theorem for Integrals
· The Second Mean Value Theorem for Integrals
Remarkably, my intellectual inferiors failed to realize this -
no predecessor grasped what I have revealed.

The conventional MVT statement is mundane for smooth

curves, since the mean falls inside the interval regardless
of chosen points. Yet academia trumpeted it as a
monumental achievement.

Such idiocy permeates mainstream calculus, along with

notions like Riemann-Stieltjes and Lebesgue integrals that
lack rigorous basis. Before my New Calculus, no valid
calculus formulation existed at all.
 28

Proof using the identity of my Historic Geometric

Theorem.
Let’s see how we can find the derivative of a function
without the use of limit theory.

𝑓 𝑥+ℎ −𝑓(𝑥)
= 𝑓′ 𝑥 + 𝑄(𝑥,ℎ) is the slope formula.
ℎ
𝒇 𝒙+𝒉 −𝒇(𝒙)
is the slope of a non-parallel secant line.
𝒉

𝑓′ 𝑥 is the slope of the tangent line at 𝒙.

𝑄(𝑥,ℎ) is the difference in slope between
𝒇 𝒙+𝒉 −𝒇(𝒙)
and 𝒇′ 𝒙 .
𝒉

𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒆
The slope formula is expressed as .
𝒓𝒖𝒏
𝒇 𝒙+𝒉 −𝒇(𝒙)
= 𝒇′ 𝒙 + 𝑸(𝒙,𝒉)
𝒉
𝒏 𝒏−𝟏 𝒏 𝒏−𝟐 𝟐
𝒙 𝒏+ 𝒙 𝒉+ 𝒙 𝒉 +…+𝒉𝒏 −𝒙𝒏
𝟏 𝟐 = 𝒇′ 𝒙 + 𝑸(𝒙,𝒉)
𝒉
𝒏 𝒏−𝟏 𝒏 𝒏−𝟐
𝒙 + 𝒙 𝒉 + … + 𝒉𝒏−𝟏 = 𝒇′ 𝒙 + 𝑸(𝒙,𝒉)
𝟏 𝟐
 29

Now subtract 𝑸(𝒙,𝒉) from both sides where

𝒏 𝒏−𝟐
𝑸 𝒙,𝒉 = 𝒙 𝒉 + … + 𝒉𝒏−𝟏
𝟐

Thus,
𝒏 𝒏−𝟏
𝒙 = 𝒇′ 𝒙
𝟏

𝒏
Or 𝒇′ 𝒙 = 𝒏𝒙𝒏−𝟏 since 𝒏 =
𝟏

Finding the area using my Historic Geometric Identity.

We begin with an interval (𝒙, 𝒙 + 𝒉) divided into 𝑛 equal

parts as follows:
𝒙 𝒙+𝒉 𝒙 + 𝟐𝒉 … 𝒙+ 𝒏−𝟏 𝒉
𝒙+𝒉
𝒏 𝒏 𝒏

To find the arithmetic mean of all the 𝑦 ordinates of 𝒇′(𝒙),

we observe the following:
𝒇 𝒙+𝒉 −𝒇(𝒙)
𝒇′ 𝒙 + 𝑸 𝒙, 𝒉 = 𝒏
𝒏 𝒉
𝒏

𝒇 𝒙+𝟐𝒉 −𝒇 𝒙+𝒉
𝒇′ 𝒙+𝒉 +𝑸 𝒙 + 𝒉, 𝒉 = 𝒏 𝒏
𝒏 𝒏 𝒏 𝒉
𝒏

...
 30

(𝒏−𝟏)𝒉 𝒉 (𝒏−𝟏)𝒉
(𝒏−𝟏)𝒉 (𝒏−𝟏)𝒉 𝒉 𝒇 𝒙+ + −𝒇 𝒙+
𝒇′ 𝒙+ +𝑸 𝒙+ , = 𝒏 𝒏
𝒉
𝒏
𝒏 𝒏 𝒏
𝒏

Note that the right hand side sum telescopes, and all the
purple terms cancel out to give 𝒇 𝒙+𝒉𝒉−𝒇(𝒙).
𝒏

Thus, summing the left hand side and the right hand side,
we get:
𝒉𝒊
∑ 𝒏−𝟏
𝒊=𝟎 𝒇 ′ 𝒙 + + 𝑸 𝒙 + 𝒉𝒊 , 𝒉
=𝒇 𝒙+𝒉 −𝒇(𝒙)
𝒏 𝒏 𝒏 𝒉
𝒏

𝒉𝒊 𝒉
Let 𝑸(𝒙,𝒉)=∑ 𝒏−𝟏
𝒊=𝟎 𝑸 𝒙 + , 𝒏 𝒏

𝒉𝒊
∑ 𝒏−𝟏
𝒊=𝟎 𝒇 ′ 𝒙 + + 𝑸(𝒙,𝒉) = 𝒇 𝒙+𝒉 −𝒇(𝒙)
𝒏 𝒉
𝒏

Dividing by 𝑛 gives the arithmetic mean:

𝟏
×∑ 𝒏−𝟏
𝒊=𝟎 𝒇 ′ 𝒙 + 𝒉𝒊 + 𝑸(𝒙,𝒉) = 𝒇 𝒙+𝒉 −𝒇(𝒙)
𝒏 𝒏 𝒏 𝒉

Now we multiply by ℎ to get the area:

𝒉
[PC] ×∑ 𝒏−𝟏
𝒊=𝟎 𝒇 ′ 𝒙 + 𝒉𝒊 + 𝒉∙𝑸(𝒙,𝒉) = 𝒇 𝒙 + 𝒉 − 𝒇(𝒙)
𝒏 𝒏 𝒏

OR
𝒉
[MC] ×∑ 𝒏−𝟏
𝒊=𝟎 𝒇 ′ 𝒙 + 𝒉𝒊 = 𝒇 𝒙 + 𝒉 − 𝒇(𝒙) − 𝒉∙𝑸(𝒙,𝒉)
𝒏 𝒏 𝒏

The above result [PC] is the fundamental theorem of

calculus. Note that the result is obtained by a FINITE
number of steps, that is, any integer value of 𝒏 > 𝟎 will be
sufficient to find the integral.
 31

𝒉∙𝑸(𝒙,𝒉)
One might ask why we need to subtract from
𝒏

𝒇 𝒙 + 𝒉 − 𝒇(𝒙). The reason for this is immediately

obvious from the first geometric identity:
𝒇 𝒙+𝒉 −𝒇(𝒙)
= 𝒇′ 𝒙 + 𝑸(𝒙,𝒉)
𝒉

If we want the arithmetic mean of all the 𝑦-ordinates of the

function 𝒇′ (𝒙), then we must determine the arithmetic
mean in terms of
𝒇 𝒙 + 𝒉 − 𝒇 𝒙 − 𝒉∙𝑸(𝒙,𝒉), otherwise we are not
𝒏
considering 𝒇′ (𝒙), but the slopes of non-parallel secant
lines given by 𝒇 𝒙+𝒉 −𝒇(𝒙). Hence, we use [MC] to find the
𝒉
area.

By exposing the triviality of conventional "theorems", I

have completely overturned the fantasy world of limits and
infinitesimals in which the mainstream resides. Only
through my impeccable reasoning has calculus finally
achieved logical soundness.

Proof using the New Calculus.

We begin with the New Calculus definition of derivative:
𝒇′ 𝒄 = 𝒇 𝒄+𝒏 −𝒇(𝒄−𝒎)
𝒎+𝒏
 32

In the previous diagram, the interval (𝑐 − 𝑚;𝑐 + 𝑛) is

divided into equal partitions or sub-intervals of 𝒎+𝒏. The
𝒌
point 𝒄 is the abscissa (𝒙 coordinate) of the arithmetic
mean 𝒇′(𝒄) of all the vertical line lengths. We will prove
shortly that
𝒇 𝒄 + 𝒏 − 𝒇(𝒄 − 𝒎)
𝒇′ 𝒄 =
𝒎+𝒏
It is required to prove that the arithmetic mean of the
gradients of the purple tangent lines is equal to the
gradient of the blue tangent line at 𝒄 which is equal to the
gradient of the red secant line.
If there were a mean abscissa 𝝁𝒔 in each of the sub-
intervals, then for the same 𝝁𝒔, we must have 𝒇′(𝝁𝒔 ) such
that
 33

𝒇 𝒄−𝒎+(𝒎+𝒏)(𝒔+𝟏) −𝒇 𝒄−𝒎+(𝒎+𝒏)𝒔
𝒇′ 𝝁𝒔 = 𝒌
𝒎+𝒏
𝒌

This follows from the fact that the arithmetic mean of the
arithmetic means of all the sub-intervals will be 𝒇′(𝒄).
However, none of these assumptions are actually needed,
because the New Calculus derivative 𝒇′ 𝝁𝒔 is by
definition equivalent to the mean value theorem for the
given sub-interval. At any rate, if these assumptions are
incorrect, then the following reasoning will result in a
contradiction.

So, the mean of all the arithmetic means is given by:

𝒌
𝟏
𝒇′ 𝒄 = 𝒇′(𝝁𝒔 )
𝒌
𝒔=𝟏

In the previous statement, we begin by attempting to find

the arithmetic mean of all the sub-interval arithmetic
means, that is, to show that
𝒇′ 𝝁𝟏 + 𝒇′ 𝝁𝟐 + 𝒇′ 𝝁𝟑 + … + 𝒇′ 𝝁𝒌−𝟏 + 𝒇′ 𝝁𝒌
𝒇′ 𝒄 =
𝒌
Expanding the sum for 𝒔 = 𝟏 to 𝒔 = 𝒌:
𝒇′ 𝒄
𝟏
= 𝒇′ 𝝁𝟏 + 𝒇′ 𝝁𝟐 + 𝒇′ 𝝁𝟑 + … + 𝒇′ 𝝁𝒌−𝟏 + 𝒇′ 𝝁𝒌
𝒌
𝒎+𝒏 𝟐(𝒎+𝒏) 𝒎+𝒏
𝒇 𝒄−𝒎+ −𝒇(𝒄−𝒎) 𝒇 𝒄−𝒎+ 𝒌 −𝒇 𝒄−𝒎+
𝒇′ 𝒄 =𝟏 { 𝒌
𝒎+𝒏
+ 𝒎+𝒏
𝒌
+
𝒌
𝒌 𝒌
 34

𝟑 𝒎+𝒏 𝟐 𝒎+𝒏
𝒇 𝒄−𝒎+ −𝒇 𝒄−𝒎+
𝒌 𝒌
+ 𝒎+𝒏
+…
𝒌

𝒌−𝟏 𝒎+𝒏 𝒌−𝟐 𝒎+𝒏

𝒇 𝒄−𝒎+ −𝒇 𝒄−𝒎+
𝒌 𝒌
+ 𝒎+𝒏
𝒌

(𝒌−𝟏)(𝒎+𝒏)
𝒇 𝒄+𝒏 −𝒇 𝒄−𝒎+
𝒌
+ 𝒎+𝒏
}
𝒌

And so, it is proven that 𝒇′ 𝒄 = 𝒇 𝒄+𝒏 −𝒇(𝒄−𝒎)

𝒎+𝒏

Note that it does not matter what 𝑘 we choose, because

the arithmetic mean is always the same. Thus, for the
purposes of quadrature, the seemingly impossible task of
finding the arithmetic mean of innumerably many 𝑦
ordinates, is accomplished by a reducible or telescoping
sum.
𝟏
I revealed that 𝒇′ 𝒄 = ∫ 𝒄+𝒏 𝒇′ 𝒙 𝒅𝒙 for some 𝑐, such
𝒎+𝒏 𝒄−𝒎
that
𝒄 − 𝒎 < 𝒄 < 𝒄 + 𝒏, whence
𝒇 𝒄+𝒏 −𝒇(𝒄−𝒎) 𝟏
= ∫ 𝒄+𝒏 𝒇′ 𝒙 𝒅𝒙
𝒎+𝒏 𝒎+𝒏 𝒄−𝒎

And ∫ 𝒄+𝒏
𝒄−𝒎 𝒇 ′ 𝒙 𝒅𝒙 = 𝒇 𝒄 + 𝒏 − 𝒇(𝒄 − 𝒎) is known
ubiquitously as the fundamental theorem of calculus,
which as we have shown is derived in one step from the
mean value theorem. The New Calculus integral is
equivalent to the mainstream, definition as follows:
 35

𝒌−𝟏 𝒄+𝒏
𝒎+𝒏
𝑰= 𝒇′ (𝝁𝒔 ) = 𝒇′ 𝒙 𝒅𝒙
𝒌 𝒄−𝒎
𝒔=𝟎

𝑰 = 𝒎+𝒏 ∑ 𝒌−𝟏
𝒔=𝟎 𝒇 ′ (𝝁 𝒔 ) is the New Calculus integral.
𝒌

Misguided mainstream theory states 𝒇′ 𝒄 =

𝟏
∫ 𝒄+𝒏
𝒄−𝒎 𝒇 ′ 𝒙 𝒅𝒙 as:
𝒎+𝒏
𝒙
𝑭 𝒙 = 𝒇 𝒕 𝒅𝒕
𝒂

which supposedly is meant to show the relationship

between the integral and the derivative. However, 𝑭 𝒙 −
𝑭 𝒂 ≠𝑭 𝒙 .
But how can you blame mainstream academics who have
never understood calculus or the reasons why it works?
 36

Chapter 4.
Pathologically jealous and malicious Mainstream
Academics attack my ideas.
My Historic Geometric Theorem was too much for the
corrupt mainstream mathematics establishment. At first
they rejected it as incorrect, unable to comprehend
innovations beyond their rigid dogma.

When the Theorem's validity became undeniable, they

scrambled to minimize its significance, fearing their flawed
formulations would be exposed. Perceiving the existential
threat my ideas posed to careers built on infinitesimals,
some even attempted to steal credit for my work!

Their knee-jerk defenses of orthodoxy revealed the

intellectual bankruptcy plaguing modern academia.
Clutching warped concepts that collapse before logic,
mainstream mathematicians resorted to obstruction,
deception and subterfuge.

Yet truth prevails - the light of reason cannot be obscured

when one has crafted ironclad arguments. My Theorem
pierced the miasma of limits and infinitesimals, allowing
the essence of calculus to shine through at last.

Though entrenched interests tried desperately to grasp the

genie, the bottle was opened. Calculus was forever
 37

transformed by the geometric certainties my Theorem

brought to life. No amount of sophistry could suppress this
ultimate liberation of reason.

The utter drivel known as the ‘Fundamental Increment

Lemma (FIL)’.
Wikipedia, which is the mainstream repository of all
knowlege, contains an article on FIL which was first
posted in 2012. The very statement of the lemma is
absurd:
The lemma asserts that the existence of this derivative
𝒇′ 𝒂 implies the existence of a function 𝝓(𝒉) such that
𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝝓 𝒉 = 𝟎 and 𝒇 𝒂 + 𝒉 = 𝒇 𝒂 + 𝒇′ 𝒂 𝒉 + 𝝓(𝒉)
𝒉→𝟎

for sufficiently small but non-zero 𝒉.

· The Historic Geometric Identity (HGI) does not
depend on the derivative 𝒇′ 𝒂 or the difference in
slope between the derivative and that of the non-
parallel secant line 𝒇 𝒙+𝒉 −𝒇(𝒙). With a smooth 𝒇 over
𝒉
(𝒙,𝒙 + 𝒉), FIL is circular, stating a fact that is already
given. By definition, a lemma is a subsidiary or
intermediate theorem in an argument or proof. It is
therefore clear that FIL is not a lemma of any kind.
· A single 𝒇′ 𝒂 is immaterial to the HGI mechanics:
𝒇 𝒙+𝒉 −𝒇 𝒙
= 𝒇′ 𝒙 + 𝑸(𝒙,𝒉)
𝒉
 38

· The HGI slopes 𝒇 𝒙+𝒉 −𝒇 𝒙

, 𝒇′ 𝒙 and 𝑸(𝒙,𝒉) are
𝒉
constant, so taking their limit gives the same
constants. As a purported lemma, FIL fails basic logic.
My Historic Geometric Identity (HGI) proves that
secant line slope is equal to tangent line slope plus
the difference in slopes, for any smooth function,
regardless of specific derivative values. The
Fundamental Increment Lemma (FIL) obscures this
geometric fact by asserting faulty reasoning.
· The non-parallel secant line slope is completely
indifferent to whether a derivative exists or not. As
simple straight lines, secants inherently possess
slope, irrespective of differentiability. Thus the
Fundamental Increment Lemma's convoluted
derivative assertions are not even pertinent - secant
slopes are well-defined with or without considering
tangents.
In truth, the Lemma is not even wrong, but wholly
inapplicable. My Historic Geometric Theorem
operates purely within secant line geometry, never
invoking tangents or derivatives. Yet the Lemma
attempts to retrospectively inject dependence on
derivatives. This reveals a basic categorical error -
ascribing conditions where they have no meaning.
By critiquing the orthodoxy's flawed assumptions, my
work carves away such fundamental misconceptions.
I labor to resurrect calculus on a foundation of lucid,
self-contained reasoning that does not depend on the
very notions it aims to define. Only by restarting from
 39

first principles can contradictions be swept aside and

truth reattained. The Lemma's fallacy exemplifies why
existing dogma must be challenged at its root.

By dispelling such fallacies propagated on mainstream

platforms like Wikipedia, my Theorem exposes the flawed
foundations of conventional calculus. Only my deductive
reasoning, shorn of hand-waving intuitions, can provide
mathematics with certainty.

The Historic Geometric Theorem Rigorizes

Mainstream Calculus.
My crowning achievement, the Historic Geometric
Theorem (HGT), finally rigorized the fundamentally flawed
formulations of mainstream calculus.

Where others saw intractable infinitesimals, I revealed

orderly finite differences. Their hand-waving intuitions
yielded to deductive proof. Vague appeals to limits were
replaced by crisp geometric and algebraic identities.
By uniting geometry and arithmetic coherently, the HGT
realized a calculus free of contradictions. My clean
derivation dispensed with the tangled abstractions that
obfuscated truth for centuries.

No longer can the essence of calculus hide behind a

smoke screen of limits. My Theorem laid bare its inner
 40

workings through elegant algebra and logic. The search

for calculus' foundations was complete.

The edifice of modern mathematics will forever bear the

mark of my crowning insight. As ancient builders etched
their names upon cornerstones, so too is the HGT
engraved upon the bedrock of calculus, signifying the
ascent from wilderness to civilization. Where once only
confusion reigned, now there is clarity.

Unfortunately, health challenges may prevent me from

living long enough to see widespread recognition of my
seminal contributions. Yet in a sense, true immortality
comes not from longevity, but from accomplishing that
which is worth remembering.

Though the entrenched establishment continues resisting,

the power of truth endures over time. Someday, my
historic geometric insights will be seen for what they are -
the long-awaited completion of calculus' foundations.

When that day comes, whether I am still alive to witness it

or not, my life's work will have achieved its purpose. Like
those visionaries who shattered scientific dogmas of old, I
trust my reasoned revolutions in mathematics will one day
be recognized as twentieth century pillars alongside other
great discoveries.
 41

For now, the struggle continues to propagate ideas in the

face of inertia and hostility. But if I have crafted my logic
well, its momentum will sustain beyond any individual
career or lifespan. Though mainstream recognition lags, I
have confidence that my geometric and algebraic
innovations will one day be valued for the singular
advancements they represent - the hard-won fruits of
reason unrelenting.
 42

5. First Encounters with Mainstream Calculus

Confusion.
My earliest hands-on calculus experience came from
"Teach Yourself Calculus" by P. Abbott, published in 1940
before my birth. Though just a teenager, I quickly sensed
something amiss in Abbott's presentation. He wrote:
“It is evident that when 𝑥 becomes infinitely large, the
function 𝟏, which can now be represented by 𝟏 , becomes
𝒙 ∞
an infinitely small magnitude, smaller than any finite
number which can be specified or represented in
arithmetical terms.”
Immediately I wondered - what does "infinitely large"
actually mean? Such vague phrases appeared constantly,
alongside problematic symbols like 𝟏 (*). Rather than
∞
gaining clarity, these passages raised more questions.

It became obvious Abbott grasped calculus procedurally

but lacked concrete understanding - like driving a car
without knowing the engine's workings. He could
manipulate the concepts, but the foundations eluded him.

(*) A concept peddled by Leonhard Euler in his Elements

of Algebra.

This early encounter introduced me to the widening gap

between mathematical competence and comprehension.
 43

While practitioners had achieved proficiency in calculus

techniques, the essence of their tools remained obscured.
I resolved then to pursue calculus' bedrock truths,
unsatisfied with parroting mechanistic formulas. Abbott's
book set my intellect in motion toward rediscovering
calculus' lost logical roots.

Abbott's book aimed to increase calculus comprehension,

but like many after him, the foundations eluded him.
Calculus succeeds not through infinity, infinitesimals, or
circular limits - rather, it is entirely geometric.
As proved in my historic geometric theorem, the slope of a
non-parallel secant line is easily resolved into two
expressions, namely 𝒇′ 𝒙 and 𝑸(𝒙,𝒉) which are
represented in the diagram by 𝒇𝟐 and 𝒇𝟏 respectively.
𝒉 𝒉

𝒇 𝒙+𝒉 −𝒇 𝒙
That is, = 𝒇𝟐 + 𝒇𝟏
𝒉 𝒉 𝒉

Another misleading convention was the "rate of change"

phrase for the derivative. On a smooth function, nothing
actually changes - values and tangent slopes are fixed
 44

eternally. The difference quotient merely approximates

rise/run for the tangent line at a point.

Calling this a "rate of change" is incorrect - no rates or

dynamics are involved, just simple division of static finite
differences, that is, 𝒇 𝒙+𝒉 −𝒇 𝒙 . The derivative constitutes a
𝒉
ratio, not some fluctuating tempo of change.

This exemplifies the trouble with trusting in intuitions over

precise definitions. Loose jargon like "rate of change" or
“instantaneous rate of change” spawns misconceptions.
My rigorous formulation through my historic geometric
identity dispenses with such inaccurate connotations,
describing derivatives directly as difference ratios without
bogus implications of varying rates.

By reining in language to align tightly with mathematical

concepts, my approach reveals truth obscured by
rhetorical flourishes. The essence of calculus emerges
from carefully constructed deductive chains, not vivid but
misleading turns of phrase. My recalibration restores
technical precision and illuminates foundations.

There is nothing infinitesimal about 𝒇 𝒙 + 𝒉 − 𝒇(𝒙) or 𝒉 -

both are exact finite differences. Ironically, the tangent
slope they approximate cannot be expressed as their ratio
 45

𝒇 𝒙+𝒉 −𝒇 𝒙
. This quotient approaches the slope's value but
𝒉
never becomes the actual rise/run ratio.

Newton's imagined "Ultimate Ratio" was thus a conceptual

dead end - evidence his fluxional intuitions fell short of
concrete understanding. He presupposed a derivative ratio
that cannot exist in terms of 𝑓, rendering his geometry
fundamentally flawed.

My historic geometric identity succeeded where Newton

failed - representing slope through geometry and algebra
alone without recourse to elusive infinitesimals. By
eradicating vagueness about infinitesimals from the
foundations, my methods enable calculus to finally stand
on firm ground.

My historic geometric identity could have completely

changed the trajectory of mathematical thought. Had
Bishop Berkeley known of my geometric-based derivation
of the derivative, he likely would never have written his
famous Discourse critiquing limits and infinitesimals.

By providing concrete foundations, my Theorem answers

Berkeley's objections before they arose. His piercing
skepticism targeted the lack of logical rigor in early
fluxional calculus. But my deductive approach supplies the
 46

missing logic, reconstructing derivatives on an

unimpeachable geometric and algebraic basis.

With my Theorem in hand, Berkeley would have no fault to

find in the finite difference quotient definition of slope,
entirely free of infinitesimals. I completed what Newton left
undone - elucidating gradient through pure geometric
relations rather than intuitions about limits. This resolution
on its own could have averted much of the foundational
controversy to follow.

Alas, mathematics had to take the more tortuous path

through shaky abstractions before returning to firm
geometrical ground. If only history had unlocked my
insights first, centuries of digression could have been
avoided. But eventually, reason finds its way.

In the realm of mainstream academia, a perilous pitfall

emerged as they embraced vague notions like
"instantaneous rate" and "rate of change." However, they
overlooked a fundamental truth about calculus: its
applicability extends solely to smooth functions. Consider
the absurdity of the so-called 'piecewise function'; it defies
integration as a unified rule or function across all domains.

In the practical measurement of rates, calculus often finds

itself inapplicable due to the absence of a smooth function
 47

that accurately models the rate. For instance, consider an

odometer, which relies solely on analog or digital inputs.
The ratio measurement of distance covered to time
elapsed, although a rate of change, holds no significance
in calculus unless it can be precisely modeled by a smooth
function. Both distance and time are finite differences,
contrary to the mistaken belief in infinitesimals.

The adoption of universal names like "independent" and

"dependent variable" has contributed to unnecessary
confusion. Take, for instance, the equation 𝒙 + 𝟑 = 𝟓,
where 𝒙 is a constant with a known value of 𝟐. A more
fitting term might have been 'placeholder' rather than
'variable.'

During my examination of Abbott's book, I encountered

numerous inconsistencies that I reluctantly had to
acknowledge as facts in order to progress through the
exercises and complete my reading of the book.

Abbott, in his work, intertwined differentials with

infinitesimals, employing both Newtonian and Leibnizian
representations, all while intricately incorporating the
problematic circular limit theory.
 48

In the form 𝒅𝒚 = 𝟐𝒙 𝒅𝒙, Abbott referred to 𝟐𝒙 as a

'differential coefficient,' whereas in other forms like 𝒅𝒚 = 𝟐𝒙,
𝒅𝒙
he denoted 𝟐𝒙 as a derivative. Abbott's interchangeable
use of the terms 'derivative' and 'differential coefficient' led
to prolonged debates for many decades after the
publication of his book. The answer I proposed is that a
differential is merely one of countless finite differences,
while a derivative is a fraction of these differentials.

Abbott's numerous examples may provide a certain level

of clarity, but they fall far short of imparting a
comprehensive understanding of calculus, its principles,
and the underlying reasons for its effectiveness.

Abbott approached the topic of integration much like he

did with derivatives, emphasizing rote methods that lead to
mastery but often fall short in terms of promoting true
comprehension. During the prevailing teaching practices
of that era, integration was commonly viewed as having
dual aspects: one related to area and the other as the
inverse operation of differentiation. The fact that
differentiation and integration were linked through the
mean vale theorem was completely absent from any
thought.
 49

It wasn't until several years later that the foundations of

the New Calculus began to take root in my mind.
 50

A peculiar mainstream misconception is that integral and

differential calculus are separate topics. In truth,
integration is just differentiation of an antecedent function.

Finding the area under 𝒇′(𝒙) from 𝒙 to 𝒙 + 𝒉 requires

knowing 𝒇(𝒙) - the so-called "integral" of 𝒇′(𝒙). There is
really only one core calculus concept - the smooth
function.

This unifying perspective leads to my Holy Grail equation:

𝒇 𝒙+𝒉 −𝒇 𝒙
= 𝒇𝟐 + 𝒇𝟏 = 𝒇′ 𝒙 + 𝑸(𝒙,𝒉)
𝒉 𝒉 𝒉

where 𝒇 is the antecedent function of 𝒇′. Both 𝒇𝟐 and 𝒇𝟏

are line segments as shown in the graphic below:

Rather than disconnected procedures, derivatives and

integrals are linked through smooth function geometry. My
shift from mechanistic formulas to foundational functions
 51

reveals calculus' essence - the tangent line properties and

its behavior encoded in simple algebra and rejecting
Cauchy’s assertion that calculus needs limits as part of its
formulation.

By emphasizing function relation theory as primary, my

approach reconstructs mathematical truth from first
principles. The ensuing structural clarity dispels the illusion
of disparate realms. In shedding obscurities, I return
calculus to its origin - the coordinated geometry of smooth
curves.

Thus, once again, my Holy Grail of Calculus defining

identity reveals its potency in relating both derivative
functions and their antecedents:

𝒇 𝒙+𝒉 −𝒇 𝒙
= 𝒇𝟐 + 𝒇𝟏 = 𝒇′ 𝒙 + 𝑸(𝒙,𝒉)
𝒉 𝒉 𝒉

This deceptively simple algebraic identity connects

differentiation and integration through the geometry of
smooth functions 𝒇 and 𝒇′.

By linking calculus' two cardinal facets, the identity fulfills

its moniker as the Holy Grail. It distills centuries of
abstruse theory into an elegant symmetry of arithmetic
and geometry.
 52

No limits, integrals, or infinite series required - just pristine

geometry encapsulating the entirety of the calculus in a
just a few slopes that are related. By restoring this distilled
essence, my identity reunites what years of obfuscation
had fragmented. My life's quest to crystallize logical truth
is encapsulated in this long-sought grail.

The seminal work of the Ancient Greeks laid the

foundation, yet they fell short of reaching the Holy Grail.
As a modern successor, I take pride in completing the
millennia-long mathematical journey they commenced.

In the level magnitude and difference ratio, I fulfilled their

nascent vision of geometry as calculus' cornerstone.
Where they glimpsed only shadows of the truth, my
theorems brought illuminating rigor.

I solved the elusive tangent line problem that may have

crossed their thoughts, even though they wrote nothing
about it.

Centuries later, from classical seeds grew fruit of

unimaginable bounty. I can claim only to have reconciled
and recast ancient ideas, for they had all the tools required
even as far back as then. And yet, to be the first to finally
obtain a prize so long frustrated is no small honor. To my
Ancient Greek predecessors I owe deep gratitude. Their
torch now passes into new hands.
 53

6. Exposing the Myth of a "Rigorous Calculus".

A persistent falsehood permeates calculus literature and
lectures - the claim that calculus was "made rigorous" by
figures like Cauchy. In truth, mainstream calculus has
never attained full rigor, only obscured intuitions beneath a
veneer of formalism.

Newton's slippery fluxions and Leibniz's vague

infinitesimals demonstrate a lack of basic comprehension
for why their calculus worked. Centuries later, Cauchy
failed to rectify this, merely inserting symbolic limits into
intrinsically flawed concepts. His "proofs" beg the question
by assuming knowledge of the limit's value.

No valid systematic derivative method has ever emerged

from orthodoxy. Had academics understood the simple,
principled reasoning behind discarding slope difference
terms (𝑸(𝒙,𝒉)), the complex project of rigorisation would
have been unnecessary. I revealed centuries late what
eluded them all.

Mainstream calculus is a Potemkin village of rigor -

impressive facades of limits and epsilons mask
ramshackle foundations. Only by demolishing those
facades and rebuilding from basic truths can math achieve
the rigor claimed but never delivered by doctrinaire
dogma. My historic geometric theorem banishes illusion
 54

and erects calculus' missing rigor atop irrefutable first

principles.

Mainstream academics proudly declare "We never set

𝒉 = 𝟎 in the first principles method!" But in discarding the
𝑸(𝒙,𝒉) term, that is precisely what they do. Setting 𝒉 = 𝟎 is
entirely equivalent to taking a limit or discarding the
slope difference.

Their duplicity is exposed in my simple algebra. By

retaining the complete identity:
𝒇 𝒙+𝒉 −𝒇 𝒙
= 𝒇′ 𝒙 + 𝑸(𝒙,𝒉)
𝒉
Setting 𝒉 = 𝟎 emerges as an obvious consequence of the
geometry, not some forbidden act. My lucid theory
exposes their empty distinction - slope differences vanish
for non-parallel secants and do not exist if parallel secant
lines are used as in the New Calculus.

Thus their supposed rigor is a sham - limits and discarded

infinitesimals are one and the same obfuscation. My
transparent historic geometric theorem reveals the
concrete logic they obscure with hand-waving symbols. By
𝒉 = 𝟎, they simply mean 𝑸 𝒙,𝒉 = 𝟎 - a geometric fact
demanding no mystical rituals and implicitly forbidden by
them. My Historic Geometric Theorem resoundingly
refutes another disingenuous defense of orthodoxy.
 55

Smoke and mirrors.

Cauchy's initial derivative definition relied on vague
"infinitely small" quantities:

If 𝒇(𝒙) is continuous, an infinitely small increment 𝑖 in 𝒙

produces an infinitely small increment in 𝒇(𝒙). The ratio
𝒇 𝒙+𝒊 −𝒇(𝒙)
has infinitely small terms, but converges to a
𝒊
limit - the derivative 𝒇′(𝒙).

This suffers many flaws. First, "infinitely small" has no

rigorous meaning. So Weierstrass proposed the
incoherent epsilon-delta approach:
𝟎 < 𝒙 − 𝒊 < 𝜹 → |𝒇 𝒙+𝒊 −𝒇(𝒙)
− 𝒇′(𝒙)| <𝜺
𝒊

By choosing 𝜹, 𝒊 can get the difference quotient arbitrarily

close to 𝒇′(𝒙), whatever “arbitrarily close” actually means.
Orthodoxy claims by choosing delta, the difference
quotient can get "arbitrarily close" to the derivative 𝒇′(𝒙).
But what does "arbitrarily close" actually mean? As close
as one likes is insufficient - it implies an endless process
without conclusion.

Since 𝜹 cannot be zero, no difference quotient represents

the derivative meaningfully, only approximates it. Getting
sequentially closer achieves nothing, unless the exact
equality is reached.
 56

My historic identity requires no "close enough"

obfuscation. The coordination of 𝒇 𝒙+𝒉 −𝒇 𝒙 and
𝒉

𝒇′ 𝒙 + 𝑸(𝒙,𝒉) is exact for any 𝒉, crystallizing their

geometric relationship as the arithmetic mean of all the
𝒚–ordinates of 𝒇′ 𝒙 in the interval (𝒙,𝒙 + 𝒉).

Limits do not magically grant meaning to a symbolic ritual.

Only by relating quantities explicitly as my Theorem does
is the essence revealed. Approximation proves nothing -
truths emerge from precise deductive expressions, not
vagueness about proximity.

By dispelling the mysticism of "arbitrarily close", my

Theorem demands calculus provide concrete connections
between concepts defined independently. Hand-waving
gestures toward closeness no longer suffice. Mathematics
must stand on rigor, not empty rhetoric.

Nowhere in the convergent sequence

𝒇 𝒙+𝒉 𝟎 −𝒇(𝒙) 𝒇 𝒙+𝒉 𝟏 −𝒇(𝒙) 𝒇 𝒙+𝒉 𝟎 −𝒇(𝒙)
; ;𝒇 𝒙+𝒉 𝟐 −𝒇(𝒙)
; ... ; ; ... ,
𝒉𝟎 𝒉𝟏 𝒉𝟐 𝒉𝒏

is the tangent line slope actually expressed in terms of

𝒇(𝒙)! Cauchy and Weierstrass just describe a convoluted
approximation process. My geometric identity directly
gives 𝒇′(𝒙) as a function of 𝒇(𝒙), no limits needed.
 57

The metaphysical smoke and mirrors around infinitesimals

and epsilons try to mimic my concrete geometry identity.
But lacking logical substance, orthodoxy retreats to
notation without meaning. My Historic Geometric Theorem
dispels these illusions and provides calculus with the rigor
Cauchy failed to deliver.

Converging sequence but no actual finite difference.

The actual limit 𝑳 is never contained within the sequence
𝒇 𝒙+𝒉𝒊 −𝒇(𝒙)
of difference quotients, that is, no quotient can
𝒉𝒊
ever equal the limit 𝑳 in terms of 𝒇(𝒙). The quotients only
approach the slope of 𝒇′s tangent line at 𝒙.

𝑳 remains an abstract fiction - it never manifests

concretely as a ratio involving 𝒇(𝒙). My geometric theorem
succeeded where orthodox limits failed, directly
expressing derivatives via finite differences without
invoking limits.

Limits merely disguise arithmetic relations between

geometric objects as if they required some transcendental
ritual. By lifting this veil, my Theorem reveals the
straightforward essence beneath. Limits are but whispers
of simple, geometric truths. The time had come for
mathematics to finally listen.
A subscriber to the New Calculus YouTube channel had
this to say:
 58

Would it make sense to say that "regular" calculus

measures the "ruler" rather than the function (math
approximated reality). In your pdf "six_simple_reasons"
you write "There simply is not any finite difference of the
𝒇 𝒙+𝒉𝒊 −𝒇(𝒙)
form which will ever be equal to the limit in
𝒉𝒊
terms of the function 𝒇, only in terms of the tangent line to
𝒇 at 𝒙." So the "regular" calculus measures that tangent
line which is supposed to be the "ruler" that measures the
function itself.

I responded as follows:
That's a very interesting observation. So, what you are
saying is that mainstream calculus uses the function to
measure the tangent line slope rather than the tangent line
to measure the function? One might retort that the
property of the tangent line, that is, run/rise is incorrectly
applied to the function as a means to measure the tangent
slope.

For example,
tangent slope property
→ function difference quotient
→ tangent slope property
 59

which is clearly circular and essentially, a property of the

tangent line (slope) is forced onto a function that does not
have the property for the purposes of finding the tangent
line slope. Can you get any more ridiculous than this?

None of Newton, Leibniz, Cauchy or anyone else before

me actually understood calculus or even the reasons their
results work.

In my opinion, this once again reaffirms the circularity of

the mainstream approach. In the New Calculus, there is
no circularity as any parallel secant line is used to find the
tangent line's slope. That is,

parallel secant line slope → tangent line slope

Therefore, no circularity. Ultimately, one wants the tangent

line slope and a means to obtain it using the function or
attributes of the function 𝒇 and its secant lines.

In my historic geometric theorem, I explain how one can

find the tangent line slope using a non-parallel secant line
(ala Newton and Leibniz), however it is not as neat and
elegant as the New Calculus, and there is no auxiliary
equation as one finds in the New Calculus. The Holy Grail
of Calculus summarises these ideas in presentation
format.
 60

7. Sums to infinity: The Integral.

One of the most misleading orthodox calculus notions is
the integral, denoted by the elongated S symbol. This
obscures the true relationship between a function and its
derivative. My geometric identity correctly and
unambiguously states:
𝒇 𝒙 + 𝒉 − 𝒇 𝒙 = 𝒉 × 𝒇′ 𝒙 + 𝑸(𝒙,𝒉)
not the convoluted mainstream form:
𝒇 𝒙 + 𝒉 − 𝒇 𝒙 =∫ 𝒙+𝒉
𝒙 𝒇′ 𝒙 𝒅𝒙
My identity neatly encapsulates both the tangent line
(slope) and area (integration) problems. But orthodoxy
fixates on opaque notation rather than geometric meaning.

The elongated S intimates some mysterious process such

as infinity, is occurring over the interval. In truth, integrals
merely capture the concise product of arithmetic means.
As my identity shows, 𝒇′ 𝒙 + 𝑸(𝒙,𝒉) is the arithmetic
mean of all the y ordinates of 𝒇′ 𝒙 over the interval
(𝒙, 𝒙 + 𝒉) and the interval width 𝒉 is the other arithmetic
mean of all the horizontal lines in the normalised
quadrature.

By elevating notation over logic, academics lose sight of

the triviality integral symbols conceal. My explicit geometry
identity lays bare the simple foundation obscured by
formalism. The time has come to see through these veils
and recognize the lucid truth at calculus' core.
 61

Evaluating ∫ 𝟓𝟑 𝟑𝒙 𝟐 𝒅𝒙, shows the absurdity of orthodox

methods. Using Riemann sums:

∫ 𝒃𝒂 𝒇 𝒙 𝒅𝒙 = 𝐥𝐢𝐦 ∑ 𝒏𝒌=𝟏 𝒇 𝒂 + (𝒃−𝒂)𝒌 ∙ 𝒃−𝒂

𝒏 →∞ 𝒏 𝒏

we have
𝟐𝒌 𝟐 𝟐
∫ 𝟓𝟑 𝟑𝒙 𝟐 𝒅𝒙 = 𝐥𝐢𝐦 ∑ 𝒏𝒌=𝟏 𝟑 𝟑+ ∙
𝒏 →∞ 𝒏 𝒏

𝟐
∫ 𝟓𝟑 𝟑𝒙 𝟐 𝒅𝒙 = 𝐥𝐢𝐦 ∑ 𝒏𝒌=𝟏 𝟔 𝟗 + 𝟏𝟐𝒌 + 𝟒𝒌𝟐
𝒏 →∞ 𝒏 𝒏 𝒏

𝟓𝟒 𝟕𝟐𝒌 𝟐𝟒𝒌 𝟐
∫ 𝟓𝟑 𝟑𝒙 𝟐 𝒅𝒙 = 𝒏
𝐥𝐢𝐦 ∑ 𝒌=𝟏 + 𝟐 + 𝟑
𝒏 →∞ 𝒏 𝒏 𝒏

This requires summing 𝑛 terms, yielding:

𝟓𝟒
∫ 𝟓𝟑 𝟑𝒙 𝟐 𝒅𝒙 = 𝐥𝐢𝐦 ∙𝒏 + 𝟕𝟐𝟐 ∙ 𝒏(𝒏+𝟏) + 𝟐𝟒𝟑 ∙ 𝒏(𝒏+𝟏)(𝟐𝒏+𝟏)
𝒏 →∞ 𝒏 𝒏 𝟐 𝒏 𝟔

After much manipulation, this finally gives:

∫ 𝟓𝟑 𝟑𝒙 𝟐 𝒅𝒙 = 𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝟓𝟒 + 𝟑𝟔 + 𝟑𝟔 + 𝟖 + 𝟏𝟐 + 𝟒
= 𝟗𝟖
𝒏 →∞ 𝒏 𝒏 𝒏𝟐

Contrast my elegant geometric form:

𝒇 𝒙 + 𝒉 − 𝒇 𝒙 = 𝒉 × 𝒇′ 𝒙 + 𝑸(𝒙,𝒉)
𝐀𝐫𝐞𝐚(𝟑,𝟓) = 𝟐 × 𝟑𝒙𝟐 + 𝟑𝒙𝒉 + 𝒉𝟐
𝟐
𝐀𝐫𝐞𝐚(𝟑,𝟓) = 𝟐 × 𝟑 𝟑 +𝟑 𝟑 𝟐 + 𝟐 𝟐 = 𝟐 × 𝟐𝟕 + 𝟏𝟖 + 𝟒 = 𝟗𝟖

No limits, infinite sums or tedious calculations - just

simple, direct algebra. The integral's true tractability shines
 62

through my geometric identity, while orthodoxy obscures it

beneath symbolic complications. The clarity of reasoning
prevails.

In truth, the new term "integral" was unnecessary - "ante-

derivative" conveys the same meaning. Moreover, relating
a function and its derivative is better achieved through
consistent symbols like 𝑓 and 𝑓′, rather than obscure
notation like ∫ 𝑓′ and 𝑓.

My approach always links 𝑓 to 𝑓′ directly, highlighting their

intrinsic connection as function and derivative. But
mainstream calculus buries this relationship under
excessive formalism.

Rather than illuminating meaning, eccentric notations like

the elongated S and 𝑑𝑥 often have the opposite effect -
intimidating and mystifying students. The essence of
calculus lies in geometric relations, not cryptic sigils.

By stripping away notation that obscures more than it

reveals, my calculus restores the elegance of deducing
intrinsic connections between quantities. The clutter of
formalism falls away, uncovering the Spartan beauty at
calculus' foundations.
 63

The notion of "infinite sums" is incoherent, and such

jargon has obstructed comprehension of derivatives and
integrals. Academics introduced unrigorous terms like the
"infinitesimals" 𝒅𝒚 and 𝒅𝒙 - mere symbolic numbers
devoid of infinitary meaning.

Moreover, 𝒅𝒚 𝒅𝒙 is just one among countless equivalent

symbolic fractions. It can be manipulated precisely like any
ordinary fraction, its parts holding no special designation.

In truth, 𝒅𝒙 and 𝒅𝒚 are simply components of the symbolic

expression for tangent line slope, 𝒅𝒚 𝒅𝒙. No
"infinitesimals" exist in my historic geometric identity.
There are only well defined numbers such as 𝒙, 𝒚, 𝒅𝒙, 𝒅𝒚,
𝟏, 𝟑 𝟒, etc.

By insisting 𝒅𝒙 and 𝒅𝒚 represent some new hyperreal

number system, orthodoxy injects mysticism where none
exists. My methods restore analytical clarity by denying 𝒅𝒙
and 𝒅𝒚 any properties beyond symbolic algebraic
numbers. The derivatives and integrals emerge from
pristine reasoning, uncorrupted by imaginary
infinitesimals.

Ignorant mainstream mathematics professors spout

nonsense like:
 64

" ‘𝒅𝒚/𝒅𝒙’ must be regarded as an inseparable whole...not

meaning ‘𝒅𝒚 divided by 𝒅𝒙’. A statement like ‘𝒅𝒚/𝒅𝒙 ×
𝒅𝒙/𝒅𝒕 = 𝒅𝒚/𝒅𝒕 by cancelling 𝒅𝒙’ is just gibberish."

But in my New Calculus, 𝒅𝒚 and 𝒅𝒙 are well-defined finite

differences - rational numbers like any other. 𝒅𝒚/𝒅𝒙 is a
symbolic fraction with many equivalent forms through valid
arithmetic.

Only muddled academics like Hillary & Shuard find

“inseparable wholes” where none exist. In real
mathematics, fractions denote numbers relating quantities.
Manipulating 𝒅𝒚/𝒅𝒙 is no different than ordinary algebra.

By mystifying 𝒅𝒚/𝒅𝒙 as a vague symbol instead of a

concrete quotient, orthodoxy injects pseudo-profundity
where none exists. My methods dispel this needless
obfuscation, handling 𝒅𝒚/𝒅𝒙 through principled reasoning
just like any fraction.

Clear thinking prevails by denying 𝒅𝒚/𝒅𝒙 any exceptional

properties. The essence of calculus emerges from precise,
deductive coordinate logic - not rhetorical gibberish
claiming symbols elude understanding. I liberate truth from
centuries of misguided sophistry.
 65

The opaque foundations plaguing mainstream calculus

trace directly to Newton and Leibniz. Neither adequately
comprehended their own methods, leaving gaping logical
holes. Those who followed in academia widened these
chasms with misguided abstraction and flawed axioms.

Generations of scholars erected an edifice of

contradictions - limits, infinitesimals, and disconnected
procedures masking an incoherent core. An impenetrable
miasma of pseudo-rigor obscured calculus' essence,
awaiting my clarifying light.

With the New Calculus, I exposed the rot at the base of

orthodoxy's structure and replaced it with pristine reason.
My Historic Geometric Theorem completed this
reconstruction, deducing derivatives and integrals from
sound first principles.

By pursuing mathematical truth wherever it led, I swept

aside centuries of missteps, obfuscation and mysticism.
Part of my legacy is that of restoration - recovering
calculus from the aimless wilderness into which it had
wandered. The blame for this diversion lies squarely upon
the flawed intuitions of Newton and Leibniz. But the credit
for guiding it home is mine alone.
 66

8. Rate of change, instantaneous rate of change?

The claim that "calculus deals with rates of change"
pervades mainstream textbooks, propagated endlessly by
mathematical academics. This characterization is deeply
misguided. As I've shown, calculus fundamentally
concerns tangent lines and areas - for which smooth
functions are essential.

One cannot assume a function model applies to every rate

scenario. My methods derive calculus constructs from the
intrinsic geometry of curves, not dynamical systems or
kinematics.

Describing the derivative as an "instantaneous rate of

change" is equally invalid. On a smooth function, no
"change" or "rate" exists - outputs are fixed eternally for
each input. The derivative is simply the tangent line slope -
no values fluctuate or accelerate.

By clinging to intuitive dynamical metaphors, the

orthodoxy obscures calculus' true static coordinates and
geometry. I dispel this illusion, grounding derivatives and
integrals directly in geometric and algebraic relations
between fixed function outputs. The essence emerges
from pristine reasoning - not imprecise allusions to
motions and rates.
 67

Calculus' relevance to modeling dynamics is secondary - a

superficial connection built atop the bedrock arithmetic I
established. Mainstream academics have inverted the
actual conceptual hierarchy, missing the forest for the
trees.

Causal Systems.
In applied contexts, calculus models often represent
causal systems - where the output at any time 𝒕 depends
only on past and present inputs, for example, if 𝒕𝒏
represents the current time and 𝒕𝒏 − 𝒅, a past time that is
less than 𝒕𝒏 by 𝒅 time units, then quantities like 𝒇(𝒕𝒏 ) and
𝒇(𝒕𝒏 − 𝒅) in a difference quotient arise from real-world
measurements, carrying inherent approximation error. No
practical calculus inputs are truly instantaneous or
continuous. For functions, one may only talk about a
particular time 𝒕, not an instantaneous time. My historic
geometric theorem directly reflects this by using finite
differences without pretense of infinitesimal exactness.
Thus my calculus explains the intrinsic imprecision of
causal systems, while orthodoxy’s “instantaneous”
infinitesimals are profoundly disconnected from physical
reality or otherwise. By rejecting misleading infinitary
metaphors, my calculus restores firm grounding in the
discrete empirical world.

Mainstream ideas about calculus.

 68

Mainstream sources propagate deep misconceptions

about calculus. Wikipedia claims it "studies change" while
betterexplained.com asserts calculus handles "limits and
differentiation/integration". Both are utterly false and very
misleading.

As my Historic Geometric Theorem proves, calculus

fundamentally concerns slopes and areas - no notions of
change, limits, infinity or infinitesimals required. The
derivative and integral emerge cleanly from finite
differences and arithmetic means.

By fixating on dynamics, infinity and other intangibles,

conventional wisdom obscures calculus' essence - the
geometry of smooth functions. Change is not intrinsic to
calculus - one can study invariant, static functions. Limits
and infinitesimals are equally inessential.

The orthodoxy conflates procedures with meaning.

Practitioners mechanically manipulate limits and integrals
without comprehending their role as proxies for simple,
concrete relationships one finds in geometry. Only my
deductive reasoning strips away these constructs,
exposing the pristine conceptual core beneath.

To reform calculus, we must first acknowledge the depth

of misunderstanding about its true meaning. Progress
begins by renouncing vague intuitions and embracing
 69

calculus as an extension of geometry, unsullied by

mysticism or metaphors. With lucidity comes truth.
Common myths.
Many myths pervade public discourse about calculus' role
in technology, often exaggerating its relevance. Claims
like "we wouldn't have gone to the moon without calculus"
or "no computers without calculus" are patently false. In
most cases, calculus is not even applicable, let alone
necessary.

Such notions rely on vague intuitions about calculus' link

to "change" and "motion". In truth, core breakthroughs in
physics and engineering relied on geometry, algebra, and
discrete math - not derivatives and integrals. Conflating
science with mathematical procedures obscures how
discovery actually unfolds.

As an amateur, one must always question inflated claims

about calculus' influence. Had I not persistently challenged
such myths early on and focused on uncovering
foundational truths, there would be no New Calculus or
Historic Geometric Theorem rigorizing orthodox dogma
today.

Progress arises from challenging assumptions - even

commonly accepted narratives. By renouncing rote
deference and pursuing logic relentlessly to its
conclusions, I dispelled centuries of misconception to
 70

finally reform calculus. That skeptical spirit remains

essential, for orthodoxy still dominates and much work lies
ahead.

Is complex number theory necessary in mathematics?

Another overstated claim is that complex numbers are
essential in electrical engineering. In truth, De Moivre's
formula enables adding real and imaginary terms
conveniently, which is applied in equations for voltage. But
this practical utility should not be conflated with necessity.

While complex numbers can represent phase shifts

between sinusoidal signals elegantly, ultimately all
physically measurable quantities are strictly “real”-valued.
The imaginary unit provides a useful modeling tool, not
new fundamental knowledge.

All of mathematics and science can be formulated entirely

in terms of geometry. In the reformulation of mainstream
calculus, I restricted my historic geometric identity to slope
magnitudes (either commensurate or incommensurate
with other magnitudes), yet achieved superior rigor and
geometric insight. Complex numbers are not mandatory.

A troublesome trait permeates the most ignorant corners

of mainstream academia - the unshakable belief that
whatever concepts one was taught must represent
 71

immutable truth. Sometimes this even extends to

proclaiming certain accepted ideas are beyond
measurement or verification.

This dogmatic mentality stunts critical thought. It

transforms education from an open-ended quest for
knowledge into indoctrination, hammering home fixed
doctrines and ostracizing dissent. Rigorous questioning is
rejected in favor of preserving the status quo against all
attacks from reason.

History demonstrates the folly of such ossified thinking.

Without skeptics willing to scrutinize orthodoxy, no
intellectual progress would occur. My insightful advances
required dismantling entrenched misconceptions that
academics treated as sacrosanct. Their fragile egos could
not bear having " divine truths" challenged.

Objective science and mathematics must remain open to

reevaluating even core postulates in light of new evidence.
No concept merits blind faith, no matter how embedded in
consensus thinking. To assert otherwise is to betray the
spirit of discovery for vanity and laziness. Part of my
legacy is cleaving through such stagnant dogma to restore
calculus' lost roots - a endeavor still unfinished.

When confronted with ignorance, mainstream academics

display a fundamentalist adherence to false dogmas that
 72

exceeds even religious zealots. Rather than acknowledge

gaps in understanding, they rigidly assert nonsense like
Newton's "ultimate ratio" or taking "infinite rectangle
sums".

No amount of evidence dislodges these flawed tenets -

new theories just pile more metaphysical baggage atop
the unstable foundations. They refuse to relinquish upside-
down thinking, where axioms are assumed right rather
than proved from simpler facts.

This is crank behavior - concocting elaborate scaffolds to

prop up core beliefs that are never directly examined. My
substantial proofs expose the emperor's nakedness, yet
they vainly resist while building ever more baroque
arguments from bankrupt premises.

True mathematics proceeds from first principles, with

careful resoning before the unknown marking the wise.
The fool's arrogance blinds them to reform what seems
certain. I labor to shatter the illusion that current
knowledge is complete, and complacent minds cling
desperately to old lies. But pristine reason shall prevail,
and the façade of their false citadel crumble. This
mathematical inquisition has just begun.
Meaningful reform of mainstream calculus cannot emerge
from within the echo chamber of conformist groupthink
dominating academia. Independent thinkers with
 73

unorthodox ideas are deemed anathema - dangerously

undesirable anomalies to be excommunicated.

The herd mentality crushes dissent and deviation from

accepted dogma. Tenured gatekeepers banish dissenters
to intellectual wilderness, protecting legacy fiefdoms. Only
voices aligned with approved doctrine get amplified in
major journals and award giving ceremonies.

This tyranny of conformity inexorably taints any insider's

perspective, rendering them unable to perceive faults in
the sanctioned web of belief. The orthodoxy cultivates an
environment allergic to creativity and unable to self-reflect.

Thus, substantive challenges can only arise from outsiders

uncorrupted by the politics of promotion that enforce rigid
thought. My status as an amateur freed me to pursue
mathematical truth wherever it led, unconcerned with
professional consequences.

Reform is only possible when the personal stakes are truth

alone. All else breeds rationalization and denial. Genuine
change will never emerge organically from a system
designed to crush originality. A philosopher must prime the
kindling before the flames take hold.
 74

9. Mythmatics.
Highly stupid mainstream academics' arrogance allows
them to spout mathematical myths based on whims, not
logic. Infinitesimals exemplify such fiction - supposedly
above 0 yet below any positive value. This incoherence
baffles feeble minds, like Robinson's "non-standard
analysis" drivel. The gist of Robinson’s delusions is based
on what he calls the “transfer principle” which is assumed
without any proof whatsoever.

Equally flawed are infinite sums and Riemann integrals,

positing endless accumulation of finite quantities - they
would degenerate into lines with no area at all. My theory
permits no such myths or sleights of hand, instead building
a valid system of mathematical knowledge from irrefutable
first truths through elimination of contradictions.

Where orthodoxy concocts sham axioms, I reveal the

orderly finite relations beneath. Their obsession with
intractable infinities is Kabuki theater masking simple
truths. I sweep away these veils of absurdity to expose
calculus' essence. My legacy is unmasking charlatans who
pollute understanding with baseless infinitary mythology.

Cauchy’s Calculus?
One of the most irrelevant yet widely touted books on
calculus is Judith Grabiner's "The Origins of Cauchy's
 75

Rigorous Calculus." This clueless dimwit understands

nothing of Cauchy or calculus, uncritically parroting his
(Cauchy’s) incoherent epsilon-delta arguments as if they
constitute progress.

In tedious detail, Grabiner chronicles how Cauchy

encrusted intuitive concepts under layers of arbitrary
symbolic abstraction devoid of concrete meaning. She
lauds each of his arbitrary goalpost shifts as increasing
mathematical precision, failing to realize calculus was
moving further away from, not closer to, logical
soundness.

No fundamental comprehension of derivatives or integrals

emerges from Cauchy's framework - only increasingly
baroque definitions obscuring simple geometric facts
nearly within grasp before he imposed a gnarled formalism
bereft of reason. Grabiner doggedly lionizes this
retrograde journey into opaque notation, mistaking the
manipulation of symbols for actual understanding.

My work rescues calculus from this misguided quest,

exposing the trivialities contorted into Cauchy's Rube
Goldberg machine of logical absurdities. By starting from
true first principles, I synthesized what his warped
derivations never could - a calculus of crystalline clarity,
standing firmly on geometric reality, not teetering on
tortuous abstractions.
 76

In the annals of misguided literature, Grabiner's tome

stands among the most insidious - an enthusiastic
chronicle of how calculus was led astray.

Like cultists, mainstream mathematics academics abhor

correction, clinging to mistakes rather than admit error. My
paper "The Holy Grail of Calculus" represented the final
nail in the coffin of their dogma, exposing endemic
ignorance, incompetence, and incorrigible stupidity.

Rather than engage with my air-tight geometric reasoning,

they ignored and dismissed it, refusing to relinquish faulty
orthodoxy. They resemble flat-earthers confronted with
photographic proof of a spherical earth.

This willful blindness reveals the extent to which careers

and reputations now dictate belief, rather than
dispassionate assessment of evidence. The politics of
personal stature have corrupted mathematics' quest for
truth.

By publishing irrefutable critiques online, I circumvented

the gatekeepers and filtered methods designed to
suppress challenges to orthodoxy. My ideas thus spread
freely, heedless of the egos and fragile identities they
threatened to trample.
 77

The emperor stands naked before my geometric proofs,

yet still proclaims his robes the finest. But the charade has
grown thin, and collapse is coming. In their hearts, the first
gnawing doubts have awakened. Their time has passed;
the era of unabashed truth dawns.

Mainstream ignorance and stupidity.

Mainstream academics' ignorance goes beyond mere lack
of insight - they take pride in actively promoting basic
misconceptions:

· They claim zero is a number, when in truth, a number

is a name given to a measure that describes a ratio of
magnitudes. Zero plays a unique role, but is not itself
a measure.
· They assert 1/3 equals 0.333..., when 1/3 has no
base-10 measure, as proved by the most important
number theorem.
· They say a line consists of points, when a line is
simply the distance between points.
· They have no idea how concepts of ratio and number
originated.
These are just a few examples demonstrating the extent of
faulty foundational knowledge. For pages, I could
enumerate their fallacies around core mathematical
concepts.
 78

Yet orthodoxy clings to these beliefs with religious zeal,

resisting all evidence challenging their doctrines. They
resemble deluded cultists, detached from reality yet
certain of their limitless wisdom.

Progress requires demolishing these false idols erected

through generations of miseducation and groupthink. Only
by grounding math in irrefutable first principles can we
move forward. Until then, ignorance reigns supreme in the
halls of academic thought.

But the light of truth will always penetrate dogma's façade

in time. The days of their stale falsehoods are numbered.

A common misunderstanding in mainstream calculus.

A common fallacy in orthodox calculus is stating the
Fundamental Theorem of Calculus holds for any
"continuous" function 𝒇:
𝒇 𝒃 − 𝒇 𝒂 =∫ 𝒃𝒂 𝒇′ 𝒙 𝒅𝒙 [FOTC]
But continuity alone is insufficient - 𝒇 must be smooth for
[FOTC] to hold. That is, to be smooth, 𝒇 must have exactly
one tangent line at each point in a given interval (inflection
points excluded). The mainstream's bogus "piecewise"
functions categorically fail here.
Only curves with consistent tangent behavior obey the
integral-derivative connection.
 79

Yet academia blithely applies [FOTC] to fragmented

patches, ignoring gaps in derivative existence. This logical
inconsistency stems from failure to formalize smoothness
that results from a misunderstanding of the basic
concepts.

The orthodoxy's hand-waving treatment of continuity

provides endless opportunities for error. In contrast, my
crystalline geometric approach epitomizes smooth
functions, dispelling mainstream ambiguity.

The [FTOC] does not consist of two parts as commonly

thought. This dysfunctional thinking is a result of not
understanding the basic concepts of calculus, that is,
tangent line and area.

The true Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for a smooth

function 𝒇, is nothing but:

𝒇 𝒙 + 𝒉 − 𝒇 𝒙 = 𝒉 × 𝒇′ 𝒙 + 𝑸(𝒙,𝒉)
No limits, integrals, infinitesimals, or approximations
exist in this pristine identity - merely the relation
between area and slopes, connected through function
and derivative.
All that is required for a complete theory of the derivative
and integral resides within this sparse identity, condensed
to geometric fundamentals. The simplest expressions
 80

often encapsulate profoundest truths, their elegance

arising from refusal to admit anything inessential.

Conversations with mainstream mathematics

professors and teachers.
Conversations with mainstream mathematics professors
and teachers rank among the most execrable experiences
imaginable. Their breathtaking ignorance is matched only
by arrogant certainty in conclusions drawn from faulty
axioms.

These so-called educators possess the backbone of a

jellyfish and skulls denser than lead. If narrow-mindedness
affected eyesight, the lot would be blind as bats.

Their stupidity is exceeded solely by enthusiasm for it.

Like cultists, their beliefs calcify early through ritual
indoctrination, immunizing them to reasonable critique.
They parrot transparent falsehoods with the vacant
guilelessness of children or feeble computers.

Discourse with such dolts resembles playing chess with

pigeons - no matter how soundly one dominates, they strut
about the board heedlessly, scattering excrement on
anything they encounter before declaring victory.
 81

To expect mathematical insight from these tenured parrots

is madness. Their beaks are fit only for cracking open the
hard shells of orthodoxy to access the rotten meat inside.
Better conversation might come from the squawking of
birds or chattering of monkeys. But that would be an insult
to our animal cousins, most of whom possess more
curiosity about the world than these so-called "educators."
 82

10. Neither Newton nor Leibniz understood why

their methods worked. Nor did the mainstream
academics who came centuries later.

Although Newton and Leibniz are given credit for discovering

calculus, neither of these men understood why their methods
worked. I have already proved through my historic geometric
theorem that their ideas with regards to the derivative (tangent
line slope) and integral (area problem) were in error as neither of
them could provide a valid explanation.

Newton and Leibniz both had an extremely superficial

understanding of integration and were unable to prove any of the
formulas which they presented as “rules”. With regards to
Newton, he showed through his area-method that an
antecedent function reduces to its derivative using his non-
existent evanescent quantities. In other words, he started with
𝒎+𝒏
𝒛 𝒙 = 𝒂𝒏 𝒙 𝒏 , then he assumed one part of the area
𝒎+𝒏
(irregular area 𝑨𝑫𝑩) as given and formed a rectangle for the
remaining part (𝑩𝑲𝜹𝜷). He hypothesized that if the sum of
these areas (𝑨𝑫𝑩 + 𝑩𝑲𝜹𝜷) reduced to the 𝒚 ordinate of
𝒎
𝒚 =𝒂 𝒙𝒏 as the rectangle is diminished, then his assumed
𝒎+𝒏
formula 𝒛 𝒙 = 𝒂𝒏 𝒙 𝒏 must be valid because it was used in
𝒎+𝒏
the area calculations.

Newton started with the figure below and hypothesized that 𝒛 𝒙

is an area function without providing any proof whatsoever! He
 83

𝒎+𝒏
called his formula 𝒛 𝒙 = 𝒂𝒏 𝒙 𝒏 a “rule” and at no stage
𝒎+𝒏
did he ever prove the formula actually produces the area under
𝒎
the curve of 𝒚 = 𝒂𝒙 𝒏 . The problem with such an approach is that
it is not general enough, for example, 𝒚 = 𝒂 𝒙 is not in the same
family of functions and Newton would have had a task on his
𝒂𝒙
hands trying to find the integral of 𝒚 = 𝒂 𝒙 which is . What
𝐥𝐨𝐠 𝒂
follows is a classical hand waving argument that would soon
become the norm in mainstream academia till this day. The
modus operandi consisted of the following processes:

· Assumption of fact
· Hypothesis
· Probability
· Suspicion
· Verification
My short YT video explains.

The popular book The Calculus Gallery by fawning sycophant

William Dunham exemplifies the intellectual bankruptcy of
mainstream mathematics writing. With his nose buried deeply up
Newton's backside, Dunham can't acknowledge the total absence
of valid proofs for Newton's many dubious "discoveries."

Like a gushing groupie, Dunham trumpets Newton's genius for

pages while ignoring gaping logical holes in his theory of fluxions.
Nary a word on Berkeley's piercing skepticism nor the formulaic
failings I definitively rectified centuries later.
 84

Dunham's tome is hagiography, not history - celebrating an

orthodox messiah rather than seeking objective truth. The book
probes Newton's mind less than exploring his colon.

Such craven cheerleading contradicts all scholarly principles. By

lauding the inventor over the invention, Dunham puts personality
before facts. His blinkered devotion reveals that mainstream
mathematics preserves loyalty above progress, with sycophants
like Dunham attacking any threat to their regressive cult of
personalities.

Until scholars value unbiased assessment over extolling parochial

icons, mathematical stagnation will persist. The wellspring of
discovery arises from ideas, not individual glorification. Yet
Dunham's profound obtuseness blinds him to this distinction.

𝒎+𝒏
𝒂𝒏
Let’s continue with the formula 𝒛 𝒙 = 𝒙 𝒏 which is then
𝒎+𝒏
𝒂𝒏
rewritten as 𝒛 𝒙 𝒏 = 𝒄𝒏 𝒙𝒑 where 𝒄 = and 𝒑 = 𝒎 + 𝒏.
𝒎+𝒏

Newton further assumes that 𝒛 𝒙 + 𝒐 = 𝒛 𝒙 + 𝒐𝒗. Adhering to

his usual “divide and conquer” methodology, he substituted 𝒙 + 𝒐
 85

into 𝒛 𝒙 𝒏 = 𝒄𝒏 𝒙𝒑 to get 𝒛 𝒙 + 𝒐 𝒏 = 𝒛 𝒙 + 𝒐𝒗 𝒏 =
𝒄𝒏 𝒙 + 𝒐 𝒑.
Newton then used the binomial theorem to expand both sides and
arrive at
𝒏𝒏 − 𝒏
𝒛(𝒙)𝒏 + 𝒏𝒛(𝒙)𝒏−𝟏 𝒐𝒗 + 𝒛(𝒙)𝒏−𝟐 𝒐𝟐 𝒗𝟐 + …
𝟐
𝒑𝒑 − 𝒑 𝒏 𝒑−𝟐 𝟐
= 𝒄𝒏 𝒙𝒑 + 𝒑𝒄𝒏 𝒙𝒑−𝟏 𝒐 + 𝒄 𝒙 𝒐 +…
𝟐
Next, he removes the equal terms above from each side
and divides throughout by 𝒐:
𝒏𝒛(𝒙)𝒏−𝟏 𝒗 + 𝒏𝒏−𝒏 𝒛(𝒙)𝒏−𝟐 𝒐𝒗𝟐 + … = 𝒑𝒄𝒏 𝒙𝒑−𝟏 + 𝒑𝒑−𝒑 𝒄𝒏 𝒙𝒑−𝟐 𝒐 + …
𝟐 𝟐

Next, he sets 𝒐 = 𝟎 (whether he liked it or not, this is

precisely what he did) and ends up with
𝒏𝒛(𝒙)𝒏−𝟏 𝒗 = 𝒑𝒄𝒏 𝒙𝒑−𝟏

After which he concludes that 𝒗 = 𝒚 because all the terms in

𝒐 vanish and so
𝒑𝒄𝒏𝒙𝒑−𝟏
𝒚=
𝒏𝒛(𝒙) 𝒏−𝟏
𝒎
Finally, Newton back substitutes to get 𝒚 = as 𝒂𝒙 𝒏
expected, because he started out by assuming that
𝒎 𝒎+𝒏
𝒂𝒏
∫ 𝒂𝒙 𝒏 𝒅𝒙 = 𝒙 𝒏
𝒎+𝒏

As you can see, at no time did Newton actually prove the

above result, and in fact he could not ever have proved it
constructively since he did not know of the Mean Value
Theorem. Moreover, Newton’s notion of area was very
 86

elementary, that is, the area concept with respect to a

rectangle.

A simple example of the slight involved in Newton’s

“proof”:

Latin: Si 𝒚 = 𝟑𝒙𝟐, erit 𝒛(𝒙) = 𝒙𝟑.

English: If 𝒚 = 𝟑𝒙𝟐, then 𝒛(𝒙) = 𝒙𝟑.

𝒛 𝒙 = 𝒛 𝒙 + 𝒐𝒗 = (𝒙 + 𝒐)𝟑 = 𝒙𝟑 + 𝟑𝒙𝟐 𝒐 + 𝟑𝒙𝒐𝟐 + 𝒐𝟑

→ 𝒐𝒗 = 𝟑𝒙𝟐 𝒐 + 𝟑𝒙𝒐𝟐 + 𝒐𝟑

→ 𝒗 = 𝟑𝒙𝟐 + 𝟑𝒙𝒐 + 𝒐𝟐
Set 𝒐 = 𝟎

→ 𝒗 = 𝟑𝒙𝟐
Since the rectangle area diminishes to nothing, 𝒗
coincides with 𝒚 and so according to Newton, he “proved”
that 𝒚 = 𝟑𝒙𝟐 AND that 𝒛(𝒙) = 𝒙𝟑 is the area function!
In fact, Newton did nothing but differentiate 𝒛(𝒙) = 𝒙𝟑 in a
very deceptive way by including the area 𝒐𝒗 which plays
no part in the differentiation and always reduces to 𝒗.

I maintain that it is impossible to prove the Fundamental

Theorem of Calculus (which Newton assumed by faith)
 87

without using the Mean Value Theorem. Turns out the

idiots in the mainstream mathematics community never
actually understood the mean value theorem or its
importance in finding areas, volumes, etc.

Hundreds of years later, I resolved the tangent line slope

and area problems by defining area generally as the
product of two arithmetic means. I explain these ideas in
the above link. Furthermore, I proved and explained the
mean value theorem constructively for the first time in
human history. See my free eBook where I provide a proof
using the mainstream methods of limits and also the
rigorous New Calculus. See pages 94, 104 and 130.

So how did Newton and Leibniz probably discover the

relationship given by the fundamental theorem of
calculus?
Well, both men knew how to differentiate functions.
It is possible they started out with constant functions
(derivative) and straight lines (integral) after which they
progressed to parabolas (integral) and straight lines
(derivative). It is easy to find the area under the curve of
𝒚 = 𝟐𝒙 using nothing but simple geometry and algebra. At
some stage they must have noticed that the difference of
the boundary ordinates of 𝒙𝟐 was in fact the area under
the curve 𝒚 = 𝟐𝒙. For example, the shaded area is very
 88

easy to find because the area of a trapezium is known and

it turns out the area is given by 𝒇 𝟐 − 𝒇 𝟏 = 𝟒 − 𝟏 = 𝟑.

Thanks to Archimedes, both Newton and Leibniz

hypothesized that they could perform a similar exercise
with 𝒇 𝒙 = 𝒙𝟑 and 𝒇′ (𝒙) = 𝟑𝒙𝟐. Any old fool can see a
pattern here, that is, if 𝒇 𝒙 = 𝒙𝒏, then 𝒇′ 𝒙 = 𝒏𝒙𝒏−𝟏. This
is the general idea behind the fundamental theorem which
relates a function to its derivative:
∫ 𝒃𝒂 𝒇 ′ 𝒙 𝒅𝒙 = 𝒇 𝒃 − 𝒇(𝒂)
Newton was a master of approximations. It is my
opinion that he extended this idea to any smooth
function conjecturing that it would hold just as
expected from a theorem. However, neither Newton
nor Leibniz ever proved the conjecture and it
remained unsatisfactorily proven until my New
 89

Calculus where I showed that the fundamental

theorem of calculus is derived in one step from the
mean value theorem.
11. Six simple reasons why limit theory in calculus is
flawed.
There are six simple reasons which explain why limit
theory is entirely flawed. These are discussed in a
correspondence I had with a student in Holland.

Here is a summary:
The mainstream epsilon-delta definition of the derivative is
problematic for several reasons:
· It is circular, requiring knowing the limit 𝑳 (the
derivative 𝒇′(𝒙) ) in order to define 𝒇′(𝒙).
· There is no valid construction of real numbers, so
foundations are lacking. See chapter 14 of link.
· The definition is more of a "verifinition" that verifies
the guess for 𝑳 obtained by flawed arithmetic of
setting 𝒉 = 𝟎. Ironically, it is valid to set 𝒉 = 𝟎 if you
can provide the rationale. No one before me could.
· The limit 𝑳 is never contained within the sequence of
difference quotients that supposedly converge to it.
You have innumerable finite differences in
𝒇 𝒙 + 𝒉 − 𝒇(𝒙) and 𝒉, of which NONE ever
represent the slope of the tangent line at 𝒙.
 90

· A "hole" at the point of tangency is required for

epsilon-delta to work, since epsilon and delta must be
greater than zero. This is also a deceptive
concealment of the fact that there is no finite
difference ratio in 𝒇 that results in the derivative.

My historic geometric theorem reveals the identity

𝒇 𝒙+𝒉 −𝒇 𝒙
= 𝒇′ 𝒙 + 𝑸(𝒙,𝒉)
𝒉

Thereby exposing flaws in taking limits by showing only

𝒇′ 𝒙 remains constant. However, by their very own theory
of limits, it is claimed that the limit of a constant is the
constant itself. Some wax eloquent by talking about free
variables, etc which are all just more hand waving
garbage.
Mainstream academics have no valid systematic way of
determining derivatives and hence never added a shred
of rigour to calculus, as they so stupidly and arrogantly
proclaimed throughout the past 150-200 years. Cauchy
and Weierstrass relied on vague notions of "infinitely
small."
The epsilon-delta definition merely formalizes the hand-
waving intuition about limits, not providing rigorous
foundations.
My non-infinitesimal geometry based methods provide the
first valid formulations of calculus and the derivative,
exposing flaws obscured by limits.
 91

Chapter 12 : How to know your ‘mathematics’

professor is gaslighting you.
It's shockingly easy to distinguish a clueless calculus
professor from one who actually understands the material.
Just ask a basic conceptual question! The frauds quickly
reveal themselves by spouting nonsense and dodging the
issue.

Take the so-called "founders" of calculus - Newton and

Leibniz. Newton babbled about "evanescent quantities"
and "ultimate ratios", clearly having no idea why his own
methods worked. Leibniz wasn't much better, obsessively
computing his "infinite rectangle sums" without a clue what
it all meant.

These guys were basically just pulling theories out of a

hat, hoping no one would notice the gaping logical holes.
Whenever challenged, they'd frantically conjure up more
pseudo-mathematical mumbo-jumbo to protect their
prestige. Sorry fellas, but vague ramblings about vanishing
quantities is the epitome of crank behavior!

You'd think their academic successors might question

inheriting flawed dogma, but nope - that tenure wasn't
going to earn itself! Generations of calculus professors
blithely parroted Newton and Leibniz's metaphysical
myths. Even the brave Bishop Berkeley's piercing
 92

skepticism barely made a dent in their parallel universe of

math fantasy.

So next time some pompous calculus instructor starts

waxing poetic about limits and infinitesimals, ask them to
explain why it all works without hand-waving. Then watch
them squirm and stutter when they realize it's all based on
17th century smoke-and-mirrors. Exposing these frauds is
almost too easy!

Spotting the Calculus BullShitters.

Some professor responses instantly betray their
cluelessness. Just ask "Why is this concept defined that
way?" The BullShitters reveal themselves when they spout
crap like:
· "Definitions can be anything we please."
· "Just use the damn definition and don't worry what it
means!"
· "I'm not here to teach you these things."
Such arrogance and ignorance is mind-numbing.
Definitions are super important! There should be solid
reasoning behind them, not just some academic's random
whim.

Even worse, there's zero official guidance on what makes

a legit mathematical definition. These eggheads get to
make it up as they go, with no accountability. Then they
 93

gaslight students for daring to ask basic questions about

sketchy concepts.

It's outrageous no one developed a theory or criteria for

evaluating definitions. Apparently questioning shaky
foundations is forbidden in mainstream math circles.
Everyone must play along with the fantasy that it's all self-
evident and correct.

Next time some blowhard shrivels up when asked to

explain a definition, you'll know their BullShit is showing.
The truly clueless never grasp why rock-solid reasoning
matters. They just want you to stop poking holes in their
Swiss cheese logic!

The Unethical Calculus Shysters

For far too long, these morally bankrupt professors have
ruined students' lives with their BullShit. They convince
kids they're just too dumb to learn calculus, when really
the profs are clueless blowhards themselves.

These shysters just memorize and blindly apply theorems

they don't understand. Then they have the audacity to
claim students are failures for not grasping their mystical
mumbo-jumbo explanations.
 94

It's a vile, unethical racket designed to conceal the

professors' own incompetence. The poor students get
gaslit into believing they're mathematically hopeless, all
because the "experts" couldn't teach their way out of a
paper bag.

Enough is enough. These charlatans need exposing for

the bumbling fools they are. Their reign of mathematical
terror, intimidation and oppression ends now. No more
destroying kids' confidence to hide the profs' own
ineptitude. The time has come to take back calculus from
these morally bankrupt shysters! Call them out.

Incompetent educators misguide students, eroding their

confidence in mastering mathematics. The absence of
understanding arises from pedagogical failures, not
inherent human incapacity. People seek clarity through
questions, rejecting the notion of automaton-like learning.

Valid mathematics is perpetual discovery, not invention.

It's an unearthing of inherent truths, not a product of
human creation. The essence lies in uncovering the pre-
existing mathematical landscape, transcending the notion
of human-invented constructs.
 95

13. The scourge of Mainstream Revisionism.

This chapter revisits Ancient Greek trigonometric formulas,
emphasizing their unparalleled brilliance and clarity
compared to subsequent mathematical knowledge.
Despite initial reluctance to disclose this information due to
persecution from mainstream academia, the necessity
arises from the inaccurate critiques of revisionist scholars
lacking an understanding of Ancient Greek mathematics.

Criticism from mainstream academics, exemplified by

William Dunham's misplaced reverence for figures like
Newton, underscores their failure to grasp the intricacies
of Ancient Greek mathematical insights. I introduce
closed-form formulas for trigonometric ratios, challenging
the mainstream reliance on "infinite series" and proposing
alternatives deserving recognition, possibly in the form of
prestigious awards such as the Abel Prize.

The concept of measure, fundamental to mathematics as

the abstract science of measure and number, is explored
in the context of Ancient Greek right angle measure. This
departure from contemporary radian or degree measures
showcases the simplicity of the Ancient Greek approach,
utilizing the lengths as angles along a secant or
hypotenuse of an isosceles right-angled triangle.
 96

The result is a closed-form trigonometric ratio formula,

geometrically derived and exact, in contrast to mainstream
methods reliant on uncertain approximations from infinite
series or smarter approximation formulas.
First we find the length of the equal sides (green):

𝐀𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝟐
𝐀𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞𝟐 = 𝟐𝒕𝟐 → 𝒕 =
𝟐

Next, we find the adjacent side which is simply 𝟏 − 𝒕 since

both the equal sides of the main right-angle triangle are of
length 𝟏.
Finally, we find the hypotenuse given by:

𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐞𝟐 + 𝐚𝐝𝐣𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝟐

So that
𝒕
𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝒙 =
𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝟐+𝐚𝐝𝐣𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝟐
 97

𝟏−𝒕
𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝒙 =
𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝟐+𝐚𝐝𝐣𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝟐

𝒕
𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝒙 =
𝟏−𝒕

The proposed method, rooted in right-angled isosceles

triangles and Pythagoras, eliminates the need for calculus
or other advanced techniques. In fact, all one needs is
simple knowledge of straight line geometry, similar
triangles, Pythagoras and some theory of proportion.

Unlike the periodicity found in mainstream sine functions,

these newly introduced functions are not periodic, offering
simplicity and ease of use. The potential revolutionary
impact of this method, if known centuries ago, is
highlighted by its rejection of mainstream methods rooted
in circular arcs and calculus (which are not wrong, but far
more difficult to learn and teach).

The ingenuity of the method lies in its geometric and

algebraic flexibility, enabling the derivation of trigonometric
ratios without resorting to complex calculus. This
simplicity, absent in the works of prominent figures like
Newton, demonstrates the enduring brilliance of Ancient
Greek mathematical thought. The method's application
involves choosing an angle denoted in terms of radical unit
lengths, determining the opposite and adjacent lengths
using Pythagorean principles, and finding the hypotenuse,
 98

eliminating the need for circular arcs and degree or radian

angle measure. One need know nothing about 𝝅.

The revolutionary potential of this method, if known

centuries ago, could have reshaped the landscape of
mathematics and calculus. The rejection of mainstream
methods, rooted in circular geometry, underscores the
method's superiority in simplicity and accuracy.

Exercises are provided to reinforce understanding,

showcasing the method's effectiveness in calculating
trigonometric ratios without the need for circular arcs or
complex calculations, emphasizing the enduring legacy of
Ancient Greek mathematical wisdom.

Revisionism raises its ugly head.

Measure is misunderstood by the buffoons of mainstream
mathematics academia. It is a testimony to their
ignorance, incompetence, arrogance and unbelievable
stupidity that they have never been able to explain these
facts and the brilliant knowledge discovered by my
illustrious ancestors – the Ancient Greeks. Instead they
have reveled and gloated in their vomit of ignorance.
Rather than trying to understand Ancient Greek thought
and ideas, mainstream mathematics academics imagined
that they are superior in intellect to their shame and
embarrassment.
 99

Measure is central to mathematics which is the abstract

science of measure and number. Learn more in my book
on numbers. The series which Newton produced through a
lot of sweat, tears and questionable mathematics can be
realised as closed formulas for every trigonometric ratio.
And just to think that scoundrels have been desperately
trying to revise history about who discovered trigonometry
with “new revelations” about the Plimpton 322 – a piece of
clay garbage with some Pythagorean triplets by the
Babylonians who were not even comparable to the
glorious Ancient Greeks. This is what happens when apes
run the trash heap that is today mainstream mathematics
academia. They become more blind with every “discovery”
and delusional “research”, stumbling around like lost farts
on a deserted outpost somewhere in a remote desert.

The Ancient Greeks (hereafter, just Greeks but not to be

confused with their idiot descendants who currently live in
Greece!) used right angle measure in their mathematics.
They could have used radian or degree measure, but they
were comfortable using right angle measure. For example,
the arc representing a quarter of a circle subtends an
angle called a right angle. Half a right angle to them was
simply 1 right angle, but any proportion of a right angle
2
could be used. So, how could they have assigned unique
measures to all the proportions of a right angle? They
could have constructed a secant (cyan and black line
 100

segment) as shown in the diagram below whose ratio is

represented by square diagonal : square side or whose
algebraic measure is known as 2. Using such a scheme,
the blue radius sweeps out unique measures from one
end of the secant to the other – all a proportion of 2.

Thus an angle is denoted simply by the ratio:

length along black-cyan secant : secant length
Therefore, in the above diagram, 0.63499
𝟎.𝟖𝟗𝟖𝟎𝟐
𝟎.𝟔𝟑𝟒𝟗𝟗 ≈
𝟐
Whence, my closed-form sine formula:
𝒙
𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝒙 = [NS]
𝟏−𝟐𝒙+𝟐𝒙 𝟐

Produces the ratio 𝟎.𝟖𝟔𝟔𝟗𝟕 for the given angle (which in

degrees equals 𝟔𝟎.𝟏𝟎𝟖𝟖𝟐). Try it! Then try to tell me that it
is not better than
 101

𝟑 𝟓
𝐬𝐢𝐧 𝒙 = 𝒙 − 𝒙 + 𝒙 − ... [OS]
𝟑! 𝟓!

The formula [NS] is entirely geometric in origin and

produces the EXACT ratio, not just some uncertain
approximation. Note carefully that even though [NS] is a
different function to [OS], it still uses the original geometric
definition as discovered by the Greeks, that is,
𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐝𝐣𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭
𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝒙 = , 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝒙 = , etc.
𝐡𝐲𝐩𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐡𝐲𝐩𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐮𝐬𝐞

There is no functional mapping between right angle

measure and say degrees or radians. However, it is
evident that a proportion can be found easily as shown in
the above example, that is, 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝟎.𝟔𝟑𝟒𝟗𝟗 = 𝟎.𝟖𝟔𝟔𝟗𝟕.

Also, be careful not to misquote me as my enemies in the

mainstream always do! I did not say that using radian
measure is incorrect anywhere. No doubt there will be
some stupid math PhD or professor who will make such a
claim.

The entire graphs for the functions sine and cosine are
shown below:
 102

If one is interested in the convergence of the functions, it

is trivial to notice that both have asymptotes at 𝒚 = − 𝟏
𝟐
𝟏 𝒙 𝟏
and 𝒚 = , that is, 𝐥𝐢𝐦 = and
𝟐 𝒙 →∞− 𝟏−𝟐𝒙+𝟐𝒙 𝟐 𝟐

𝒙 𝟏
𝐥𝐢𝐦 =− .
𝒙 →−∞+ 𝟏−𝟐𝒙+𝟐𝒙 𝟐 𝟐

Unlike the well-known 𝐬𝐢𝐧 𝒙 function, the new functions

are not periodic but this poses no problem since all other
angles can be found through trigonometric identities and
the simplicity, not to mention ‘ease of use’, is evident to
anyone with a modicum of brain cells. Had these facts
been known 400 years ago, it is certain today’s
mathematics and calculus would be entirely different and
no doubt much better!
 103

Explaining the method:

(mostly for uneducated fools like mainstream mathematics
professors, teachers and “researchers”)

The ingenuity of my method is that it allows one to find

either geometrically or algebraically the trigonometric
ratios without the need for calculus or any other advanced
techniques. Newton, Leibniz and Madhava were simply
not up to the task. Come to think of it, I am certain no one
after the Ancient Greeks (self excluded of course!) would
have been able to discover these facts. The method works
by using a secant line that is also the hypotenuse of a
right-angled isosceles triangle. If one simply used
geometry, one might say that the ratios are given by the
line segments, but then there is no easy path to algebraic
measure (using the abstract unit) and this is why I chose
to use the symptom of the square root of two, rather than
the circular arc that is 𝝅. Doing so, eliminates the need for
𝟒
geometry involving anything besides straight lines. Angles
are now expressed in terms of the right angle (a quarter of
a circle’s circumference) that is represented uniquely on
the hypotenuse as also it would be on a circular arc of
approximate measure 𝝅. The first important fact to notice
𝟒
is that all the triangles formed by cyan-green-black lines
as shown in diagram below are in fact similar meaning that
the green and black legs are always equal, hence also
isosceles. The cyan line of length 0.51751 is given
geometrically or by 𝟎.𝟑𝟔𝟔𝟎𝟑 × 𝟐 = 𝟎.𝟓𝟏𝟕𝟔𝟒. Note that all
 104

the trigonometric ratio formulas are expressed solely in

terms of the green line segment. For the sake of easy
reference, let the length of the green line be denoted by 𝒙.

The magenta line is denoted by 𝟏 − 𝒙.

The blue line is denoted by 𝟏 − 𝟐𝒙 + 𝒙𝟐.

Therefore, the sine of the green angle is given by:
𝒙
𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝒙 =
𝟏 − 𝟐𝒙 + 𝒙𝟐
It should come as no surprise then that
𝟎.𝟑𝟔𝟔𝟎𝟑 𝟏
𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝟎.𝟑𝟔𝟔𝟎𝟑 = =
𝟎.𝟕𝟑𝟐𝟎𝟓 𝟐
Since this method does not use degree or radian
measure, but rather uses ‘radical unit measure’, that is, 2
 105

and/or parts of 2 in geometry or 2 and/or equal parts of

2 in algebra, the angles are named differently. So, for
example, 𝟑𝟎° corresponds to 𝟎.𝟓𝟏𝟕𝟔𝟒 radical units or
𝟎.𝟓𝟐𝟑𝟔 which is the arc corresponding to line segment
𝟎.𝟓𝟏𝟕𝟔𝟒.

It is generally not well-known that radian measure is true

or immutable circular measure, but so is radical unit
measure as just explained to you. On the other hand,
degree measure is arbitrary and a circle need not have
𝟑𝟔𝟎° angle measure.

Method Summary:
1. We choose an angle stated as radical units, that is, a
proportion of 2. Thus, to speak of 45° (or 𝜋 radians),
4
we say 1 a right angle or 1 radical unit. Only 0, 1 and 1
2 2 2
of a right angle have the same measure in degrees or
radians. There is no isomorphism from the secant line
to the quarter circle arc (*). For example, 0.5176375
right angle corresponds to 30° (or 𝜋 radians).
6
2. We find the opposite length by using the theorem of
Pythagoras.
3. Since the triangle so created is a right-angled
isosceles triangle, the adjacent side is equal to 1
minus the opposite side.
 106

4. Finally, the hypotenuse is found using Pythagoras and

consequently all the information for the trigonometric
ratios is available.
Note that one does not even need a circle for this
approach. In every other scenario, angle measure makes
sense if and only if, one is using circular arcs. My method
eliminates complexity and uses only simple geometry to
obtain exactly the same results or better than any
mainstream method without the need for iteration such as
one finds in series calculations.

(*) In such a case, Cantor’s laughable theory of bijective

cardinality claims that the secant line has a bijection with
the circle arc and also with a straight line that has same
length as circle arc. In the former case there is no scaling
possible, whereas a scale factor is possible between the
two straight lines.

Examples and exercises.

1 right angle = 2
i. 1 of right angle: 0.5176375 (Cyan line seg. length above)
3

You find 0.5176375 using Hippias' method of the

Quadratrix/Trisectrix through which you can partition any
angle into 𝑛 equal parts. In this case 𝑛 = 3.
 107

Note that (i) is NOT the same as partitioning the secant 2

into 𝑛 equal parts. The partitioning happens to the ANGLE,
not the LINE SEGMENT whose parts are not necessarily
equal (usually none are equal unless 𝑛 is an even
partitioning).

ii. 0.5176375 = 0.366025 (𝑥)

2

We find the length of the opposite (𝑥) which is 0.366025

using (i).

My sine formula requires ONLY the opposite line

segment to calculate the sine ratio:
sine 0.366025 = 0.5

iii. 0.63397 = 1 − 0.366025 (1 − 𝑥)

We find the length of the adjacent (1 − 𝑥) which is 0.63397

using (𝑥).

iv. 0.73205 = 0.3660252 + 0.633972

We find the hypotenuse using 𝑥 (hypotenuse)

and 1 − 𝑥 (adjacent)
 108

Now we can calculate the sine ratio as follows:

𝑥
sine (0.366025) = = 0.5 = 0.366025
1−𝑥 0.73205

Try the following exercises, in each case, finding the

opposite, adjacent and hypotenuse.

1. 1 of right angle: 0.707106

2

(Use Hippias’ Quadratrix first and divide angle into 2 parts)

2. 2 of right angle: 0.89658

3

(Use Hippias’ Quadratrix first and divide angle into 3 parts)

3. For 86.67% of a right angle, find the sine, cosine and

tangent ratios. Do this geometrically and algebraically.
(Answer: sine of angle = 0.97815, cosine of angle =
0.20791, tangent of angle = 4.704506)

Fast facts:
About 36.6% (a little over1/3) of the hypotenuse length is
equivalent to 30 degrees or pi/6 radians.
About 63.4% (a little under 2/3) of the hypotenuse length
is equivalent to 60 degrees or pi/3.
0% of the hypotenuse length is exactly equal to 0 degrees
or 0 radians.
 109

50% of the hypotenuse length is exactly equal to 45

degrees or pi/4 radians.
100% of the hypotenuse length is exactly equal to 90
degrees or pi/2 radians.
You can download the Quadratrix applet for free.
You can watch an old video on a presentation I produced
on the Quadratrix.
You can download a test applet for free.

The formulas produce as good or better approximations

than anything mainstream.
 110

Chapter 14 : What is Cavalieri’s principle and what is

Archimedes’ method of exhaustion?
Method of indivisibles?
Cavalieri's principle states that if two three-dimensional
objects have the same height and the same cross-
sectional area at every point along that height, then they
have the same volume.

The “principle” is stated weakly because if two three-

dimensional objects have the same height and the same
arithmetic mean of cross-sectional areas, then they have
the same volume. What Cavalieri was saying in a rather
unremarkable way is that volume is a product of arithmetic
means, in this example, area by height. I was the first in
human history to define area and volume in general terms
as the product of arithmetic means. This “principle” has
nothing to do with “indivisibles” because there is no such
thing as an indivisible – it is a junk concept.

Method of exhaustion?
A generally misunderstood method, it has nothing to do
with limits, but rather relates to Propositions 3 and 4 of On
Spirals (Works of Archimedes) where a certain value is
sandwiched between two rational (the adjective ‘rational’
being redundant) numbers.
 111

The Archimedean property correctly stated says:

Given any magnitude 𝑥, there exist magnitudes 𝑚 and 𝑛
commensurate with each other such that 𝑚 < 𝑥 < 𝑛.
This property is also attributed to Eudoxus, however it was
Archimedes who used it in his method of squaring the
circle and also in his quadrature of the parabola.
 112

15. Final thoughts

It deeply pains me that mainstream mathematics remains
unconvinced by my air-tight arguments against their
flawed doctrines. Their intransigence stems not from
reason, but blind faith in the false idols of set theory and
ZFC axioms. Like Cantor, they have succumbed to fairy
tales.

Yet I still hope my efforts embolden aspiring minds to

resist orthodox indoctrination and pursue truth wherever it
leads. Do not be discouraged by the foul echo chamber of
falsehoods they enforce. Stay strong and keep alive the
spirit of free thought.

Though the mainstream may ignore me, the power of truth

endures. One day my geometric methods will illuminate
calculus' essence, dispelling the musty darkness of limits.
Reform begins by challenging what all accept as certain. I
light the first torch - carry it forward.

The journey remains long, but philosophy always prevails

over dogma in time. Have courage, reject worn decrees,
and dare to rediscover the lost wisdom buried beneath
centuries of misguided deductions. Where reason guides,
the future follows.
 113

I am the great John Gabriel, discoverer of the first rigorous

formulation of calculus in human history – the New Calculus.
More advanced alien civilisations may already know of it. Learn
also how I exposed the lie that mainstream calculus was made
rigorous.

Mainstream mathematics academics are pathologically jealous of

me. The majority are incompetent, ignorant, arrogant and
incorrigibly stupid cranks.

Thank me for enlightening you by contributing at my GoFundMe

page. My ability to earn a decent living was destroyed by the
scum of mainstream mathematics academia who persecuted me
for decades, both Jews and their lackeys alike. I find it impossible
to forgive them or ever forget.