Comparing the New Calculus to Newton's flawed calculus.

Flawed Calculus: New Calculus:

f ( x  h)  f ( x ) f ( x  n)  f ( x  m )
f '( x)  lim f '( x ) 
h 0 h mn

1. Isaac Newton's finite 1. The New Calculus finite difference

difference never represents a always represents the gradient of a
tangent line gradient. Hence secant line that is parallel to the
the arrival of the ill-defined given tangent. Hence, it always
limit many years later, in represents the tangent line gradient.
order to give it credibility No ill-defined concepts such as
(make it more ‘rigorous’). limits, infinity or infinitesimals are
required.
The statement that the limit
had now provided the rigour
Newton's calculus so badly
needed was repeated so
often, that it became
accepted as de facto truth,
even though the limit itself is
an ill-defined concept.

Augustin Cauchy took

Newton's finite difference
approximation, that is,

f ( x  h)  f ( x )
h

and married it with the limit

concept which he conceived.

2. Newton was researching 2. The New Calculus research was

his secant method and never based on well-defined concepts and
claimed to fully understand sound mathematics, which today is
why it worked, even though well known as analytic geometry.
he could show with other The New Calculus always produces
results that his method the same general and numeric
produced correct results with derivative.
some jury rigging in the final
stages of his calculation.

The reason his method

worked, is that it is a valid
method for finding a general
derivative, as opposed to a
numeric derivative. If
( ) = , then the general
derivative is ( ) = 2 , and
a numeric derivative is
( ) = 2 , where is a
number. The mean value
theorem supports Newton’s
method.

3. Gottfried Leibniz knew he 3. The New Calculus solves this

had to come up with problem through well-defined
something better than differentials:
Newton, and so he invented
the differential: dy  f ( x  n)  f ( x  m )
dy y y ( x  x )  y ( x ) dx  m  n
 lim  lim
dx x 0 x x0 x
The problem is that Leibniz's You will see examples of how this
definition of the differential is definition is used masterfully in the
ill-defined. For example one New Calculus course, where both
cannot define dy or dx as physics and mathematics are
separate quantities, and the expounded. Both dy and dx are
most important developments symbolic differentials. The New
in differential calculus, rely on Calculus differential ratio:
results that represent
differentials as separate dy f ( x  n)  f ( x  m)

quantities. dx mn

states that each differential is equal

or proportional to the antecedent and
consequent parts of the finite
difference ratio.
4. Flawed calculus has many 4. The New Calculus contains no
conceptual problems as conceptual issues or contradictions
demonstrated by the because it is well-defined:
following example:
Let f ( x)  x2 .
Let f ( x)  x 2 .
x 2  2 xn  n 2  ( x 2  2 xm  m 2 )
f '( x) 
( x  h) 2  x 2 mn
f '( x )  lim
h 0 h 2 x( m  n)  ( n  m)( m  n)
f '( x) 
2 xh  h 2 mn
f '( x )  lim
h 0 h f '( x)  2 x  n  m

One has to imagine or guess The New Calculus produces the

a limit because h can never exact tangent line gradient:
be zero. Before the quotient
is simplified, h is considered f '( x)  2 x  n  m
to be some vague and
ethereal infinitesimal quantity where m and n do not need to be set
which does not exist in theory to zero, even though it is perfectly
or otherwise. After the legal to do so after the quotient has
quotient is simplified, h is been simplified. There is no
considered to be zero: contradiction in this respect as is
plainly evident in the flawed calculus.
f '( x)  lim 2 x  h m and n are always valid values
h 0

f '( x)  2 x either before or after the

simplification. It must be noted that
Therefore, the flawed neither m nor n ever affect the
calculus, states in the gradient of the tangent line.
definition of the limit that h
cannot be zero, yet h must Obviously, one cannot include the
(m, n)  (0, 0) pair before the quotient is
be zero in the first principles
method, for otherwise there simplified (factored by + ),
is no means of finding the because the New Calculus finite
exact derivative. difference is defined for all the
secant lines that are parallel to a
Cauchy's infamous kludge given tangent line. For example,
has confused and misled there is no secant line whose (m, n)
thousands of those who tried pair is (0, 0) . Only the tangent line
to understand it. What's even possesses this pair after the finite
worse, is that mathematics difference is simplified, in which case
professors don't understand the sum of all the terms containing m
and they are the ones and n is zero. In the previous
teaching this nonsense. example, 2 x(m  n)  ( n  m)( m  n) is
never zero before the quotient is
Mathematicians after Cauchy simplified, unless the tangent line
have tried to divorce the gradient is in fact meant to be zero,
definition of the derivative that is, a line parallel to the x-axis.
from the tangent line.
However, all of these
misguided mathematicians
have lost sight of irrefutable
evidence that confirms the
derivative definition cannot
be separated from the
tangent line. Perhaps the
most convincing evidence is
Newton's very own root
approximation method that
would not work without the
tangent line.

5. The Riemann integral that 5. In the New Calculus, the standard

was derived from Leibniz's integral is well-defined without the
wrong ideas regarding use of infinity, ill-defined limits or
infinitely many rectangle non-existent infinitesimals.
areas, is in fact a product of
two averages. The standard w k 1
Riemann integral definition f ( x  w)  f ( x)   f '  s 
k s 0
suffers from the same
problems as Cauchy's where
kludge, that is, infinitesimal
nonsense and the limit that  (m  n)( s  1)   (m  n) s 
was included to address f
k  f
k 
f '(  s )     
these issues. mn
k
b n

a n
 
f ( x)dx  lim  f xi* x There is a new identity in the New
i 1
Calculus called the Sub-Mean
 Interval Average:
Introduction of redundant and
nonsensical concepts such
f '( 0 )  f '( 1 )  f '(  2 )  ...  f '(  k 1 )
as instantaneous rate, has  f '(c )
misled these same k
misguided academics even
further down the wrong path. where the numerator
As a result, calculus has
f '( 0 )  f '( 1 )  f '( 2 )  ...  f '(  k 1 )
stagnated in terms of growth
over the last 150 years.
is the sum of the derivative ordinates
corresponding to the abscissas of
each mean describing each k th sub-
interval and c is the abscissa of the
mean for the whole interval m  n .

A comparison of differentials in the flawed and New Calculus:

The next example demonstrates the epic failure of Cauchy's

derivative in terms of limits. Cauchy tried to add rigour to the
Newtonian and Leibnizian definitions. Consider the following diagram:
 1
Let's consider the derivative at x  .
2

The Flawed Calculus: The New Calculus:

Newton: Gabriel:

f ( x  h)  f ( x ) dy f ( x  n)  f ( x  m)
f '( x)  
h dx mn

Leibniz:
dy 2 x ( m  n)  (n  m)(m  n)

dy y y ( x  x )  y ( x ) dx mn
 
dx x x
 1  3 3   3 3   3 3 
2           
Using Newton's definition: dy 2 2 2   2 2  2 2 
  
dx  3 3
  
2 xh  h 2 p  2 2
f '( x)   1
h p  1  3 3 
2    
dy 2 2 2 3
    1
By Newton's definition, the faux dx 3 3 3
  
differentials would be the 2 2
numerator and denominator of
the finite difference quotient:  dy  3 and  dx  3

 h  h2  p and  h  p Observe that differentials are well

defined in the New Calculus and
 p  p2  p that the differential ratio always
produces the exact gradient of the
The last result is impossible tangent line. There are no ill-
unless p  0 . But we know from defined concepts such as
p 0 infinitesimals.
the result that 1 .
p 0

So Newton's definition fails the

requirements for well-defined
differentials. It can easily be
shown that Leibniz's definition
fails for exactly the same
reasons:

2 xx  x 2 p
 1
x p

Cauchy's definition:

f (b)  f (a )
f '(a )  lim
b a ba

which is derived (and ill-defined) directly from the mean value

theorem, resembles the gradient of the red tangent line more (when
a   1 ) as the green secant approaches the tangent line.

Cauchy's definition in words states exactly the following:

A derivative exists at a, if and only if, a derivative exists for every

point in the interval containing a, except perhaps at a.

Cauchy updated Newton's and Leibniz's definitions by adding the limit:

f ( x  h)  f ( x )
f '( x )  lim [Newton]
h 0 h

dy y y ( x  x )  y ( x )
 lim  lim [Leibniz]
dx x  0 x x  0 x

(c) John Gabriel

Author of the greatest unpublished work in mathematics:

What you had to know in mathematics but your educators could not
tell you.