Because it gives incorrect answers.
1 Like
No it doesn’t. Your “rule” is defined for products, and the example you gave of the “rule” working, was for something that was not a product. In general it can’t work on products (and certain not for the product you defined for it).
For those you can’t follow. Imagine if I gave you a rule for adding apples and oranges, then when asked to demonstrate the rule I only added apples with apples , then claimed I was right! That is essentially what he did. The class of problems his “rule” was supposed to solve, can not be solved with his “rule”.
1 Like
I am not grasping why you make this seemingly odd claim, and your apples/oranges analogy seems to not fit my rules at all.
-
Solving
without my collapser set, one ends up doing the following: 
…to get to here: -
.
Now starting from same place as before; namely , while using the first selection of my collapser set, we use my form: 
and skip 2 to 5 above, and end up the same place, namely here:
without my collapser set, one ends up doing the following: 
…to get to here: 
This should be clear to anyone that knows Calculus I or Calculus II. What am I missing here? What particular section of the above is supposedly wrong? Can you specify precisely where or precisely why, without talking about oranges and apples?
You defined your rule for integrands of the form:
The integrand in your example is not of that form:
For example: try it on this one, and you’ll see that your “rule” is wrong:
On the contrary, what do you notice below?
Note:Snippet from my image:
-
The first selection/rule [suggestion] I underlined, from the image of mine you linked to:
-
The [particular example] on my image of my collapser set (that you linked to):
-
The [particular collapser set rule] I applied on my same image (that you linked to):
(Notice there is no 
term particularly at the beginning of the rule)
Do you notice that the collapser set rule applied in the example I gave in my image you linked to, is not particularly the form in (1)'s specific rule set with the 
term?
What do you think that signifies?
Also, do you notice that the [particular rule] I applied, 
worked to produce the result as seen in the image? 
That is basically what I just told you: you defined that rule to be used on a certain form, and that is not the form you are using in your examples.
1 Like
Wrong. You mentioned that the set that I had applied, was applied to the wrong form.
However, I had not applied the set including the x^n term at the beginning, that you claimed that I had applied.
Simply, the three items seen at the beginning, are only suggestions as I pointed out in the same image.
[Again, notice that the particular collapser set of mine that I applied, worked successfully to produce the correct result.] 
It looks like you misread my rule set, and then ironically misplaced your misunderstanding, as my supposed error.
~God shall overlook your earlier accusations.
Whoa, ego alert. Eleven on the Spinal Tap scale.
1 Like
RE: “3 concise points” So you changed your name because 1. Asthma is a respirator illness. 2. Because humans are the new gods. 3. Because you are human and therefore God.
I maintain my original point… “YOU HAVE NO IMAGINATION.”
You omitted something from point 2:
Humans have seen progress as man redefined many old concepts. Like how asthma was redefined from a supposedly sacred disease, to something related to modern science, I seek to help trigger a redefinition of the old God concept. As such, God is redefined as anything of human level intelligence or greater.
Then you get to point 3.
Albeit, do you have an imaginative name?
According to most definitions of a “god”, it is unfalsifiable and cannot be studied.
Asthma is just the name of a medical condition which has been and will continue to be studied.
A medical condition and an unfalsifiable invisible friend in the sky do not have anything in common, thus they are poor examples for comparison.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
1 Like
I already went over this in the OP.
Asthma was not always known outside of the realm of divinity/Gods.
It was supposedly a “sacred disease”, related to “divine punishment” or “divinity”.
-
You ironically just pointed out how unfalsifiable divinity generally was/is, and I pointed out that asthma was once supposedly known in the realm of divinity.
- This should have indicated to you, that many things, like asthma, were once in the realm of the unfalsifiable, especially prior to the age of reason/scientific revolution.
This was already covered in the OP.
Asthma was not always known outside of the realm of divinity/Gods.
It was supposedly a “sacred disease”, related to “divine punishment” or “divinity”.
-
You ironically just pointed out how unfalsifiable divinity generally was/is, and I pointed out that asthma was once supposedly known in the realm of divinity.
- This should have indicated to you, that many things, like asthma, were once in the realm of the unfalsifiable, especially prior to the age of reason/scientific revolution.
Need I say more? Enjoy the three ring circus that is missing a couple of rings.
2 Likes
Does it involve changing your name?
Irony…
Using “science” or calling something “scientific” in the same way theists define science.
LOL 
especially when the “goal” is to remove “magical thinking” and “invisible sky daddy”.
Mankind has demonstrably updated things that once supposedly involved magical thinking, such as asthma that was once known supposedly as a sacred disease involving divinity/gods.
Even theists today take asthma to be a natural respiratory problem in modern terms, rather than supernatural-related.
Maybe one day, a majority of people will take God redefinitions like mine as valid, while forgetting the mythical supernatural baggage. Otherwise we discard the God concept altogether, as I pointed out in point 2 of the Op.
Hey Ny (oops I can’t shorten it anymore ‘cause I wanna follow up with “the science guy”)
Nyar… is the OP for real or a jokester…lately atheists are coming out of the woodwork that provide evidence that being an “atheist” is only about disbelief in god/s …outside of that, how they “got” there is VERY different than my experience or how others determined their own belief neutrality.
Thank god 
that being an atheist holds only this common characteristic.