Is this guy a super-genius or a quack?

is he published?
if so, probably super-genius

if not?
quack

>>8744561
instead of trying to unravel his theories, lets first focus on one of his other results
>THE DERIVATIVES OF THE NATURAL LOG AND OF 1/x ARE WRONG
http://milesmathis.com/ln.html

here we can use cold hard math to say if he is a quack.

>>8744562
That's not really the criteria. If there is any merit to what he says, it should be worthwhile regardless of being published or not.

>>8744571
So is he a quack?

>>8744593
Yes, he's a quack.

>>8744595
>Yes, he's a quack.
More likely on the schizophrenic spectrum.

>>8744571
Pretty sure the proper definition of log is as the unique solution to an IVP, so that is literally impossible.

>>8744593
is the derivative of 1/x wrong?

>>8744571
I read several quotes by Terrance Tao. He said something along the lines of anyone who doesn't use Latex or refer to other people's work is probably wrong and he doesn't bother reading their results.

http://milesmathis.com/hawk3.pdf
>Proof Stephen Hawking has died and has been replaced

>>8744561
http://milesmathis.com/hexa.pdf
>Mystic symbolism and the charge field

http://milesmathis.com/trig2.pdf
>The chain rule is wrong

>>8744561
I don't have time for this, but are you going to believe some guy on internet who claims he's usurped all of modern mathematics going all the way back to Newton? And his main argument is that mathematical curves don't represent physical curves.

File: solve (8).png (700KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

700KB, 1280x720px

>>8744561
>integrating over gauge fields
t. Feynman diagram cruncher

>>8745981
How could the chain rule be wrong? I just got 100% on my homework using it!

>>8745597
>the proper definition of log
Where is this?

>>8746453
Defining functions as solutions to IVPs is the most uniform way to to do so. It makes "special functions" no more special than any other function.

i.e. log is the solution [math]\left\{ \begin{gathered}
y' = 1/x \hfill \\
y\left( 1 \right) = 0 \hfill \\
\end{gathered} \right.[/math]

>>8746463
That makes sense, and completely settles if OP's link is a hack or not.