Johannes, I am going to try this once, as a once-upon-a-time mathematician and logician, and most importantly as a former teacher to school you. I don't expect it will do any good. I expect you and your 'ilk' will take it as arrogance. But one must try their best to contribute to this community where possible to try to keep it healthy.

Putting words like Constant and Zero in scare quotes belies how little you understand about mathematics and logic, and formal notions of truth.

" I am trying to 'translate' some mathematical concepts into common words that anyone can understand. Many people do not understand statements such as: "If function f is a constant c; f(x) = c then f' (x) = 0." I would like to clarify it to them in the language that they DO understand. Perhaps by stating that the word "constant" is a reference or a starting point for calculation with formulas, same as the number "zero" is a starting or reference point for calculation with numbers. I would continue from that to the explanation of how these references relate to the 'real world'.
"

Zero is not a starting or reference point for 'calculation with numbers'. Zero is an arbitrary symbol that means different things entirely for different groups of orderings. A Constant is not a reference or a starting point for calculation with formulas. In fact, it makes absolutely no sense to say that you calculate with formulas (its like saying you *mean* with letters). Formulas are simply sets of strings closed under a (or any arbitrary) grammar. L(X)X,X is a well-formed formula of Lamda Calculus, but not of 'Squonky computation'. and what you mean by a formula is determined by grammar.

You simply do not know what you are talking about here, and it oozes out of the screen. I state no judgements about the quality of your person. But you simply are wrong or right in matters of truth. You are wrong, or if you are right it is simple luck in the face of the absurdly long odds that all mathematics and logic is incorrect. Your statements make no sense in the context of mathematics. None whatsoever.

"My point is that if you can not express the 'truth' in simple or non mathematical terminology, then perhaps you do not understand the 'truth'. "

Johannes, this is a really naive thing to say that begs an infinite set of questions.

Suppose a boolean algebra of a mundane sorth, then it is "true" that (1+0 = 0). Indeed, it is provably true. It is True, also, under the axioms of integer arithmetic that 1+0 = 1. Indeed, it is provably true. Obviously, the two true statements SEEM to articulate a contradiction, they dont. Gramatical truth, derivational truth is determined by a system a model of the/a universe... Think of this as a syntactic truth. Two models can cache out to two statements using the same set of symbols that seem to mean two different things in a contradictory manner- but in fact the apparent contradiction comes from your misunderstanding of these foundational issues. Both are in fact true statements, within their model. There is also semantic truth, which is the 'truth' of notions (that the squirrel is pretty or etc).

I suggest to you that what you are doing is trying to 'crunch' syntactic truths using your local and bounded notion of what is semantically true- your common sense. Until you stop doing that, the point is whizzing by your head at the speed of light. You are fundamentally confused.

Empirical science is about building a mathematic map of the universe, one aspect at a time (in fact nearly one entire map at a time). The aim is to construct a model of the universe through empirical observation. The shape and ink of that map, that model is a grammer that says precisely what has been observed, and hopefully nothing more and nothing less. The process of derivation upon that model (special and general relativity, for example) creates predictions about what will and won't hapen in the universe, thus extending or disproving the syntactic model.

E=MC^2 is not a statement that has 'meaning' outside a careful understanding of the scientific model and what these things symbols mean.

You can't 'derive' based on the meaning of these symbols (as you stated you did in your earlier posts). You derive off the grammar that governs a model. If you try to derive off of semantics, you are screwing the pooch. You are putting diesel in an unleaded engine, etc. Apples and oranges. Its not derivation, its akin to reading tea leaves.

The human race spent 99.99% of its existence on earth dying in miserable ignorance, not knowing anything about the most basic truths of the world, and suffering because of it. We were in this state largely because we were unable to separate self from event, and mind from truth. We can end up back there as easily as we left. All it takes is a return to that mode of thinking.

I suppose you have a choice, as all of us do. Are you going to be a purveyor of demons and bullshit, or are you going to aspire to understand. NOT trying to put forth and argue pet theories obstinately, but really look at the universe and see what its trying to tell us.

If you continue what your doing, you are not doing yourself and hiumanity a favor. You are, in essence, part of the demon haunted world, draging humanity back into ignorance and short painful lives.

Listen to what these folks tell you, they are simply right and you are simply (provably) wrong. Why they get pissy with you is that they have dedicated their lives to their fileds (and to pulling us out of the demon haunted world). You piss them off. You piss me off. Proof has no effect on you if you won't even think clearly enough to understand what the core notion of proof is.

Davin L