why do people take calculus seriously when Marx disproved it 250 years ago

why do people take calculus seriously when Marx disproved it 250 years ago

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I am curious how people explained these things to themselves before limits. I know there’s a mathematical field today that uses infinitesimals but I’d be interested to learn how they thought about these things.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Read Euler, he is the master of us all

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        What’s the short version? Using series only and avoiding infinitesimals except in workable cases (differentials etc)?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >what is the shorter book between Introductio in analysin infinitorum and Institutiones calculi differentialis
          The latter i think

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I will not be reading an outdated book on mathematics to satisfy a curiosity I can just resolve by calling my friend who teaches a course on history of mathematics in physics… I was hoping to get an answer here and now

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Euler isn't outdated. You can still teach based on his books, and his books are still better than most modern ones.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Come on. It’s outdated. For example related to this discussion, he didn’t have the modern definition of the limit.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Limits are gay.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You’re gay

            That definition shouldn't be taught in calc 1

            Yes it should.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because it seamlessly connects sequences and functions, moving the student from the discrete to the continuous while maintaining rigor.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            They're fricking freshmen dude. All they need to know is how to use derivatives. Literally nobody gives a frick about that rigor besides professional mathematicians.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            They should already know how to take derivatives from highschool. If they’re enrolled in a calculus class, they should be taught calculus. If you want to teach them remedial math, set up a different class.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            They only take calculus because their major requires it. They don't need to know the e-d definitions of limits. For fricks sake dude, I'm a theoretical physicist working with qft and even I don't use that bullshit. I learned it for my math major however.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            None of that has anything to do with what I wrote. I’m sure a theoretical physicist working with qft could understand basic English. Read it again.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh, you're the resident climate shill. You're so easy to identify.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The what? I know nothing about the climate. Stop changing the subject, moron

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, I know.
            >Muh rigor in math
            >I don't know basic science
            Lmfao.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I know math, not climate science. Are you too stupid to understand the difference? Or is your degree in physics from Google university?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            All that rigor and you can't even understand basic science. Sad.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Hey Mr. Theoretical quantum Physicist. Quick question: what method is generally used to calculate quantum states after the highest energy state is known?

            Since you’re a big time quantum physicist you should be easily able to answer this very basic question. Thanks.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            he won’t answer this lol

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >what method is generally used to calculate quantum states after the highest energy state is known?
            Not him but this question is extremely vague. What do you even mean by "calculate state"?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It’s an extremely specific question in basic quantum mechanics, trust me.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It’s an extremely specific question in basic quantum mechanics, trust me.
            It doesnt mean anything.
            "calculate state" is a meaningless statement.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Just use google, moron
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_state

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I know what a quantum state is. However the phrase "calculate state" is meaningless.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, I’ll spell it out: how do you calculate the quantum states of a two particle system based on the known eigenstates of the individual particles. Assume you know the highest energy state already and neglect interaction forces.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >how do you calculate the quantum states of a two particle system based on the known eigenstates of the individual particles.
            A state can be any state in the Hilbert space of the system in consideration. What you are mentioning has no dynamics, you talk about "system" with nothing in it.
            You want the initial state?
            Some future state? What the frick do you want

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lmfao ok. Physicslet confirmed. Frick off larper.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Im not that anon that claimed to be a theoretical physicist.
            Your attempt at shaming him backfired, you are asking absurd things that cant be answered. It only paints you as extremely ignorant

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lmao ok. It’s a cool coincidence that he disappeared once I asked my question and you immediately showed up to defend him, without the poster count going up.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What does it matter to you? Your question is still absurd. It never made any sense and you think it did because the grammar was correct.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lol. Lmao.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Seethe dumbass

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It’s a cool coincidence that he disappeared once I asked my question a
            You think only two people can read a thread?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So no answer? lmfao

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Still no response.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You think people cant just get off the computer and go do something else? You might never get an answer

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Hey Mr. Theoretical quantum Physicist
            It's Dr. Physicist to you, boy.

            he won’t answer this lol

            Correct.

            Lmao ok. It’s a cool coincidence that he disappeared once I asked my question and you immediately showed up to defend him, without the poster count going up.

            I got other shit to do than to argue with an idiot. I check this board when I want and am not here perpetually like you.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So no answer to this basic quantum physics question that requires no calculation, just basic knowledge from third year physics? Lol

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So no answer to this basic quantum physics question
            You never asked a question. "calculate state" is not a question

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            answer the question homie

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            First you have to ask a question

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Just answer the question already. Jesus Christ.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            you have to ask a question first

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Embarrassing.

            >So no answer to this basic quantum physics question
            You never asked a question. "calculate state" is not a question

            First you have to ask a question

            you have to ask a question first

            This won’t help you bro

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Lmao ok. It’s a cool coincidence that he disappeared once I asked my question and you immediately showed up to defend him, without the poster count going up.

            Now can you ask that question?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            obvious larper

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Loser

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >math, not climate science
            math is not science, moronic schizo.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well, I'm a physicist and understand both math and science. Meanwhile mathgays with all their rigor don't even understand science and have at best an equal understanding of all the important math that I do. Circlejerking over rigor doesn't improve understanding of applicable math

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            t. Mandlbaur

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That definition shouldn't be taught in calc 1

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You can still teach based on his books, and his books are still better than most modern ones.
            +1. I learned precalc from Euler's elements. Way better than anything modern

            Come on. It’s outdated. For example related to this discussion, he didn’t have the modern definition of the limit.

            Mathematics doesn't really become dated. Its timeless. Only real difference is terminology maybe, or how something is viewed may be from a different perspective. But the concepts themselves don't fundamentally change. The methods of calculus are not any different, just the formalization justifiying the use of those methods

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The methods are different. Most significant calculations in calculus are done using limits today. It’s not just formalization. Calculus without limits is like 10 times harder and some calculations are essentially impossible.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            List 2 calculations that are 10 times harder without limits.

            >what is hyperreals?
            I will continue to use infinitesimals in a rigorus way and you can stay seething about it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            For example: f = (cos x +1)^x
            Or anything similar. Much easier thru the definition
            I am not against the hyperreals.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          calculus was a bit informal and intuituve before it was formalized, differentials were just taken as small numbers, no one cared about formality 200 years ago

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      They intuitively used limits but it wasn’t formalized

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      that doesn't even make sense, did japanese people really fall for this?
      This is basically saying fractions don't exist actually and has nothing to do with the definitions of a derivative.

      there are no limits in an epsilon proof

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Do you even know what the original definition of the derivative was?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Probably something geometric.
          Enlighten us wise one

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong. It was based on infinitesimals and an intuitive idea of the limit.

            Newton: “Those ultimate ratios with which quantities vanish are not truly the ratios of ultimate quantities, but limits towards which the ratios of quantities decreasing without limit do always converge; and to which they approach nearer than by any given difference, but never go beyond, nor in effect attain to, till the quantities are diminished in infinitum.” (Principia, Book 1, Section 1, Lemma 2)

            Leibniz: “The calculus of differences is the science of the comparison of quantities that are infinitely small, or of the comparison of finite quantities by means of infinitely small ones.” (Nova methodus pro maximis et minimis, Introduction)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There are no such things as "infinitely small" entities. This effectively relies on an inverse notion of infinity where some quantity is smaller than any other number, no matter how small that number is in the first place. Calculating with infinities will also yield the precise contradictions that you see with zero.

            This is a philosophical problem more so than mathematical. dy/dx = a makes sense when you consider it an extrapolated limit for when both dy(x) and dx approach zero. In other words, when you start putting in zeros for variables that are actually non-zero in any other situation, for example ddx or dx^2. Of course, in reality dy/dx ≈ a.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >there is no such thing as [X] entities
            Not a mathematical statement. “Entities” is especially moronic lol
            >dy/dx makes sense when you consider it an extrapolated limit
            Limits weren’t involved in the definition of the derivative then. That’s the point. The technique was different and utilized infinitesimals but ad hoc, without formalization.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Not a mathematical statement. “Entities” is especially moronic lol
            Renders the notion of mathematics as a tool to describe physics at best problematic, doesn't it? If an entity can be infinitesimally small, what is it? Ignoring the philosophy of practical mathematics for once here, pretending that a number can be both equal and unequal to zero is just stupid.
            dy/dx is just fine but dx^2 = 0?
            >The technique was different and utilized infinitesimals but ad hoc, without formalization.
            The strategy consisted in simply erasing any infinitesimal variable which was raised to a power higher/other than the infinitesimal variable with the lowest exponent.

            Are you stupid? Its the slop of a curve
            extremely easy and intuitive concept. People have a much easier time with informal limits and the idea of an infinitesimal as a small number than with the pedantic delta epsilon shit

            >Its the slop of a curve
            Well.. achtchually a single point can't have a slop which dy/dx, in essence, is.
            >than with the pedantic delta epsilon shit
            I insist on pedantic delta epsilon shit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >more moronic nonsense about entities
            Math isn’t you strong suit buddy. Why don’t you try a bio major?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Math isn’t you strong suit buddy. Why don’t you try a bio major?
            This does not, in any meaningful way, counter my argument, does it?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You didn’t make an argument. You gibbered incoherent nonsense. good luck with bio 101

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You didn’t make an argument. You gibbered incoherent nonsense
            Yet, you're unable to explain what is incoherent about my comment. You can't make a claim and not back it up with an argument on your own side.
            >Good luck with bio 101
            Weak ad hominem. Shows insecurity

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You’re a mathlet. I don’t consider you worthy of anything more than weak ad hominems, moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >something something u cant into maths go back to bio xD
            I just answered for the other anon to make the discussion progress quicker.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Not him but your statement
            >If an entity can be infinitesimally small, what is it?
            Was indeed not an argument to begin with and displays zero understanding of mathematics and randomly introduces “what is it?” into the conversation as if it’s a valid mathematical argument. It’s not.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Was indeed not an argument to begin with and displays zero understanding of mathematics and randomly introduces “what is it?” into the conversation as if it’s a valid mathematical argument. It’s not.
            True, I'll give you that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >a single point can't have a slop

            You are denying reality in the same type of absurdism as the paradox of Zenon. Its obvious that any smooth and continuous curve has a slope, barring some pathological gotcha fractal curves.
            Everyone understands this and you are not smarter for being a contrarian. Its just the slope of a curve. Draw a little triangle to calculate it on paper.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Its obvious that any smooth and continuous curve has a slope
            Again, I'm not concerned with the practical implications here.
            >Everyone understands this and you are not smarter for being a contrarian
            But how does this relate to my concern here? Either admit that we're talking about limits with the differential translating into an extrapolation of the limit for n approaching 0 or keep mischaracterising it as something that it is not.

            >can be both equal and unequal to zero is just stupid.
            no one said infinitesimals are zero, you are just extremely stupid.

            >no one said infinitesimals are zero, you are just extremely stupid.
            Yet, dx^2 is 0, but dx isn't? So, why are we writing dy = adx and not dy = adx+bdx^2 etc.?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Do you actually not understand limits or you are just an autism upset that 17th century mathematics was less rigorous than 19th century mathematics?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Yet, dx^2 is 0, but dx isn't?
            dx =/= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_numbe r=/= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonstandard_analysis

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Zenon
            ain't that some anime villain?, or was it a mecha anime's alien empire?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >can be both equal and unequal to zero is just stupid.
            no one said infinitesimals are zero, you are just extremely stupid.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >still getting filtered by dual numbers in 2024

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Are you stupid? Its the slop of a curve
            extremely easy and intuitive concept. People have a much easier time with informal limits and the idea of an infinitesimal as a small number than with the pedantic delta epsilon shit

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >there are no limits in an epsilon proof
        The modern definition of the limit uses the “epsilon-delta” method. That’s what the guy was saying. Are you moronic?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Are you moronic?
          Are you?
          Epsilon-delta predates limits, that's how they did it before limits.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Epsilon delta is how they did what?? How would they explain the concept of “numerator is zero, denominator is zero, but ratio isn’t” using epsilon delta you dense moronic frick

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Epsilon delta is how they did what??
            Explain derivatives you moron

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No it wasn’t moron. They used infinitesimals.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >infinitesimals
            no such thing

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >no such thing
            Not a mathematical statement. If I define it, and it works, it’s math. moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >and it works

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You’re welcome
            https://homepage.math.uiowa.edu/~stroyan/InfsmlCalculus/Lecture1/Lect1.pdf

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If you cant even format your sum correctly it's not rigorous

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >mathlet confirmed
            Frick off

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >infinitesimals
            >setting value to 0
            Choose one

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It was ad hoc. They had no formalization. That’s what Marx is pointing out here

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's called pulling shit out of your ass

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Okay. And it was the beginning of modern calculus lol. Get fricked loser

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >And it was the beginning of modern calculus lol
            And alchemy was the beginning of modern chemistry

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >newton’s invention of calculus was like alchemy
            moron detected.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Newtons formulation was about as rigorous as alchemy, yes
            He was just lucky it worked

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Lol okay now read what Newton actually said

            Wrong. It was based on infinitesimals and an intuitive idea of the limit.

            Newton: “Those ultimate ratios with which quantities vanish are not truly the ratios of ultimate quantities, but limits towards which the ratios of quantities decreasing without limit do always converge; and to which they approach nearer than by any given difference, but never go beyond, nor in effect attain to, till the quantities are diminished in infinitum.” (Principia, Book 1, Section 1, Lemma 2)

            Leibniz: “The calculus of differences is the science of the comparison of quantities that are infinitely small, or of the comparison of finite quantities by means of infinitely small ones.” (Nova methodus pro maximis et minimis, Introduction)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think you understand how rigor works, commie

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don’t think you understand mathematics if you think Newton was “lucky”, moron. Now go talk to your fellow humanities scholars about how Newton was a white racist man

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I see, the commie is projecting
            Newton was a fraud

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            its the slope of a curve

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That’s a geometric definition, not an algebraic one.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >not an algebraic one.
            So what?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So you can’t use it to calculate the derivative of a given function plus non-smooth functions with derivatives exist

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >So you can’t use it to calculate the derivative of a given function
            Yes you can, just draw it and get your set of rulers

            >plus non-smooth functions with derivatives exist
            This pedantry isnt doing you any favors. But to keep it short "the exception proves the rule"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >just draw it
            Absolute mathlet take lmao

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Whats wrong with drawing?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            drawing will allow you to calculate the derivative at a point, maybe a few points, not give you the derivative as a function. For example: try to calculate the derivative of f(x) = 5x^7 +7x^ 4 -x^2 by drawing. You’ll never get it. But algebraic methods yokels the derivative as a function of x in seconds.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >drawing will allow you to calculate the derivative at a point, maybe a few points
            So what?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You’re asking me why knowing the instantaneous derivative is important in math?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            At least it doesn't rely on infinitesimals to define a differential

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Are you asking why the instantaneous derivative is important in mathematics? Yes or no?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes. Who really needs an exact value? We can basically just look at the graph and count boxes and that's really good enough. Just approximate using newton's method. Keep computing until you're happy

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            A computer can tell you the derivative of a function instantly by just checking the slope

            Mathlet morons

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >he said, building the foundations of math on sand

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Shut up, mathlet.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He didn’t say an exact value. You can’t get a derivative function by counting boxes. So if you want the derivative function to carry out further manipulations on it, you can’t just count boxes

            A computer can tell you the derivative of a function instantly by just checking the slope

            depends how many points I want and how small of an error I want. If I want a LOT of points with low error, a computer becomes useless at some point.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >depends how many points I want and how small of an error I want. If I want a LOT of points with low error, a computer becomes useless at some point.
            Just get a better pc lmao

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >can’t into numerical analysis
            Lol

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >can't into money
            typical poor mathgay

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I’m in physics actually

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            A computer can tell you the derivative of a function instantly by just checking the slope

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >dx=0
    >dy=0

    This is the equivalent of writing a paper to justify why you don't know how chemical bonds work because you never attended classes.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Karl Marx was the first black mathematician.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Damn now this is a legendary shitpost. You don't have to write a socioeconomic fanfic series, half a page is enough

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why do people take Marx seriously when he failed to understand calculus 250 years ago?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Blaming all your problems on other people just feels good man. There's a special kind of emotional state you can achieve feeling completely free of any responsibility for your circumstance combined with a deep envy of all those who are better off in anyway that's just magical.

      It's like knowing you're a god and a bunch of moronic apes have wronged you. You're a perfect being and in time they'll all get theirs. It perpetuates itself and it's intoxicating.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    So Marx is moronic. We already know that.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >moronic schizo LARPer can't even answer anons question
    we might as well be talking to a bot...

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    In every non-anglo and non-anglo-adjacent country they teach mathematicians, physicists and engineer Real Analysis, not that watered down calculus bullshit.
    I have a degree in Computer Engineering and when I got to the US for my PhD I discovered that the 4th year undergrad engineering students don't even know what the Lebesgue measure is or how you prove the implicit function theorem lmao

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Can confirm, I'm from south america, first year undergrad physics, first two math classes are analysis.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >, first year undergrad physics,
        Black person you are like a worm

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Bibliography is apostol, spivak, and (extracurricular) rudin.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    i never liked the notation, it made it hard to learn when you moved on from algebra

  10. 2 months ago
    Garrote

    Why would dx, dy be zero?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      What does dx equal?

      • 2 months ago
        Garrote

        I only know the definition from limits. dx approaches 0 and dy equals f(x+dx)-f(x) as dx approaches 0.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I only know the definition from limits. dx approaches 0 and dy equals f(x+dx)-f(x) as dx approaches 0.

        https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Differential

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    ITT: mostly people who think math was the same some 200 years ago

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Marx
    you are a cultists

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    this is very funny cause everyone is tripping over themselves trying to dunk on Marx with this one, when it was never published (its on a private letter he wrote to someone whining about math books he was studying), he's actually complaining about the notation (he's correct, Leibnitz's is better), and later mail shows he probably had someone explain it to him and he moved on. Imagine the world's dumbest people (twitter users) are trying to prove they are smarter than you by dunking on your writing on your study notes after you die

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Most people here get what he’s saying and aren’t really dunking on him. It’s still funny to read

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        they should, he created a cult

        >Marx
        you are a cultists

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I can't into math, but how is 0 = 0 supposed to be a contradiction? Wouldn't he have to show that 0 != 0 to prove a contradiction?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The contradiction is that “a” can now take any value, since it will always satisfy this “equation”. But we assumed it is a specific value. Contradiction.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    That's not true, the (You) isnt linked also that would be me not you. wtf are you trying to pull idiot?

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This whole thread is 1 deranged lunatic talking to himself. Poster count didnt increase and he even admitted to it

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *