john_gabriel Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Some time ago there was a discussion on this topic which was derailed and locked. The following link provides definitive proof that dy/dx is in fact exactly a ratio: http://thenewcalculus.weebly.com/uploads/5/6/7/4/5674177/dydx_compared.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Some time ago there was a discussion on this topic which was derailed and locked. The following link provides definitive proof that dy/dx is in fact exactly a ratio: http://thenewcalculu...dx_compared.pdf Don't make me laugh! One of the benefits of well-defining concepts prevents your mathematics professors from misleading you through their gross ignorance. Shame on the lot of them for being paid excessive salaries and not being worth half of what they earn! The last fool who challenged me on this topic is one Dr. Rocket. You can read about his ignorance at this link: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/58476-understanding-how-leibniz-notation-can-be-justifiedas- a-ratio/page__st__40 I warn all other idiot academics who cross my path to think twice before mouthing off their stupidity. I will keep the exchanges and expose your ignorance to the world! © John Gabriel Author of the greatest unpublished work in mathematics: What you had to know in mathematics but your educators could not tell you. Talk about blowing your own trumpet! I have a couple of links for you John Help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Er. You say that standard calculus defines the derivative of [math]x^2[/math] as follows: [math]\frac{dy}{dx} = \frac{(x+h)^2 - x^2}{h}[/math] Then you try to solve for h. This is odd, because the derivative is not defined this way. It is defined as: [math]\frac{dy}{dx} = \lim_{h\to 0} \frac{(x+h)^2 - x^2}{h}[/math] Of course your misrepresentation of standard calculus produces a flawed result: it's not standard calculus. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) I can't be certain, but I'm fairly sure that for partial derivatives (just imagine these are all "curly" ds and all the derivatives are taken at a constant value of the other variable) dy/dx times dx/ dz times dz/dy =minus one. If they were ratios it would be +1. On the other hand, it was about 1985 that I last worried about partial differential equations, and I wasn't good at them then. BTW, looking at the poll results, he seems to have voted for himself. Edited January 26, 2012 by John Cuthber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 ! Moderator Note Moving to speculations.You need to prove very quickly that you have actually studied and understood some of the maths you are claiming to have shown to be wrong and have something more than you did last time you introduced this subject else this thread will end up closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_gabriel Posted January 26, 2012 Author Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) Er. You say that standard calculus defines the derivative of [math]x^2[/math] as follows: [math]\frac{dy}{dx} = \frac{(x+h)^2 - x^2}{h}[/math] Then you try to solve for h. This is odd, because the derivative is not defined this way. It is defined as: [math]\frac{dy}{dx} = \lim_{h\to 0} \frac{(x+h)^2 - x^2}{h}[/math] Of course your misrepresentation of standard calculus produces a flawed result: it's not standard calculus. Indeed it is standard calculus. You do not understand and that's where the flaw lies. ! Moderator Note Moving to speculations. You need to prove very quickly that you have actually studied and understood some of the maths you are claiming to have shown to be wrong and have something more than you did last time you introduced this subject else this thread will end up closed. You need to understand very quickly but I somehow doubt you have the mental ability? Of course when there are those like you running the show, you can do whatever whimsical things you please... Don't make me laugh! Talk about blowing your own trumpet! I have a couple of links for you John Help http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Numerology Cap'n Refsmmat , John Cuthber - both these individuals voted that they don't get it! Too funny. Why am I not surprised... I can't be certain, but I'm fairly sure that for partial derivatives (just imagine these are all "curly" ds and all the derivatives are taken at a constant value of the other variable) dy/dx times dx/ dz times dz/dy =minus one. If they were ratios it would be +1. On the other hand, it was about 1985 that I last worried about partial differential equations, and I wasn't good at them then. BTW, looking at the poll results, he seems to have voted for himself. You evidently did not understand the first post, did you... I explained this in the post that was closed. What gets me is that you plead ignorance by your own admission. So tell me, what are you doing even commenting on the topic? I suggest you go and study John Cuthber. Don't make me laugh! Talk about blowing your own trumpet! I have a couple of links for you John Help http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Numerology I care little for your opinion and whether you are amused or not. Have something to say about the topic, say it. Otherwise I suggest you go play somewhere else... Edited January 26, 2012 by john_gabriel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
md65536 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 these individuals voted that they don't get it! Too funny. Why am I not surprised... Funny, I was just looking up "loaded question fallacy" earlier today. False dichotomy also applies. I don't get it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 ! Moderator Note Thread again closed for personal insults.Not a smart way to debate and not one we tolerate here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts