I gave a counter example to your claim in my post. You obviously didn't understand it. If f(x) = 5 and g(x) = 4 then $$\frac{df}{dx} = \frac{dg}{dx}$$ but $$f(x) \neq g(x)$$.
There, proof you're wrong.
The Structural analysis
- Thread starter mishin05
- Start date
There, proof you're wrong.
May I use this quote as my User Title? Please?
It is strange, why you don't understand simple things?! There is at you no proof because in your formula there is no integral.
I show to you once again:
The formula $$ \int dx=x+C $$ is erroneous, because for its conclusion it is required here:
$$ 0 =\frac {dC} {dx} $$;
$$ \int 0dx =\int dC $$;
$$ \int 0dx=C $$.
And it isn't correct, because:
$$ \int 0dx=0\int dx=0x=0 $$.
Therefore all over the world it is necessary to copy textbooks.
It is necessary so:
$$ x+C =\int\limits_{0}^{x+C}dt=\int d(x-0) +\int\limits _ {0} ^ {C} dx =\int\limits _ {0} ^ {x} dx +\int\limits _ {0} ^ {C} dx =\int\limits _ {0} ^ {x} dt +\int\limits_{x} ^ {x+C} dt $$.
Can we please get this thread moved somewhere more appropriate and the OP cautioned or (even better) banned? It's one thing to be ignorant, but the stupid here is too much...
Seriously, one link should be all the OP requires. Allowing the ignorance to be argued simply encourages him to post more of his worthless tripe.
Restore sanity to SciForums, I beg of you!
Seriously, one link should be all the OP requires. Allowing the ignorance to be argued simply encourages him to post more of his worthless tripe.
Restore sanity to SciForums, I beg of you!
Nah, it'd be neater to see numbers instead of variables. A splatter of tex is still only a splatter of tex.
But maybe that's just me.
But maybe that's just me.
Last edited:
If the ostrich hides a head in sand it doesn't mean that danger has disappeared. It means that an ostrich - the fool! You want to be the fool and not to understand, what in all textbooks in the world an error $$ \int 0dx=C $$? Because it is correct: $$ \int adx=a\int dx, a=0, \int 0dx=0x=0 $$! Other people will be cleverer and will agree, and all will laugh at you!
I'm right here.
Tell me what you want and I'll run it through Mathematica and post it here for you.
Is that OK?
Tell me what you want and I'll run it through Mathematica and post it here for you.
Is that OK?
I want to correct many errors in an official calculus by means of The Structural analysis and to make a calculus is correct that descendants didn't laugh at our nonsense!
I'm not choosing sides here.
I'm trying to entertain myself. But your statement doesn't give me anything to build upon.
I'm trying to entertain myself. But your statement doesn't give me anything to build upon.
One thing that I like to do when I have doubts about the validity of a mathematical formula is whenever possible to run known values through the variables to see if it actually adds up.
There has been more than one request that this thread go cesspool. So I could be offering your only chance to allow you to prevent that.
The world big, and true - one! It is a lot of sites, and I - one! To me all where to speak true!
I understand that to people that they accepted nonsense for truth is insulting and considered itself clever. Now it it is insulting. They don't wish it to hear. But there's nothing to be done?
I understand that to people that they accepted nonsense for truth is insulting and considered itself clever. Now it it is insulting. They don't wish it to hear. But there's nothing to be done?
Awesome!
You're delusional.
You really think that the entirety of the world's professional mathematicians, physicists, engineers, computer scientists, statisticians, chemists, economists and everybody else who use calculus in their work or has even passing familiarity with it are wrong, while you with (I'll wager) no formal training or working experience with calculus, is right?
This is not one of those things where we get to be wrong with no or little influence on how the world functions: If you were right, the computer in front of you wouldn't work, because its function (as well as the function of a multitude of objects you interact with on a day-to-day basis) is predicated on the correctness of calculus.
Beer w/ Straw's suggestion is actually very good: Plug in some test values and see if it makes sense. A lot of mathematicians do it when they get a hunch at some particular relationship. I do it all the time, myself.
Also, ban request: mishin05. Let us suffer fools no more!
That you write, it could arise only in the inflamed crazy brain. Those errors which I have found in calculus haven't affected in any way negatively that that is made. They have affected negatively that isn't made yet. Also can't be made, if these errors not to eliminate. You simply don't know all The Structural Analysis. This my know-how. When All of you learn, at your children will laugh, what at them the stupid father who hasn't understood such simple things which will study at elementary school.
Come on, mishin05!
http://www.ted.com/talks/conrad_wol...um=on.ted.com-twitter&utm_source=google.co.uk
Just tell me what to do. I'm getting Mathematica 8 too!
http://www.ted.com/talks/conrad_wol...um=on.ted.com-twitter&utm_source=google.co.uk
Just tell me what to do. I'm getting Mathematica 8 too!
Last edited:
You cause in me pity to you
Interesting, and as you will react to it:
$$x - variable, a - constant: \int adx=ax, \int xda=0, \int xdx=\frac{x^2}{2}, \int ada=\frac{a^2}{2}$$?
Last edited:
I don't have audiotranslator. There there is no Russian.
It's paragraph two of http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Первообразная
(Via Google translate, a knowledge of source material, and native English speaker.)
Chechnian.