| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Math1723" |
| Date: |
23 May 2007 04:30:24 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
Well I'm not quite sure where we are in the conversation at
this point but I have yet to notice a finite change to
finite r produced by a finite number of infinitesimals in
circular rotation. Probably my fault; I just haven't looked
hard enough.
I don't follow. What is r
r is a finite
r is a finite what?
and what are these "infinitessimals" you
are talking about?
I wish I knew better how to explain the concept in exhaustive
mechanical terms but the best I'm able to do at present is dr.
What is "dr"?
Do you perhaps mean "points" on the circle? (A
geometric point has length 0, not infinitessimal.)
No I definitely don't mean points on a circle because the whole
issue I'm trying to deal with in this context is how to mechanize
circular rotation to begin with. All these "points on a circle"
are mathemtical approximations to curvilinear motion in any event.
And that motion is mechanized by means of linear velocity and
transverse acceleration.
What do you mean by "mechanize circular rotation"?
.
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
23 May 2007 06:47:39 PM |
|
|
On 23 May 2007 14:30:24 -0700, Math1723 <anonym1723@aol.com> wrote:
Well I'm not quite sure where we are in the conversation at
this point but I have yet to notice a finite change to
finite r produced by a finite number of infinitesimals in
circular rotation. Probably my fault; I just haven't looked
hard enough.
I don't follow. What is r
r is a finite
r is a finite what?
What does it matter? The operative predicates are "infinitesimal"
"finite" and "transfinite" or "infinite".
and what are these "infinitessimals" you
are talking about?
I wish I knew better how to explain the concept in exhaustive
mechanical terms but the best I'm able to do at present is dr.
What is "dr"?
The definite infintesimal integral of finite v=dr/dt between 0 and dt.
Do you perhaps mean "points" on the circle? (A
geometric point has length 0, not infinitessimal.)
No I definitely don't mean points on a circle because the whole
issue I'm trying to deal with in this context is how to mechanize
circular rotation to begin with. All these "points on a circle"
are mathemtical approximations to curvilinear motion in any event.
And that motion is mechanized by means of linear velocity and
transverse acceleration.
What do you mean by "mechanize circular rotation"?
I mean actually produce circular rotation. The mechanisms I'm
referring to in this context are definite infinitesimal integrals
between 0 and dt.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Math1723" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
23 May 2007 09:32:35 PM |
|
|
What is "dr"?
The definite infintesimal integral of finite v=dr/dt
between 0 and dt.
"dr" and "dt" are not numbers, and "dr/dt" is not the ratio of two
numbers. A stated in a previous post, "dr/dt" is simply short hand
notation for "the deravitive of r with respect to t". What you have
written makes no sense. This is probaably why you have so many self-
contradictory problems in your posts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
24 May 2007 12:40:53 PM |
|
|
On 23 May 2007 19:32:35 -0700, Math1723 <anonym1723@aol.com> wrote:
What is "dr"?
The definite infintesimal integral of finite v=dr/dt
between 0 and dt.
"dr" and "dt" are not numbers, and "dr/dt" is not the ratio of two
numbers. A stated in a previous post, "dr/dt" is simply short hand
notation for "the deravitive of r with respect to t". What you have
written makes no sense. This is probaably why you have so many self-
contradictory problems in your posts.
Obviously. What I'm still trying to figger out though is why dr isn't
the definite integral of v=dr/dt between 0 and dt? You tell me the
concept doesn't make any sense because dr and dt are not numbers? And
I tell you I have no idea why you think that matters. Perhaps you
could just tell us all how you think curvilinear motion is mechanized
so we can all get on the same wavelength and we won't be further
confused trying to explain infinitesimal arithmetic when you already
know everything there is to know on the subject except how to explain
definite infinitesimal integration and circular rotation.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Math1723" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
24 May 2007 04:45:37 PM |
|
|
"dr" and "dt" are not numbers, and "dr/dt" is not the ratio of
two numbers. A stated in a previous post, "dr/dt" is simply
short hand notation for "the derivative of r with respect to t".
What you have written makes no sense. This is probably why you
have so many self-contradictory problems in your posts.
Obviously. What I'm still trying to figger out though is why dr
isn't the definite integral of v=dr/dt between 0 and dt?
Because "dt" is not a number. It would be similar to describing f'(t)
as the derivative of f(x) and then trying to integration between 0 and
' (prime). The prime symbol is merely a convention of notation, not
something with meaning outside that context. Such is the case with
"dt" as well.
You tell me the concept doesn't make any sense because dr and dt
are not numbers? And I tell you I have no idea why you think that
matters.
Because when you integrate, it is between to values, and dt is not a
value, it is meaningless gibberish.
Perhaps you could just tell us all how you think curvilinear
motion is mechanized so we can all get on the same wavelength and
we won't be further confused trying to explain infinitesimal
arithmetic when you already know everything there is to know on
the subject except how to explain definite infinitesimal
integration and circular rotation.
I don't know what you mean by the concept of "curvilinear motion being
mechanized". Whatever it means, it doesn't change the fact that your
use of the symbols "dr" and "dt" are undefined.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
24 May 2007 06:49:35 PM |
|
|
On 24 May 2007 14:45:37 -0700, Math1723 <anonym1723@aol.com> wrote:
"dr" and "dt" are not numbers, and "dr/dt" is not the ratio of
two numbers. A stated in a previous post, "dr/dt" is simply
short hand notation for "the derivative of r with respect to t".
What you have written makes no sense. This is probably why you
have so many self-contradictory problems in your posts.
Obviously. What I'm still trying to figger out though is why dr
isn't the definite integral of v=dr/dt between 0 and dt?
Because "dt" is not a number.
Did I say dt was a number? My own personal spin on dt is that it is a
limit for definite integration. Is there some reason dt cannot be an
infinitesimal.
It would be similar to describing f'(t)
as the derivative of f(x) and then trying to integration between 0 and
' (prime).
Ooooh I just love analogical reasoning as a substitute for facts.
Might it not also be the same as three blind mice describing the
forest to one another as a group of trees composed of trees? I'm
confident there must be a distinction; I just can't see what it is
because I prefer forests to be numbers and trees not to be numbers.
The prime symbol is merely a convention of notation, not
something with meaning outside that context. Such is the case with
"dt" as well.
Well golly whiz, Mr. Dillon. So dt ain't a infinitesimal anymore?
Who'd a thunk.
You tell me the concept doesn't make any sense because dr and dt
are not numbers? And I tell you I have no idea why you think that
matters.
Because when you integrate, it is between to values, and dt is not a
value, it is meaningless gibberish.
Well then we shall certainly excise it from the lexicon. Begone dt!!!!
Perhaps you could just tell us all how you think curvilinear
motion is mechanized so we can all get on the same wavelength and
we won't be further confused trying to explain infinitesimal
arithmetic when you already know everything there is to know on
the subject except how to explain definite infinitesimal
integration and circular rotation.
I don't know what you mean by the concept of "curvilinear motion being
mechanized".
The hell you say.
Whatever it means, it doesn't change the fact that your
use of the symbols "dr" and "dt" are undefined.
Natcherly.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
24 May 2007 06:54:09 PM |
|
|
In article <gf8c53tjcrab1k9fcrgb1ht4fqporfmg0d@4ax.com>,
Lester Zick <dontbother@nowhere.net> wrote:
It would be similar to
describing f'(t)
as the derivative of f(x) and then trying to integration between 0 and
' (prime).
Ooooh I just love analogical reasoning as a substitute for facts.
Might it not also be the same as three blind mice describing the
forest to one another as a group of trees composed of trees? I'm
confident there must be a distinction; I just can't see what it is
because I prefer forests to be numbers and trees not to be numbers.
Right here is a reason why Zick is impossible to reason with.
Its because (a) he's insane and (b) he thinks he knows what he's talking about.
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
25 May 2007 12:47:56 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 May 2007 00:54:09 +0100, Phineas T Puddleduck
<phineaspuddleduck@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <gf8c53tjcrab1k9fcrgb1ht4fqporfmg0d@4ax.com>,
Lester Zick <dontbother@nowhere.net> wrote:
It would be similar to
describing f'(t)
as the derivative of f(x) and then trying to integration between 0 and
' (prime).
Ooooh I just love analogical reasoning as a substitute for facts.
Might it not also be the same as three blind mice describing the
forest to one another as a group of trees composed of trees? I'm
confident there must be a distinction; I just can't see what it is
because I prefer forests to be numbers and trees not to be numbers.
Right here is a reason why Zick is impossible to reason with.
Its because (a) he's insane and (b) he thinks he knows what he's talking about.
And doesn't employ analogical nonsense to do it.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
24 May 2007 10:49:34 PM |
|
|
On May 24, 6:49 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 24 May 2007 14:45:37 -0700, Math1723 <anonym1...@aol.com> wrote:
"dr" and "dt" are not numbers, and "dr/dt" is not the ratio of
two numbers. A stated in a previous post, "dr/dt" is simply
short hand notation for "the derivative of r with respect to t".
What you have written makes no sense. This is probably why you
have so many self-contradictory problems in your posts.
Obviously. What I'm still trying to figger out though is why dr
isn't the definite integral of v=dr/dt between 0 and dt?
Because "dt" is not a number.
Did I say dt was a number? My own personal spin on dt is that it is a
limit for definite integration. Is there some reason dt cannot be an
infinitesimal.
Well, that would be the point, wouldn't it? Your own personal spin on
dt is something on the far side of idiocy or strident lunacy, hard to
tell which. That would be what several people here have been telling
you, although in your case they may have well been telling the same
thing to a hay bale, as the hay bale is more interested in the answer.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
25 May 2007 04:42:40 PM |
|
|
On 24 May 2007 20:49:34 -0700, PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 6:49 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 24 May 2007 14:45:37 -0700, Math1723 <anonym1...@aol.com> wrote:
"dr" and "dt" are not numbers, and "dr/dt" is not the ratio of
two numbers. A stated in a previous post, "dr/dt" is simply
short hand notation for "the derivative of r with respect to t".
What you have written makes no sense. This is probably why you
have so many self-contradictory problems in your posts.
Obviously. What I'm still trying to figger out though is why dr
isn't the definite integral of v=dr/dt between 0 and dt?
Because "dt" is not a number.
Did I say dt was a number? My own personal spin on dt is that it is a
limit for definite integration. Is there some reason dt cannot be an
infinitesimal.
Well, that would be the point, wouldn't it? Your own personal spin on
dt is something on the far side of idiocy or strident lunacy, hard to
tell which. That would be what several people here have been telling
you, although in your case they may have well been telling the same
thing to a hay bale, as the hay bale is more interested in the answer.
And all we get out of you are promises, promises for the explanation
of the mechanics of circular rotation but no explanations. You haven't
said whether tangential v=dr/dt is true or not. You haven't said much
of anything that I can gather. You have offered dubious psychological
commentaries of nugatory probative value and undoubtedly you will
continue to do so.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
25 May 2007 08:38:31 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 4:42 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 24 May 2007 20:49:34 -0700, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 6:49 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 24 May 2007 14:45:37 -0700, Math1723 <anonym1...@aol.com> wrote:
"dr" and "dt" are not numbers, and "dr/dt" is not the ratio of
two numbers. A stated in a previous post, "dr/dt" is simply
short hand notation for "the derivative of r with respect to t".
What you have written makes no sense. This is probably why you
have so many self-contradictory problems in your posts.
Obviously. What I'm still trying to figger out though is why dr
isn't the definite integral of v=dr/dt between 0 and dt?
Because "dt" is not a number.
Did I say dt was a number? My own personal spin on dt is that it is a
limit for definite integration. Is there some reason dt cannot be an
infinitesimal.
Well, that would be the point, wouldn't it? Your own personal spin on
dt is something on the far side of idiocy or strident lunacy, hard to
tell which. That would be what several people here have been telling
you, although in your case they may have well been telling the same
thing to a hay bale, as the hay bale is more interested in the answer.
And all we get out of you are promises, promises for the explanation
of the mechanics of circular rotation but no explanations.
I've promised no such thing, because you haven't asked for it. You've
said you can't seem to manage to figure out a particular statement,
and I'm not surprised you can't figure it out, because it is
gibberish.
If you are interested in the mechanics of circular rotation and you'd
like somebody to explain it to you, then ask -- directly. As in, "I
know nothing about the mechanics of circular rotation. Could somebody
please explain them to me?"
You haven't
said whether tangential v=dr/dt is true or not.
Are you asking whether the equality is true? No, it is not.
You haven't said much
of anything that I can gather. You have offered dubious psychological
commentaries of nugatory probative value and undoubtedly you will
continue to do so.
Depends on whether you ask anything. So far, all you've done is
comment that I haven't said anyhing that you can gather. That isn't
asking for anything that you can gather.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
24 May 2007 09:09:41 PM |
|
|
On May 24, 7:49 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 24 May 2007 14:45:37 -0700, Math1723 <anonym1...@aol.com> wrote:
"dr" and "dt" are not numbers, and "dr/dt" is not the ratio of
two numbers. A stated in a previous post, "dr/dt" is simply
short hand notation for "the derivative of r with respect to t".
What you have written makes no sense. This is probably why you
have so many self-contradictory problems in your posts.
Obviously. What I'm still trying to figger out though is why dr
isn't the definite integral of v=dr/dt between 0 and dt?
Because "dt" is not a number.
Did I say dt was a number? My own personal spin on dt is that it is a
limit for definite integration.
Meaning "a thing which can be used as one of the limits"?
And what is the set of such things? Does it include
ham sandwiches? Dogs? UFOs?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
25 May 2007 02:33:57 PM |
|
|
On 24 May 2007 19:09:41 -0700, Randy Poe <poespam-trap@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On May 24, 7:49 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 24 May 2007 14:45:37 -0700, Math1723 <anonym1...@aol.com> wrote:
"dr" and "dt" are not numbers, and "dr/dt" is not the ratio of
two numbers. A stated in a previous post, "dr/dt" is simply
short hand notation for "the derivative of r with respect to t".
What you have written makes no sense. This is probably why you
have so many self-contradictory problems in your posts.
Obviously. What I'm still trying to figger out though is why dr
isn't the definite integral of v=dr/dt between 0 and dt?
Because "dt" is not a number.
Did I say dt was a number? My own personal spin on dt is that it is a
limit for definite integration.
Meaning "a thing which can be used as one of the limits"?
And what is the set of such things? Does it include
ham sandwiches? Dogs? UFOs?
I don't know what the set of "such things" entails in exhaustive terms
because I've never had the chance to definitely integrate it over
definable limits unlike yourself who prefers just to guess at the what
constitutes the limits for integral limits and say that's it.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
24 May 2007 04:01:39 PM |
|
|
On May 24, 12:40 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 23 May 2007 19:32:35 -0700, Math1723 <anonym1...@aol.com> wrote:
What is "dr"?
The definite infintesimal integral of finite v=dr/dt
between 0 and dt.
"dr" and "dt" are not numbers, and "dr/dt" is not the ratio of two
numbers. A stated in a previous post, "dr/dt" is simply short hand
notation for "the deravitive of r with respect to t". What you have
written makes no sense. This is probaably why you have so many self-
contradictory problems in your posts.
Obviously. What I'm still trying to figger out though is why dr isn't
the definite integral of v=dr/dt between 0 and dt?
I love it when Zick says stuff like this.
What I'm still trying to figger out though is why he doesn't pick up a
Calculus for Dummies book and spend an afternoon learning something
instead of trying to figger out though why something isn't what it
isn't.
You tell me the
concept doesn't make any sense because dr and dt are not numbers? And
I tell you I have no idea why you think that matters. Perhaps you
could just tell us all how you think curvilinear motion is mechanized
so we can all get on the same wavelength and we won't be further
confused trying to explain infinitesimal arithmetic when you already
know everything there is to know on the subject except how to explain
definite infinitesimal integration and circular rotation.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
24 May 2007 06:51:47 PM |
|
|
On 24 May 2007 14:01:39 -0700, PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 12:40 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 23 May 2007 19:32:35 -0700, Math1723 <anonym1...@aol.com> wrote:
What is "dr"?
The definite infintesimal integral of finite v=dr/dt
between 0 and dt.
"dr" and "dt" are not numbers, and "dr/dt" is not the ratio of two
numbers. A stated in a previous post, "dr/dt" is simply short hand
notation for "the deravitive of r with respect to t". What you have
written makes no sense. This is probaably why you have so many self-
contradictory problems in your posts.
Obviously. What I'm still trying to figger out though is why dr isn't
the definite integral of v=dr/dt between 0 and dt?
I love it when Zick says stuff like this.
At least I'm witty and you're not.
What I'm still trying to figger out though is why he doesn't pick up a
Calculus for Dummies book
I'm waiting for your latest edition.
and spend an afternoon learning something
instead of trying to figger out though why something isn't what it
isn't.
We've been through this already, Isis. I'm the comedian and you're the
joke.
You tell me the
concept doesn't make any sense because dr and dt are not numbers? And
I tell you I have no idea why you think that matters. Perhaps you
could just tell us all how you think curvilinear motion is mechanized
so we can all get on the same wavelength and we won't be further
confused trying to explain infinitesimal arithmetic when you already
know everything there is to know on the subject except how to explain
definite infinitesimal integration and circular rotation.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
24 May 2007 10:45:42 PM |
|
|
On May 24, 6:51 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 24 May 2007 14:01:39 -0700, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 12:40 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 23 May 2007 19:32:35 -0700, Math1723 <anonym1...@aol.com> wrote:
What is "dr"?
The definite infintesimal integral of finite v=dr/dt
between 0 and dt.
"dr" and "dt" are not numbers, and "dr/dt" is not the ratio of two
numbers. A stated in a previous post, "dr/dt" is simply short hand
notation for "the deravitive of r with respect to t". What you have
written makes no sense. This is probaably why you have so many self-
contradictory problems in your posts.
Obviously. What I'm still trying to figger out though is why dr isn't
the definite integral of v=dr/dt between 0 and dt?
I love it when Zick says stuff like this.
At least I'm witty and you're not.
At least in your own estimation, which apparently is all that matters.
What I'm still trying to figger out though is why he doesn't pick up a
Calculus for Dummies book
I'm waiting for your latest edition.
The latest one is out, by definition. If you want to wait until the
next edition, then you'll wait forever, by definition. Your choice.
It's apparent that you prefer to choose waiting over learning at just
about any opportunity. It's so much more fun to dance, isn't it, Zick?
Requires less mental effort.
and spend an afternoon learning something
instead of trying to figger out though why something isn't what it
isn't.
We've been through this already, Isis. I'm the comedian
Well, there's no question that folks are laughing.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
25 May 2007 05:17:43 PM |
|
|
On 24 May 2007 20:45:42 -0700, PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 6:51 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 24 May 2007 14:01:39 -0700, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 12:40 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 23 May 2007 19:32:35 -0700, Math1723 <anonym1...@aol.com> wrote:
What is "dr"?
The definite infintesimal integral of finite v=dr/dt
between 0 and dt.
"dr" and "dt" are not numbers, and "dr/dt" is not the ratio of two
numbers. A stated in a previous post, "dr/dt" is simply short hand
notation for "the deravitive of r with respect to t". What you have
written makes no sense. This is probaably why you have so many self-
contradictory problems in your posts.
Obviously. What I'm still trying to figger out though is why dr isn't
the definite integral of v=dr/dt between 0 and dt?
I love it when Zick says stuff like this.
At least I'm witty and you're not.
At least in your own estimation, which apparently is all that matters.
Certainly your own estimation doesn't because you routinely decline to
expose any explanation for your own estimation to critical scrutiny.
What I'm still trying to figger out though is why he doesn't pick up a
Calculus for Dummies book
I'm waiting for your latest edition.
The latest one is out, by definition. If you want to wait until the
next edition, then you'll wait forever, by definition. Your choice.
It's apparent that you prefer to choose waiting over learning at just
about any opportunity. It's so much more fun to dance, isn't it, Zick?
Requires less mental effort.
Fortunately fantasy explanations require no mental effort on your part
whatsoever.
and spend an afternoon learning something
instead of trying to figger out though why something isn't what it
isn't.
We've been through this already, Isis. I'm the comedian
Well, there's no question that folks are laughing.
And you're the joke.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
25 May 2007 08:42:17 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 5:17 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 24 May 2007 20:45:42 -0700, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Obviously. What I'm still trying to figger out though is why dr isn't
the definite integral of v=dr/dt between 0 and dt?
I love it when Zick says stuff like this.
At least I'm witty and you're not.
At least in your own estimation, which apparently is all that matters.
Certainly your own estimation doesn't because you routinely decline to
expose any explanation for your own estimation to critical scrutiny.
I didn't offer you any estimation, nor did you ask for it. I only
commented on your estimation, which you provided without anyone asking
for it.
What I'm still trying to figger out though is why he doesn't pick up a
Calculus for Dummies book
I'm waiting for your latest edition.
The latest one is out, by definition. If you want to wait until the
next edition, then you'll wait forever, by definition. Your choice.
It's apparent that you prefer to choose waiting over learning at just
about any opportunity. It's so much more fun to dance, isn't it, Zick?
Requires less mental effort.
Fortunately fantasy explanations require no mental effort on your part
whatsoever.
You mean the ones you refuse to look up, because you are waiting for
an edition that is already out?
and spend an afternoon learning something
instead of trying to figger out though why something isn't what it
isn't.
We've been through this already, Isis. I'm the comedian
Well, there's no question that folks are laughing.
And you're the joke.
I heard you the first time. Good comics do not repeat a joke.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
24 May 2007 12:51:32 PM |
|
|
On May 24, 1:40 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 23 May 2007 19:32:35 -0700, Math1723 <anonym1...@aol.com> wrote:
What is "dr"?
The definite infintesimal integral of finite v=dr/dt
between 0 and dt.
"dr" and "dt" are not numbers, and "dr/dt" is not the ratio of two
numbers. A stated in a previous post, "dr/dt" is simply short hand
notation for "the deravitive of r with respect to t". What you have
written makes no sense. This is probaably why you have so many self-
contradictory problems in your posts.
Obviously. What I'm still trying to figger out though is why dr isn't
the definite integral of v=dr/dt between 0 and dt?
That would be because a definite integral is between two
limits which are numbers.
You tell me the
concept doesn't make any sense because dr and dt are not numbers?
That's right. And you also can't integrate between 0 and dog,
because one of those things is not a number.
And
I tell you I have no idea why you think that matters.
Because the limits of a definite integral are numbers, and
one of those things is not a number.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
24 May 2007 06:25:53 PM |
|
|
On 24 May 2007 10:51:32 -0700, Randy Poe <poespam-trap@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On May 24, 1:40 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 23 May 2007 19:32:35 -0700, Math1723 <anonym1...@aol.com> wrote:
What is "dr"?
The definite infintesimal integral of finite v=dr/dt
between 0 and dt.
"dr" and "dt" are not numbers, and "dr/dt" is not the ratio of two
numbers. A stated in a previous post, "dr/dt" is simply short hand
notation for "the deravitive of r with respect to t". What you have
written makes no sense. This is probaably why you have so many self-
contradictory problems in your posts.
Obviously. What I'm still trying to figger out though is why dr isn't
the definite integral of v=dr/dt between 0 and dt?
That would be because a definite integral is between two
limits which are numbers.
This qualification "which are numbers" I don't quite understand,
Randy. There is something in your own private theory of definite
integration which specifically says this? I mean is dt not a number
just because it's an infinitesimal number?
You tell me the
concept doesn't make any sense because dr and dt are not numbers?
That's right. And you also can't integrate between 0 and dog,
because one of those things is not a number.
So dt is not a limit between which definite integration can be
performed? News to me not to mention the dog.
And
I tell you I have no idea why you think that matters.
Because the limits of a definite integral are numbers, and
one of those things is not a number.
Curious that your own private definition of definite integrals
requires finite numbers as limits. Is this something new with modern
math or did you just make it up?
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Math1723" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
26 May 2007 09:45:20 AM |
|
|
Curious that your own private definition of definite integrals
requires finite numbers as limits. Is this something new with
modern math or did you just make it up?
That's rather amusing coming from someone who has his own private
definitions of dr and dt. The entirity of the mathematical and
physical worlds use them in one way, while you alone use them in
another.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Math1723" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
26 May 2007 09:43:08 AM |
|
|
Curious that your own private definition of definite integrals
requires finite numbers as limits. Is this something new with
modern math or did you just make it up?
That's rather amusing coming from someone who has his own private
definitions of dr and dt. The entirity of the mathematical and
physical worlds use them in one way, while you alone use them in
another.
Jonathan Hoyle
Eastman Kodak
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
24 May 2007 10:41:33 PM |
|
|
On May 24, 6:25 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 24 May 2007 10:51:32 -0700, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On May 24, 1:40 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 23 May 2007 19:32:35 -0700, Math1723 <anonym1...@aol.com> wrote:
What is "dr"?
The definite infintesimal integral of finite v=dr/dt
between 0 and dt.
"dr" and "dt" are not numbers, and "dr/dt" is not the ratio of two
numbers. A stated in a previous post, "dr/dt" is simply short hand
notation for "the deravitive of r with respect to t". What you have
written makes no sense. This is probaably why you have so many self-
contradictory problems in your posts.
Obviously. What I'm still trying to figger out though is why dr isn't
the definite integral of v=dr/dt between 0 and dt?
That would be because a definite integral is between two
limits which are numbers.
This qualification "which are numbers" I don't quite understand,
Randy. There is something in your own private theory of definite
integration which specifically says this? I mean is dt not a number
just because it's an infinitesimal number?
You tell me the
concept doesn't make any sense because dr and dt are not numbers?
That's right. And you also can't integrate between 0 and dog,
because one of those things is not a number.
So dt is not a limit between which definite integration can be
performed? News to me not to mention the dog.
Of course it's news to you. A lot is news to the ignorant, including
the dog. Perhaps a little basic reading might cure that.
And
I tell you I have no idea why you think that matters.
Because the limits of a definite integral are numbers, and
one of those things is not a number.
Curious that your own private definition of definite integrals
requires finite numbers as limits. Is this something new with modern
math or did you just make it up?
No, it's not new, and it's not private. Why I wager if you picked up a
dozen old books on calculus you'd find that it's not new and it's not
private.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
25 May 2007 02:29:38 PM |
|
|
On 24 May 2007 20:41:33 -0700, PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
Because the limits of a definite integral are numbers, and
one of those things is not a number.
Curious that your own private definition of definite integrals
requires finite numbers as limits. Is this something new with modern
math or did you just make it up?
No, it's not new, and it's not private. Why I wager if you picked up a
dozen old books on calculus you'd find that it's not new and it's not
private.
So definite integration can't be used to do physics because the limits
are not numbers? Rather strange I must say but then so too are you.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
25 May 2007 07:10:31 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 12:29 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 24 May 2007 20:41:33 -0700, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Because the limits of a definite integral are numbers, and
one of those things is not a number.
Curious that your own private definition of definite integrals
requires finite numbers as limits. Is this something new with modern
math or did you just make it up?
No, it's not new, and it's not private. Why I wager if you picked up a
dozen old books on calculus you'd find that it's not new and it's not
private.
So definite integration can't be used to do physics because the limits
are not numbers? Rather strange I must say but then so too are you.
Boy is that confused.
No, definite integration is used to do lots of physics, and the limits
ARE numbers. You are trying to introduce non-numbers into integrals,
not us.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
25 May 2007 03:55:01 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 2:29 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 24 May 2007 20:41:33 -0700, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Because the limits of a definite integral are numbers, and
one of those things is not a number.
Curious that your own private definition of definite integrals
requires finite numbers as limits. Is this something new with modern
math or did you just make it up?
No, it's not new, and it's not private. Why I wager if you picked up a
dozen old books on calculus you'd find that it's not new and it's not
private.
So definite integration can't be used to do physics because the limits
are not numbers? Rather strange I must say but then so too are you.
Of course definite integration can be used to do physics. What you
propose and mislabel as definite integration cannot, and is not,
however.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
25 May 2007 02:27:38 PM |
|
|
On 24 May 2007 20:41:33 -0700, PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
That's right. And you also can't integrate between 0 and dog,
because one of those things is not a number.
So dt is not a limit between which definite integration can be
performed? News to me not to mention the dog.
Of course it's news to you. A lot is news to the ignorant, including
the dog. Perhaps a little basic reading might cure that.
You really sure you wouldn't rather be wooing Eric instead of me,
Isis? I mean he doesn't say much that's true but then neither do you.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
25 May 2007 07:11:50 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
On May 24, 6:25 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
O[...]
Curious that your own private definition of definite integrals
requires finite numbers as limits. Is this something new with modern
math or did you just make it up?
No, it's not new, and it's not private. Why I wager if you picked up a
dozen old books on calculus you'd find that it's not new and it's not
private.
PD
Zick claims to have been trained as an engineer by the US Navy. Suppose
he's truthful about that. If so, some serious has been done to his brain
brain since he graduated. Or while he served in the Navy. Either way,
he's incapable of rational, civil discourse. I suspect he's also
incapable of learning anything from reading a textbook. I suspect that
his regular descent into foulmouthed insult is also an effect of his
brain injury.
There's no point in feeding his obsessions. Let him be.
--
Wolf
"Don't believe everything you think." (Maxine)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
25 May 2007 12:46:53 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 May 2007 08:11:50 -0400, Wolf <ElLoboViejo@ruddy.moss>
wrote:
PD wrote:
On May 24, 6:25 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
O[...]
Curious that your own private definition of definite integrals
requires finite numbers as limits. Is this something new with modern
math or did you just make it up?
No, it's not new, and it's not private. Why I wager if you picked up a
dozen old books on calculus you'd find that it's not new and it's not
private.
PD
Zick claims to have been trained as an engineer by the US Navy. Suppose
he's truthful about that. If so, some serious (thinking)
^
has been done to his brain
brain since he graduated. Or while he served in the Navy. Either way,
he's incapable of rational, civil discourse. I suspect he's also
incapable of learning anything from reading a textbook. I suspect that
his regular descent into foulmouthed insult is also an effect of his
brain injury.
There's no point in feeding his obsessions. Let him be.
If truth offend thee pluck it out?
Also sprach a retired Canadian school teacher who prefers aphorisms to
knowledge. What have Canadian school teachers ever contributed to
science besides pejorative psychological profiling of those who do it?
Poor Maxine. She was supposed to get an education but all she got was
a social promotion to the next level of incompetence.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
24 May 2007 06:45:43 PM |
|
|
On May 24, 7:25 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 24 May 2007 10:51:32 -0700, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On May 24, 1:40 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 23 May 2007 19:32:35 -0700, Math1723 <anonym1...@aol.com> wrote:
What is "dr"?
The definite infintesimal integral of finite v=dr/dt
between 0 and dt.
"dr" and "dt" are not numbers, and "dr/dt" is not the ratio of two
numbers. A stated in a previous post, "dr/dt" is simply short hand
notation for "the deravitive of r with respect to t". What you have
written makes no sense. This is probaably why you have so many self-
contradictory problems in your posts.
Obviously. What I'm still trying to figger out though is why dr isn't
the definite integral of v=dr/dt between 0 and dt?
That would be because a definite integral is between two
limits which are numbers.
This qualification "which are numbers" I don't quite understand,
Randy. There is something in your own private theory of definite
integration which specifically says this?
It's not my private theory. You might have noticed that every single
person who responded to this rhetorical question of yours made
precisely the same point: integration is between two numbers.
It follows from the definition of integration. Riemann's, not mine.
I mean is dt not a number
just because it's an infinitesimal number?
Yes. It is not a member of the set of real numbers. That makes it
not a real number.
You tell me the
concept doesn't make any sense because dr and dt are not numbers?
That's right. And you also can't integrate between 0 and dog,
because one of those things is not a number.
So dt is not a limit between which definite integration can be
performed?
No, it isn't.
News to me not to mention the dog.
Virtually all of mathematics seems to be news to you. That's why
people keep suggesting you take a course, so it will become
knowledge rather than mysterious "news" which you immediately
discount.
And
I tell you I have no idea why you think that matters.
Because the limits of a definite integral are numbers, and
one of those things is not a number.
Curious that your own private definition of definite integrals
requires finite numbers as limits. Is this something new with modern
math or did you just make it up?
Nope. It's as old as the integral. Which is why every other person
who answered you said the same thing.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
25 May 2007 02:14:52 PM |
|
|
On 24 May 2007 16:45:43 -0700, Randy Poe <poespam-trap@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I mean is dt not a number
just because it's an infinitesimal number?
Yes. It is not a member of the set of real numbers. That makes it
not a real number.
What is this set of real numbers anyway? Do you imagine it's somehow
exhaustive and exclusive just because you and others say so? Even if
dt were somehow not a number it would still represent one limit over
which definite integration of v=dr/dt could be evaluated.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
