Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
#4 TRUE CALCULUS; without the phony limit concept; Textbook for Middle-School on up (1st edition)
7 views
Skip to first unread message
Archimedes Plutonium
May 20, 2013, 4:47:30 AM5/20/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Chapter 3 Universal Cartesian Coordinate Grid and the concept of
seeing the full expanse of a function graph and zoom in on the
smallest interval
Now if I am lucky, this textbook maybe only 25 pages in all and no
need to go to 100 pages. As I said before, the shorter or smaller the
text, the better off. For 25 pages is an easy read by most everyone.
Compare 25 pages to a standard Calculus text which runs into 700
pages.
Now I want to discuss in this chapter the unique ability of New Math
to see fully a function and to zoom in on a function of its smallest
interval. In Old Math we never had such abilities, except for perhaps
real simple functions like y =3 or y =x. In Old Math we have
complicated functions and the way mathematicians work them is to plot
various 100 points and hope to begin to see a pattern for which he/she
then guesses where all the other points are in the graph. And Old Math
never had the ability to zoom in on the smallest interval for there
were no smallest intervals because there was always another infinity
of points to reckon with.
In New Math all the points follow the same sequence:
0, 1*10^-603, 2*10^-603, 3*10^-603, 4*10^-603, 5*10^-603, . .
So that in the first quadrant we have a total of 10^1206 points along
the x-axis and the same number along the y-axis and thus for the first
quadrant we have a total of
10^2412 points in all.
So that as we plot the Weierstrass function, we merely plot what every
one of the 10^1206 x values gives of 10^1206 y value. And because
there is holes or gaps of no numbers in between successive numbers, a
gap has a metric of 1*10^-603, which guarantees the Weierstrass
function is well behave and no longer a pathological function. In fact
the Weierstrass function is now continuous everywhere where we define
continuous function whose hole size width is no larger than 1*10^-603.
So as in a Weierstrass type function if 0 has a y value of 0
and the next successor number is 1*10^-603 whose y value is 10^1206
which would be the steepest angle in Calculus derivative but would be
continuous. And would be differentiable everywhere.
So here we give a new concept in mathematics of graphs of functions.
We have the entire universe of points of the Cartesian Coordinate Grid
and we have the possibility of defining every function that can exist.
It is a huge number of possibilities to be sure for example just the
first two points of 0 and 1*10^-603 has each 10^1206 possible y
values. So we have a probability permutations.
So in New Math, we have graphs of functions where all is open to view
and scrutiny. We have every point or number layed out in a huge grid
and we can zoom in on any point and its neighboring points with holes
in between points.
In Old Math, zooming in never was satisfactory because once you zoom
in, there is yet another infinity of points. And in this manner, a
false function like the Weierstrass function is borne and nurtured
even though it is a fakery.
So as we plot the Weierstrass function in New Math of its 10^-603
holes between successive points, we do not end up with a pipedream of
a function of fractal jagged mountain inclines that is alleged to be
nowhere differentiable.
In New Math, since we have all the points of the grid in front of our
eyes and can zoom in to a specific point, that we no longer need a
concept of limit. The limit concept was to sweep the small infinities
under the carpet or rug of shame. But since we have those holes, there
is no need of a limit concept since we can instantly find the y value
of a point of interest and its neighbor point to the left and right
and thus have the derivative. If we had that blizzard of smaller
infinities, we need some sort of help and that is why the limit came
about. The limit in mathematics is akin to the Aether in physics, and
then finally when it was realized that in the Maxwell Equations the
moving bar magnet in a stationary closed loop is the same as a moving
closed loop and stationary bar magnet, that the Aether was phony. It
is interesting to note that the Luminiferous Aether dates to the 19th
century and the limit concept of mathematics dates to the 19th century
with Cauchy. However, physics wised up and reasoned the Aether was
nonexistent, but the mathematicians never wisened up over the phony
limit concept. The stumbling block was the inability to reason that a
borderline must exist between finite ending and infinity starting
which is the number Floor-pi*10^603 and its inverse would be the holes
and gaps in successive numbers.
So is there a better name for this concept of being able to list all
the numbers of the Cartesian Coordinate Grid with holes of 10^-603
separating the successive numbers on the axes? Is there a name for the
concept of zooming in to the smallest interval of numbers and seeing
exactly what the function plots? In politics there is a name called
"transparent and open government". But apparently in mathematics, they
are back in the stone age or cave dwelling when it comes to Calculus
and points of a graph.
--
More than 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
newsgroups author search archive from May 2012 to May 2013. Drexel
University's Math Forum has done a far better job and many of those
missing Google posts can be seen here:
http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
seeing the full expanse of a function graph and zoom in on the
smallest interval
Now if I am lucky, this textbook maybe only 25 pages in all and no
need to go to 100 pages. As I said before, the shorter or smaller the
text, the better off. For 25 pages is an easy read by most everyone.
Compare 25 pages to a standard Calculus text which runs into 700
pages.
Now I want to discuss in this chapter the unique ability of New Math
to see fully a function and to zoom in on a function of its smallest
interval. In Old Math we never had such abilities, except for perhaps
real simple functions like y =3 or y =x. In Old Math we have
complicated functions and the way mathematicians work them is to plot
various 100 points and hope to begin to see a pattern for which he/she
then guesses where all the other points are in the graph. And Old Math
never had the ability to zoom in on the smallest interval for there
were no smallest intervals because there was always another infinity
of points to reckon with.
In New Math all the points follow the same sequence:
0, 1*10^-603, 2*10^-603, 3*10^-603, 4*10^-603, 5*10^-603, . .
So that in the first quadrant we have a total of 10^1206 points along
the x-axis and the same number along the y-axis and thus for the first
quadrant we have a total of
10^2412 points in all.
So that as we plot the Weierstrass function, we merely plot what every
one of the 10^1206 x values gives of 10^1206 y value. And because
there is holes or gaps of no numbers in between successive numbers, a
gap has a metric of 1*10^-603, which guarantees the Weierstrass
function is well behave and no longer a pathological function. In fact
the Weierstrass function is now continuous everywhere where we define
continuous function whose hole size width is no larger than 1*10^-603.
So as in a Weierstrass type function if 0 has a y value of 0
and the next successor number is 1*10^-603 whose y value is 10^1206
which would be the steepest angle in Calculus derivative but would be
continuous. And would be differentiable everywhere.
So here we give a new concept in mathematics of graphs of functions.
We have the entire universe of points of the Cartesian Coordinate Grid
and we have the possibility of defining every function that can exist.
It is a huge number of possibilities to be sure for example just the
first two points of 0 and 1*10^-603 has each 10^1206 possible y
values. So we have a probability permutations.
So in New Math, we have graphs of functions where all is open to view
and scrutiny. We have every point or number layed out in a huge grid
and we can zoom in on any point and its neighboring points with holes
in between points.
In Old Math, zooming in never was satisfactory because once you zoom
in, there is yet another infinity of points. And in this manner, a
false function like the Weierstrass function is borne and nurtured
even though it is a fakery.
So as we plot the Weierstrass function in New Math of its 10^-603
holes between successive points, we do not end up with a pipedream of
a function of fractal jagged mountain inclines that is alleged to be
nowhere differentiable.
In New Math, since we have all the points of the grid in front of our
eyes and can zoom in to a specific point, that we no longer need a
concept of limit. The limit concept was to sweep the small infinities
under the carpet or rug of shame. But since we have those holes, there
is no need of a limit concept since we can instantly find the y value
of a point of interest and its neighbor point to the left and right
and thus have the derivative. If we had that blizzard of smaller
infinities, we need some sort of help and that is why the limit came
about. The limit in mathematics is akin to the Aether in physics, and
then finally when it was realized that in the Maxwell Equations the
moving bar magnet in a stationary closed loop is the same as a moving
closed loop and stationary bar magnet, that the Aether was phony. It
is interesting to note that the Luminiferous Aether dates to the 19th
century and the limit concept of mathematics dates to the 19th century
with Cauchy. However, physics wised up and reasoned the Aether was
nonexistent, but the mathematicians never wisened up over the phony
limit concept. The stumbling block was the inability to reason that a
borderline must exist between finite ending and infinity starting
which is the number Floor-pi*10^603 and its inverse would be the holes
and gaps in successive numbers.
So is there a better name for this concept of being able to list all
the numbers of the Cartesian Coordinate Grid with holes of 10^-603
separating the successive numbers on the axes? Is there a name for the
concept of zooming in to the smallest interval of numbers and seeing
exactly what the function plots? In politics there is a name called
"transparent and open government". But apparently in mathematics, they
are back in the stone age or cave dwelling when it comes to Calculus
and points of a graph.
--
More than 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
newsgroups author search archive from May 2012 to May 2013. Drexel
University's Math Forum has done a far better job and many of those
missing Google posts can be seen here:
http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Archimedes Plutonium
May 20, 2013, 4:58:50 AM5/20/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On May 20, 3:47 am, Archimedes Plutonium
Sorry, I was typing too fast and that should read 10^603 y value and
changed on the original with a (sic) sign.
> Archimedes Plutoniumhttp://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
changed on the original with a (sic) sign.
hbe...@gmail.com
May 20, 2013, 8:32:25 AM5/20/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Monday, May 20, 2013 1:47:30 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Chapter 3 Universal Cartesian Coordinate Grid and the concept of
>
> seeing the full expanse of a function graph and zoom in on the
>
> smallest interval
How about the concept of correct basic grammar? Before (guffaw) correcting
> Chapter 3 Universal Cartesian Coordinate Grid and the concept of
>
> seeing the full expanse of a function graph and zoom in on the
>
> smallest interval
the whole of physics, why don't you learn about verb agreement?
>
>
>
> Now if I am lucky, this textbook maybe only 25 pages in all
And if _I_ am lucky, you will stop dropping your mental diarrhea here.
>
>
> Now if I am lucky, this textbook maybe only 25 pages in all
and no
>
> need to go to 100 pages. As I said before, the shorter or smaller the
>
> text, the better off. For 25 pages is an easy read by most everyone.
from you, I don't see why anyone suddenly will want to buy one now.
>
> Compare 25 pages to a standard Calculus text which runs into 700
>
> pages.
>
>
>
> Now I want to discuss in this chapter the unique ability of New Math
>
> to see fully a function and to zoom in on a function of its smallest
>
> interval. In Old Math we never had such abilities, except for perhaps
>
> real simple functions like y =3 or y =x. In Old Math
People knew what they were talking about and did not use undefined/undefinable terms. People solved problems and obtained useful results. Then you, and your stupid, unchecked, unverified ideas led to the stupidest ,self-contradictory garbage. And yet you still remain in your bubble of self-delusion. But no one buys your books ( unless they're 2-ply) , since you fool no one but yourself.
>
>
> Now I want to discuss in this chapter the unique ability of New Math
>
> to see fully a function and to zoom in on a function of its smallest
>
> interval. In Old Math we never had such abilities, except for perhaps
>
> real simple functions like y =3 or y =x. In Old Math
I frankly don't give a damn neither about you, nor whether you fool yourself--just go &*^ do it somewhere else.
we have
>
> complicated functions
Anything is complicated for you. Have you managed to drink a glass of water
on your own yet?
and the way mathematicians work them is to plot
>
> various 100 points and hope to begin to see a pattern for which he/she
>
> then guesses where all the other points are in the graph.
don't you think it is obvious that you _repeatedly_ make up claims like this
one? Please prove me wrong; prove that you have a basis in fact for saying this.
And Old Math
>
> never had the ability to zoom in on the smallest interval for there
>
> were no smallest intervals because there was always another infinity
>
> of points to reckon with.
> So is there a better name for this concept of being able to list all
>
> the numbers of the Cartesian Coordinate Grid with holes of 10^-603
>
> separating the successive numbers on the axes?
Yes: useless and stupidity are names that fit. How about naming it in your
>
> the numbers of the Cartesian Coordinate Grid with holes of 10^-603
>
> separating the successive numbers on the axes?
honor: "senile ignorant baboon concept"
Is there a name for the
>
> concept of zooming in to the smallest interval of numbers and seeing
>
> exactly what the function plots? In politics there is a name called
>
> "transparent and open government". But apparently in mathematics, they
>
> are back in the stone age or cave dwelling when it comes to Calculus
>
> and points of a graph.
talking about who, like you, are the ones that talk the most and listen the
least.
>
>
>
> -->
>
>
> More than 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
>
> newsgroups author search archive from May 2012 to May 2013.
I guess Google does quality control, but they missed 10% of the pure
>
>
> -->
>
>
> More than 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
>
> newsgroups author search archive from May 2012 to May 2013.
garbage you put out. It'll go away as soon as Google flushes.
hbe...@gmail.com
May 20, 2013, 8:32:59 AM5/20/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
hbe...@gmail.com
May 20, 2013, 8:33:17 AM5/20/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Monday, May 20, 2013 5:32:25 AM UTC-7, hbe...@gmail.com wrote:
hbe...@gmail.com
May 20, 2013, 8:33:27 AM5/20/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Monday, May 20, 2013 5:32:25 AM UTC-7, hbe...@gmail.com wrote:
hbe...@gmail.com
May 20, 2013, 8:33:35 AM5/20/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Monday, May 20, 2013 5:32:25 AM UTC-7, hbe...@gmail.com wrote:
hbe...@gmail.com
May 20, 2013, 8:33:42 AM5/20/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Monday, May 20, 2013 5:32:25 AM UTC-7, hbe...@gmail.com wrote:
hbe...@gmail.com
May 20, 2013, 8:33:50 AM5/20/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Monday, May 20, 2013 5:32:25 AM UTC-7, hbe...@gmail.com wrote:
hbe...@gmail.com
May 20, 2013, 8:33:57 AM5/20/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Monday, May 20, 2013 5:32:25 AM UTC-7, hbe...@gmail.com wrote:
0 new messages