https://groups.google.com/d/forum/sci.mathsci.mathMathematical discussions and pursuits.Google Groupsburs...@gmail.com2018-06-24T23:01:29Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/2Gb_DDfvb6URe: In the Binary Tree there ...Dont forget Santa Clause. Am Montag, 25. Juni 2018 00:30:52 UTC+2 schrieb Ross A. Finlayson: > On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 3:14:51 PM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > > On Monday, 25 June 2018 00:12:41 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 3:02:41 PM UTC-7, Julio DiArchimedes Plutonium2018-06-24T22:36:36Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/YzIo2AF0Njgreason i can teach Calculus to 15 year olds// yet no-one before me, couldSo you are born in the 1900’s and your aim is to write a textbook on calculus. You see physics all around you being Quantum Mechanics— being discrete— coming in packets not continuum. Physics driving around in the new automobile, while math still clinging on to continuum as they saddle up theirRoss A. Finlayson2018-06-24T22:30:52Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/2Gb_DDfvb6URe: In the Binary Tree there ...what it is. > > > > > > (And not just you, that bullshit is quite mainstream.) > > > > When it comes to studying physics, > > I mostly study physicists. > > That must be it... > > *Plonk* > > Julio Reading physicists' books like Davies, Penrose, Lederman, Bergmann, Hawking, Feynman,Julio Di Egidio2018-06-24T22:14:51Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/2Gb_DDfvb6URe: In the Binary Tree there ...what it is. > > > > (And not just you, that bullshit is quite mainstream.) > > When it comes to studying physics, > I mostly study physicists. That must be it... *Plonk* JulioArchimedes Plutonium2018-06-24T22:13:18Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/YzIo2AF0Njgreason i can teach Calculus to 15 year olds// yet no-one before me, couldThe reason i can do it, is because True Calculus is based on a trapezoid geometry and we teach the trapezoid to 15 year olds. Impossible to teach calculus in Old Math to 15 year olds because their’s is based on a liaring-con-artist concept of Limit. The limit in math is a con artist magicRoss A. Finlayson2018-06-24T22:12:41Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/2Gb_DDfvb6URe: In the Binary Tree there ...it is. > > (And not just you, that bullshit is quite mainstream.) > > *Plonk* > > Julio When it comes to studying physics, I mostly study physicists.Julio Di Egidio2018-06-24T22:02:41Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/2Gb_DDfvb6URe: In the Binary Tree there ...On Sunday, 24 June 2018 23:58:59 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > The theoretical physics is a mathematical physics. That's just more crap: do study some physics first, you do not know what it is. (And not just you, that bullshit is quite mainstream.) *Plonk* JulioRoss A. Finlayson2018-06-24T21:58:59Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/2Gb_DDfvb6URe: In the Binary Tree there ...understand > > > you meant regular as per the Collins, my mistake... > > > > The point is the space of both - > > a reflection or introspection on theory, > > where the opposite's the same and also both. > > Your point is absolutely wrong! A theory per se is a delimitation of knowledge. >Archimedes Plutonium2018-06-24T21:44:52Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Uyuyhbk_KWwStrang flunked Calculus and should rescind his textbook as pollution in mathStrang, CALCULUS, 1991, starting page 220, Numerical Integration discusses the trapezoidal rule on page 222. --- quoting Strang --- We move to integration formulas that are exact when y = x. They have second-order accuracy. The delta x error term disappears. The formulas give the correct areaJulio Di Egidio2018-06-24T21:34:12Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/2Gb_DDfvb6URe: In the Binary Tree there ...understand > > you meant regular as per the Collins, my mistake... > > The point is the space of both - > a reflection or introspection on theory, > where the opposite's the same and also both. Your point is absolutely wrong! A theory per se is a delimitation of knowledge. There is NO SUCHRoss A. Finlayson2018-06-24T21:13:54Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/2Gb_DDfvb6URe: In the Binary Tree there ...understand > you meant regular as per the Collins, my mistake... > > *Plonk* > > Julio The point is the space of both - a reflection or introspection on theory, where the opposite's the same and also both. About again the tree, consider the tree as a notion of a space of samples ofArchimedes Plutonium2018-06-24T21:03:51Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/l4L75hWoj9YEllis & Gulick flunked Calculus and should rescind their textbook as pollution in mathAlright, moving along here. Ellis & Gulick, CALCULUS 3rd ed., 1986, pages 407 thru 413, The Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson's Rule Sad that the very very best of Integration calculus becomes tagged and painted as some sort of outside periphery calculus, when if you look deep with LOGICAL MIND,Archimedes Plutonium2018-06-24T20:21:49Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/BzI3c4pS3eMRe: 2boatloads of forgery at Math Stack Exchange-- I recommend MSE torn downburs...@gmail.com writes: 12:03 PM (3 hours ago) >But can you tell us what is wrong with the proof that the ellipse is a conic section? > Jan wrote: > 12:54 AM (22 minutes ago) > > >Because he is correct and your post have been, and remain, 100% unmitigated > nonsense.Julio Di Egidio2018-06-24T20:11:09Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/2Gb_DDfvb6URe: In the Binary Tree there ...On Sunday, 24 June 2018 21:58:53 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > Those ordinals look like they (plural) contain > themself (singular). I agree that they do, then > also that the "regular" of the well-founded, is > indeed an opposite of the "regular" of the well- > distributed. You saidJulio Di Egidio2018-06-24T20:09:24Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/2Gb_DDfvb6URe: In the Binary Tree there ...On Sunday, 24 June 2018 21:58:53 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > The goal is indeed "a purely logical theory and > also mathematics and for science". And I have just explained how nonsensical that is (Platonism). But even just reading that with a bit of sense, a *purely logical* universe