You are not logged in.
It is a formula of a general view. You бирайте any function also substitute. For example:
If i can choose f then OK
Why?
I showed formulas in a general view
In a concrete case:
I correctly understood you?
It is a typographical error. I corrected.
Look post #181:
;At you:
This same at .I to you will give such analogy. The entry condition is given: ABC triangle. Then you begin some manipulations and you speak: Let A, B, C lie on one line. But you can't lay down such condition because it contradicts a statement of the problem: ABC - a triangle and A,B,C - CAN not LIE ON ONE LINE! ! !
We consider integral calculus. Your formula:
is given in an algebraic look.
Don't confuse one to another. I showed (#174) formulas:
- (1); - (2); - (3);In WIKIPEDIA
case is considered.
If the entry condition:
and a final formula:
that it means (2) case.
Introduction during calculation of a condition:
contradicts an entry condition:
Under an entry condition:
this expression:
doesn't make sense as contradicts a statement of the problem:
The formula:
is:
- (3);If Calculus used any rules and a formula:
considers as a formula of volume of a cone, means in these rules there is a mistake. It is necessary to find it and to eliminate.
What in my reasonings it is incorrect?
Finally to be convinced that in your understanding the cone differs from the cylinder, give me please a similar formula for the cylinder volume that I saw a difference:
Hi 21122012
We have already shown you your mistakes, but you do not listen. Why should we continie talking to you about this?
Probably, I very inattentive also didn't notice mistakes which you showed me. I specially began a new subject that bob bundby showed me my mistake and I saw it. But a subject for some reason removed. I didn't understand where I was mistaken when claimed that it is cylinder instead of cone volume:
I don't see in it a mistake. Show you to me it, please.
Hi bobbym!
Show me please at least one mistake in my reasonings!
Strange nobody disproved any my argument but nobody said yes I agrees with it, with it I don't know agrees or not because I don't understand. It is strange why there is no identity everyone looks that will tell another.
What Structural Analysis what can't Calculus? SA can describe formulas geometrical constructions and figures.
Calculus of it can't do because uses an incorrect formula:
It doesn't give the chance to describe geometrical objects. In SA instead of it two formulas are applied:
which allow to make it.
Your mistake and error of Calculus here:
Look animation #140
On the left and in center: r,h - independent; On the right: r, h - dependent.
Than I still can help you that you understood in what difference of dependent variables from independent variables?!
I offer you here that. Why to us cone? Give more simply. Let's consider the rectangle area, as function of two independent variables:
Look D.1 D.2 in post #81.
and look this:
h ttp://vladimir938.eto-ya.com/files/2012/12/yx.jpg
In WIKI it is claimed that:
If
Do you agree?
All is still worse than I thought...
1.
2.
Look post #181:
- true;At you:
- true, This same at .but this function:
3.
If you made two variables dependent that their values won't be able to be independent any more
bob bundy, It everything that to you is unclear? The rest is clear? !
You are right for your understanding. I nervous from your questions. Though it can be formal any letter which designates volume. May be G, M...
But I better now will correct and that I already am afraid of excess questions.
It everything that to you is unclear? The rest is clear? !
Now to a question: what Structural Analysis what can't Calculus? SA can describe formulas geometrical constructions and figures. For example:
h ttp://vladimir938.eto-ya.com/files/2012/12/geometry.jpg
h ttp://vladimir938.eto-ya.com/files/2012/12/g.jpg
(bobbym insert please)
Hi, bobbym!
Insert link:
h ttp://vladimir938.eto-ya.com/files/2012/12/cylinder.jpg
See post #174
What from this it isn't clear to you? !
Here it is written in mathematical language by formulas.
Make endurance: what exactly from this isn't clear to you!
I don't understand: I at a forum where mathematics or who communicates?
Well I will write once again see post #174
I have no right at this forum to publish links.
"h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_derivative"
The machine blocks as spam. I will show the first and last formulas:
...
I will try to explain once again to you in what an error of the theory of Calculus which leads to a mistake in practice in language of mathematicians understanding integral and differential calculus. If you and now don't understand, excuse but I should draw pictures and to explain as school students who only start studying of these sections of mathematics.
Here endurance from my first post:
ONE OF MANY ERRORS IN CALCULUS.
In the calculus there are mistakes in establishment of rules and general view's formulas because some special cases were given sense of the general view.
The initial formula is given in Wiki in the form of function from two independent variables. On a decision course this formula replaced with a formula in the form of function from one variable. The answer wrote down again in the form of function of two variables. This forgery is caused by imperfection of Calculus! I gave Structural Analysis's rules which eliminate this practical's error in Calculus theory!
#154
If
that
! or !But if
that
!If
and - independent variables:But if
P.S.
It isn't necessary to confuse concept height as distance from the cone basis to its top
and concept an independent variable because this value of :Hi, bob bundy!
I respect your desire to think and ability to achieve that that you want. I the such. But you excuse you don't understand that me the cone doesn't interest. Me Calculus interests. I gave an example from Wikipedia where by means of Calculus the mistake in real calculations was made. There the result was received.
I approve that this result - a mistake. For what you write me that that me doesn't interest? If you want to prove that it so:
- is a formula of a full derivative of volume of a cone on height.- prove!