Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ ¹ ² ³ °
 

You are not logged in. #1 20051107 23:15:59
Integral relationshipRelationship between the integral of the function and #2 20051108 07:23:47
Re: Integral relationshipBTW, you can use the "∫" symbol (I have those symbols just under the forum title  just drag you mouse across one, copy then paste, and you can get: ∫y dx + ∫x dy) "The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..."  Leon M. Lederman #3 20051108 07:57:58
Re: Integral relationshipI tried to look at szk_kei's proof, but when I went to his site and clicked the link to it I just got an acrobat reader thing with 4 blank pages. Probably my computer doesn't support something that it needs to. I tried it out though, and it seems to work. Last edited by mathsyperson (20051108 07:58:09) Why did the vector cross the road? It wanted to be normal. #4 20051108 17:24:23
Re: Integral relationshipGraphically ∫ydx is the area "below" the curve to the x axis, while ∫xdy is the area to the "left" of the curve to the yaxis, so together they form a square (well they do if the limits are 0 to some value). "The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..."  Leon M. Lederman #5 20051108 21:33:14
Re: Integral relationshipy=f(x):differentiable #6 20051109 05:22:48
Re: Integral relationshipYou can find those relations in all calculus books. #7 20051109 23:57:06
Re: Integral relationshipWhen I show an expression without proof, they say always "It can never hold". #8 20051110 05:07:18
Re: Integral relationship
That's a very nice way of putting it without getting involved in lots of heavy maths. It actually forms a rectangle though. Last edited by mathsyperson (20051110 05:07:26) Why did the vector cross the road? It wanted to be normal. #9 20051110 23:24:01
Re: Integral relationshipYour definition is monotone increasing function passing through the origin and differentiable. #10 20051111 07:22:11
Re: Integral relationshipThe y=x function was only an example, I think "The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..."  Leon M. Lederman #11 20051111 08:16:13
Re: Integral relationshipYes, it was. I'll do the y = x², because it gives me a chance to practice the new code things. Last edited by mathsyperson (20051203 03:49:16) Why did the vector cross the road? It wanted to be normal. #12 20051114 22:42:26
Re: Integral relationshipMy name is Keiichi Suzuki. #13 20051114 23:06:35
Re: Integral relationshipHi Mr.Keiichi Suzuki, Character is who you are when no one is looking. #14 20051115 00:25:54
Re: Integral relationshipI'm not mathematician. #15 20051115 17:20:48
Re: Integral relationshipI'm not a mathematician either. Character is who you are when no one is looking. #16 20051115 19:07:54
Re: Integral relationshipLOL! Thank goodness you guys live in different countries!! "The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..."  Leon M. Lederman #17 20051116 04:07:17
Re: Integral relationshipfortunately for me, I'm still a student. : ) #18 20051118 01:46:11
Re: Integral relationshipThere are some topics in my site. #19 20051202 11:54:03
Re: Integral relationshipCan you see the full explanation of integral relation and property of laurent expansion with an acrobat reader. #20 20051228 11:50:25
Re: Integral relationshipCan you see the full explanation of integral relation and property of laurent expansion with an acrobat reader. #21 20051228 17:11:07
Re: Integral relationshipLooks good, szk_kei, though I haven't checked if it is right or not. "The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..."  Leon M. Lederman #22 20051229 02:16:27
Re: Integral relationshipVery good site, Keiichi. IPBLE: Increasing Performance By Lowering Expectations. #23 20051229 02:21:47
Re: Integral relationshipAnd we can form something like that for definite integrals: Last edited by krassi_holmz (20051229 02:25:27) IPBLE: Increasing Performance By Lowering Expectations. #24 20051229 02:36:18
Re: Integral relationshipGeometric proof IPBLE: Increasing Performance By Lowering Expectations. #25 20051229 19:46:35
Re: Integral relationship>Looks good, szk_kei, though I haven't checked if it is right or not. 