You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

**21122012****Member**- Registered: 2012-11-16
- Posts: 278

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. For example:

The formula

For a justification of that the not proof the formula which contradicts established rule was entered, because .

To show that antiderivative isn't the one of family of antiderivatives , because equal full and partial derivatives isn't the basis for complete identification of two different orocess of their receiving, I will give argument and proof.

Argument:

1. . For integration of a partal derivative it is nessesary to use indefenite integral .

2.

. For integration of a full derivative it is necessary to use integral with indefinite borders of integration .3.

- incorrectly, - true.Proof: WE INVESTIGATE FUNCTION, WITH THE CONSTANT OF INTEGRATION EQUAL TO ZERO, FOR THIS PURPOSE, TO PROVE ITS SEPARATE CASE OF ANTIDERIVATIVE NOT ENTERING INTO FAMILY WITH NONZERO CONTANTS OF INTEGRATION !

Integral application

for a case of (1)leads to its such look: . (2); - contradicts (2)

ATTENTION !

according a statement of the problem!P.S. It is translated by means of the robot

*Last edited by 21122012 (2012-11-18 11:14:13)*

**"The conditions imposed on functions, become a source of difficulties which will manage to be avoided only by means of new researches about the principles of integral calculus"**

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

**21122012****Member**- Registered: 2012-11-16
- Posts: 278

But

**"The conditions imposed on functions, become a source of difficulties which will manage to be avoided only by means of new researches about the principles of integral calculus"**

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

**21122012****Member**- Registered: 2012-11-16
- Posts: 278

"a" in relation to the variable "x" - is a constant, but in relation to the "D" - is a variable !

For example:

. "t" - in relation to the "x" - is a constant, but "t" - in relation to the "D" - is a variable !*Last edited by 21122012 (2012-11-18 11:19:58)*

**"The conditions imposed on functions, become a source of difficulties which will manage to be avoided only by means of new researches about the principles of integral calculus"**

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,400

If D is a function of a constant than it is a constant.

What do you think- if a is a constant with respect to x then is a^2/2 a constant with respect to x? I certainly think so...

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**21122012****Member**- Registered: 2012-11-16
- Posts: 278

You don't understand that such a constant. This concept not absolute, but relative. Look in this drawing

and - in one case of a constant, as values of the variable , in other case - variable arguments of their sum.//vladimir938.eto-ya.com/files/2012/11/screenshot-19.11.jpg

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,400

What matters in integration is that the constant C is independent of the variable of integration.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**21122012****Member**- Registered: 2012-11-16
- Posts: 278

I don't understand what you want. In the starting message it is shown that is used antiderivative with a constant equal to zero. C=0, D=0, E=0...Z=0, A=0, B=0. You understand?!

*Last edited by 21122012 (2012-11-18 16:34:12)*

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,400

Yes, but, for what reason is C=0?

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**21122012****Member**- Registered: 2012-11-16
- Posts: 278

anonimnystefy wrote:

Yes, but, for what reason is C=0?

Read start-post.

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

**21122012****Member**- Registered: 2012-11-16
- Posts: 278

To BOB BUNDBY: You don't understand that about what I want to tell

Look:

This formula is true for antiderivatives for example:

agrees CALCULUS.

I argue that from these all formulas one which doesn't approach under the general rule is allocated:

You understand?

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

**21122012****Member**- Registered: 2012-11-16
- Posts: 278

Because:

But:

*Last edited by 21122012 (2012-11-19 06:56:29)*

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

**21122012****Member**- Registered: 2012-11-16
- Posts: 278

In the last line of the proof I show that for equality preservation in an integration formula in parts, function with an integration constant can be antiderivative only. Antiderivative without an integration constant (i.e. with a constant equal to zero), breaks equality of the right and left part of a formula. ANTIDERIVATIVE WITHOUT the CONSTANT of INTEGRATION

ANTIDERIVATIVES DOES NOT BELONG to FAMILY. WHICH PRIVATE DERIVATIVE is EQUAL STOUT DERIVATIVE ANTIDERIVATIVE WITHOUT the INTEGRATION CONSTANT!

It is the main thought! ONE, though the "uncertain" integral can't be used for receivingantiderivative from private and from a full derivative. TWO integrals are necessary. All of you time want to enter an integration constant. CORRECTLY! It confirms that function with a constant of integration equal to zero isn't the solution of uncertain integral!

*Last edited by 21122012 (2012-11-19 07:48:01)*

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,400

21122012 wrote:

Because:

But:

Using the partial derivative operator is used for derivatives of functions of arity 2 and more. I do not see 2 let alone more than 2 parameters in those functions...

*Last edited by anonimnystefy (2012-11-20 10:01:07)*

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**21122012****Member**- Registered: 2012-11-16
- Posts: 278

Study a partial derivative.

*Last edited by 21122012 (2012-11-19 13:34:48)*

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,657

Hi;

Study a partial derivative.

That is not quite enough.

Rene Thom wrote:

In a sense a proof is bringing yourself down to the level of the other people. You must convince your colleagues that you are right.

Since you are disagreeing with the entire mathematical community both present and past, the onus is on you to provide solid evidence to convince everyone else. You will have to point out where anonimnystefy is going wrong.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**21122012****Member**- Registered: 2012-11-16
- Posts: 278

Hi. I do not understand sense which translates me the robot:

"sing the partial derivative operator is used for derivatives of functions of arity 2 and more. I do not see 2 let alone more than 2 paraneters in those functions...". What is it: "... arity 2 and more...2 let alone more than 2 paraneters in those functions"?

*Last edited by 21122012 (2012-11-19 17:41:50)*

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

**21122012****Member**- Registered: 2012-11-16
- Posts: 278

bobbym wrote:

Hi;

Study a partial derivative.

That is not quite enough.

Rene Thom wrote:In a sense a proof is bringing yourself down to the level of the other people. You must convince your colleagues that you are right.

Since you are disagreeing with the entire mathematical community both present and past, the onus is on you to provide solid evidence to convince everyone else. You will have to point out where anonimnystefy is going wrong.

Here

(...://www.nkj.ru/forum/forum25/topic17952/messages/)

discussion of this subject at Russian forum of the scientific host of the magazine.

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,657

Hey that is a forum I did not know about. That is still not authoritative proof. Unfortunately you have to submit your ideas to a recognized journal for peer review for the mathematical community to listen.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**21122012****Member**- Registered: 2012-11-16
- Posts: 278

anonimnystefy wrote:

Using the partial derivative operator is used for derivatives of functions of arity 2 and more. I do not see 2 let alone more than 2 parameters in those functions...

Now, after correction, the robot translated correctly!

The matter is that when you received a private derivative, any more don't know parameters were or function of two and more arguments. It isn't known and is designated by a letter "C". It after all unique formula of a general view!

I can write so:

"C" - it is the general image of all expressions which are not depending from "x", including parameters. Therefore I also suggest to enter two formulas of integrals.

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

**21122012****Member**- Registered: 2012-11-16
- Posts: 278

bobbym wrote:

Hey that is a forum I did not know about. That is still not authoritative proof. Unfortunately you have to submit your ideas to a recognized journal for peer review for the mathematical community to listen.

I don't know as it to make. If you prompt, I will be grateful to you. But I have no sponsors.

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,657

Hi;

That I can not do. I have no authority there. You can publish on the net in the free archives.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**21122012****Member**- Registered: 2012-11-16
- Posts: 278

bobbym wrote:

Hi;

That I can not do. I have no authority there. You can publish on the net in the free archives.

Clearly. I do that while is available to me. Your site is in Great Britain. In London there lives the Russian mathematician and the businessman [removed by administrator]. You don't know as I can begin with it correspondence?

Here in Russia nobody wants to work for us. All only steal and launder money. In a science all take bribes there a little that who really is interested in a science. They only help to receive scientific ranks for money. I have here a terrible country.

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,657

Hi;

This is not my site and I reside in the US. The name you mentioned is a powerful man and I can not and will not speak of him further.

I am saddened that the viewpoint shown in the west of your country is so accurate. Although separated by thousands of miles we live in the same world.

Let us speak of more pleasant things. For one thing I do not agree with your mathematics, but for a different reason than anyone else.

I am a formalist, I consider mathematics a game. A game invented by humans. It never has nor ever will have any basis in reality other than physicist's imaginations. Because I love mathematics I moved to the only city in the world totally constructed from it. Here mathematics is real, but it is only true here.

A game has rules. In chess we do not argue with the rules. The bishop moves diagonally and the king moves 1 square at a time. We do not ask why. To play the game we follow the rules or play some other game.

That is a rule, they call them definitions. I do not debate about definitions any more than I question why the knight moves as it does.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**21122012****Member**- Registered: 2012-11-16
- Posts: 278

Well, close this subject. I should open new and to give in it a material which I for the present didn't want to give. But it is necessary. Probably you will prompt me one more of sites in U.S.A. in where I too can place the new message.

*Last edited by 21122012 (2012-11-21 06:32:04)*

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,657

Hi 21122012;

There is no reason that I can see to close the topic. You can continue to post right here.

Just because I do not happen to agree with something does not mean it should be censored. I was just posting an opinion.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline