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

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,354

21122012 wrote:

Hi bobbym!

Insert please this link:h ttp://vladimir938.eto-ya.com/files/2012/12/key-n5.jpg

anonimnystefy wrote:Hi 21122012

Before you post anything else, could you explai, in simple words, what the main difference is between Calculus and Structural Analysis?

Yes!

function graphics, for example, the line is the function

Structural Analysis, for example, analyzes all area of the Cartesian system of coordinates, and Calculus only part of this system - the line. And that it is wrong. Because on

It is not true that calculus analyses only the line!

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

At me impression that you at all don't see that I give you.

**"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

anonimnystefy wrote:

21122012 wrote:Hi bobbym!

Insert please this link:h ttp://vladimir938.eto-ya.com/files/2012/12/key-n5.jpg

anonimnystefy wrote:Hi 21122012

Before you post anything else, could you explai, in simple words, what the main difference is between Calculus and Structural Analysis?

Yes!

function graphics, for example, the line is the function

Structural Analysis, for example, analyzes all area of the Cartesian system of coordinates, and Calculus only part of this system - the line. And that it is wrong. Because onIt is not true that calculus analyses only the line!

I showed you a formula of the function represented in the form of the line on graphics of

. It is the function. I claim that using CALCULUS, you won't be able to show a formula of the function represented in the form of the line on graphics of the function. But using Syructural Analysis I will be able to show this formula!I approve it, because calculus - the theory not a general view, but special cases which are given mistakenly out for a general view. But Structural Analysis - the theory of a general view.

You won't be able to answer such simple question using calculus!

**"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

bobbym wrote:

A better question is why? I have heard of people wanting to dump set theory, I have heard of people who dislike topology. Even heard of people who hate infinity and hate continuous math in favor of transfinite numbers and discrete mathematics but I have never heard of anyone who has had a problem with calculus.

In order to even think about changing it you would have to find an occasion where it did not work. For me, that means you have to find an example where calculus gets the wrong answer. I mean a real live example!

Now you will answer the your question!

On D.1 and D.2 two

**"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: 15,354

I'm not sure what you mean by that...

Can you post an example in which Structural Analysis does something Calculus can't?

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

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,472

Hi 21122012;

Why is it so odd that two functions can have the same derivative?

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.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:

I'm not sure what you mean by that...

Can you post an example in which Structural Analysis does something Calculus can't?

I claim that using CALCULUS, you won't be able to show a formula of the function represented in the form of the line on graphics of the function

. But using Syructural Analysis I will be able to show this formula!** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

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

bobbym wrote:

Hi 21122012;

Why is it so odd that two functions can have the same derivative?

Answer, please, with two formulas. I will show you as CALCULUS is mistaken! You asked to show. I will show!

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,472

Hi;

Two functions can have the same derivative and not be the same function.

You will not be able to prove for a real example that calculus is wrong.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.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;

Let's make so. I already spoke it. Let Structural Analysis will be addition to Calculus. I already understood that the concept Calculus - error it would close all doors before what Structural Analysis useful wasn't. NEVER mathematicians will allow anybody to doubt own correctness. Do you agree?

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

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

Well.

I will show one real mistake. But usually after such my subjects in Russia deleted at once. I will try here. We look the link:

h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_derivative

We see a formula of a full derivative of volume of a cone on height:

We integrate this derivative and we receive... cylinder volume:

Here to you one real mistake!

P.S.

h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_derivative

*Last edited by 21122012 (2012-12-05 16:06:13)*

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,472

Hi;

Didn't you leave out a division by three?

I am not seeing the error.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.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

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,354

Umm... they are.

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

bobbym wrote:

Hi;

Didn't you leave out a division by three?

I am not seeing the error.

What for nonsense? Where here three?

I and knew that in reply there will be falsifications. Answer me with two formulas my question of D.1 and D.2. I will show you a mistake. Why you are afraid to answer?

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

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

Yes! "...So the differentiation is incorrect."

Calculus - the wrong theory!

With its application the wrong answers turn out!

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

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

Both in a cone, and in a cilinder the radius and height independent variables. Error of Calculus in application of partial differentiation. That is also expressed in a formula

. It is the wrong formula. There have to be two:If

1.

- integral with uncertain borders of integration.2.

- uncertain integral.the beater and mistake will disappear!

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

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

Why you wrote very much? You don't hear me. I showed you the link:

h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_derivative

on which the full derivative of volume of a cone on height

according to the Calculus version is specified.

I integrated this derivative on height and received cylinder volume:

It is wrong.

- by cylinder, because: - by cone, becouse:, because .*Last edited by 21122012 (2012-12-06 12:29:43)*

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,354

You got it wrong.

The partial derivative is r*pi^2/3 and the total derivative is r*pi^2., so integrating w.r.t h will not give you what you started with. No errors or mistakes!

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

Offline

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

anonimnystefy wrote:

You got it wrong.

The partial derivative is r*pi^2/3 and the total derivative is r*pi^2., so integrating w.r.t h will not give you what you started with. No errors or mistakes!

That you wrote? I don't understand it!

- what is it?!*Last edited by 21122012 (2012-12-06 11:36:12)*

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,354

I'm sorry. Let me try again:

The partial derivative of the expression for volume of a cone is

and when you integrate it you get what you should-the volume of a cone.What you saw in that article is the total derivative of the volume of a cone. That is a different thing and its integral isn't the volume of a cone, and it shouldn't be, because you aren't differentiating the volume only with respect to h in the first place.

*Last edited by anonimnystefy (2012-12-06 11:39:38)*

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

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,472

Hi 21122012;

That is why I said aren't you leaving out a ( 1 / 3 ) earlier.

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

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,354

Hi bobbym

I think the problem is that he saw that the total derivative of the cone volume with resct to h is what he needed to integrate to get the volume back.

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

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,472

Going into functions with two variables so that partials are needed is overkill. If calculus is wrong then he should look for a single variable mistake.

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:

I'm sorry. Let me try again:

The partial derivative of the expression for volume of a cone is

and when you integrate it you get what you should-the volume of a cone.What you saw in that article is the total derivative of the volume of a cone. That is a different thing and its integral isn't the volume of a cone, and it shouldn't be, because you aren't differentiating the volume only with respect to h in the first place.

Let's make simpler. Write everything that you want to tell for my drawing D2.

.Write down formulas by total and partial derivatives!

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

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

bobbym wrote:

Going into functions with two variables so that partials are needed is overkill. If calculus is wrong then he should look for a single variable mistake.

Not important AS passed calculation, it is important that result wrong. And here in what a mistake we will consider below.

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline