So a simple question which will check the theory in practice:

On the OX axis we postpone the square party:

, on the OY axis the square area

. What geometrical figure (what function from

) will be represented in the form of the line of the schedule of function?

I to you now will say one secret. When you postpone argument

on the OX axes and for example function

on the OY axis and you build the function schedule, you receive function

. In Solid geometry you would receive a cube

. But you build on the Planimetrics therefore you receive a rectangle

. And schedule points - tops of this rectangle with a variable area and variables respectively the parties and the areas of sides. Here almost SA beginning.

Each element of the area (Planimetrics) has analog in volume (Solid geometry)
For example:
abscissa axis

- the cube party

;
ordinate axis

- the area of a side of a cube

;
the area

- pyramid volume

;
and etc.

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.

  - is a formula of a full derivative of volume of a cone on height.

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!

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 don't understand: I at a forum where mathematics or who communicates?

Well I will write once again see post #174

Hi, bobbym!

Insert link:

h ttp://vladimir938.eto-ya.com/files/2012/12/cylinder.jpg

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)

Last edited by 21122012 (2012-12-11 09:28:58)

All is still worse than I  thought...



1.

, For example: 5 or 763,139 or 76,(6)...

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

Last edited by 21122012 (2012-12-11 16:44:50)

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?!

Last edited by 21122012 (2012-12-11 13:00:24)

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.

Last edited by 21122012 (2012-12-12 11:59:02)

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.

Hi 21122012

We have already shown you your mistakes, but you do not listen. Why should we continie talking to you about this?

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:

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! ! !