How is that supposed to clear up anything when that was obviously written by you? Quoting yourself does not clear things up.

I can understand the yellow part.

What is the blue?

Bob

Sense of the Graf of function as lines in the Cartesian system of coordinates only one:

division of one of these three squares:

at two parts, are other two areas.

Point of graf of function divides the line which is derivative (xy)' quare S=xy at vertical: x'y and horizontal: y'x pieces.

bob bundy wrote:

OK.  This makes sense now.

This is all understood.

so

So where is the error please?

Bob

Perfectly! The first sensible that I at you saw this!

Green line:

http://vladimir938.eto-ya.com/files/201 … 8.12-2.jpg

is

Do you agree?

Last edited by 21122012 (2012-12-28 10:27:33)

bob bundy wrote:

And why should F' be the addition of these two lines anyway?

Bob

because

Bob!

Descartes decided to present a cube in the form of a rectangle:

Understand?

Look #152 drawing at the left.

So are under construction

on the plane and in space.

These are two interpretations of the same process:

Last edited by 21122012 (2012-12-28 11:16:06)

bob bundy wrote:

What do you think this green line is?
Bob

It is the key moment for Structural Analysis. As soon as you will understand this moment then you will understand all the rest.
This main thing to what we went all this time.

We use a substitution method: http://vladimir938.eto-ya.com/files/201 … -10.12.jpg

      SOLID GEOMETRY: 

                   PLANIMETRICS:

It is necessary to stop. Everything is clear?

You are in vain so aggressive. To show that such the green line on graphics I have to show you its analog in geometry. I want to make it but gradually that we understood each other. If you refuse to watch my reasonings I won't be able to answer your question.

bob bundy wrote:

But I don't understand your reasoning.  That is why I ask questions.

Bob

What in post 236 you don't understand?

bob bundy wrote:

"F' is the semi perimeter because ........."

F' is not the semi perimeter, because

points of which the top horizontal piece consists aren't equal to points of which the bottom horizontal piece though pieces have identical length consists. But they have various value. I want to explain you it but you refuse to watch my conclusions.

Now I will show one of keys which underlie Structural Analysis creation. The detailed description isn't present, but animation is quite obvious.

Let's choose dependence from each other two variables, convenient as a bright example. Functionally this dependence is expressed by a formula:

Let's show the image of this dependence in a geometrical and graphic look.

In a geometrical look this dependence will be expressed in the circle square with a variable radius:

and in a graphic look in the form of a vertical piece of variable length:

Because the circle and a piece - the elements which are strongly differing from each other, process of integration:

will be represented in both cases differently.

The given animation will help to compare each other elements geometrical and elements of graphic interpretation of processes of integration:

Last edited by 21122012 (2012-12-29 15:00:58)

You started this thread saying "one of the many errors of calculus".

I have seen three of your errors.  In each case you have not applied calculus theory correctly.  I have explained why and you have stubbornly argued with me.

But I have offered many links to websites to support my argument, and you have ignored these.  If this is the way you have behaved on other forums, then I am not surprised that you have not succeeded there.

I will teach you how to do calculus if you are willing to listen.  Once you can use it correctly, it will be interesting to see if any 'errors' remain.

I am assuming that you have invented 'structural analysis' yourself.  Clearly, you understand what you mean and have spent a long time working on it.

You post complicated diagrams, with annotation in Russian, and often with formulas that are not defined properly.  Do you really think I can understand any of your theory?  If you wish to promote this theory you need to present it properly; in the way that mathematicains have done for thousands of years.

Start with your axioms.
Give simple examples.
Pause, while your pupil asks questions and tries to master the basics.
Set questions that are within the grasp of your pupil, so they can move forward slowly.
Increase the level of difficulty only as your pupil gets better.

I hope you find this advice helpful

Bob

As for other forums that I am not guilty in that that in the world only one percent of homo sapiense and 99 percent of humanoid monkeys.

So the whole world is made up of 99% humanoid monkeys as you call them. I know a lot of people who share that opinion. Each one of them carefully leaves himself out of the 99%. You can not seriously hope to persuade people that you have just called monkeys. You say you do not come from Mars, I am not so sure. You wonder why you are bounced from forums. You call people monkeys and then can not understand their reaction towards you?

It is sad that you think you are barred from these forums because of the briliance of your ideas rather than your callous comments.

Hmmmm, I do not see how you can ever progress relying solely on your input. Unless you are Isaac Newton there is and always will be many people smarter than you are. In your case, some of them are on this forum.

I have seen quotes by Bruno and Galileo and now Aristotle. It is fine to reason for yourself, to stand on your own two feet, but a man has got to know his limitations. Got to know when he needs help, got to be able to admit when he is wrong.

Now about this isomerous space, what is it?

P.S. You will be able to teach nothing me besides that you will repeat that that is in textbooks. And that that am in textbooks I already read.

You have read every textbook? You know everything inside of them? A good textbook is something you hold on to for life. Studying it for life.

On the lighter side, here in the good ole USA if anyone called me a humanoid monkey I would clobber him with my bunch of ripe bananas.

Hi;

Some historians think that statement has a double meaning. They think he was
ridiculing Robert Hooke who was a hunchback. In their interpretation Newton was saying I am standing on his back and crushing him.

I am reading it now in the page you sent me. I remember coming across it in a book a while back but do not remember the title.