You jumped a long way in lesson 2, but I think I have it.

I have a point on a graph.  This point is infinitesimally small.  A tangent is drawn at the point.

See my picture.

Please go on.

Bob

so equation of tangent is

Therefore equation is

Hope that is what you were trying to achieve.

Bob

What?

Why do you say this?

All lines have direction.

Please check your translation.

Bob

Good morning 21122012,

Some advice about teaching:

Lesson one was post 22.  I understood that

Lesson two was post 26.  You went a bit far for me but again I understood it.

Lesson three was post 28.  I thought I understood it perfectly.  I reproduced all your missing working.  Most teachers would have been delighted.

Lesson four was post 29.  It seems I have understood nothing.  You tell me something that I know is wrong.  So I ask for clarification as I think we have confusion over a word.

Lesson five was post 31.  This has nothing to do with what we have been doing.  You introduce many new functions.  You ignore my confusion completely and expect me to understand you.  I DON'T.  Please explain:

tangent line  has no direction!

Bob

tangent line  has no direction!


????

Here is a horizontal line.  It has the direction left to right.



Here is Cerry urging us to go in the direction North.



Here is a line that goes in a direction, 45 degrees to the axes.



I want to know how a tangent line can have no direction.  Please answer this question.

I have not bothered to look at your link again, because I don't understand it.

Let's take small steps.

Bob

Geometrical objects exist in isomerous space and graphic in the anisomeric.

No one ever heard of isomerous space and anisomeric is a term used in chemistry. Your use of jargon is just awful.

You make up your own definitions, tangents do not have direction, points are small circles, you make up your own notation, your own definitions , your own words.

You do not even understand the difference between the discrete and the continuous. There is nothing wrong with the way
math is viewing either of those. What is wrong is that you refuse to read up on it. Refuse to listen to anyone.

Δx can be used as an approximation to dx when it is very small. Δx is not the same as dx, if it were there would not be two symbols. Differences are sometimes used as an approximation to the derivative. No one says they are equal.

You can not go around making up your own terms, definitions and notation. Yes, I know all the mathematicians missed it and you found it.

I am not guilty in that that the mathematics didn't think up other term.

You are guilty of creating terms that you have not defined. Of course no one can follow that.

How about giving us a rigorous definition of "isomerous space" or anisomeric space before you go on posting anymore.

What is apparent is you do not know very much about calculus or analytical geometry, that's okay, neither do I. But before I go shooting my big trap off about how dumb Isaac Newton is, I would do a little more research than you have.

Just because as a limit that is true that is not the same as saying Δx = dx.

And what does that have to do with your so called isomerous space? You do not have a definition for that do you?

Well !!!

I will show it on the example of the y=x^3 function you look link the tangent line is emphasized with a green strip and is one of other structural lines:

http://vladimir938.eto-ya.com/files/2012/11/alg.jpg

A tangent line has no direction because:

This line on graph of function

is set of all points lying on one line and dividing a piece

on two parts. Therefore this line anywhere doesn't begin and anywhere doesn't come to an end and has no direction.

You understand?

Understand one very important key point: when you decide to draw the Graf of function

and to represent the areas of circles

in the form of lengths of pieces you go on unforeseen distortions of further creation of the schedule which differ from geometrical reality.

Last edited by 21122012 (2012-12-29 08:39:32)

bob bundy wrote:

I regret that I can make no sense of this.

Refer to my post on your original thread.

Bob

Whether it would be interesting to learn there were such people at the time of Galileo Galiley who looked in his telescope and spoke: "But I there see nothing! " Probably were...

bobbym wrote:

You are now comparing yourself with Galileo?

No! With Giordano Bruno

Strange. Show me where I did such bad things unworthy Giordano? And that that my posts and even topics everywhere mercilessly delete it and there is that that me with him similar.