
Re: Why do we need those real nonconstructible numbers?
Posted:
Nov 14, 2017 2:39 PM


P.S.: Good luck in setting h=0 for the case of f(x)=e^x. We then get the following:
f(x+h)f(x) e^(x+h)e^x  =  h h
= e^x + e^x (e^h  1  h)/h
= e^x + Q(h,x)
How do you set h=0 in Q(h,x)? Can you explain? There is a division by h.
Will you use a series for e^h and thus invoke a limit, aka the infinite sum?
Am Dienstag, 14. November 2017 20:26:16 UTC+1 schrieb burs...@gmail.com: > So you are about to discover the limit the first > time in your life. Still you cannot grappel with: > > 0.333... = 1/3 > > What a moron. Here have a banana: > > Banana Song (I'm A Banana) > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH5ay10RTG > Y > Am Dienstag, 14. November 2017 19:33:49 UTC+1 schrieb John Gabriel at age 50.: > > On Monday, 13 November 2017 11:30:19 UTC5, bassam king karzeddin wrote: > > > > > > > So, continuity doesn't exist because infinity doesn't exist either, and the assumption of existence of continuity was a total brain fart, but an artificial deliberate continuity was adopted by fabricating those (EpsilonDelta) Distances just for practical needs which aren't truly any mathematics for sure > > > > Epsilonics are just a ruse from what's really going on: the inability of anyone before me to formulate a rigorous calculus. > > > > You see, if you try to emulate the new calculus using the bogus mainstream formulation, you get for f(x)=x^2: > > > > f'(x) = lim_{h > 0} 2x + Q(h) where Q(h) = h > > > > In the bogus calculus Q(h) is meaningless bullshit, but let's set it to zero as we can do in the rigorous new calculus, then f'(x)=2x+h = 2x+0 = 2x. > > > > Setting h=0 is EQUIVALENT to finding the limit! > > > > But that is banned terminology. You can say things like: > > > > i. The value approached by the finite differences is the derivative/limit. > > ii. As the distance is made arbitrarily small between f(x) and L, then the distance between x and c (point of tangency) also gets close to 0. > > iii. 0<xc<delta => f(x)L<epsilon where epsilon>0 and delta>0. This is required just in case the orangutans need to have a hole at c. > > > > ad nauseum... > > > > At the end of the day, all that is being said is that setting h=0 produces the limit. (iii) is often misunderstood especially by morons on the internet as being a definition, but it is nothing of the sort. It's merely a "verifinition", > > that is, a restatement of what is actually being done: showing that L is the right guess. It's very circular and rigour has nothing to do with it. > > > > > BKK

