Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Matheology � 258
Replies: 53   Last Post: May 11, 2013 10:07 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Ralf Bader Posts: 488 Registered: 7/4/05
Re: Matheology 258
Posted: May 9, 2013 12:10 PM

WM wrote:

> On 9 Mai, 02:48, Ralf Bader <ba...@nefkom.net> wrote:
>> Virgil wrote:
>> > In article
>> > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

>>
>> >> On 8 Mai, 21:56, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>> >> > In article
>> >> > <15ddac8c-14be-485b-bac7-213b078c1...@k8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,

>>
>> >> > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>> >> > > For all n: f(n) = 1 , lim_n-->oo f(n) = 1
>> >> > > This is required for correctly calculating differential quotients
>> >> > > in analysis. (Just this morning I explained that in class.)

>>
>> What n? The natural numbers? What has the
>> behaviour of the function at infinity to do with calculating the
>> derivative at a finite point?

>
> You seem to be surprised. It must be long time ago or never, that you
> learned calculus and the most trivial examples?
>

>> >> If for every sequence (x_n) with limit x_0 the limit of the sequence
>> >> of difference quotients
>> >> (f(x_n) - f(x_0))/(x_n - x_0) exists and is the same in all cases,
>> >> then df/dx is defined at x_0.

>>
>> What does this have to do with the above? Did the n's mutate into x_n's
>> or what?

>
> Consult an introductory text on analysis, for instance my book
>

http://www.amazon.de/Mathematik-Physik-10-2012-ersten-Semester/dp/348670821X/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368086437&sr=1-4&keywords=M%C3%BCckenheim
>
>> > But that one sequence gives a limit does not guarantee that that
>> > sequence need give the same result as any other sequence.

>
> Therfore I said "for every sequence (x_n) with limit x_0."

>>
>> Mückenheim will understand neither this nor that he need not teach you
>> how derivatives are defined (and even if, he could not, because he
>> obviously does not understand it himself)

>
> Don't conclude from your state of understanding on that of authors of
> best selling text books.

>>
>> > So unless one has some other guarantee of differentiability at the
>> > point in question, finding a supposed derivative or slope by a sequence
>> > is not guaranteed to work right.

>>
>> If Mückenheim's crap would be correct, then one could do with just one
>> sequence, appropriately chosen, in the definition of differentiability.

>
> This proves your absolute ingnorance. Appropriately? What would that
> be in mathematics? The simplest counter-example is the function f(x) =
> |x| at x = 0. And there are other examples, for instance the function
> f(x) = 1 for x = 1/n, n in |N, and f(x) = 0 else.
>
> We see: you do not even know the most simplest foundations of trivial
> mathematics, butyou try to understand advanced texts and to judge
> about uncomprehended mathematics. Ridiculous!
>
> Regards, WM

Blablablabla. Your idiotic crap

|For all n: f(n) = 1 , lim_n-->oo f(n) = 1
|This is required for correctly calculating differential quotients in
|analysis. (Just this morning I explained that in class.)

remains idiotic crap even if you again prove your competence (the only one
to be seen in your 28thousandandsomething postings) in idiotic libels.