On 10/04/2013 08:36 PM, Bart Goddard wrote: > Mohan Pawar <GoogleOnly@mpclasses.com> wrote in > news:email@example.com: > > >>> The only thing that disturbs me about this is that >>>> you're an "Instructor." >> >> I am sorry if my being instructor disturbs you. > > "Disturbs?" My classes are full of students who've > been misled by incompetent "instructors" who say things > like "Anything to the zero power is 1", which those > kids bring to university and use to make my job 10 > times harder. > >> However, if error/s in >> _my solution_ disturb you, show me at which one of the 4 steps you >> found an error and I will help you. > > You're going to help me? Calculus is a freshman class > and one topic (arguably the MAIN topic) of calculus is > dealing with indeterminate forms. Not only do you not > know how to deal with them, you didn't even recognize > one at hand. Further, you going to let the exponent of the > expression go to zero, while somehow holding the rest > of the expression back? > > Worse, you don't know enough trig to realize that > sin(x) is zero infinitely often, which means that > sin(x)^(1/x) is zero infinitely often. So not only > do you not know calculus, you don't even know trig. > If you have a high school diploma, you shouldn't. > And most certainly you shouldn't be an "instructor" > of math/physics when you don't know any math or > physics. > >> If you plot a simple graph of y= |sin x|^(1/x), you won't be able to >> say that "the value of |sin x|^(1/x) is zero infinitely often". > > See those little spikes in your graph? Zoom in on them. > The more you zoom in, the closer they are to zero. Maybe > instead of a "simple" graph, you could have tried > using calculus techniques to create the graph and > find the coordinates of the cusps...? > > >>> So the that limit can't be 1. >> >> This is your conclusion based on wrong assumption that "the value of >> |sin x|^(1/x) is zero infinitely often". I don't see any logic in it. > > This is my correct concuclusion based on logic. It was the > logic I gave in the previous post. And above. > > So why is it that the most condescending people are > always the most clueless, oblivious, least trained > and just plain stupid? Why do they > usually make those people into deans? >
Things (and Usenet posters) aren't always as they seem. Some people haven't learnt that Things (and Usenet posters) aren't always as they seem, so they are more inclined to think that Things (and Usenet posters) are usually as they seem to them.
Someone said once that it takes at least a genius to know a super genius, or something like that.
-- Let us all be paranoid. More so than no such agence, Bolon Yokte K'uh willing.