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: Fundamental Theorem of Calculus: derivative is inverse to integral #7 textbook 5th ed. : TRUE CALCULUS; without the phony limit concept
Replies: 38   Last Post: Jun 21, 2013 6:16 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Alan Smaill Posts: 1,103 Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Fundamental Theorem of Calculus: derivative is inverse to integral #7 textbook 5th ed. : TRUE CALCULUS; without the phony limit concept
Posted: Jun 17, 2013 6:37 AM

Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> writes:

> On 16/06/2013 10:34 PM, Nam Nguyen wrote:
>> On 16/06/2013 5:55 PM, Nam Nguyen wrote:
>>> On 16/06/2013 3:03 PM, Alan Smaill wrote:
>>>> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> writes:
>>>>

>>>>> On 15/06/2013 1:44 AM, Peter Percival wrote:
>>>>>> Nam Nguyen wrote:
>>>>>>

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No the inductive definition says that in your case of "{0, s(0),
>>>>>>> s(s(0)), ... }" we'd have:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (1) (0 e U) and (s(0) e U) and (s(s(0)) e U)
>>>>>>> (2) (x e U) => (s(x) e U).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In stipulation (2) it does _NOT_ say x must necessarily be finite.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is why you need a third clause that says (or has the effect that)
>>>>>> the set being defined is the smallest such U.

>>>>>
>>>>> First, you should direct your technical "advice" here to Alan: that's
>>>>> _his_ definition, _his_ defending of something, we're talking about.

>>>>
>>>> It's the standard definition, not mine.
>>>> And this advice is of course correct.

>>>
>>> State it then in the technical language manner, as I did (1) and (2).
>>> Let's postpone discussing anything else until you could do this.
>>>
>>> Remember you had "..."

>>
>> After that then of course you'd next show that your final U would
>> contain _only_ individuals that are finitely encoded.
>>
>> I don't think that's possible but we'll wait to see how you might
>> do that, would be my guess.

>
> Also, the following is just a note, a suggestion of mine which you're
> free not to take it of course.
>
> Looking at Peter's "the set being defined is the smallest such U"
> (above) reminds me of something, which is that for a 2 given infinite
> sets S1 and S2, it might be the case that there are _two distinct_
> _senses_ of "smaller" between them:
>
> - S1 is smaller that S2 in the sense that S1 is a _proper subset_ of
> S2,

That is the intended sense.

--
Alan Smaill

Date Subject Author
6/16/13 Alan Smaill
6/16/13 namducnguyen
6/17/13 namducnguyen
6/17/13 namducnguyen
6/17/13 Peter Percival
6/17/13 Peter Percival
6/16/13 Alan Smaill
6/17/13 Alan Smaill
6/17/13 namducnguyen
6/18/13 Peter Percival
6/17/13 Alan Smaill
6/17/13 namducnguyen
6/18/13 Peter Percival
6/19/13 Alan Smaill
6/19/13 namducnguyen
6/19/13 namducnguyen
6/19/13 Peter Percival
6/19/13 Alan Smaill
6/19/13 namducnguyen
6/19/13 namducnguyen
6/20/13 Peter Percival
6/20/13 Alan Smaill
6/20/13 namducnguyen
6/21/13 namducnguyen
6/21/13 Alan Smaill