Quite right. As O'Brien says, he can change the laws of physics and levitate if he wanted to - he just chose not to. I don't doubt for a second that he could find eyewitnesses who'd swear to it!Originally Posted by Disordered
Quite right. As O'Brien says, he can change the laws of physics and levitate if he wanted to - he just chose not to. I don't doubt for a second that he could find eyewitnesses who'd swear to it!
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
the thing is, though, that it is very easy to manipulate language and make it fit the means you want to achieve. you just have to know how to do it. however, for a good reader, it will be easy to spot where lies the fallacy. for example:
can you point the false syllogism?
most people know that is wrong, but they dont know how or where. the same happens with any language, you just gotta know how and where to manipulate it. and its pretty easy.
if A=B, then (A^2-AxB) will equal 0, you cannot divide by zero (will be undefined) and besides 2x0 is 0 anyway.
wow that took me a while...
if we cant divide by zero, how can we calculate derivatives and integrals?
:P
but its when its approaching zero, not zero itself
you end up canceling
you do divide by zero (itself), that is why you call it "eliminating the indetermination". the catch is that zero is on the numerator and denominator, but the point is: language is plastic and easily manipulable, and looks are often deceiving.
"Substituting 0 for h in the difference quotient causes division by zero, so the slope of the tangent line cannot be found directly. Instead, define Q(h) to be the difference quotient as a function of h"
we design the equation so h approaches zero, not that it actually is zero, we can only form the equation on the assumption that h does not equal zero and therefore allows us the cancel the h's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative - read
omni, you are interpreting it wrong. there would be no reason to cancel out the 0:0 if it werent ZERO. it is possible to divide a number by any other number, no matter how small it is, as long as it is not zero, so if its a precise substitution, you would not need to aproximate the value to zero, you would have to use the exact infinitesimal exact closest number to zero you could find, which is impossible. besides, why would you have to cancel out these terms if they can be calculated? the assimptote graph is a theorical representation of a mathematical function, since its pretty unlikely that you will physically be able to demonstrate it, its called a theorem.
"Q(h) is the slope of the secant line between (a, ƒ(a)) and (a + h, ƒ(a + h)). If ƒ is a continuous function, meaning that its graph is an unbroken curve with no gaps, then Q is a continuous function away from the point h = 0. If the limit exists, meaning that there is a way of choosing a value for Q(0) which makes the graph of Q a continuous function, then the function ƒ is differentiable at the point a, and its derivative at a equals Q(0).
In practice, the existence of a continuous extension of the difference quotient Q(h) to h = 0 is shown by modifying the numerator to cancel h in the denominator. This process can be long and tedious for complicated functions, and many short cuts are commonly used to simplify the process"
when newton invented calculus, he revolutionized math exactly because he found a way to solve equations that had no solution BECAUSE they had an indetermination (division BY ZERO).
the book i used when i took calc classes is a great one, you can check it out if you have the chance: http://www.stewartcalculus.com/
I have no idea what any of you are talking about, but you just blew my mind.
I am sorry I am agreeing with omni29.the thing is, though, that it is very easy to manipulate language and make it fit the means you want to achieve. you just have to know how to do it. however, for a good reader, it will be easy to spot where lies the fallacy. for example:
can you point the false syllogism?
most people know that is wrong, but they dont know how or where. the same happens with any language, you just gotta know how and where to manipulate it. and its pretty easy.
Your assumption was A = B, which means A^2 - AB = 0.
2(A^2-AB) = 1(A^2-AB) is true not because 2 = 1 but because A^2-AB = 0.
It is also true that you can't divide by 0: a/0 is undefined and 0/0 is also undefined.
Another note: A continuous function is not always differentiable.
For example, f(x) = |x| is continuous everywhere, including at 0, but it is not differentiable at x = 0. Yes, you may refer to Stewart book section 2.2 Example 5 or any other calculus book.
I preferred the other philosophical discussions and we should stick to the philosophy.
Last edited by jinjang; 04-09-2009 at 01:44 PM.
Walk, meditate, forget - Victor Hugo
Life is bigger than literature - Michael Cunningham
thank you
and how does that explanation go against anything i said? all you did was repeat with different words exactly what i said.
calculus is based entirely on the removal of the indeterminated 0/0 division and just because we use the concept of limit to say we're not dividing by zero cause thats not possible, thats exactly what we're doing in anyways, because we consider h=0 so that we can cancel it with the numerator, which is also 0. so, in case you have anything besides this to add to the argument, i think we're pretty much done with this topic.
Reply With Quote
