Thread: Definition of the Derivative - h vs Delta x

1. Re: Definition of the Derivative - h vs Delta x

Originally Posted by emperorzelos
(snip)
Irrelevant in the context of the thread.
Your faith in hyper-reals is misguided, since you ignore the concept of independent variables....
(Ignoring Descartes, and the foundation of two dimensional space, in which curves are defined, and are addressed by calculus, not set theory)

Hyper-reals just quote the results of calculus, while ignoring its foundation. They just say "hey, I'll ignore curvature" without deriving any equations, since all one does is look up identities in tables of integrals and derivatives. Therefore, one ignores the essential nature of calculus in relation to curvature. So it is irrelevant to the definition of the derivative, since one ignores the subject altogether.

And it is bullshit in relation to the subject of this thread.

(Not only that, physics is more fundamental than mathematics....)

2. Re: Definition of the Derivative - h vs Delta x

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Irrelevant in the context of the thread.
It would be more productive if you gave a clear reason why.
Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
All that will happen is posts will continue being moved to cage match and this thread will Still be Here. With challenges issued but not addressed. The more logical course of action is to debate the topic. It will give better results.

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Your faith in hyper-reals is misguided, since you ignore the concept of independent variables....
(Ignoring Descartes, and the foundation of two dimensional space, in which curves are defined, and are addressed by calculus, not set theory)

3. Re: Definition of the Derivative - h vs Delta x

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Irrelevant in the context of the thread.
Your faith in hyper-reals is misguided, since you ignore the concept of independent variables....
(Ignoring Descartes, and the foundation of two dimensional space, in which curves are defined, and are addressed by calculus, not set theory)

Hyper-reals just quote the results of calculus, while ignoring its foundation. They just say "hey, I'll ignore curvature" without deriving any equations, since all one does is look up identities in tables of integrals and derivatives. Therefore, one ignores the essential nature of calculus in relation to curvature. So it is irrelevant to the definition of the derivative, since one ignores the subject altogether.

And it is bullshit in relation to the subject of this thread.

(Not only that, physics is more fundamental than mathematics....)
I have no faith in hyperreals, they are legitimate as any other set.

By saying 2 dimensional you already assume a lot of things that is unneccisery for derivative.

And no, hyperreals are an alternative to calculus and doesn't need how we normally do calculus. Curvature is in calculus not a neccesity.

ANd no, physics depends on mathematics, without mathematics you can do no physics

4. Re: Definition of the Derivative - h vs Delta x

Originally Posted by emperorzelos
(snip)
Without physics, you can't do mathematics. h has a very real relationship to Planck's constant as a limit between classical (non-quantum) physics and quantum mechanics.. h going to zero results in the classical physics of Maxwell and Newton...

And if you don't understand three dimensions of space and one of time, you live in your own mind, but certainly not mine. (There is more to this subject).

The relation between x and h in the traditional definition of the derivative is the subject of this thread, which assumes the definition of the derivative as a limit in an (x,y) global coordinate function space (x,f(x)). If you want to go on about hyper-reals, start a thread on that, but get out of this thread... along with your faith-based concept of mathematics and personal invective.

An alternative definition of the derivative in terms of hyper-reals (if indeed there is one) is not the subject of this thread.

5. Re: Definition of the Derivative - h vs Delta x

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Without physics, you can't do mathematics. h has a very real relationship to Planck's constant as a limit between classical (non-quantum) physics and quantum mechanics.. h going to zero results in the classical physics of Maxwell and Newton...

And if you don't understand three dimensions of space and one of time, you live in your own mind, but certainly not mine. (There is more to this subject).

The relation between x and h in the traditional definition of the derivative is the subject of this thread, which assumes the definition of the derivative as a limit in an (x,y) global coordinate function space (x,f(x)). If you want to go on about hyper-reals, start a thread on that, but get out of this thread... along with your faith-based concept of mathematics and personal invective.

An alternative definition of the derivative in terms of hyper-reals (if indeed there is one) is not the subject of this thread.

Considering mathematics as a dicipline predates physics you are simply wrong.

h in the derivative limit has no relation to planck constant, it is an arbitrarily small real number.

I understand infinite dimensional spaces too, I've dealt with them.

There is a definition for hyperreals, I brought them up to make the point that all you say is needed is actually superflous, you are making a buttload of unwarrented assumptions about structures that are unneccisery for the derivative. You assume an inner space, you assume norms, you assume dimensions, you assume it is free, meaningful and much much else and you don't even know it.

Again, I have no faith, want me to cite books?

6. Re: Definition of the Derivative - h vs Delta x

Originally Posted by emperorzelos
(snip)
The relation between x and h in the traditional definition of the derivative is the subject of this thread, which assumes the definition of the derivative as a limit in an (x,y) global coordinate function space (x,f(x)). If you want to go on about hyper-reals, start a thread on that, but get out of this thread... along with your faith-based concept of mathematics and personal invective.

7. Re: Definition of the Derivative - h vs Delta x

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Can you stop saying that over and over? Have you noticed that all your posts like this is being moved because they are pointless, meaningless and spamming? Try to actually have a discussion.

The fact that you ARE assuming more than requries IS relevant.

8. Re: Definition of the Derivative - h vs Delta x

Originally Posted by emperorzelos
(snip)
Not relevant.

The relation between x and h in the traditional definition of the derivative is the subject of this thread, which assumes the definition of the derivative as a limit in an (x,y) global coordinate function space (x,f(x)).

It is unfortunate I can't do anything about the moderator who doesn't understand why your posts are bullshit and irrelevant to the topic. And I am certainly not interested in a discussion with you about any topic at any level, in any context.

9. Re: Definition of the Derivative - h vs Delta x

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
It is unfortunate I can't do anything about the moderator who doesn't understand why your posts are bullshit and irrelevant to the topic.
I find it unfortunate that you seem to be unable to do anything about yourself.
BuleriaChk, whether or not the information is debatable as to its relevance does not matter one bit.
What matters is that the thread became a long list of post flooding.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you post it in order for it to be read, no?
You want people to see what you have to say and to think it over.
If the thread is just post flooding, no one will read it. No one will bother. It's bad for the board to have post flooding and repeated insults and it is good for science to have challenges, debates and responses.
What is unfortunate is that instead of engaging in debate, you tried to shut it out by yelling over it until the posts were bumped out of sight.

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
And I am certainly not interested in a discussion with you about any topic at any level, in any context.
I think this is more the issue than what is relevant and what isn't. You are, of course, not obligated to respond to anyone. You are free to ignore others, choose not to respond and to refuse to talk. But those are different acts than to actively post flood.
As long as you are post flooding to drown out opposition, that content will be moved to the proper location for posterity and this thread will be kept neat and readable.

10. Re: Definition of the Derivative - h vs Delta x

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
The relation between x and h in the traditional definition of the derivative is the subject of this thread, which assumes the definition of the derivative as a limit in an (x,y) global coordinate function space (x,f(x)).
If we go by the traditional post cauchy definition of limit and such then you are still wrong, it assumes no coordinate system, it requires a normed space. And it isn't even the real numbers being the normed space but rather the function space .

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
It is unfortunate I can't do anything about the moderator who doesn't understand why your posts are bullshit and irrelevant to the topic. And I am certainly not interested in a discussion with you about any topic at any level, in any context.
I know you don't want to discuss with me because my knowledge in these matters vastely surpasses yours and it makes you feel dumb. I have however offered you sources which you refuse to read.

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•