1. lim(x->∞) 1/x=0 is illogical as a foundation of a 'logical' theory.Perhaps you should have done your calculus homework in school.
2. Euler's identity is very questionable.Again, perhaps you should have done your calculus homeowork.
1. lim(x->∞) 1/x=0 is illogical as a foundation of a 'logical' theory.
2. Euler's identity is very questionable.
In all, mathematicians should re-think the relevant topics, I am just a programmer.
I have recently released a C++ library update. https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/latest/download
To the most interested, I guess, would be:
1. lim(x->???) 1/x=0 is illogical as a foundation of a 'logical' theory.
2. Euler's identity is very questionable.
wij <wyn...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have recently released a C++ library update. https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/latest/downloadI would highly recommend using github instead. It's much more user-friendly, as it allows browsing and viewing the source files on the site itself.
This is much easier and practical for people to examine your code.
To the most interested, I guess, would be:
1. lim(x->???) 1/x=0 is illogical as a foundation of a 'logical' theory.
And what would be more "logical" in your opinion?
2. Euler's identity is very questionable.Care to give a counter-example?
wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> wrote:
1. lim(x->???) 1/x=0 is illogical as a foundation of a 'logical' theory.
And what would be more "logical" in your opinion?
Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalid> writes:
wij <wyn...@gmail.com> wrote:
1. lim(x->???) 1/x=0 is illogical as a foundation of a 'logical' theory.
And what would be more "logical" in your opinion?The post is obviously just maths trolling. The C++ code is a side
issue! I replied about the possible GG bug, but actually he/she cross
posted to loads of groups.
--
Ben.
To the most interested, I guess, would be:And what would be more "logical" in your opinion?
1. lim(x->???) 1/x=0 is illogical as a foundation of a 'logical' theory. >>
Simply "logical", the one we use every day.
Several national institute level mathematicians know this, more had tried
not to use limit. I guess 50% professors knows this, but could not say.
2. Euler's identity is very questionable.Care to give a counter-example?
Definition: e???(1+1/???)^??? ... or use limit notation if you like
Then, raise e to the power of x
e^x= (1+1/???)^(???*x) ... Is'nt this form more correct?
Does the equation e^x=(1+x/???)^??? make sense as the 'definition' of
"raise e to the power of x"?
wij <wyn...@gmail.com> wrote:
To the most interested, I guess, would be:
1. lim(x->???) 1/x=0 is illogical as a foundation of a 'logical' theory.
And what would be more "logical" in your opinion?
Simply "logical", the one we use every day.
Several national institute level mathematicians know this, more had tried not to use limit. I guess 50% professors knows this, but could not say.That answer makes literally no sense. And doesn't answer my question at all.
2. Euler's identity is very questionable.Care to give a counter-example?
Definition: e???(1+1/???)^??? ... or use limit notation if you like
Then, raise e to the power of x
e^x= (1+1/???)^(???*x) ... Is'nt this form more correct?
Does the equation e^x=(1+x/???)^??? make sense as the 'definition' of "raise e to the power of x"?That's not a counter-example. It's simply another way of defining e.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 112 |
Nodes: | 8 (1 / 7) |
Uptime: | 25:33:02 |
Calls: | 2,468 |
Files: | 8,627 |
Messages: | 1,892,059 |