On the New Calculus

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dec 2015
937
122
Earth
Idontknow,

Why did you delete your post?

And, it may give different results if developed further.
Can you write with LATEX the example of f(x)=x ?
And different results may happen only if the ratio of change is observed in a different way.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2019
14
0
48/3 Maniya Housing Society Khalid Bin Waleed Road
I don’t think you understand why I wrote it. I was seeking help in developing the definition of x*delta x. But, you seem to not understand my method at all. So, it is useless in this case.
 
Feb 2019
14
0
48/3 Maniya Housing Society Khalid Bin Waleed Road
idontknow I will use Latex tomorrow. You could also look at the derivative of nx.
 

v8archie

Math Team
Dec 2013
7,709
2,677
Colombia
If you can’t understand it, it is not my fault.
Actually it is. Moreover, regardless of fault, it is your problem to solve. If you want people to comment/use your idea you have to be able to explain well.
 

SDK

Sep 2016
705
470
USA
Not to be offensive, but your writing is completely unclear. It reads like a serial killer's manifesto scrawled onto a prison wall after being in solitary. What is worse is that you think it's somehow the fault of the reader so let's start there.

The people you are claiming "don't understand" your work, are people who do understand math. They don't understand your work, because it isn't math. You are repeatedly either using words which don't have any known mathematical definition and then refusing to define them, or using mathematical words in contexts which have no meaning whatsoever. For some examples, you wrote both of the following

"Non-existence is not a finite quantity."
"as space gets lesser and lesser, it converges to a finite point e"

Neither of these has any meaning or conveys anything. It's just word salad with some words that have a meaning in math, thrown together in sentences that are meaningless in context. This has all the markings of a crackpot, which is what I assume to be the case.

Nevertheless, some people here do try to reach out and give crackpots the benefit of the doubt or try to correct their misunderstandings (bless their patient hearts). Let me try to summarize the main point of their posts thus far.

If you have a "new" method for computing the "derivative" and it gives a different answer than the current method for ANY function at ANY value, then your method is wrong. In the best case scenario, you have a new concept which might be useful, i.e. something that IS NOT the derivative, but is nevertheless useful in some way. In the worst case, your computations are just wrong.

In any case, the main point is that the derivative is a well-defined mathematical object. If you compute the "derivative" and it isn't the same as the "old" definition, then whatever you have computed, it isn't the derivative. This is not a value judgement on your work, it's simply the definition.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

greg1313

Forum Staff
Oct 2008
8,008
1,174
London, Ontario, Canada - The Forest City
I'd suggest waiting to introduce your work until you could at least do simple calculations or ask for help in working it out.

-Dan
A suggestion well worth taking. Thread closed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Status
Not open for further replies.