Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:09:26 UTC No. 16072059
>>16072051
stop baiting /pol/tards. you are cancer.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:10:23 UTC No. 16072060
>>16072051
dx achtually isn't 0 but dx^2 is.
Owned, mathtards xddd
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:15:32 UTC No. 16072067
>>16072059
Honestly this isnt even politically motivated i just thought it was funny how wrong he was about basic calculus
AIFag !Gy8L8Ggb7w at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:19:13 UTC No. 16072070
>>16072067
well shit you should've realized Karl Marx was a brainlet after reading his theories of surplus value.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:20:20 UTC No. 16072071
>>16072070
Im not reading that yap sesh thanks
AIFag !Gy8L8Ggb7w at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:22:46 UTC No. 16072074
>>16072071
it's an entertaining read and is great for either comedic purpose or feeling better about oneself realizing how stupid the average people are.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:25:03 UTC No. 16072078
>>16072051
Lmao. wtf?
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 00:17:21 UTC No. 16073169
>>16072051
WORST THREAD EVER
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 04:19:00 UTC No. 16073452
>>16072051
marxism is a religion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yfw
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:39:38 UTC No. 16076533
>>16072067
>how wrong he was about basic calculus
I'm not a marxist, but basically he was not wrong. His reasoning is roughly true (not exactly, there are better ways to show that contradiction). But it's not like he was original in that, everyone back then knew that the "calculus of infinitesimals" was based on a contradiction. It was a common knowledge, which is why they were probably writing about it. It was like an equivalent of quantum physics in modern popular science. It took about a century until Cauchy properly redefined the derivative in the terms of limits for calculus to stand on it's own legs. In the old ways differentials dx, dy came as a premise to further introduce the derivative as a conclusion. Now, the derivative comes first to define differentials, which technically aren't really needed anymore, but are kinda a leftover so we won't have to rewrite a century of foundational match research and notation that just caught on.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:53:22 UTC No. 16076690
>>16076533
Newton's original description of derivatives was essentially the modern one.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:03:59 UTC No. 16076777
>>16076690
No, it looks like the moder one, but it isn't "under the hood".
He used derivatives, and he knew perfectly well it was "wrong". He just didn't have any other tools to deal with infinities at that time. So he rolled with it, just to see "what if", and it produced results, leaving it for someone else to fix. Cauchy fixed it all with limits, redefining derivatives anew in such a way that you wouldn't need to replace them in old notation, which is why we still write it all down like Newton did.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:07:49 UTC No. 16076801
>be me
>draw a pepe in the margins in my text book
>promptly forget about it
>fast forward 30 years
>now a world famous scientist
>fast forward another 100 years
>people found the pepe and use it to deboonk my theory
>my face when
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:26:35 UTC No. 16076889
>>16072051
And this is why every commie must be shot in the head.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:28:35 UTC No. 16076897
>>16076533
LMAO
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:40:32 UTC No. 16076967
>>16076533
>but basically he was not wrong
he made a fucking religion, stop discussing his retarded though as if they where anything more that the ramblings of the retarded cousin of a flat earther(in terms of worth, not literaly, he whas a hermeto-gnostic) >>16073452
>everyone back then knew that the "calculus of infinitesimals" was based on a contradiction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonst
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:43:48 UTC No. 16076985
>I'm not a Marxist but Karl Marx retarded 2 digit IQ math was not wrong
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:44:48 UTC No. 16076993
>>16076889
Good. Kill all "socialism for the rich" corpo niggers that take all the taxpayer money
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:47:37 UTC No. 16077002
>>16076993
I know you're a Marxist but that's not a W as you think because we hate socialism corponiggers and you the same way. That's the best deal, kill both.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:06:14 UTC No. 16077070
>>16077002
>I know you're a Marxist
lol fuck no
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:54:29 UTC No. 16077474
>>16072060
Wilderberger has created a number system where infinitesimals are properly defined as just another number which isnt zero, yet they are zero when they are squared. So its perfectly possible.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:58:32 UTC No. 16077481
Do people cant understand the difference between a small number and zero?
I have always been an average student based on my grades and this was never a difficult concept. It was the same in integral calculus where i was taught about Riemann integral where you just divide the graph as many tiny columns and just add up their areas.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:59:24 UTC No. 16077485
>>16077481
>average student
So you're smarter than Marx.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 19:54:47 UTC No. 16077605
>>16072051
Picrel but unironically save the shit about Bourgeoisie ideology. Calculus is nonsense and so naturally the notation will be as well. Leibniz didn't formalize his notions but gave it as a mediative representative of a concept he didn't fully grasp at. To use it with the other understanding is to put a band aid on a gash.
>See how this parameter equals zero or infinity or another definite value, but actually isn't that value, but then when you really think about it IS definite. Why? Because we said so.
Yeah nice man. Modern calculus is built on burying a problem so far beneath semantics you can barely see it and then rearticulating typical notions of rigor to slot it in there despite there being no space (or really, infinitesimal space, if you really think about it...) It's a rotting coffin on the shelf of mathematics that we are somehow content just to ignore.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 19:58:41 UTC No. 16077614
>>16077605
>calculus is nonsense even though is widely used in physics and engineering sciences
>modern calculus is flawed and has contradiction, but I can't point them out
>tangents on graphs don't exist, by the way
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 19:59:22 UTC No. 16077615
>>16077614
You get me
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:02:52 UTC No. 16077622
>>16072051
well it's obvious that there's no variation for a constant, also saying that dx = 0 is wrong.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:04:09 UTC No. 16077629
>>16072070
I read das Kapital, literally 1 month of reading jewish pilpul, creating definitions on definitions to confuse the reader, then I stopped. Probably that was the original goal, hoping you would stop reading and just agree with Marx out of exhaustion.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:06:23 UTC No. 16077637
>>16077624
dx is by definition different from 0, otherwise it's useless, Marx and Engels were two brainlets.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:07:49 UTC No. 16077641
>>16072051
That's where the constant of integration comes into play. When you integrate over 0 = 0a, make sure to add the constant that takes you back where you started.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:08:01 UTC No. 16077643
>>16077637
>What is (0, 0)
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:11:12 UTC No. 16077648
>>16077643
differential calculus is by definition based on (often infinitesimal) variations, if you set dx = 0 it's useless because dy will always be zero too.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:14:48 UTC No. 16077660
>>16077648
Useless isn't a concept in mathematics. Unless you'd like to invent that here and now which I could respect.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:16:09 UTC No. 16077664
>>16077660
it's useless because it doesn't give you any information, it's a model that cannot be used for any purpose in the context of differential calculus, because it's not differential calculus anymore if you set dx = 0.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:17:52 UTC No. 16077668
>>16077664
>it's useless because it doesn't give you any information
Prove this without relying on the existent calculus foundations and we're talking.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:20:13 UTC No. 16077674
>>16077668
if you set dx = 0 you basically say "there is no variation of x", thus you're creating an identity.
You're basically saying x = x and thus y = y, don't you agree?
this doesn't give any information that can be of any use, it's a tautological identity.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:21:25 UTC No. 16077677
>>16077674
And that's an interesting fact, don't you think? I do so, anyway but maybe I'm being too based for this board at this point.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:32:21 UTC No. 16077700
>>16077677
>And that's an interesting fact, don't you think?
For practical purposes probably not, but for theory yeah it could be considered interesting... I don't know.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:56:33 UTC No. 16077738
>>16077674
interestingly enough the derivative is never used in practice. there are upper level math classes all dedicated toward discretizing the derivative into finite differences for computational models.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discr
this for example is the real math
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 21:09:14 UTC No. 16077778
>>16077738
yeah with real data you must use discrete calculus, unless you fit an ideal model which has some difference with your data tho... it's purpose would be to predict data points that you don't have.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 21:10:15 UTC No. 16077781
>>16077738
yeah with real data you must use discrete calculus, unless you fit an ideal model which has some difference with your data tho... its purpose would be to predict data points that you don't have in the middle of other data points.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 21:43:33 UTC No. 16077861
>>16076967
>marxism this marxism that
You're nitpicking about the least interesting part of this thread that I don't give a damn about. I'm deliberately ignoring the part of the thread which is a /pol/ bait, which you are obsessing over.
Yes, it is rambling. No, it's not the same as with flat earthers, who are plain wrong. It's like your aunt working at a nail saloon repeating pop-sci trivia she heard on discovery channel about special relativity. She doesn't get it, she can't precisely repeat it, but ultimately, she's still basically right. It's not like it's super sophisticated, but it's still a world above flat earthers, if only because she has enough respect for science to treat it as something "cool" and not to disregard it completely.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nons
Nice goalpost shifting. We're not talking about hyperreals. Transfer function is cool and all, but is limited and they don't bevave the same way as reals. Differentials alone without limits were not enough to rigorously define calculus in classic real analysis.
>>16077481
>Do people cant understand the difference between a small number and zero?
Do you? Because Archimedes and people after him didn't get it either. For a good reason. How "infinitesimals" and "vanishing quantities" were thought about initially, that is as infinitely small non-zero numbers, contradicted the completeness axiom of the real numbers. They even mention it in the linked article on the nonstandard analysis:
>However, neither he [Leibniz] nor his disciples and successors were able to give a rational development leading up to a system of this sort. As a result, the theory of infinitesimals gradually fell into disrepute and was replaced eventually by the classical theory of limits.[6]
How infinitesimals are thought of in classical real analysis now is rather as *arbitrarily* small non-zero numbers. They don't even have to be small at all. They're just numbers that satisfy the principal change dy=f'(x)dx.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:34:23 UTC No. 16078382
>>16076777
http://www.17centurymaths.com/conte
This is just limits except in ye-olde-speak.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:29:47 UTC No. 16078590
>>16077738
The derivative is never used in practice? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it's used in practice all the time
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:34:27 UTC No. 16078594
>>16077861
>Do you?
Of course i do
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:37:34 UTC No. 16078599
>>16077861
>contradicted the completeness axiom of the real numbers
Wilderberg has created a number system that formally incorporates the infinitesimals. No one cares, its just useful to shut up pedant bastards like you. A formal analytical definition of limits exist since the 19th centyry, you are an idiot for beating this dead horse.
You are such an imbecile that in your "formal" definition you call infinitesimals small, then say they dont have to be small. Much rigor.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:56:31 UTC No. 16078620
>>16072051
Imagine how different the world would be if Marx took a real analysis class
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:59:12 UTC No. 16078626
>>16077861
>infinitely small non-zero numbers, contradicted the completeness axiom of the real numbers.
I'm begging you to crack open a undergraduate analysis textbook