Re: Why are TI Calcs so inferior?


[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Why are TI Calcs so inferior?



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


In article <abergman-1711961358050001@net162-150.student.yale.edu>,
Aaron Bergman <abergman@minerva.cis.yale.edu> wrote:


>But, of course then you have to prove that d/dx (ln x)  = 1/x.


in both of my intro calc books, ln was defined as the integral of 1/t
from 1 to x.  so this follows immediately from this definition and the
Fundamental Theorem.


there are, of course, other, equally valid, ways to define ln(x) and
exp(x); they all lead to the same results.


>True. Supposedly geometry is the course where they teach you to be
>rigorous. I absolutely hated geometry, however.


geometry is poorly taught, unfortunately.  they should start with
finite incidence geometries before introducing Euclidean geometry.
but this is getting _very_ far off topic.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2


iQCVAwUBMpcoOxbgfSHT/piVAQGbcwP/bdU4cP95mUHYZqYo+PmGFxb9bq4j0+wq
bgU9QK8jk++tQ4tOY6P7FOGwL7RrQlh2s9ATJDmUf1SbvNmrxyKRXYoUg7GHG+RI
GAKidQqPnl+6oBYYboURUtAfWczYEuE1uBb7EWqTHqkkEfLE5YmqT2bymWsnMO9p
OOvADHTmlOA=
=gjj2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


References: