Recent content by STAii

Yes, you are right. It seems i misunderstood it the first time. Thank you.

I don't quite understand your reply (excuse my bad english). Is it possible or not to apply the theory on the numbers i put in my last post, if not, is the problem that my numbers didn't match the conditions of the 13 values stated in the original theory, or is it that the theory contains a...

Ummh ... i think i have found a little small problem in this "theory". You see, suyver said that the 13 numbers x1,x2 ... x13 should be 13 different numbers (when he said xi<>xj if i<>j). But, the 13 different values of x will not give you 13 different values of A. Take this example, here are...

Is this proovable (can anyone provide a proof please ?) ? Yesterday i was trying to proove this whole 'theory', and i was stuck here, couldn't proove it (Althought it seems logical). I used a somehow different way (but mathematically almost the same) to reach this point, but i think NateTG's...

Shouldn't that be tan (A - B) = \frac{tan A -tan B}{1+ tan A tan B} (i am sure it is a typo)

Well, the function after the sum does not necessarily have to be a function of k (the variable that the sum is changing). Examples include : &sum;(from k=1 to 3)1 which equals : 1+1+1=3 Or even, suppose that in your example, f(k) was a constant function, what will you have ? (well, you will...

Well, i thought that if it was a joke, it should belong to "General discussion", not "Calculus" Ok, about the sum. Note that the variable of the sum (k) is not related to the variable inside the sum (x). So, in the case that you took x=4.5 Entering this value into the floor function, [...

If you still insist on finding that derivative using the definition of the derivative, i think this can help. For ease of reading, let [sum] mean : [sum](from k=1 to [ x ]) S(x) = [sum](x) S'(x) = lim(h->0) ( (S(x+h)-S(h))/h ) S'(x) = lim(h->0) ( ([sum](x+h) - [sum](x))/h ) S'(x) =...

First, yes, they are functions. Second, they are actually continuous for every value of x that is not an integer, this is why when i took the derivative i said that x is not an integer, cause otherwise neither of those two functions will be continuous (but their sum will still be continuous)...

No offense, but did you bother reading my post ? What i did is that i showed where the fallacy is in your proof, and actually corrected it, then i showed that after this correction was made, there is no problems anymore (iow, 2=2), which shows that there are no other fallacies in your original...

Can you please explain ?

Lol, not a lot of fever (Actually today i am better :P). I went thru all of that to proove that ur proof is wrong :).

I guess the topic's subject tells that there is nothing wrong with sattelites :P As i said, the idea is bad from the first place, but i thought that i would put it here to hear comments, and learn sth new :). Thanks for your replies zare, wimms.

Ok, i think i have solved it (i am totally sick now, so i might be writting nonesense). The main problem is that (1+1+1+1 .. (x times) .. +1+1) is meaningless if x is not a positive integer (iow : x=1,2,3,4,5,6...) And since it has no meaning for values around the positive integers, it is not...

Yes, this one is extremely interesting. Normally, it is easy to figure out where the error is from the first look. But this one is harder (i liked it). I think the problem starts here, we have to make sure if it is actually valid to take the derivative of both sides. If it was me writing...