A gang of integrals slap your gfs ass at the club. what do?

take their derivative until it gets to 0

I am talking WILDBERGER here.

In the usual construction of calculus derivatives come first.

In Wildberger's construction of calculus, integral comes first and derivatives are just anti integrals you dummy dumb dumb.

Go learn some Wildberger faggot.

not an argument.

Heh, just fucking try it, kid

Your derivatives and integrals are based on the assumption of infinity.

Show me an infinity faggot. Come on, show me one. Anything. Show me infinite cars, infinite dogs, infinite dicks. Anything. Show me the infinite.

take the derivative wrt y

>he does FTC with algebra
>no you can't you need a tangent line
>he doesn't he clearly does something else
>HURR NOT AN ARGUMENT

you're fucking retarded

Natural numbers. If you claim that the natural numbers is a finite set then show me the largest one.

it's not an assumption it's based on limits. when a system diverges or converges you can state that it goes towards either a fixed value, or infinity. that's the definition.

is zero not a number? show me zero dogs or zero cars. inb4 you try to say 0 is the absence of numbers.

>I don't know what I'm arguing for or against
kill yourself, honestly. the user made it pretty clear he's not using ZFC

>infinity is not an assumption it's based on limits which are based on the assumption of infinity
holy fuck, go ahead and define a limit without the axiom of infinity, you retarded doofus

Using Wildberger axioms and the set of primitive naturals, the biggest number is around 10^200

nice double trips

show me a fraction. come on show me.

>half a pie

no no that's a pie cut in half!

why are you bribing up axioms here? i'm merely discussing definition of limits, which is what our modern calculus uses. you said it was infinity, which isn't always the case. what part of this are you struggling on?

Your axioms yield a mere fraction of what mathematics could be... with Wildberger's axioms.

>hurr why are you bringing up axioms

because you replied to
>Your derivatives and integrals are based on the assumption of infinity.
trying to claim they aren't. ZFC includes the axiom of infinity. wildberger doesn't use that.

why do people freak out over infinity?

it's the boundary which can never be reached. it's the number at which no numbers can measure it. it is the ideal structure that all series strive for if give endless time, which follows the same series.

where does ZFC come into play for FTC?

>where does ZFC come into play for FTC?
seriously, shut the fuck up. stop posting. you don't know what the conversation you butted into is about.

>why do people freak out over infinity?

Because axioms are supposed to be facts that are self evident. Things we can agree are so obvious we can use as our foundations.

So we can start:

1) Sets are a thing
Sure, we can have collections of things. Now, what rules do those sets follow.

Two sets are equal if they have the same elements

Ok, sure. That is intuitive. If I have two boxes and both have the same dildo in then the two boxes are pretty much indistinguishable from each other. Good axiom!

If you have two sets then their union exist

Sure, if I have two boxes, one with a dildo and one with a vibrator then I can pick up the vibrator and put it in the box with the dildo. Good axiom.

THERE IS THIS BOX WITH INFINITE SIZE THAT HAS ONE DILDO, BUT FOR EVERY DILDO INSIDE OF IT, THERE IS ANOTHER DILDO!

Wooooowwwww calm down niggaaa. Show that box of infinite dildos and maybe we can use that axiom m8. That does NOT sound "self evident" to me.

>it's the boundary which can never be reached. it's the number at which no numbers can measure it. it is the ideal structure that all series strive for if give endless time, which follows the same series.
It's fucking amazing that you think this means anything.

you failed to answer the question so i'm going to say it had nothing to do with it, furthing proving the previous guy's post. kill yourself dumbass.

it doesn't surprise me that you can't grasp meaning from it if you're going to act like a tool.

>wahhh wahhh
you're a retarded fuck, you don't know any math, and that's evident to anyone who's anything more than a fucking freshman. you aren't going to win anything by trying to save face, you colossal fucking baboon. when you talk about things you don't know jack shit about, it's clear to everyone else.

>hello class, let's start with some math and let's define infinity shall we?
>it's the boundary which can never be reached. it's the number at which no numbers can measure it. it is the ideal structure that all series strive for if give endless time, which follows the same series.

hahahaha

keep dodging the question shitstain you're only digging a deeper grave for your nonexistent counterclaim.

>gets an F in every area other than rote memorization parroting other peoples viewpoints
>wonders why he can't contribute anything new to the field of interest

you're the last person who should be laughing.

>I-I swear, people reading this will really t-think I know w-what I'm talking about!
wrong

>Listen up students, I do things differently. I don't parrot other people's viewpoints so you can throw all those math books into the trash. Let's begin with what I call some REAL math shall we? Let's talk about infinity.
>it's the boundary which can never be reached. it's the number at which no numbers can measure it. it is the ideal structure that all series strive for if give endless time, which follows the same series.

yes please shitpost harder while further diverging form the original topic. that will really help strengthen your image as a person of authority in this thread. don't forget ellipses next time.

>I have more authority than you! (Please don't use ellipses they trigger me)
...cute...

>gets berated for parroting
>proceeds to parrot my exact post without actually interpreting it

amazing. it's like poetry.

>Welcome to introduction to interpretation and quantum philosophy 1. Let's interpret this deep passage shall we?
>Infinity. It's the boundary which can never be reached. it's the number at which no numbers can measure it. it is the ideal structure that all series strive for if give endless time, which follows the same series.
>So subtle, so sublime...

>fabricates discussions in his head

did you forget your medication?

>projects his superficial dialogue of what creativity is due to having none whatsoever

can't make this up

>All equations can be represented as polynomials
First-year student or physicist detected. Even if you count a power series as a "polynomial", what will you do for functions with no power series expansion? Or ones where one exists but converges to a different limit?

>You have no creativity at all! Let me teach you how it's done.
>Infinity. It's the boundary which can never be reached. it's the number at which no numbers can measure it. it is the ideal structure that all series strive for if give endless time, which follows the same series.
>Nothing personnel, kid.....

>resorts to memes
>thinks he's actually pretty clever
>in reality he isn't

this is why you didn't get that postdoc. put more gusto into it.

what do you mean no expansion?

He uses the Lagrange's method to calculate derivatives and tangents, retards

I did get it though. Here's how the interview went.
>So, up to now your application has been really superficial, to say the least. We're going to need something more out of you.
>Like what, sir?
>Talk to me about infinity.
>It's the boundary which can never be reached. it's the number at which no numbers can measure it. it is the ideal structure that all series strive for if give endless time, which follows the same series.
>Jesus. You're hired.

no this is how it went
>so user what do you think of this area I'm studying? i have a strong passion for it.
>proceeds to mock/satire every area that shows a hint of implicitness/abstraction
>wow your candor and perverse adherence to rigor is impressive! don't call me we'll call you ok?

i thought that merely calculates the local extrema.

The way you phrased that is silly, why would I mock abstraction?

The third line does sound like something that a prof I had would tell me, though. Geometers vs algebraists and all that :^)

the way you're phrasing every single reply makes it sound like abstraction would trigger you.

a : the limit of the value of a function or variable when it tends to become numerically larger than any preassigned finite number b : a part of a geometric magnitude that lies beyond any part whose distance from a given reference position is finite c : a transfinite number (as aleph-null)

would any of these definitions satisfy you?

I'm assuming you mean that every function has a taylor series? This isn't true. First off, to get the coefficients, your function has to be infinitely differentiable ([math]f(x) = |x|[/math] fails this). Even if it is infinitely differentiable, the series you get may not always converge to the original function. A classic example of this is
[math]
f(x) = \begin{cases}
e^{-1/x} &\quad x \neq 0 \\
0 &\quad x = 0
\end{cases}
[/math]
This function is infinitely differentiable, but it's nth derivative at 0 is always 0.

Typo, I meant [math]e^{-1/x^2}[/math], but the idea is the same.

satisfy me? that's not the topic of this thread, I like and use ZFC and any reasonable definition in that framework would satisfy me, but this thread is about whatever weird crap wildberger uses, which doesn't include the axiom of infinity or an equivalent one.

that said, your three definitions don't satisfy me at all, I don't think they're clear or comprehensive. for infinity "bigger than any natural number" is enough, for limit "unique point, if it exists, that is arbitrarily close to any tail of the sequence / vicinity of x" is good

so is he just taking all the approximation methods that exist in mathematics which don't rely on infinity and rebuilding all of mathematics with them?

Apparently. I don't really follow his weird shit, and he hasn't really given any interesting results with it, so eh.

sqrt(pi)erfi(x)/2

>around
I asked for specifics fuckboy

Rolf
Weak ass integrals thinking that can slap gfs ass when they don't even exist.
>I wont have my gfs ass slapped by a figment.
>I'd show'em what's 4!

...

Is there difference between the top and bottom row of symbols in OP image?

infinity isn't a number, it's a concept.

It is not a concept, it's the boundary which can never be reached. it's the number at which no numbers can measure it. it is the ideal structure that all series strive for if give endless time, which follows the same series.

;^)

But wildburger did define limits

if you don't already know, it would be impossible to explain

sorry bro im unmeasurable

He did but it is completely different to the ZFC limit and also he did not use it to prove his version of the FTC.

Maybe you would use his limit definition to create an integral that fit his integral axioms but maybe not.

Not him but pls explain.

Even if I won't get it, just do it.

this is the [math] \int _0 ^\infty e^{-x^2}\,dx[/math] variant of what you gave

Remind her they're just pumped up derivatives of the based function.

That's a different Lagrange's method.

This is Lagrange's method for defining derivatives without limits.
I'm pretty sure it's in his book Théorie des fonctions analytiques, and I'm too lazy to go look for the Wildberger lecture

Nice black board desu

Tear them into strips?