home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.math:17070 comp.edu:2211 misc.education:5349
- Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!eecg.toronto.edu!leemike
- Newsgroups: sci.math,comp.edu,misc.education
- From: leemike@eecg.toronto.edu (Michael Lee)
- Subject: Re: Integration Was: Re: Student attitudes
- Message-ID: <1992Dec16.205153.20827@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
- Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
- References: <1992Dec9.210117.3660@hubcap.clemson.edu> <1g7lfbINNdbb@rave.larc.nasa.gov> <1992Dec10.212140.5483@massey.ac.nz> <Bz3MMq.5At@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <PCG.92Dec14175129@aberdb.aber.ac.uk>
- Date: 17 Dec 92 01:51:54 GMT
- Lines: 28
-
- In article <PCG.92Dec14175129@aberdb.aber.ac.uk> pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
- >On 11 Dec 92 14:23:13 GMT, hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) said:
- >I am not a mathematician, but I cannot keep my trap shout on this. The
- >usual way I explain integrals is:
- >
- > Integration is a purely formal exercise in which a formula is
- > transformed into another formula, using particularly odd rules.
- >
- > It so happens that the new formula, in several useful and
- > usually simple cases, describes what we intuitively perceive as
- > the area or volume delimited in some way by the first formula,
- > if it seen as describing a geometrical shape.
- >
- > That's why the particular transformation called integration has
- > been invented and defined that particular way; but having
- > defined integration in that particular way largely for that
- > purpose, mathematicians found out such definition had many other
- > fairly nonintuitive properties.
- >
- >Incidentally, I am one of those that think that infinitesimal quantities
- >are a bad idea.
- >--
- >Piercarlo Grandi, Dept of CS, PC/UW@Aberystwyth <pcg@aber.ac.uk>
- > E l'italiano cantava, cantava. E le sue disperate invocazioni giunsero
- > alle orecchie del suo divino protettore, il dio della barzelletta
-
- Why do you think infinitesimal quantities are a bad idea?
-
-