Re: Does the Calculus rest on Euclid?
- From: "Nathan" <ntspam2@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 21 Jun 2006 09:10:20 -0700
Lee Rudolph wrote:
"Nathan" <ntspam2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Yes, the equation s = r * theta is nowadays used to define the
measure of an angle.
And as I said, that's deplorable (because it rests on--even if it
is not "derived from"--the notion of arc length, which is far subtler
than that of area, from which it could equally well be derived; note
that HvA himself seems to find arc length trickier than area, and
who can blame him?).
I don't get it. How is arc length "far subtler" than area?
It seems to me that they have very much the same sorts of
difficulties.
On a basic level, in terms of intuition and motivation, I find arc
length simpler. Everybody understands measuring how far you
walk along a certain path.
For beginning calculus students, area is obviously simpler,
since the integrals are easier :-)
If you actually try for rigorous definitions in terms of limits,
I think these two concepts are equally complex.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Does the Calculus rest on Euclid?
- From: Herman Rubin
- Re: Does the Calculus rest on Euclid?
- References:
- Does the Calculus rest on Euclid?
- From: Hatto von Aquitanien
- Re: Does the Calculus rest on Euclid?
- From: Hatto von Aquitanien
- Re: Does the Calculus rest on Euclid?
- From: Nathan
- Re: Does the Calculus rest on Euclid?
- From: Lee Rudolph
- Re: Does the Calculus rest on Euclid?
- From: Gene Ward Smith
- Re: Does the Calculus rest on Euclid?
- From: Lee Rudolph
- Re: Does the Calculus rest on Euclid?
- From: Nathan
- Re: Does the Calculus rest on Euclid?
- From: Lee Rudolph
- Does the Calculus rest on Euclid?
- Prev by Date: Re: distributive property proof
- Next by Date: Re: Shannon's "well known" result
- Previous by thread: Re: Does the Calculus rest on Euclid?
- Next by thread: Re: Does the Calculus rest on Euclid?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|