After reading through a few pages of this topic, which seemed quite interesting to begin with, I have noticed a few recurring patterns
1. A gentleman called Don Blazys keep presenting complex arguments in a form that is very difficult to read, even for math professionals !
2. He is also making some claim about
and is using a complicated math identity and is totally unrelated to that claim in order to make it look fancy.
3. The main reason that most people can't see through this, is due to the combination of the fact that the arguments are quite complicated, and the fact that they are being presented in an unreadable way !
4. both Craig and Qfwfq have been more then accommodating, to the point of reformatting the arguments into a more readable format, as well as entertaining the notion that [math\frac{T}{T} a^x [/math] is different somehow from simply
.
I’m not a professional mathematician but I do have a grasp of some fundamental concepts and so:
is the same as
is the same as
I have intentionally used the term 'some function' because even though it appears to be a fascinating identity (to me, a non professional), it has absolutely nothing to do with
.
I do agree with Craig that it should not be canceled out **automatically** because that leads to lack of understanding and ultimately to stupid mistakes, but rather should be canceled out with care, understanding that
, since dividing a number by itself gives you 1, and multiplying a function by one does not change the result
I recently had a long discussion with a mathematics professor who teaches year 1 engineering students and he claimed that his students tend to make fatal errors due to lack of understanding specifically he referred to
being simplified to
, which is incorrect since
not the same as
.
Do you agree guys?
if you have anything to say, please do
(umm…unless your name is Don Blazys, in which case, please use LATEX
)
