Luis, I'm not so sure you should count yourself
the evaluator of my comprehension.
I figured if they can't explain it clearly in words, there's probably a mistake in their math.
So although there are probably mistakes in Yanniru's math and Dr. Dick's math, I'm waiting for their words to make a little more sense before
I go to the trouble of checking their math...yes, it would take some effort. I do have a logical approach without all the funny greek letters being always the first resort.
I'm here at the bottom of an abstract well...
1) Math is for computing. Then, when you have found a universal law, you should be able to explain in terms of simpler ratios, physically.
2) Dr. Dick is PROVEN right on at least one point right here with a minor example, as follows:
Physical laws CAN be confused for conditional equations. I found one rightCheer in my PreCalculus Math book.
Paraphrased without ANY context shift, they said "A=1/2bh is a law of nature when the letters mean 'area = 1/2 times base times height.'"
But while that's true for triangles, it's not true for other geometric forms. So, on this SIMPLE level, this book let that little declaration pass for truth. Do you believe
A=1/2 b h when the letters mean "area=1/2 times base times height?" I don't agree that it's true without conditions...not true universally!
The triangle is an existing example for which it is true, and we love to cite it.
You see they CAN make that mistake!
If you doubt what I am saying, I can give you the book title and edition number, etc....
ISBN, or could post a photocopy of the page on my website if you want...
Mike
