<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Gentle Introduction To Learning Calculus</title>
	<atom:link href="http://betterexplained.com/articles/a-gentle-introduction-to-learning-calculus/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://betterexplained.com/articles/a-gentle-introduction-to-learning-calculus/</link>
	<description>Learn Right, Not Rote.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 12:30:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Forseon</title>
		<link>http://betterexplained.com/articles/a-gentle-introduction-to-learning-calculus/#comment-67538</link>
		<dc:creator>Forseon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 17:52:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://betterexplained.com/articles/a-gentle-introduction-to-learning-calculus/#comment-67538</guid>
		<description>Hey I have a question. Is it possible to integrate the volume of the sphere using the same method only with a pyramid? I tried using r*2pir as the base of the the pyramid and pir^2 as the height, but after applying the formula it doesn&#039;t seem to be working. Wikipedia went about deriving the volume of a sphere on a completely different manner and when I differentiate the formula for the volume I get the formula for the surface area of a sphere. What is the relation between these results? Is there a way to continuously integrate the equations in order to make &quot;dimensional leaps&quot; or better yet, to express this in a geometrial manner? Because that would make calculating shapes above the third dimension very easy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey I have a question. Is it possible to integrate the volume of the sphere using the same method only with a pyramid? I tried using r*2pir as the base of the the pyramid and pir^2 as the height, but after applying the formula it doesn&#8217;t seem to be working. Wikipedia went about deriving the volume of a sphere on a completely different manner and when I differentiate the formula for the volume I get the formula for the surface area of a sphere. What is the relation between these results? Is there a way to continuously integrate the equations in order to make &#8220;dimensional leaps&#8221; or better yet, to express this in a geometrial manner? Because that would make calculating shapes above the third dimension very easy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Why the area of a circle = area of triangle &#187; Ishango Bones</title>
		<link>http://betterexplained.com/articles/a-gentle-introduction-to-learning-calculus/#comment-67228</link>
		<dc:creator>Why the area of a circle = area of triangle &#187; Ishango Bones</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:28:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://betterexplained.com/articles/a-gentle-introduction-to-learning-calculus/#comment-67228</guid>
		<description>[...] can&#8217;t explain it any better than this    Posted by admin at 8:25 am &#160;Tagged with: [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] can&#8217;t explain it any better than this    Posted by admin at 8:25 am &nbsp;Tagged with: [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kalid</title>
		<link>http://betterexplained.com/articles/a-gentle-introduction-to-learning-calculus/#comment-59499</link>
		<dc:creator>kalid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 18:48:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://betterexplained.com/articles/a-gentle-introduction-to-learning-calculus/#comment-59499</guid>
		<description>@Andrei: Haha, awesome -- glad it clicked ;).

@Sudharshan: Great question. You&#039;ll notice that the change between x and x^2 (2x + 1) is actually dependent on the size of the change you are measuring. If you are jumping from 2^2 to 3^2, you take a &quot;step&quot; of 1.0 and a change of 9 - 4 = 5 = 2x + 1.

What about taking a smaller step, such as 2^2 to 2.1^2? We&#039;re only jumping to the number .1 in front of us.

In this case, the difference is 4.41 - 4 = .40 + .01 = 2*x*(.1) + (.1)^2

You&#039;ll see that the &quot;error term&quot; is based on how far you step! In Calculus, we take tiny, microscopic steps which means the error term is some microscopic amount squared (micro-microscopic). For small steps, our error rate is shrinking faster than our step rate, and eventually becomes negligible.

The trick: to measure the difference from 2^2 to 3^2, don&#039;t jump all at once. Find the difference from 2^2 to 2.1^2, and 2.1^2 to 2.2^2, and so on... the error at each stage is (.1)^2 = .01, so after 10 jumps the total error is only .1.

So, jumping from 2 to 3 in steps of .1 gives a total error of .1. If we jumped in steps of .000001, we&#039;d have a total error of .000001. At some point, we can make the steps small enough to be &quot;accurate enough&quot; for our needs (there&#039;s always some error threshold we can work within).

I plan on writing more about this!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Andrei: Haha, awesome &#8212; glad it clicked <img src='http://betterexplained.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> .</p>
<p>@Sudharshan: Great question. You&#8217;ll notice that the change between x and x^2 (2x + 1) is actually dependent on the size of the change you are measuring. If you are jumping from 2^2 to 3^2, you take a &#8220;step&#8221; of 1.0 and a change of 9 &#8211; 4 = 5 = 2x + 1.</p>
<p>What about taking a smaller step, such as 2^2 to 2.1^2? We&#8217;re only jumping to the number .1 in front of us.</p>
<p>In this case, the difference is 4.41 &#8211; 4 = .40 + .01 = 2*x*(.1) + (.1)^2</p>
<p>You&#8217;ll see that the &#8220;error term&#8221; is based on how far you step! In Calculus, we take tiny, microscopic steps which means the error term is some microscopic amount squared (micro-microscopic). For small steps, our error rate is shrinking faster than our step rate, and eventually becomes negligible.</p>
<p>The trick: to measure the difference from 2^2 to 3^2, don&#8217;t jump all at once. Find the difference from 2^2 to 2.1^2, and 2.1^2 to 2.2^2, and so on&#8230; the error at each stage is (.1)^2 = .01, so after 10 jumps the total error is only .1.</p>
<p>So, jumping from 2 to 3 in steps of .1 gives a total error of .1. If we jumped in steps of .000001, we&#8217;d have a total error of .000001. At some point, we can make the steps small enough to be &#8220;accurate enough&#8221; for our needs (there&#8217;s always some error threshold we can work within).</p>
<p>I plan on writing more about this!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sudharshan Gomadam</title>
		<link>http://betterexplained.com/articles/a-gentle-introduction-to-learning-calculus/#comment-59493</link>
		<dc:creator>Sudharshan Gomadam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 18:33:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://betterexplained.com/articles/a-gentle-introduction-to-learning-calculus/#comment-59493</guid>
		<description>Kalid - great site and great service to mankind !  on the same subject,taking the example of area of circle. the rate of change area would be differentiation of PI*r^2 which is equal to 2PI*r. This intuitively seems to make sense as every small change in radius will lead to increase in area by the circumference we know that differentiation of x^2 is 2x ( I know the derivation using limits - X+h etc). However, if we take real numbers say x=(2,3,4,5),  x^2=(4,9,16,25). the change is 5(9-4 etc), 7,9,11). This is equal to 2x+1 and not 2x. What am i missing here?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kalid &#8211; great site and great service to mankind !  on the same subject,taking the example of area of circle. the rate of change area would be differentiation of PI*r^2 which is equal to 2PI*r. This intuitively seems to make sense as every small change in radius will lead to increase in area by the circumference we know that differentiation of x^2 is 2x ( I know the derivation using limits &#8211; X+h etc). However, if we take real numbers say x=(2,3,4,5),  x^2=(4,9,16,25). the change is 5(9-4 etc), 7,9,11). This is equal to 2x+1 and not 2x. What am i missing here?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

