> Paul, could explain to me a non-mathematician why you say
"Calculus
> is Dead"? Feel free to over simplify. I quoted you and was
> challenged to back up the statement. I said I thought it might
have
> something to do with "computer finite analysis" but that I did not
> know the reasoning behind your comment. Be forewarned, your
> comments may find their way to my friends old calculus professor at
> Indiana University. :)
>
> I explain further: while I was slapping shoes on a mean little
> arab. we were talking about how the computer empowers non-
> mathematicians/non engineers to attempt complex designs using CAD.
> Another example is how (in my opinion) CAD has eliminated the need
> for Trigonometry in the machine shop. Jerry
>
>
> I am no mathematician either but as I understand it integral
calculus
> is all about computing the area or volume under certain
mathematical
> curves. It does this by slicing the area or volume into
infinitely thin slices,
> calculating the area or volume of those slices and adding them up
> to determine the total area or volume under the curve(s).
>
> A computer can do this real easy and the curve(s) does/do not
> have to have a mathematical definition such as y = x^2
> to use a simple example. The curve(s) can have ANY shape.
> All the computer needs is a set of coordinates for points
> on the curve(s).
>
> Way back before personal computers and electronic calculators
> I was charged with calculating the speed attained as a function
> of distance traveled for a land speed record car. Not being sharp
> at all in calculus I opted to do it the long way.
>
> I calculated the increase in speed and acceleration every .1
> second knowing the driving wheel torque as a function of gear
> ratio, engine RPM, car weight, aerodynamic down force, aerodynamic
> drag, tire rolling resistance, coefficient of friction, the phase
> of the moon and the distance the car traveled in that .1 second
> and added them all up.
>
> It took me a week to get to 400 MPH. I used a Friden mechanical
> calculator that had a hundred buttons or more. See the attached
> picture of the electro mechanical version. The one I used had a big
> hand crank on the side of it. Second picture.
>
> "Inventor: Frank Stephen Baldwin 1839-1925."
>
> "Baldwin patented a pinwheel device that enabled carries in a
compact
> device. In 1900 he invented a method that allowed digits to be
> entered by a single stroke."
>
> "Each complete forward turn of the large crank on the right will
add
> the value set into the 8 x 10 keys into the bottom register of the
> carriage. The main register on the carriage shows the result. The
> smaller register above it counts the turns. Subtraction is achieved
> by turning the crank in reverse. To multiply by more than one digit
> the Repeat button is pressed and the crank turned as often as
needed
> for the low-order digit. Then the carriage is moved to the right
> with the handle in front, so the next digit of the factor can be
> cranked in."
>
> http://www-db.stanford.edu/pub/voy/museum/pictures/display/1-
Calculators.htm
>
> A computer can do that in about two or three ms after the
> program is written. A few years later, after I had a computer
> and the program, I used to astound my car magazine journalist
> friends by predicting what their test car would do in the 1/4 mile
> to the nearest .01 seconds. No need to actually test the car as
long
> as the manufacturer was not lying about the engine HP.
>
> Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
>
>
> Hello, Paul,
> I'm amplifying on your most interesting observation that
calculus is
> dead.
> As you may recall, I'm both an automotive journalist
(engineering
> editor, Road & Track) and also a mathematician (Ph.D., Case Western
> Reserve, 1969).
> Yep, computer algorithms have taken a lot of the grunt work
out of
> mathematical analysis. But, as you recognize better than most, the
> computer needs to be programmed by someone, and that person uses
the
> underpinning of calculus, and often calculus per se, to compose
these
> programs.
> What's more, a great many mathematical areas arise from
calculus.
> They and their core area calculus continue to flourish.
> A curious word-origin aspect: The word "calculus" comes from the
> Latin, "calculi," pebble, a little stone. Of course "calculate"
has the
> same root, namely using little stones to keep track of things.
> Though we rarely use pebbles, their basic function, counting, is
> alive and well. And so is calculus.
> All in good fun. Thanks for raising this interesting issue.
> Dennis (Simanaitis)
>
What Dennis says is bizarre. I hired Dennis at R&T. He was (and is)
coldly calculating. I never saw him play with pebbles, but he was
frequently stoned. And the root of the word Calculus comes from Cal
(California) and the ending is us (for U.S.). The cul in the middle
of the word is obvious and intuitive.
jd
Hello, Paul (and jd),
Who could quibble with so sound an authority as jd?
All in good fun.
Dennis
The scary part is that now that this is in print, everyone will know
it's "fact" and a day or two from now it will be on Wikipedia!
jd
Yes isn't that the truth! they will let anybody say anything
on there. I know. I have said something :)
--
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
Yeah, ain't that the truth. But yeah, ain't that also the false. It
amazes me what "journalists" will pick up from the web and other
sources these days without checking their facts.
jd
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2006 All world wide rights reserved.