gregpetrics

4 ms·

1.
by gregpetrics 7y ago
Good feedback. I struggled with deciding if I should write activities that illustrate the full algorithm for derivatives and antiderivatives. At this time I left it out, but I do have the materials... The book was written with a bit of a pr
2.
by gregpetrics 7y ago
That's really sad. You might check out the sequence of activities in the Integral chapter of this book to get another perspective on the FTC. I totally agree. It's the entire point of calculus, and it's what sets the entire f
3.
by gregpetrics 7y ago
Whoops. Page 47. I paraphrase: Sequences "converge" if there exists an N such that the sequence stays within epsilon of p (the mark) for all indexes larger than N. I know it seems formal because it adheres to a certain structure,
4.
by gregpetrics 7y ago
I agree Linear and Combi is far more useful once you get going on a technical degree and/or career, but go to a university in the US and check the prerequisites on these courses: CALCULUS. This was another reason I wrote this book. For
5.
by gregpetrics 7y ago
This. I've Seen it time and again: Great mathematicians who are awful mathematics students get turned away. They end up making great full stack engineers.
6.
by gregpetrics 7y ago
Author of book here. Nice comment, and very interesting question. I am not worried about using "informality" to get more people studying mathematics. The book is informal, but by the end of the book, the integral that gets present
7.
by gregpetrics 7y ago
Good point. I've put in a request with Geogebra for the feature. In the meantime, I'm thinking of how I might hack it with what I have now by just using URLs attached to text like "Help me! I don't understand!" to o
8.
by gregpetrics 7y ago
It's a "Geogebra Book." Get a free Geogebra account at geogebra.org, and get started writing.
9.
by gregpetrics 7y ago
Hiya. I wrote a more detailed response above. Thanks for sharing your struggle.
10.
by gregpetrics 7y ago
Good point. Thanks. I do think that limit is obvious and equal to 4. The point tends to 4. That said, I also agree the "growth rate" thing is coming in a little too quickly there. It's meant to foreshadow derivatives in the n