Cell theory as alternative to Power formula and Chain rule #38

Cell theory as alternative to Power formula and Chain rule #38 Uni-text 8th ed.: TRUE CALCULUS without the phony limit concept

Alright, I am very glad I stuck to this Chain Rule for the Cell theory can revolutionize not only the Chain Rule with alternative Chain rule but can revolutionize Old Calculus of the integral without using the Power formula as to what the integral is going to be.

I need the University or College student to get out the graph paper, pencil and erasure and mark off in 10 Grid 10 for the y-axis and out to 3.2 for the x-axis. Specifically we are using 1000-Grid with the function y= x^2. Now the integral of y = x^2 by the power formula is int= 1/3x^3. Now the x-axis point in which y ends at the border of infinity is x=3.162. So that marks off specifically a Rectangle of 0 to 3.162 along the x-axis and from 0 to 10 along the y-axis. The total area in this rectangle of 10-Grid is 3.162 x 10 = 31.62.

So plot these points for y = x^2 and for x=0 we have (0,0) for x=1 we have (1,1) for x=2 we have (2,4) for x=3 we have (3,9) for x=3.162 we have (3.162, 9.998).

Now in New Math, in True Calculus we have the Complimentarity function which is that we turn the graph paper upside down and pretend that 10 is 0, that 9 is 1, that 8 is 2 etc etc for the y-axis and pretend 3.162 is 0 for the x-axis, and we have a plot of a different function from that of y = x^2. So what is that function? And how is it related to y = x^2? Is that function y = 1/3x^3? Now that new function has an integral area far larger than y=x^2 because it takes up at least 60% of the area of the rectangle that contains both functions.

If so, that this new function is y = 1/3x^3 then the Cell theory gives us the integral from geometry and without using the Power formula.

For consider the identity function y = x, and if we turn the graph upside down, the Complimentarity function of y= x is also y = x since it is a isosceles right-triangle.


--
Drexel's Math Forum has done an excellent search engine for author posts as seen he
http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Now, the only decent search for AP posts on Google Newsgroups, is a search for for it brings up posts that are mostly authored by me and it brings up only about 250 posts. Whereas Drexel brings up nearly 8,000 AP posts. Old Google under Advanced Search
for author, could bring up 20,000 of my authored posts but Google is deteriorating in quality of its searches, likely because AP likes an author search and Google does not want to appear as satisfying to anything that AP likes. If AP likes something, Google is quick to change or alter it.

So the only search engine today doing author searches is Drexel. Spacebanter is starting to do author archive lists. But Google is going in the opposite direction of making author archived posts almost impossible to retrieve.

All the other types of Google searches of AP are just top heavy in hate-spam posts due to search-engine-bombing practices by thousands of hatemongers who have nothing constructive to do in their lives but attack other people.

Now one person claims that Google's deteriorating quality in searches of science newsgroups is all due to "indexing". Well, that is a silly excuse in my opinion, because there is no indexing involved when one simply asks for a author search. No indexing involved if one wants only the pure raw complete list of all posts by a single author. And Google is called the best search engine of our times, yet I have to go to Drexel to see 8,000 of my posts of which I had posted 22,000 to 36,000 posts from 1993 to 2013. It is a shame that Drexel can display 8,000 while Google has a difficult time of displaying 250 of my authored posts. Where the premiere search engine of Google is outclassed by Drexel and even by Spacebanter.

Archimedes Plutonium