瀏覽單個文章
Adsmt
Golden Member
 
Adsmt的大頭照
 

加入日期: Feb 2004
您的住址: 從來處來
文章: 2,766
引用:
作者奶油銓
太慘了, 我又手賤翻了另外一本比較通俗的 Calculus, Finney 跟 Thomas寫的,第639頁他竟然寫
because c/a = 2c/2a <= 是不是錯的很離譜 ?
第682頁寫 we subtract the integral of (1/2)r^2 <= 畫蛇添足
有一個好消息是這本書的第 x 頁 寫到 :
Some of our colleagues suggested that since we are so confident about the book's accuracy, we should go one step further, and offer payment for any remaining errors that are found. With this in mind, but primarily because we want to detect any remaining errors quickly and correct them in subsequent printings, we are offering to pay $5 per mathematical error to the first person who reports the error. Any mathematical error that has follow-through effects will be counted as at most two errors.
...

我要承認我前面說「教科書這樣寫是錯」的說法是錯的。
因為我那時只想到電腦程式裡 / 的意義。

但 wiki 也有寫了,除法只有「表示法」,只有÷才具有「單獨運算元」的意義。所以把 / 看成表示法中的分數符號,那就不會有 a/bc = a/(bc) 的爭議了。

這是我自圓其說的解釋啦。至少這符合廠商說法、教授說法、教科書寫法、wiki 資料、電腦程式運算方法,豈不是很完美?
舊 2011-04-15, 02:53 AM #354
回應時引用此文章
Adsmt離線中