?

Log in

No account? Create an account
AlbertJayNock

Entry 100-Lunch With Elle

A while back I made a post about goals that were modest but more ambitious than those of a homeless crack addict. A goal that fit that specification well was making 100 live journal entries before the end of the year, and I am proud to say that with this entry, I meet that goal.

I didn't see Elle at all over the labor day holiday (though we did talk on the phone a bit).
So it was very nice to see her and have lunch with her today. The conversation, as usual was shaped partly by our mutual professional interests and more largely by my ADD.

The fundamental theorem of calculus somehow came up in conversation. Both of us were trying to remember what it was. I ventured a guess which she agreed with, but unfortunately turned out to be wrong.

I just looked up the fundamental theorem of calculus. It is the theorem that relates derivatives and integrals. What I gave her was instead the mean value theorem.

I told her about a numerical analysis class I took that used the mean value theorem to prove that certain iterative methods for solving equations work. I wrote down a proof of it on a napkin. A very rough proof.

When we left the cafeteria, I realized I had forgotten my umbrella. I guess this was my day for being stupid. When I went back to get it, I saw my proof still lying on the table.

I retrieved both the umbrella and the proof on the napkin. I gave her the napkin and said "you may have this". I knew this was dorky at the time, and now that I realize I don't know the difference between the mean value theorem and the fundamental theorem of calculus, it seems even dorkier.

Maybe she will think it is cute like a bad drawing from an endearing child, and put it on her refrigerator. After all, her kids are grown now. Another of my modest goals.
Tags: ,

Comments

I'm sure having a rough proof of the mean value theorem on a napkin could possibly benefit Elle... I wouldn't feel too bad. These days, I feel like I'd have a hard time proving the multiplicative identity "theorem", so missing one for another isn't so bad. ; )