Thread:ClariS/@comment-3017217-20141026134417/@comment-4881935-20141029174900

Ntoulinho wrote: The question was aimed towards Willbachbakal nonetheless you did not answer with Yes,no,Idk  why should I?

But I will.

1)Y = ax + b IS linear and it is not A basic linear equation. It is THE ONLY linear equation

2) Idk( I arbitrarily used option c because I had given it to Willbachbakai) -> Diminishing Returns isn't a property of an equation.

It is a property of a process and in the Cartesian this property is seen towards the axes but in this case whichever is the determining one it does not provide diminishing returns.

3) Yes the ratio is the constant a.  In a function placed on a Cartesian where the axes are named x,y  X and Y are the only variables and all others are constants -> b SHOULD NOT change. ClariS wrote:

we have proven to you that the equation is linear Which equation is linear?

Also please deternine for future references which is the output. Personally Effective Health is!

Okay, by you answers, you clearly do not understand the meaning by dimishing returns. I strongly advise you to learn what it is, disuss it with someone and really learn the concept.

Also, for the 3rd question, you fail how to see the fault of your reasoning. Assuming a= 1, therefore doing nothing in this equation,

let's actually plot some points with how simple equation: y = ax + b with b=2 and a=1, netting us: y = 1*x + 2

x= 1, results y = 3 x= 2, results y = 4 x= 50, results y= 54 x= 100, results y= 104

now let's do your crappy ratio that is extremely faulty, and we can clearly see that doubling x is not not double y. You keep calling this dimishing returns simply for the fact, it doesn't double even though, it's rate of increase remains the same (which is all that factors into what counts as dimishing returns or not).

but what if b=0 in the equation, netting us this: y= 1*b + 0

x= 1, results y = 1 x= 2, results y = 2 x= 50, results y= 50 x= 100, results y= 100

oh, hey look, it's doubling now and all I changed was a constant. If you still don't see the fault in your logic, I'm gonna stop with this discussion because you do not fully understands the things you are saying.

You're sprouting out the word 'dimishing return' without even understanding the concept. Rate of change is what determines if or if not it is dimishing returns, not a ratio. But seriously, actually do some research at what defines dimishing returns. Go talk to someone and let them explain it to them and actually listen to them.

Your trying to make a case to the wrong term. Everythng you have been arguing is not for dimishing returns. You're arguing for something else. Math without context is worthless math. Math does not lie, but anyone can be misleading and bias, or flat out wrong when two context has no direct relationship with each other.

So I'm just gonna say, if you attend to keep on making your claim, I'll gladly try my best to help/assist you or better inform you, but if you contiune to use your faulty as proof that dimishing returns exist, then I only have 1 thing to tell you, study up on dimishing returns because I'm no longer willing to talk about this with you until you show better understanding of it.