Enhance Your Hair's Natural Shine with Magic Sleek After Styling Care

Magic Sleek is a hair care treatment that promises to provide sleek, smooth, and frizz-free hair after styling. This treatment is suitable for all hair types and works by infusing the hair with natural ingredients that help to improve its texture and manageability. Unlike other hair straightening treatments, Magic Sleek does not use harsh chemicals like formaldehyde. After the treatment, it is important to take proper care of your hair to maintain its sleekness and frizz-free appearance. This is where Magic Sleek's after styling care products come into play. These products are specifically formulated to nourish and protect the hair, helping to maintain the sleek look for an extended period of time.

defnitely voodoo. famous religious figures even tried to expose Newton as a heathen mathematician in the old days. fortunately he was not burned at the stake.

However, since the net effect is the same as treating them as entitities that are manipualable, if that s a word, that is what is taught when it is the ends and not the means that matter. Imagine my amazement and relief when I learned about a class called real analysis where we would start with the axioms for the real numbers and build everything up from there.

These products are specifically formulated to nourish and protect the hair, helping to maintain the sleek look for an extended period of time. One of the key products in Magic Sleek's after styling care range is their shampoo. This shampoo is designed to gently cleanse the hair while preserving its natural oils and moisture.

Calculus: math or voodoo?

In summary, the conversation discusses the confusion and lack of understanding of calculus, specifically in regards to the use of notation and concepts such as dy/dx and infinitesimals. The participants suggest that this confusion is often due to inadequate teaching and a lack of a rigorous foundation in the subject. They also mention the use of differential forms as a more concrete approach to understanding calculus. However, they acknowledge that for most students, the traditional approach of using dx and dy as small distances may be more intuitive.

loom91

I'm sure I'm wrong, but calculus appears voodoo to me. I can usually get the right answers, but it all looks like a castle of clouds to me. There's no internallogic, things are forced into place to make them work. In particular, dy/dx is reffered to and defined as an operator d/dx acting on y, but then it is frequently treatted as an actual quotent of two actual algebraic quantities, particularly in integral calculus and solution of differential equations. What sort of black magic is this? Thanks.

• State-estimation method allows for efficient forecasts without details of underlying model
• Flipped coins found not to be as fair as thought
• Mathematical bedtime stories may build better mathematical memory

chroot

The reason it's confusing is because you're being taught by teachers who are either (a) lazy or (b) incompetent.

It is unfortunate that calculus can be taught almost like it's black magic -- you put this symbol here, put that symbol there, and you get the right answer. It is, however, a rigorous subject that does not actually include any "black magic."

Once you reach the level of differential forms and real analysis, all of the "black magic" features of calculus will be revealed as very strict, sensible constructions. "dx," for example, is actually a one-form, though no Calc I teacher will ever explain that to you.

CRGreathouse

It seems that way because you are given tools to work with without explanations. Real Analysis covers the "why"s in muc more detail, but that's usually a senior-level course in college.

Daverz

Try to find the little book Gravity by George Gamow. It will give you a more physical feel for calculus using the original application. Also, there are some visual calculus tutorials on the net, just google "calculus".

As for the infinitisemals, I don't know what to tell you. They are never put on a solid foundation in the typical calculus courses, but you'll still see them used all the time in Physics, and Physicists are expected to pick it up by osmosis. So you still need to play with the simple dy/dx picture of little infinitesimal triangles, or at least Physicists do.

The infinitesimals were given a rigourous foundation in the last century. There's an entire calculus book using infinitesimals, with all the usual applications, listed at the bottom of that page, and Dover has a couple short books on the subject. But I don't know if that would help or just be a distraction for you at this point.

matt grime

chroot

In fact, it's much more concrete to approach calculus as an application of differential forms, never once referring to dx and dy as infinitesimals.

Daverz

I can see how differential forms make sense out of

but it's not clear to me how they make sense out of

as an actual ratio rather than just notation that looks like a ratio but isn't. That's what non-standard analysis does.

Also, there's a huge literature out there that makes naive use of infinitesimals. Pure math students may be lucky enough not to encounter it in modern textbooks, but students in the sciences are not so lucky.

loom91

So dy/dx is better treated as a ratio of two "1-forms" rather than as an operator acting on y? That means that the definition we use for first-principle calculations of derivative would have to be abandoned. Our high-school course in calculus is particularly lacking in rigour. We learn the applications of single variable real calculus up to second-order differential equations, but most of it is application of formulas given without proof (for example the limit theorems and standard limits).

In physics, we rely on intuition to get a right answer treating dx as an infinitesimal change, but because of the lack of a properly understood foundation it's all like groping in the dark and it can get very confusing in problems requiring complicated use of calculus.

I've heard about 1-forms before. What actually are these and how do they relate to the definition of derivative we are taught? Thanks.

Daverz

You can get a free book on forms here:

The author is a forum member.

Daverz

I don't believe it's meaningful to divide 1-forms that way.

That means that the definition we use for first-principle calculations of derivative would have to be abandoned.

f'(x) = lim (f(x+h) - f(x))/h h->0

definition of the derivitive.

Our high-school course in calculus is particularly lacking in rigour. We learn the applications of single variable real calculus up to second-order differential equations, but most of it is application of formulas given without proof (for example the limit theorems and standard limits).

I don't think that's a bad approach. It can take some mathematical maturity to really "get" the idea of limits.

In physics, we rely on intuition to get a right answer treating dx as an infinitesimal change, but because of the lack of a properly understood foundation it's all like groping in the dark and it can get very confusing in problems requiring complicated use of calculus.

And wait until you get to how variational problems are traditionally handled in Physics (e.g. in Goldstein). That can really be confusing.

Office_Shredder

Actually, using dx and dy as just really small distances is a great intuitive way of dealing with physics

coalquay404

I think that you're all trying to over-analyse the OP's problem. Differential calculus of functions is *not* easily discussed in terms of differential forms. In fact, a moment's thought should be enough to convince you that any expression of the form

cannot be reliably interpreted in terms of differential forms. Differential calculus of this type is the study of the limiting behaviour of the rate of change of functions -- this is analysis, not differential geometry.

I do agree though that anybody who has trouble understanding calculus is most probably being taught by a lazy teacher.

Mickey

I don't think that's a bad approach. It can take some mathematical maturity to really "get" the idea of limits.

loom91

I will be trying out that linked book now.

By the way, I think I 'get' the epsilon-delta definition of limits and the infinitesimal treatment in Physics appears rather forced and illogical to me.

In any case, what is dy/dx really if not the ratio of two 1-forms?

matt grime

If y is a function of x then dy/dx is the limit of y(x+e)/y(x) as e tends to zero. That is what it 'really' is, and I imagine what you already know. And if you're still wondering how it can be 'treated as a fraction' when doing integrals, then just think of the following example (latex is still broken I think)

if g(y)dy/dx = f(x), then integrating both sides gives wrt x

int g(y)(dy/dx)dx = int f(x)dx

but the LHS is just the same as int g(y)dy by the chain rule.

mathwonk

defnitely voodoo. famous religious figures even tried to expose Newton as a heathen mathematician in the old days. fortunately he was not burned at the stake.

loom91

You mean that the fraction thingy is just a notation? No meaning is assigned to the intermediate steps in the solution of a differential equation where we manipulate the dys and dxs separately?

matt grime

No meaning needs to be assigned to that treatment. The fact is that all you're doing is a omitting some steps, in an attempt to make it intuitively easy to solve the DE. There is no need to manipulate the dys and dxs separately at all. However, since the net effect is the same as treating them as entitities that are manipualable, if that's a word, that is what is taught when it is the ends and not the means that matter. Not something I condone, by the way.

All this talk of infinitesimals, and 1-forms are rigorous ways of justifying this treatment, but at the level we're talking about here there is no need to use it.

nocturnal

And if you're still wondering how it can be 'treated as a fraction' when doing integrals, then just think of the following example (latex is still broken I think)

if g(y)dy/dx = f(x), then integrating both sides gives wrt x

int g(y)(dy/dx)dx = int f(x)dx

but the LHS is just the same as int g(y)dy by the chain rule.

No meaning needs to be assigned to that treatment. The fact is that all you're doing is a omitting some steps, in an attempt to make it intuitively easy to solve the DE. There is no need to manipulate the dys and dxs separately at all. However, since the net effect is the same as treating them as entitities that are manipualable, if that's a word, that is what is taught when it is the ends and not the means that matter. Not something I condone, by the way.

All this talk of infinitesimals, and 1-forms are rigorous ways of justifying this treatment, but at the level we're talking about here there is no need to use it.

Nicely put. I wish my teacher had mentioned this when I was taking intro to calc. This simple fact was the source of a lot of confusion and it took me a better part of a year to figure this out for myself. However, I don't think my math teacher knew too much about math. When asked if I would ever encounter a class where calculus would be put on a rigorous foundation and everything would be proved (beyond the brief hand-wavy proofs that were given in the text) I was told no, that this intro class was all there was. Imagine my amazement (and relief) when I learned about a class called real analysis where we would start with the axioms for the real numbers and build everything up from there.

I am also surprised that many textbooks introduce the methods "separation of variables" and "u-substitution" without any mention of the chain rule, but rather show that we can manipulate dx's and dy's after we're explicity told that dx and dy have no meaning on their own and that dy/dx is not to be treated as a fraction!

Anyways, I empathize with the OP and suggest that if your current text lacks the rigour you desire, you might try picking up a better one such as the ones written by Spivak, or Apostol, or even an intro analysis text.

You mean that the fraction thingy is just a notation? No meaning is assigned to the intermediate steps in the solution of a differential equation where we manipulate the dys and dxs separately?

It is important to use a shampoo that is free from sulfates and harsh detergents, as these can strip the hair of its natural oils and cause it to become dry and frizzy. Another important product in the after styling care range is the conditioner. This conditioner is enriched with keratin and other nourishing ingredients that help to smooth the hair cuticles and provide additional moisture. It helps to repair any damage that may have occurred during the styling process and leaves the hair feeling soft and silky. In addition to the shampoo and conditioner, Magic Sleek also offers a range of styling products that are specifically designed to enhance the sleek look of the hair. These products include a serum, a heat protectant spray, and a finishing spray. The serum helps to control frizz and flyaways, while the heat protectant spray provides a barrier against heat damage from styling tools. The finishing spray adds shine and helps to set the hairstyle in place. Overall, Magic Sleek's after styling care products are an essential part of maintaining the sleek and frizz-free look achieved through the Magic Sleek treatment. These products help to keep the hair nourished, protected, and looking its best. Whether you have naturally curly, wavy, or straight hair, Magic Sleek's after styling care range can help you achieve the sleek and smooth hair you desire..

Reviews for "Maximize the Benefits of Your Magic Sleek Treatment with After Styling Care"

1. Sarah - 2 stars - I was really disappointed with the Magic sleek after styling care product. I followed the instructions exactly, and it just didn't work for me. My hair was left feeling greasy and weighed down, and it didn't provide any noticeable shine or smoothness. I even tried using less product, but it still didn't make a difference. Overall, I would not recommend this after styling care product.

2. Mark - 1 star - This product did nothing for my hair. I have frizzy, unruly hair, and I was hoping that this after styling care would help tame my locks. Unfortunately, it did absolutely nothing. My hair was just as frizzy and unmanageable as before. I was really disappointed and feel like I wasted my money. I would not repurchase or recommend this product to others.

3. Jane - 3 stars - While the Magic sleek after styling care product wasn't a complete disaster for me, it definitely didn't live up to its claims. I have naturally curly hair, and I was hoping that this product would help define my curls and keep them frizz-free. However, it didn't provide much hold or definition, and my curls lost their bounce soon after applying the product. It also left a slightly greasy residue on my hair. Overall, I wasn't impressed and will be searching for a better alternative.

4. Michael - 2 stars - I have fine, thin hair, and this after styling care product just didn't work for me. It left my hair feeling heavy and flat, without any added shine or smoothness. It also seemed to strip away any volume I had and made my hair look limp and lifeless. I was really hoping for better results, but unfortunately, this product didn't deliver. I'll be looking for something more suitable for my hair type.

Achieve Sleek and Silky Hair with Magic Sleek After Styling Products