https://groups.google.com/d/forum/sci.mathsci.mathMathematical discussions and pursuits.Google GroupsArchimedes Plutonium2016-08-25T07:45:13Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/7mkA9eTK3x8PAGE46, 5-2, Some Corrections in Set theory/ Correcting Math textbook 5th ed.PAGE46, 5-2, Some Corrections in Set theory/ Correcting Math textbook 5th ed. In New Math, use Perfect Square density to tell if any set is finite or infinite. Alright, let me sharpen up the understanding of how we use Perfect Squares set as a infinity measuring set. We do this because thePaul Elliott2016-08-25T06:39:02Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/oYX4GZtvXgURe: 3 4 5 right triangles in An Introduction to the history of mathematics?Paul Elliott wrote: > Peter Percival wrote: > >> Paul Elliott wrote: > >>> I still don't know if a right triangle with 3, 4, 5 proportions could >>> exist in the hyperbolic plane, but the more I think about it the more I >>> suspect the answer is "no". If my suspicion is correct, then inPaul Elliott2016-08-25T05:59:18Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/oYX4GZtvXgURe: 3 4 5 right triangles in An Introduction to the history of mathematics?Peter Percival wrote: > Paul Elliott wrote: >> I still don't know if a right triangle with 3, 4, 5 proportions could >> exist in the hyperbolic plane, but the more I think about it the more I >> suspect the answer is "no". If my suspicion is correct, then in neutral >> geometry, the PythagoreSergio Mendozoa2016-08-25T02:49:37Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Mz-_jo69It8Re: Cauchy was an idiot.Shut up, asswipe. Everything you post is stupid and boring and awful and wrong.Vinicius Claudino Ferraz2016-08-25T02:43:37Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/doJLTXFuMOIRe: The problem with trying to define rational numbers using set theory.Hell_o, Stemper. The class of equivalence of 0 is [0]_R = {0 + ki} = ( Z - {0} ) \cdot i. f(0/q) = {0/g k + q/g k i ; k \neq 0, k \in Z, g = gcd(0, q)} Well, i meant f(0/q) = [0]_R, so q/g = 1 and therefore gcd(0, q) = q. Paz e alegria, Vinícius twitter.com/mathspiritual Em quarta-feiraDan Christensen2016-08-25T02:42:24Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/5fhfibtZ9p4Re: A definition of the set of prime numbers without reference to the natural numbers?wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 2:32:07 PM UTC-4, Jim Burns wrote: > > > On 8/23/2016 11:32 PM, Dan Christensen wrote: > > > > > > > Can we list the essential properties of the set of prime > > > > numbers without any reference to the natural numbers, > > > > properties fromFredJeffries2016-08-25T02:25:09Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/jdVQ_tgQ1l0Re: Limits of sequences of setscancelled. Thus we see that "mathematics" is based on the magical Law of Names which gives power to manipulate patterns and has nothing to do with the concepts which lead to an understanding of those patterns. http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/l/law_of_names.html http://deoxy.org/lawPython2016-08-25T02:24:05Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Mz-_jo69It8Re: John Gabriel is an idiot.Le 25/08/2016 à 04:22, John Gabriel a écrit : ... > 8/24/16 7:22 John Gabriel *is* an idiot https://gist.github.com/anonymous/df8646e418bbb923ff281add968c5907John Gabriel2016-08-25T02:23:35Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolMRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.stands > > > for the limit of sums of the form 0.9 + ... + 0.00...9. > > > > How would you write all aleph_0 terms of the series which are less than the limit? > > > > Regards, WM > > For a constructive proof of the stupidity, one can watch this video: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJohn Gabriel2016-08-25T02:22:22Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Mz-_jo69It8Re: Cauchy was an idiot.incompetence and stupidity. The idea of limit is a very ill-formed and failed attempt by Cauchy to fix Newton's and Leibniz's kakka. > > Run the applet to see how I teach and warn my students to this bullshit: > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLd254Nlh1bTVQVU0 > > And readPython2016-08-25T02:18:23Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/jdVQ_tgQ1l0Re: Limits of sequences of setscancelled. Cancelled or not (btw it is not the fractions that can be cancelled, but factors, you are deeply confused) a fraction is a class of equivalence (gosh, we used to learn that when 12 years old here!) write it as you wish 1/1, 4/4, 42/42 are just *representants* of the same class ofVinicius Claudino Ferraz2016-08-25T02:17:58Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/jdVQ_tgQ1l0Re: Limits of sequences of setsevaluated. > > Regards, WM At line 2, you disFractionIze all the fractions. A fraction can be factorized to prime numbers and integer exponents. 1/2 = 2^(-1) 4/45 = 2^2 * 3^(-2) * 5^(-1) Those are not fractions. are ordered pairs. one above, one below Slash. f(x) = (x, x) lim f =FredJeffries2016-08-25T02:08:34Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolMRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1...., n}" > > is ...((...(({1} U {1, 2}) U {1, 2, 3}) U ... > > Well, actually, I already told him that in set theory we would rather write > > U {{1}, {1, 2}, {1, 2, 3}, ...} = IN > > or > > U F_n = IN with F_n = {1, ..., n} (n e IN) > neIN Except that he does not know/cannotFredJeffries2016-08-25T02:01:59Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/5fhfibtZ9p4Re: A definition of the set of prime numbers without reference to the natural numbers?is divisible only by itself and 1. You have hijacked the term "divisible" and are fixated on the word and ignoring the actual concept. You get your definition of "divisible" from the Peano axioms. You fool yourself into thinking that that is the REAL definition of "divisible" because for thePython2016-08-25T01:58:03Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/5fhfibtZ9p4Re: A definition of the set of prime numbers without reference to the natural numbers?... >> Unfortunately, Jim made use of multisets in his "axioms", which are >> themselves defined in terms of natural numbers. > > As I remarked not long ago - you see something done in one way and you > think that that's the only way to do it. Why shouldn't one define > multisets as ordered