sci.math
https://groups.google.com/d/forum/sci.math
Mathematical discussions and pursuits.enRe: Two Questions to Ask a Math Kook
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw/jRhatxJAQR0J
the sequence (1/n). > > > > You are talking nonsense here. > > Why. What term of the sequence is not defined by the Peano axioms (starting with 1)? > > > If you believe Peano Axioms are inconsistent, let's see you formally derived a theorem and its negation from them. > > A counter examplehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw
VirgilTue, 28 Apr 2015 14:51:12 UTCRe: WM's confusion of "aleph_0" and others.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/Q8EqS_Uw3HA/9bIGQ37YzbkJ
aleph_0 lines are available, so only aleph_0 digits of the antidiagonal are available." > > > > > > That is precise and correct. > > > > > > > Uh huh, and what is the meaning of "only aleph_0 are available" in terms of bijection? > > Every partial sum of the antidiagonal and every line of thttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Q8EqS_Uw3HA
PotatoSauceTue, 28 Apr 2015 14:48:28 UTCRe: i'm going to tell you a secret
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/lxNKKmXnTxs/2DFr4df_If4J
never meet. >>>>>>>>>>> Euclidean. That is observed. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> hanson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Then why are you constantly making a big 'deal' about >>>>>>>>>> "Relativity"?... which is a useless crock o'shit acc. to >>>>>>>>>> Einstein himself and only serves for kooks to worshiphttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/lxNKKmXnTxs
David StaupTue, 28 Apr 2015 14:47:34 UTCRe: About Frogs
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/jODffw8nEMo/1aSImV-XtmoJ
|N. > > > > If you had meant to invoke the inclusion, then you should have clearly said so. > > We have been talking about FISONs for years. Now you begin to understand why? Congrats. You are at least faster than you congenial colleagues. > > > > In any case, you have presented no proof of yhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/jODffw8nEMo
PotatoSauceTue, 28 Apr 2015 14:46:28 UTCRe: WM's confusion of "aleph_0" and others.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/Q8EqS_Uw3HA/HAf1unuW05oJ
In article <mailto:2764ace8-61a7-46b7-9a73-5d0a6813314d@googlegroups.com>, WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On Monday, 27 April 2015 12:04:38 UTC+2, PotatoSauce wrote: > > On Monday, April 27, 2015 at 4:47:25 AM UTC-4, WM wrote: > > > On Sunday, 26 April 2015 20:52:32 UTC+2, PotatoSauce wrothttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Q8EqS_Uw3HA
VirgilTue, 28 Apr 2015 14:43:18 UTCRe: About Frogs
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/jODffw8nEMo/C5gJYzbH_sAJ
similarly: Can all FISONs cover the set |N? >>>> >>>> The answer (1) is clear: Since every FISON F(n) contains number n, all FISONs cover all number n and therefore |N. >>>> The answer (2) is clear too: Since every FISON F(n) does not cover |N and can be neglected completely (since all it can dhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/jODffw8nEMo
Jürgen R.Tue, 28 Apr 2015 14:40:21 UTCRe: About Frogs
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/jODffw8nEMo/qjOhVPfeLMgJ
In article <mailto:c019e13e-0744-4443-aa53-ef6cd3c9c887@googlegroups.com>, WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On Tuesday, 28 April 2015 15:40:21 UTC+2, Virgil wrote: > > > > > If you have all natural numbers, then you have |N. > > > > Not unless you have them collected into a set, you don'thttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/jODffw8nEMo
VirgilTue, 28 Apr 2015 14:35:01 UTCRe: Two Questions to Ask a Math Kook
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw/jXG6JeuGn6oJ
the sequence (1/n). > > > > You are talking nonsense here. > > Why. What term of the sequence is not defined by the Peano axioms (starting with 1)? > > > If you believe Peano Axioms are inconsistent, let's see you formally derived a theorem and its negation from them. > > A counter examplehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw
Dan ChristensenTue, 28 Apr 2015 14:34:50 UTCRe: Two Questions to Ask a Math Kook
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw/l3slF77adDgJ
successful. > > Define wildly successful! For instance Peano arithmetic is build inside the Coq Proof Assistant software. I am pretty sure that this very brilliant piece of software has proven qutie a lot of things you would be unable to prove while it has never produced the kind of garbagehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw
YBMTue, 28 Apr 2015 14:30:45 UTCRe: About Frogs
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/jODffw8nEMo/hrbkr--eGAcJ
In article <mailto:8fd6a1b4-eec9-4f9f-b452-f3db44064087@googlegroups.com>, WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > I have proved that U(F\{F(1), F(2), ..., F(n)}) = |N holds for all n in |N. > In mathematics, there is not more in |N than all n and not more in F than all > F(n). Therefore, if U(F) =https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/jODffw8nEMo
VirgilTue, 28 Apr 2015 14:29:09 UTCRe: Two Questions to Ask a Math Kook
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw/D3gZPYQx4qAJ
that every set has a power set and that we can select arbitrary subsets of any set, > > > > > > This was my question: How do you select a set from uncountably many subsets? How do you present uncountably many subsets for a selection? > > > > What are you talking about? I am selecting only onehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw
Dan ChristensenTue, 28 Apr 2015 14:23:32 UTCRe: WM's confusion of "aleph_0" and others.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/Q8EqS_Uw3HA/RrP5--zl-hcJ
lines are available, so only aleph_0 digits of the antidiagonal are available." > > > > That is precise and correct. > > > > Uh huh, and what is the meaning of "only aleph_0 are available" in terms of bijection? Every partial sum of the antidiagonal and every line of the Cantor-list is indhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Q8EqS_Uw3HA
WMTue, 28 Apr 2015 14:23:31 UTCRe: Two Questions to Ask a Math Kook
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw/E5Rdb-ymkIwJ
In article <mailto:6accf706-2335-421a-81f7-aa48389af384@googlegroups.com>, WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On Monday, 27 April 2015 12:17:51 UTC+2, William Elliot wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Apr 2015, Virgil wrote: > > > WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > Decimal notation is shorthanhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw
VirgilTue, 28 Apr 2015 14:18:48 UTCRe: About Frogs
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/jODffw8nEMo/5fyvv7FL8iEJ
On Tuesday, 28 April 2015 15:40:21 UTC+2, Virgil wrote: > > If you have all natural numbers, then you have |N. > > Not unless you have them collected into a set, you don't have th set |N! In mathematics, we do so by saying "all natural numbers". This expression is abbreviated by |N. Regarhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/jODffw8nEMo
WMTue, 28 Apr 2015 14:15:34 UTCTwo Questions to Ask a Math Kook
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw/2ooFU5bDU5UJ
1) why is there no uncountable well-ordering of the reals? a) because rationals are dense in it 2) is v -> V \ V an embedding? a) you have to know all of set theory to answer thathttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw
Ross A. FinlaysonTue, 28 Apr 2015 14:11:40 UTCRe: Two Questions to Ask a Math Kook
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw/yQTFzfYcrAIJ
In article <mailto:f1664d16-ef12-4320-a9c8-889584d7f588@googlegroups.com>, WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On Monday, 27 April 2015 15:32:01 UTC+2, Dan Christensen wrote: > > > > > This was your statement: If we can agree on the basic rules of logic, > > > that every set has a power set anhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw
VirgilTue, 28 Apr 2015 14:11:37 UTCRe: About Frogs
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/jODffw8nEMo/CY1noMSgEMAJ
On Tuesday, 28 April 2015 14:17:57 UTC+2, PotatoSauce wrote: > > U_{k>0} F(n+k) cannot be |N because forall n, F(n+k) misses elements of |N. > > If you had meant to invoke the inclusion, then you should have clearly said so. We have been talking about FISONs for years. Now you begin to unhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/jODffw8nEMo
WMTue, 28 Apr 2015 14:07:54 UTCRe: Two Questions to Ask a Math Kook
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw/ZL_0ELJrdeAJ
In article <mailto:1f4b5686-f730-4fe7-925a-eff9b0fb4427@googlegroups.com>, WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On Monday, 27 April 2015 16:16:49 UTC+2, Dan Christensen wrote: > > On Monday, April 27, 2015 at 5:44:56 AM UTC-4, WM wrote: > > > > > You cannot see that the Peano axioms define, amohttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw
VirgilTue, 28 Apr 2015 14:06:52 UTCRe: Two Questions to Ask a Math Kook
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw/DjH4otUQw3oJ
In article <mailto:90c8e9ea-8314-4692-8dfb-e91d72c54de4@googlegroups.com>, WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On Monday, 27 April 2015 20:33:51 UTC+2, Dan Christensen wrote: > > On Monday, April 27, 2015 at 1:57:12 PM UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote: > > > > > > Peano's Axioms can be used to definhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw
VirgilTue, 28 Apr 2015 13:56:55 UTCRe: Two Questions to Ask a Math Kook
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw/TcSTNHKG2_MJ
In article <mailto:65bf627f-5afa-457b-986f-c34d921b4b15@googlegroups.com>, WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On Tuesday, 28 April 2015 04:58:54 UTC+2, Dan Christensen wrote: > > > > (4) For all x in N, S(x)=/=0 > > What does that mean? Since WM was so careful to snip the context, we canhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw
VirgilTue, 28 Apr 2015 13:53:56 UTCRe: About Frogs
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/jODffw8nEMo/MPuPVwsxIT8J
In article <mailto:4099a30f-910a-47cd-b504-73f89b1263f6@googlegroups.com>, WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > You are really unable to comprehend the inclusion monotony of FISONs? He understands it far better than WM does, as he recognizes that very infinite set of FISONs has uniion |N, evenhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/jODffw8nEMo
VirgilTue, 28 Apr 2015 13:47:23 UTCRe: About Frogs
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/jODffw8nEMo/20J7hhkG8aMJ
In article <mailto:58cdb0c0-7f46-4571-bc2b-c935a2f4f70d@googlegroups.com>, WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On Monday, 27 April 2015 23:35:40 UTC+2, Martin Shobe wrote: > > On 4/27/2015 3:08 PM, WM wrote: > > > On Monday, 27 April 2015 18:33:42 UTC+2, Martin Shobe wrote: > > >> It's simplyhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/jODffw8nEMo
VirgilTue, 28 Apr 2015 13:40:21 UTCRe: About Frogs
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/jODffw8nEMo/i6OTNm84lzcJ
In article <mailto:cf812eb0-f6d9-4898-aa94-9995d8727708@googlegroups.com>, WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On Monday, 27 April 2015 23:36:44 UTC+2, PotatoSauce wrote: > > On Monday, April 27, 2015 at 5:19:06 PM UTC-4, Jürgen R. wrote: > > > Am 27.04.2015 um 22:08 schrieb WM: > > > > On Mondhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/jODffw8nEMo
VirgilTue, 28 Apr 2015 13:27:28 UTCRe: Engineer counterexample to FTA: x^1/16 - x^1/8 + x^1/4 - x^1/2 +1 =0 and, (e)x^5 -1009x - phi =0
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/x2MgKkj0gKA/F870vgHyI0sJ
I don't know if it matters to what you are trying to do, but it isn't true that quintics are insoluble. They, generally, are not solvable in radicals. But they (and higher order equations) can be solved with other functions. Somewhat as circular and hyperbolic functions can be used to solvehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/x2MgKkj0gKA
Justin ThymeTue, 28 Apr 2015 12:57:30 UTCRe: WM's bias against Unions
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/alLP2niMuuM/wcagtszaB-IJ
to think about. > > He seems to think that the fact > > n in |N > > F(n) = [1,n] cap |N > > U_{k>0} F(n+k) = |N > > is somehow controversial. > > But what does he think about statements like the following? > > (0,1] = U_{k>0} (1/(n+k), 1], k is an integer. Meh. Irrelevant "example".https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/alLP2niMuuM
John GabrielTue, 28 Apr 2015 12:48:57 UTCRe: Dense 2nd countable subspace
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/IbnViqanSGk/I6IMzPNIVqAJ
What's the relevance of that to your OP? Tychonov spaces are completely regular, aren't they, not just regular? -- Shall we only threaten and be angry for an hour? When the storm is ended shall we find How softly but how swiftly they have sidled back to power By the favour and contrivhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/IbnViqanSGk
Justin ThymeTue, 28 Apr 2015 12:42:29 UTCWM's bias against Unions
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/alLP2niMuuM/-dWbto7kEkwJ
My recent interaction with WM about unions inspired some examples for him to think about. He seems to think that the fact n in |N F(n) = [1,n] cap |N U_{k>0} F(n+k) = |N is somehow controversial. But what does he think about statements like the following? (0,1] = U_{k>0} (1/(n+k), 1]https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/alLP2niMuuM
PotatoSauceTue, 28 Apr 2015 12:32:05 UTCRe: Two Questions to Ask a Math Kook
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw/4wPSKjJn6YAJ
On Tuesday, 28 April 2015 04:58:54 UTC+2, Dan Christensen wrote: > (4) For all x in N, S(x)=/=0 What does that mean? Obviously S(x) =/= 0 like 1*1 =/= 1 unless you require numberical identity. Where does Peano define that he means numerical identity? > For the purpose of doing mathematics,https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw
WMTue, 28 Apr 2015 12:27:10 UTCRe: Two Questions to Ask a Math Kook
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw/VE4bqtXPHSUJ
successful. Define wildly successful! Does it mean he has succeeded in leading astray a lot of fools? Regards, WMhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw
WMTue, 28 Apr 2015 12:26:57 UTCRe: Two Questions to Ask a Math Kook
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw/rBceLUGReusJ
> > You cannot see that the Peano axioms define, among many sequences, the sequence (1/n). > > You are talking nonsense here. Why. What term of the sequence is not defined by the Peano axioms (starting with 1)? > If you believe Peano Axioms are inconsistent, let's see you formally derivedhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw
WMTue, 28 Apr 2015 12:26:40 UTCRe: Quotient Metri
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/yPgssJvY4wU/1ZU5O4YOl90J
Distances between vertical lines are not all "numbers" idiot! WHAT IS A REAL NUMBER? Don't give me your juvenile shit on topology. Answer the question idiot!!! First define what is a number. And no, it's not sufficient to call it a distance. Then show me what is a real number. Tsk, tsk. > Rhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/yPgssJvY4wU
John GabrielTue, 28 Apr 2015 12:26:36 UTCRe: Two Questions to Ask a Math Kook
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw/5fSX3xV_Q58J
On Monday, 27 April 2015 15:32:01 UTC+2, Dan Christensen wrote: > > This was your statement: If we can agree on the basic rules of logic, that every set has a power set and that we can select arbitrary subsets of any set, > > > > This was my question: How do you select a set from uncountablyhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw
WMTue, 28 Apr 2015 12:26:27 UTCRe: Two Questions to Ask a Math Kook
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw/fbYRrvBfZx0J
Decimal notation is often used as shorthand. Sloppy, but no problem in potential infinity, because nobody expects as complete decimal sequence there. But inn actual infinity, we must distinguish between the complete sequence of aleph_0 rational partial sums and the limit which ib most cases hashttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw
WMTue, 28 Apr 2015 12:26:22 UTCRe: Two Questions to Ask a Math Kook
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw/s9J5L0tno8wJ
And so stupid? Your point is what? No one takes metafilter seriously you moron! Most of the comments are made by nincompoops like you! The original debate with Mark Chu Carroll, a non-mathematician occurred here: http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2010/02/04/so-remember-back-in/ Now that'shttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw
John GabrielTue, 28 Apr 2015 12:22:37 UTCRe: About Frogs
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/jODffw8nEMo/HRqICfNy_rsJ
similarly: Can all FISONs cover the set |N? > > > > > > > > The answer (1) is clear: Since every FISON F(n) contains number n, all FISONs cover all number n and therefore |N. > > > > The answer (2) is clear too: Since every FISON F(n) does not cover |N and can be neglected completely (since allhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/jODffw8nEMo
PotatoSauceTue, 28 Apr 2015 12:17:57 UTCRe: About Frogs
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/jODffw8nEMo/cf9wj5gWZgYJ
similarly: Can all FISONs cover the set |N? > > > > > > The answer (1) is clear: Since every FISON F(n) contains number n, all FISONs cover all number n and therefore |N. > > > The answer (2) is clear too: Since every FISON F(n) does not cover |N and can be neglected completely (since all it cahttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/jODffw8nEMo
WMTue, 28 Apr 2015 11:38:34 UTCRe: About Frogs
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/jODffw8nEMo/JEEow4l_h9sJ
similarly: Can all FISONs cover the set |N? > > No. That's what you are trying to change the subject to. The current > subject here is your strawman. Whether or not that is a strawman depends > on whether or not I'm asking you to name things. The above question has > no bearing on that. > > >https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/jODffw8nEMo
WMTue, 28 Apr 2015 11:38:27 UTCRe: About Frogs
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/jODffw8nEMo/YYEiS3P5GzYJ
similarly: Can all FISONs cover the set |N? > > > > The answer (1) is clear: Since every FISON F(n) contains number n, all FISONs cover all number n and therefore |N. > > The answer (2) is clear too: Since every FISON F(n) does not cover |N and can be neglected completely (since all it can do ihttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/jODffw8nEMo
WMTue, 28 Apr 2015 11:38:19 UTCTRUTH STILL GETTING A GOOD SCREWING
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/xbWtebndpJI/Tyyc763cOIgJ
http://www.newscientist.com/data/galleries/condoms/006108075e7.jpg Yesterday, in this Google newsgroup, I posted an article containing convincing evidence that man indeed is as old as coal. It was accompanied with intriguing photographs of some of the mind-boggling specimens of petrifhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/xbWtebndpJI
ED CONRADTue, 28 Apr 2015 11:37:36 UTCRe: can FTA handle this: x^1/pi + x^1/e + x^1/phi + x^1/i + 1 = 0 providing solutions?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/8PuKn63VKnI/59FtSO6vjp4J
of Algebra should handle it? FTA doesn't apply! FTA says that [1] Every polynomial p(z) of positive degree with complex coefficients has a complex root. A polynomial in z has z raised to a natural number power. So this x^{1/3} + 52 x^{4/5} . . . . . (***) (not a polynomial) wihttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/8PuKn63VKnI
Justin ThymeTue, 28 Apr 2015 11:15:26 UTCFEYNMAN WRONG ABOUT THE TWIN PARADOX
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/zOkcvsS8RWA/lNh757_VqOYJ
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/04/physics-needs-philosophy/ Tim Maudlin: "...so many physicists strongly discourage questions about the nature of reality. The reigning attitude in physics has been "shut up and calculate": solve the equations, and do not ask questions about whathttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/zOkcvsS8RWA
Pentcho ValevTue, 28 Apr 2015 11:04:26 UTCRe: Two Questions to Ask a Math Kook
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw/jquZMSFtGrEJ
http://www.metafilter.com/88104/Calculus-of-Averageshttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw
YBMTue, 28 Apr 2015 10:12:03 UTCQuotient Metri
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/yPgssJvY4wU/Z2bfU2F6NHwJ
Let ~ be an equivalence relation for a metric space (S,d). S/~ is the set of equivalence classes of ~ with the quotient topology. coinduce by f:S -> S/~, x -> x/~ = [x]. p:(S/~)^2 -> R, (x,y) -> inf { d(a,b) | a in [x], b in [y] } is a metric for S/~. What premise is needed fhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/yPgssJvY4wU
William ElliotTue, 28 Apr 2015 09:27:38 UTCRe: Two Questions to Ask a Math Kook
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw/xA55weKGo_gJ
sequences, > > > > with decimal point and if needed a negative sign, > > > > though many of them, like sqrt(2), also have finite names, but equally > > > > infinite as sequences are the decimal numerals for all rationals other > > > > than the "decimal" fractions. > > > > > > Cauchy's definhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw
John GabrielTue, 28 Apr 2015 08:58:56 UTCRe: Two Questions to Ask a Math Kook
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw/cqLr_Pu0ffgJ
sequences, > > > > with decimal point and if needed a negative sign, > > > > though many of them, like sqrt(2), also have finite names, but equally > > > > infinite as sequences are the decimal numerals for all rationals other > > > > than the "decimal" fractions. > > > > > > Cauchy's definhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw
John GabrielTue, 28 Apr 2015 08:58:01 UTCRe: Two Questions to Ask a Math Kook
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw/Ta7MiIn4G84J
On Tuesday, 28 April 2015 04:58:54 UTC+2, Dan Christensen wrote: > > WHAT IS A NUMBER? YOU MORON!!!!! WHAT IS A NUMBER? See thread: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.math/_FckoNPpL5U I will continue to expose your ignorance you pathetic trollish cunt! None of you are going to be pehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/yKDd6WLOaOw
John GabrielTue, 28 Apr 2015 08:55:45 UTCRe: What is a NUMBER?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/SORhhThYvr8/lNg2DaQl1-IJ
Troll Boy. We are STILL waiting for your proof that 2+2=4. > Still waiting for troll DC to tell us what is a number? Don't hold your breath! Craphead will disappoint you.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/SORhhThYvr8
John GabrielTue, 28 Apr 2015 08:53:39 UTCRe: What is a NUMBER?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/SORhhThYvr8/rzepetwJkIwJ
relevant here as well.) > > > Peano's Axioms have pretty much come to define the set of natural numbers N. My version of them: > > Let N be a set such that: > > (1) 0 in N > (2) S: N --> N > (3) S is injective > (4) For all x in N, S(x)=/=0 > (5) For all subsets P of N, if 0 in P and fhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/SORhhThYvr8
John GabrielTue, 28 Apr 2015 08:51:52 UTCEngineer counterexample to FTA: x^1/16 - x^1/8 + x^1/4 - x^1/2 +1 =0 and, (e)x^5 -1009x - phi =0
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/x2MgKkj0gKA/vRW2hrFenZMJ
Trying to engineer a counterexample to Fundamental Theorem of Algebra FTA: x^1/16 - x^1/8 + x^1/4 - x^1/2 +1 =0 and, (e)x^5 -1009x - phi =0 The first polynomial tries to place the alternating signs of positive and negative against one another and not allowing a solution to form. The secondhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/x2MgKkj0gKA
Archimedes PlutoniumTue, 28 Apr 2015 08:33:08 UTCRe: trying to engineer a counterexample to FTA: x^1/16 - x^1/8 + x^1/4 - x^1/2 +1 =0
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/8PuKn63VKnI/60mnIGuFZXgJ
Algebra > > It comes from the idea of roots of -1^1/N such as -1^1/4 was a struggle to find > > So, if we vary the positive sign with negative sign so they counterbalance one another it makes it hard to form a solution. > > And we need at least 4 terms of the polynomial on the leftside and -https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/8PuKn63VKnI
YBMTue, 28 Apr 2015 07:55:59 UTC