Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Topic: Irrefutable proofs that both Dedekind and Cauchy did not produce
any valid construction of the mythical "real" number

Replies: 4   Last Post: Oct 4, 2017 2:43 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 genmailus@gmail.com Posts: 199 Registered: 8/18/16
Re: Irrefutable proofs that both Dedekind and Cauchy did not produce
any valid construction of the mythical "real" number

Posted: Oct 4, 2017 6:47 AM

On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 23:10:37 UTC-4, Zelos Malum wrote:
> Den tisdag 3 oktober 2017 kl. 19:16:15 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel:
> > On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 12:32:26 UTC-4, Markus Klyver wrote:
> > > Den fredag 29 september 2017 kl. 14:06:42 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel:
> > > >
> > > > Comments are unwelcome and will be ignored.
> > > >
> > > > Posted on this newsgroup in the interests of public education and to eradicate ignorance and stupidity from mainstream mythmatics.
> > > >
> > > > gilstrang@gmail.com (MIT)
> > > > huizenga@psu.edu (HARVARD)
> > > > andersk@mit.edu (MIT)
> > > > david.ullrich@math.okstate.edu (David Ullrich)
> > > > djoyce@clarku.edu
> > > > markcc@gmail.com

> > >
> > > Those are not Dedekind cuts.

> >
> > Of course they are monkey!

>
> Of course they aren't, because as said, we can show, trivially, it is not using even the most general definition!.

Hey Stupid. Even "Me" has finally understood that my definition is a D. Cut. Ask him to explain to you moron!

L={-1 < x < pi} and R={pi < x < 4} where x \in Q

is a valid D Cut.

You can choose any other elements m and n such that m < pi < n and it will conform as follows:

L={m < x < pi} and R={pi < x < n} where x \in Q

END OF DISCUSSION.

Date Subject Author
10/3/17 zelos.malum@gmail.com
10/4/17 genmailus@gmail.com
10/4/17 zelos.malum@gmail.com
10/4/17 Markus Klyver