
Re: Irrefutable proofs that both Dedekind and Cauchy did not produce any valid construction of the mythical "real" number
Posted:
Oct 4, 2017 10:43 AM


You must have misunderstood the idea of a cut, no limit involved, only predication.
So when you write and begin with: So that the cut can be written as: [Sn,Ln]
This is already nonsense, these are just some monoton increasing and monoton decreasing
sequences. Then when you write: lim n>oo [Sn,Ln] = k (I guess you mean [k,k])
Then you have exactly destroyed the idea of a cut. Remember what Markus Klyver told you 3 trillion times? Qseries need not have a limit in Q. So what is this k? How do you want to make
a Qcut? On the same reason the following is not a Qcut, where do you take pi from?
(oo,pi) [pi,oo)
Further your attempt of doing something with e is also complete nonsense. If you would
think harder, you would find a Qcut for e.
Am Freitag, 29. September 2017 14:06:42 UTC+2 schrieb John Gabriel: > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BmOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU > > 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

