The Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Why do we need those real non-constructible numbers?
Replies: 1   Last Post: Nov 10, 2017 4:09 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View  
zelos.malum@gmail.com

Posts: 838
Registered: 9/18/17
Re: Why do we need those real non-constructible numbers?
Posted: Nov 10, 2017 4:09 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Den torsdag 9 november 2017 kl. 19:57:05 UTC+1 skrev John Gabriel:
> On Thursday, 9 November 2017 11:43:36 UTC-5, WM wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 9. November 2017 10:43:42 UTC+1 schrieb John Gabriel:
> > > On Thursday, 9 November 2017 04:10:42 UTC-5, WM wrote:
> > > > Am Donnerstag, 9. November 2017 09:52:09 UTC+1 schrieb John Gabriel:
> > > > > On Thursday, 9 November 2017 01:45:55 UTC-5, WM wrote:
> > > > > > Am Donnerstag, 9. November 2017 00:20:12 UTC+1 schrieb John Gabriel:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >

> > > > > > > In fact WM, if you try to state that half itself or any other portion of itself measures it, then you've already assumed that the whole has a measure. That's incorrect.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I assume that the diagonal of a square has a length.

> > > > >
> > > > > Of course a diagonal has a length, but it has no measure.
> > > > >
> > > > > Length =/= measure
> > > > >

> > > > Here you are a greater purist than me. But would it cause mathematics going astray when lenght is equated with measure of length and number is equated with measure?
> > >
> > > Well, I am surprised you even ask. Isn't that what is at the root of most discussions here on sci.math? How can you expect to have a clear discussion about mathematics when there is no agreement on what is the base concept, that is, *number* ?

> >
> > There is a definition by majority decision. They call limits of Cauchy sequences real numbers.

>
> I know. It's this definition and Dedekind Cuts that are nonsense as I prove in my article:
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU
>

> >
> > Regards, WM


As we have pointed out, your "proof" is fundamentally flawed as it does not follow the definition.



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.