Rainer Rosenthal wrote: > Hero wrote: > > Rainer Rosenthal wrote: > >>....... But you are using an argument, which > >>would be applicable to other exponents n also. And this > >>argument is wrong because for n=6 there is said to > >>exist such an embedding L ---> R^n. > > >>Is that clear enough? > > > He really is in the so called low level, ... > > This is not the kind of answer I was expecting :-( > You could have answered "yes" or "no". > > Could you please answer my question? I guess it will > be "no". In that case I will write my argument in > a maybe better understandable way. > > Question: is there an embedding L ---> R^n for n=3? > Hero: no, because the Axiom of Parallels is violated. > Question: why doesn't this argument work for n=6? >
Rainer, You claim my argument is applicable to a dimension above three. What makes You think, that i would claim this? The embedding starts with L. For me L is a plane, not a surface. It is planar, not curved. And that is, what i read in Lobachevskys article.When somebody else proves something about curved surfaces - how can one claim from this, that Euclid's postulate failed and what does this matter to Euclids and Lobachevskys parallels with straight lines?