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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Weierstrass
Replies: 26   Last Post: Jul 9, 2004 4:27 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 401
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Weierstrass
Posted: Jul 9, 2004 4:11 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <>,
Eckard Blumschein <> wrote:

> David W. Cantrell wrote:

> > I suspect I do: Eric Weisstein wrote "strangely" because the words "open"
> > and "closed" _seem_, based on their extramathematical meanings, to
> > contradict each other.

> Isn't the mathematical meaning: Zero is included as well as excluded?
> This is exactly what I am trying to suggest for any infinitely precise
> real, not just for zero. If a frontier stone of zero dimensions is
> immediately surrounded by infinitely much of very similar stuff, then
> its removal or the opposite does not matter at all. I suspect: Included
> and excluded do contradict in mathematics too, unless they refer to
> something infinitesmal small.
> Eckard

Where of Eckard's cogs slipped to allow hom to conflate open or closed
with included or excluded?

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 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.