Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


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

Topic: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots
Replies: 6   Last Post: Feb 20, 2013 3:13 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 1,969
Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the root
s

Posted: Feb 19, 2013 5:28 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 2/19/2013 9:16 AM, WM wrote:
> On 19 Feb., 15:09, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:
>>> On 19 Feb., 11:03, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> Do you think that the square root of 2 is rational?
>>
>>> No, but I know that it has no decimal or binary representation.
>>
>> So, how do you know it's not rational, then?

>
> Because every rational number has a representation in a finite base.
>

>> Is there "no doubt", as you describe the conclusion of an argument
>> using induction over the natural numbers?

>
> No there is no induction required but the simple proof by
> contradiction.
> Assume sqrt2 = m/n with m,n coprime. You can find it in many places of
> the internet, for instance in chapter 3 of my Geschichte des
> Unendlichen.


Humor us.

Show us for surd(5).

The proof for surd(2) is special because it uses odds and evens.






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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.