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: 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 ]

Posts: 1,968
Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the root

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 <> wrote:
>> WM <> writes:
>>> On 19 Feb., 11:03, Alan Smaill <> 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]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.