
Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots
Posted:
Feb 20, 2013 6:38 AM


On 19 Feb., 23:28, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > 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.fhaugsburg.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.
And you think that the fundamental theorem of number theory makes a difference between prime factor 2 and others, say 3 or 5 or 7?
You are humorous guy.
Regards, WM

