Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de Posts: 18,076 Registered: 1/29/05
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.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
> > 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

Date Subject Author
2/19/13 Alan Smaill
2/19/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/19/13 Michael Klemm
2/19/13 fom
2/20/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/20/13 Virgil