On 4/12/2013 11:28 AM, Wayne Throop wrote: > ::: fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> > ::: And, it makes sense that it would be related through the functions > ::: because what is involved with polynomials, extension fields, and the > ::: fundamental theorem of algebra. > > :: Wayne Throop > :: The fundamental theorem of algebra: neither a fundamental of algebra, > :: nor a theorem of algebra. Discuss. > > : fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> > : My usage comes from the presentation in Hungerford. > > Oh, the usage is perfectly standard. It's just less than cromulent. > Which is to say, I didn't disagree with you, I merely pointed out that > the theorem (at least... um... arguably) has an unfortunate name. >
I expected some issue involving constructive mathematics.
The proof, so far as I know based on Hungerford's remarks, requires results from analysis involving irrational numbers.
So, I reacted to "...neither a fundamental...nor a theorem..." as if it was a rejection of the thereom on some sort of constructive grounds.
I really like that Erdos result posted by Butch, though. I had been unaware of it.