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 400: Quantifier Confusion
Replies: 12   Last Post: Dec 22, 2013 7:32 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 8,833
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology 400: Quantifier Confusion
Posted: Dec 19, 2013 4:52 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <>, wrote:

> On Thursday, 19 December 2013 17:16:29 UTC+1, wrote:

> > However, note that when we use a indirect proof we use one and only one
> >
> > rational approximation to d.
> >

> Your proof holds for every fraction represented by every sum of d_n/10^n.
> Note however, the "infinite sum" is not a sum (that is only a sloppy kind of
> speech) but it is the limit of a sequence (of partial sums). Every partial
> sum has a decimal expansion. The limit has not (because all finite natural
> numbers n have been used up already and other natural numbers are not
> available).

The point is that every rational has a decimal expanson accurate to any
finite number of decimal places.

So in any list of rationals , the nth rational can be correctly known at
its nth decimal place and d may be made to differ from it at that place.

Thus the construction which proves WM wrong is right!

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.