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: Set limits.
Replies: 1   Last Post: Jul 24, 2014 6:02 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View  
Ben Bacarisse

Posts: 1,972
Registered: 7/4/07
Re: Set limits.
Posted: Jul 24, 2014 6:02 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Zeit Geist <> writes:

> On Thursday, July 24, 2014 1:09:50 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>> That's what I did. These few lines
>> s_(n+1) = (s_n U { q | n < q =< n+1 }) \ {q_(n+1)}
>> with s_1 = { q | 0 < q =< 1 } \ {q_1}
>> and q_1 = 1/1, q_2 = 1/2, q_3 = 2/1, q_4 = 3/1...
>> prove that not all rationals are indexed by naturals.

> No, they Don't. They Define some Sets, and that is All.

Yes. The last time WM did this I pointed out that he claims a
definition can be a proof and he called me a liar. Presumably, then, in
WM-speak there are things (like some definitions) that can "prove"
something without being "a proof". Do you think he spins this sort of
tangled web in the class room? I hope not.


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.