Date: Apr 12, 2013 1:36 PM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Problems with Infinity?
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.

>

chuckle

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.