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 <>
> ::: 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 <>
> : 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.