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

Topic: There are no axioms or postulates in Greek mathematics, only in mythmatics.
Replies: 2   Last Post: Sep 27, 2017 12:55 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Karl-Olav Nyberg

Posts: 1,517
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: There are no axioms or postulates in Greek mathematics, only in mythmatics.
Posted: Sep 27, 2017 12:55 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

onsdag 27. september 2017 18.05.46 UTC+2 skrev konyberg følgende:
> onsdag 27. september 2017 14.20.13 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel følgende:
> > On Monday, 25 September 2017 19:22:51 UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote:
> > > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/part-1-axioms-postulates-mathematics-john-gabriel
> > >
> > > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/part-2-axioms-postulates-mathematics-john-gabriel
> > >
> > > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/part-3-axioms-postulates-mathematics-john-gabriel
> > >
> > > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/part-4-axioms-postulates-mathematics-john-gabriel
> > >
> > > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/part-5-axioms-postulates-mathematics-john-gabriel
> > >
> > > Comments are unwelcome and will be ignored.
> > >
> > > Posted on this newsgroup in the interests of public education and to eradicate ignorance and stupidity from mainstream mythmatics.
> > >
> > > gilstrang@gmail.com (MIT)
> > > huizenga@psu.edu (HARVARD)
> > > andersk@mit.edu (MIT)
> > > david.ullrich@math.okstate.edu (David Ullrich)
> > > djoyce@clarku.edu
> > > markcc@gmail.com

> >
> > Here is a quote from the only mainstream academic I respect on sci.math:
> >
> >
> > Euler's teacher was Johann Bernoulli, the more conceited and less genial of the Bernoulli brothers (of course being "less genial" than Jakob B does not mean a reproach). Euler was even more genial than both and many others. Nevetheless here he applied the wrong concept.
> >
> > John Gabriel is completely correct when he says:
> >
> > 1. S = Lim S, is wrong

> Of course it is wrong! Euler never wrote that!
> > 2. The series is not the limit.
> Of course not if a series is defined as finite. But if the series is defined as the infinite sum, then it is the limit.
> > 3. 1/3 cannot be expressed in base 10 because 3 is not a prime factor of 10.
> This, and both 1. and 2. is your own invention. Who is the good professor It is WM!
>
> KON

> >
> > Unfortunately the contrary belief has lead to the mess of transfinite set theory.
> >
> > Regards, WM


Ok. Some questions for you, JG.
S(n) = (i=0 to n)Sum ((-1)^i a^i)), |a| < 1
What is this?
Can you give me the closed form?

And where do this lead to?
S = (n=0 to inf)Sum ((-1)^n a^n)), |a| <1
Can you give me the closed form of this?

Is it the same as the former?

Is it: S(n) = S, or lim S(n) = S, or S(n) = lim S(n), or S = lim S. What do you go for, and what would Euler go for?

KON



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 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.