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:
There are no axioms or postulates in Greek mathematics, only in mythmatics.
Replies:
1
Last Post:
Sep 27, 2017 5:03 PM




Re: There are no axioms or postulates in Greek mathematics, only in mythmatics.
Posted:
Sep 27, 2017 5:03 PM


onsdag 27. september 2017 22.43.10 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel følgende: > On Wednesday, 27 September 2017 12:55:42 UTC4, konyberg wrote: > > 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 UTC4, John Gabriel wrote: > > > > > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/part1axiomspostulatesmathematicsjohngabriel > > > > > > > > > > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/part2axiomspostulatesmathematicsjohngabriel > > > > > > > > > > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/part3axiomspostulatesmathematicsjohngabriel > > > > > > > > > > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/part4axiomspostulatesmathematicsjohngabriel > > > > > > > > > > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/part5axiomspostulatesmathematicsjohngabriel > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > It does not matter how you choose to represent it. The fact is that Euler defined S = Lim S. > > S = 1  a + a^2  ... > > Lim S = Lim_{n \to \infty} (1(a)^n) / (1 + a) = 1 / (1 + a) > > S = Lim S
You can not say: S = ( ) Lim S = Lim ( ) S = Lim S
This is so not a mathematical construction. It is (pardon) just idiotic.
KON



