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: 1   Last Post: Sep 27, 2017 5:21 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View  
Karl-Olav Nyberg

Posts: 1,520
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: There are no axioms or postulates in Greek mathematics, only in mythmatics.
Posted: Sep 27, 2017 5:21 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

onsdag 27. september 2017 23.10.13 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel følgende:
> On Wednesday, 27 September 2017 17:07:02 UTC-4, konyberg wrote:
> > onsdag 27. september 2017 22.56.56 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel følgende:
> > > On Wednesday, 27 September 2017 16:47:36 UTC-4, Diogenes Polonium wrote:
> > > > On September 27 2017, the genius known as John Gabriel wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, 27 September 2017 12:41:50 UTC-4, konyberg wrote:
> > > > > > onsdag 27. september 2017 18.18.02 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel følgende:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, 27 September 2017 12:05:46 UTC-4, konyberg wrote:
> > > > > > > > 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!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Moron. He did write that.
> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 2. The series is not the limit.
> > > > > > > > Of course not if a series is defined as finite.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The series in discussion is called an infinite series you idiot. That statement is hand waving bullshit.
> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > But if the series is defined as the infinite sum, then it is the limit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wrong. That would be like saying 0.333... the UNIQUE representation of the series is the limit, but point 3 below shows this is not possible.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 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!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh, so you can express 1/3 in base 10? What a moron!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > KON

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

> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am completely satisfied with 1/3. I can however do it in base 10.

> > > >
> > > >

> > > > > No you can't. There is a number theorem that states 1/3 is not representable in base 10.
> > > >
> > > > State it please...

> > >
> > > Theorem: Given any rational number p/q with p and q integers, it is not possible to represent p/q in base b unless all the prime factors of q are also prime factors of b.
> > >
> > > As an exercise, try to prove it! Chuckle.
> > >
> > > It's very easy. In fact I don't know how anyone can obtain a Math Bsc without knowing this theorem, but aside from Professor WM, even the biggest morons at MIT were not aware of the theorem.

> >
> > Give a reference to this theorem, except you!

>
> Any respectable book on number theory has it. Do you know what is number theory? I think not.
>

> > KON

But what you are saying only is true for fractions that are finite in decimal evaluation. You can look that up in any book. I think that in the same books, you will find my views. There are books over the 5. level!
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.