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: WM's Matheology S 030
Replies: 4   Last Post: Jul 2, 2012 9:10 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Horand.Gassmann@googlemail.com

Posts: 554
Registered: 2/4/08
Re: WM's Matheology S 030
Posted: Jul 2, 2012 8:54 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Jul 2, 4:42 am, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <a0f4c494-499c-4628-afa3-08a45d191...@e20g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > On 2 Jul., 01:17, "Mike Terry"
> > <news.dead.person.sto...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:

> > > "WM" <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote in message
>
> > >news:34e972a4-c146-4211-8907-59dbbc3baeea@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > On 30 Jun., 21:10, "Mike Terry"
> > > > <news.dead.person.sto...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:

>
> > > > > The theorem has it's own name: "The
> > > > > Intermediate Value Theorem" (IVT).

>
> > > > Fine that you know it. Now define: f(x) = 1 for x in an interval I_k
> > > > and f(x) = -1 for x not in any I_k and
> > > > f(x) = 0 for x = y_k_j

>
> > > Yes, I know it - I learned it in high school, but it seems you never learned
> > > it?  For IVT to apply we need to have the function f *continuous* on the
> > > interval.

>
> > No, a function like that defined above also obeys that theorem.
>
> But the English version of the Intermediate Value Theorem, or IVT, says
> that a function f continuous on any real interval [a,b] must assume
> EVERY value between f(a) and f(b), and your function does NOT assume
> every real value between -1 and 1, unless, in WM's world, 0 is the only
> real number between -1 and 1.
>
> Thus WM once again reveals his abysmal ignorance of true mathematics.
> --


Of course it does. Just take any interval I_k and let x be the point
next to I_k. Then do a linear continuation of x (since there must
automatically be a whole raft of other points between x and I_k, even
though x is "next"), and voila. Anyone who cannot see that must be a
hopeless matheologist, indoctrinated since childhood in the wrong way
to do things. All hail WM, the Greatest Mathematician of All Times!




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.