Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: the continuum is not for babies
Replies: 13   Last Post: Jul 11, 2014 2:27 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
johngabriel2009@gmail.com

Posts: 359
Registered: 5/25/14
Re: 1.28 - The myth of the 'real' number line.
Posted: Jul 11, 2014 2:20 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Friday, July 11, 2014 12:35:45 AM UTC+2, dull...@sprynet.com wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:19:11 -0700 (PDT), John Gabriel

> >On Thursday, July 10, 2014 6:56:19 PM UTC+2, dull...@sprynet.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> >> >> No. Saying N=eps-|f(x)-L| is nonsense, because N is not allowed
>
> >> >> >> to depend on x.
>
> >
>
> >> >Nonsense. Allowing N=eps-|f(x)-L| proves that N works for all x>N.
>
> >
>
> >> N is not allowed to depend on x. That's simply how the logic of "Ae EN (Ax ...) works.
>
> >
>
> >There is nothing that says N cannot be stated in terms of x.
>
> >
>
> >The definition is: "for every eps > 0 there exists N such that |f(x) - L| < eps for all x > N".
>
>
>
> _That_ is exactly what says N cannot depend on x. First "there exists
> N such that", and then something about x. N is chosen _first_,
> then given N it's suppoed to be true that something happens
> for every x > N.


Wrong. N is influenced by the value of x even though it's chosen first.

>
>
>
> You really really really need to learn simple basic
>
> elementary _logic_.
>
>
>
> Look. Is the following true or false?
>
>
>
> (*) There exists N such that every x is larger than N.
>
>
>
> I hope you agree that (*) is false. No N is larger than
>
> _every_ x.
>
>
>
> But by your (wrong) logic it's easy to show that
>
> (*) is true: Just let N = x - 1.
>
>
>
> If N = x - 1 then x > N. True, Does that say
>
> that there exists N which is larger than every x?
>
> No. It seys for every x there exists N which
>
> is larger than x. Very different statements.
>
>
>
> But if N is allowed to depend on x then the
>
> clear false statment (*) becomes true.
>
> N is simply not allowed to depend on x.
>
> For the same reason as in the definition
>
> of limit.




Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.