Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: 2.01 - In words and pictures: The mainstream definition of limit
fails when f is a constant function.

Replies: 19   Last Post: Jul 13, 2014 12:36 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 johngabriel2009@gmail.com Posts: 354 Registered: 5/25/14
Re: 2.01 - In words and pictures: The mainstream definition of limit
fails when f is a constant function.

Posted: Jul 11, 2014 2:11 AM

On Thursday, July 10, 2014 8:21:53 PM UTC+2, John Dawkins wrote:

> You seem to have things backwards here, John.

> the phrase "2+2=4 whenever x > 5" is logically equivalent to an
implication A ==> B, in which A is the statement "x > 5" and B is the
statement "2+2=4".

In which case there is no connection whatsoever between the statements.

x > 5 DOES NOT IMPLY 2+2=4

Just as it does not imply 4+4=8!

There is NO CONNECTION.

> The truth table for A ==> B is as follows:

A B A ==> B
_______________
T | T | T
T | F | F
F | T | T
F | F | T

> (illustrating that A ==> B is logically equivalent to [~A or B]).

> Since B is true in the present case, the implication A==> B is true.

Hate to break this to you, but your 'truth' table is nonsense. :-)