Am Montag, 21. Juli 2014 08:17:00 UTC+2 schrieb Jürgen R.:
> >> And you believe to have proven that no such function exists. >
> > I believe that such a function exists up to every n respectively r. But I know that beyond every n respectively r, there are infinitely many following. Otherwise we would have a contradiction.
> Evidently you are confused by the function concept in mathematics. > > "Up to" which x does do you "believe that" f(x) = x^3 exists?
Up to every x that I or anybody else can define. > > > "Up to" which z and w do you "believe that" w = Riemannzeta(z) maps the > > complex plane to a Riemann surface?
Here we have no linear order. So for real and imaginary part of z: Up to every size that can be defined. > > > There is no "up to" involved in the case of the function n = F(p,q), > defined above;
You are wrong. Every natural (n or p or q) that you define has finitely many predecessors but infinitely many successors. Therefore it belongs to a vanishing subset. But that cannot be understood by such like you.
> and "I believe that" is not a mathematical argument.