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

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

Topic: § 529 Contradiction
Replies: 24   Last Post: Jul 21, 2014 3:57 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 3,394
Registered: 10/18/08
Re: § 529 Contradiction
Posted: Jul 21, 2014 3:49 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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.

That's why you are wrong.

Regards, WM

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 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.