The Definition of Points
in [Math]
|
Prev: Guide to presenting Lemma, Theorems and Definitions
Next: Density of the set of all zeroes of a function with givenproperties
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 17:53 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:15:02 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >Alan Smaill wrote: >> Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> writes: >> >>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:34:09 +0100, Alan Smaill >>> <smaill(a)SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear me ... L'Hospital's rule is invalid. >>>>> So returning to the original point, would you care to explain your >>>>> claim that L'Hospital's rule is invalid? >>>> haha! >>> Why am I not surprized? Remarkable how many mathematiker opinions on >>> the subject of mathematics don't quite hold up to critical scrutiny. >> >> knew you wouldn't get it, >> irony is not a strong point with Ziko. >> >> nor indeed do you bother defending your own view that you can use >> Hospital to work out the value for 0/0. >> >> well, there you go. >> >> >>> ~v~~ >> > >In all fairness to Lester, I am the one who said 0 for 0 is 100%. T'was >a joke, ala L'Hospital's theft from the Bernoullis, and the division by >0 proscription. Don't worry about that, Tony. These turkeys just have time on their hands. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 17:55 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:23:49 +0000 (UTC), stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: >In sci.math Alan Smaill <smaill(a)spaminf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >> Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> writes: > >>> Alan Smaill wrote: >>>> Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> writes: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:34:09 +0100, Alan Smaill >>>>> <smaill(a)SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear me ... L'Hospital's rule is invalid. >>>>>>> So returning to the original point, would you care to explain your >>>>>>> claim that L'Hospital's rule is invalid? >>>>>> haha! >>>>> Why am I not surprized? Remarkable how many mathematiker opinions on >>>>> the subject of mathematics don't quite hold up to critical scrutiny. >>>> knew you wouldn't get it, >>>> irony is not a strong point with Ziko. >>>> nor indeed do you bother defending your own view that you can use >>>> Hospital to work out the value for 0/0. >>>> well, there you go. >>>> >>>>> ~v~~ >>>> >>> >>> In all fairness to Lester, I am the one who said 0 for 0 is >>> 100%. T'was a joke, > >> of course! > >>> ala L'Hospital's theft from the Bernoullis, and >>> the division by 0 proscription. >>> >>> :) > >> and Zick was the one who claimed that he would use l'Hospital to work >> out the right answer for 0/0. > >> such a japester, eh? > >I wonder what Lester thinks 0/0 is? 46 > All he needs to do is to demonstrate >how one uses l'Hospital to work out the value for 0/0. 46 > Lester is always >going on about demonstrations, maybe just once he will actually demonstrate >something. 46 ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 17:55 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:18:35 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >Michael Press wrote: >> In article >> <1176500762.035139.250710(a)n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >> "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Apr 13, 12:11 pm, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>>> I had said that, hoping you might give some explanation, but you didn't >>>> really. >>> Since you posted that, I wrote a long post about the axiom of choice. >>> Now it's not showing up in the list of posts. Darn! I went into a lot >>> of detail and answered your questions; I don't want to write it all >>> again; maybe it will show up delayed. >> >> * Composer your messages in a local file. >> >> * Set a preference in your news reader to write to a local file >> a copy, complete with headers, of all your posted messages. >> >> >> * Set a preference in your news reader to mail to a specified >> address, a copy, complete with headers, of all your posted >> messages. >> >> I am surprised I have to explain this. >> >You don't but you enjoy it. Nice, Tony. ~v~~
From: Virgil on 17 Apr 2007 17:56 In article <46251314(a)news2.lightlink.com>, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > But, I have a question. What, exactly, is the difference between > "equality" and "equivalence"? "Equality" usually means being the same in every detectable respect. "equivalent" usually means the same in one respect, or in a limited number of respects, while still possibly distinguishable in other respects. For example, parity of a natural number is an equivalence. Naturals having the same parity (evenness or oddness) are equivalent with respect to parity even though not equal as natural numbers. 1 and 3 are equivalent with respect to parity but are not equal.
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 17:57
On 17 Apr 2007 12:29:12 -0700, MoeBlee <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > It strikes me that whatever it is, there is >something in your inflated sense of your self that blocks you from >appreciation that to understand the subject of mathematics and logic >requires learning it the way everyone else learns it - textbook by >textbook, chapter by chapter, defintion by defintion, theorem by >theorem, proof by proof. Unfortunately though not truth by truth. ~v~~ |