Prev: five regular polyhedron is a direct-nonexistence proof; #180; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
Next: [statistics] Building the confidence inteval for the ratio of 2measures
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 4 Oct 2009 02:08

Reading what Wikipedia outlines as a proof of the transcendental
nature of "e"
--- quoting a part of the proof outline Wikipedia ---
Assume, for purpose of finding a contradiction, that e is algebraic.
Then there exists a finite set of integer coefficients satisfying the
equation:




and such that c0 and cn are both non-zero.


Depending on the value of n, we specify a sufficiently large positive
integer k (to meet our needs later), and multiply both sides of the
above equation by , where the notation will be used in this proof as
shorthand for the integral:




We have arrived at the equation:




which can now be written in the form




where





The plan of attack now is to show that for k sufficiently large, the
above relations are impossible to satisfy because

is a non-zero integer and is not.

--- end quoting partial Wikipedia ---

Sorry about that, for the format of Wikipedia is not conducive to copy
and paste.

From what I gather from the above is that transcendental proofs follow
my hunch
that they are Indirect NonExistence.

And that the 5 Regular Polyhedron proof is Direct NonExistence.

I believe that only the Direct NonExistence is a valid proof method
and not the
Indirect NonExistence.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: five regular polyhedron is a direct-nonexistence proof; #180; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
Next: [statistics] Building the confidence inteval for the ratio of 2measures