Re: Basic argument, algebraic integers
From: James Harris (jstevh_at_msn.com)
Date: 10/04/04
- Next message: James Harris: "Re: Why does it matter?"
- Previous message: Animesh Maurya: "Why we call it Quadratic Equation"
- In reply to: Rupert: "Re: Basic argument, algebraic integers"
- Next in thread: David Kastrup: "Re: Basic argument, algebraic integers"
- Reply: David Kastrup: "Re: Basic argument, algebraic integers"
- Reply: Rupert: "Re: Basic argument, algebraic integers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 4 Oct 2004 03:33:15 -0700
rupertmccallum@yahoo.com (Rupert) wrote in message news:<d6af759.0410031504.4c8c171a@posting.google.com>...
> jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) wrote in message news:<3c65f87.0410030904.402a133f@posting.google.com>...
> <snip>
>
> > so, dividing P(m) by f^2 gives
> >
> > P(m)/f^2 = (a_1 x/f + u)(a_2 x/f + u)(a_3 x + uf).
> >
>
> But there's no reason why a_1/f and a_2/f should be algebraic integers.
>
> [rest deleted]
But at times they *are* algebraic integers.
At times they are, other times they are not.
So there's a factorization that follows algebraically that's not
always true in the ring of algebraic integers.
Or do any of you wish to deny that?
Mathematicians will not deny what is mathematically true, now will
they?
If you dispute and I'm right then you cannot be a mathematician.
James Harris
- Next message: James Harris: "Re: Why does it matter?"
- Previous message: Animesh Maurya: "Why we call it Quadratic Equation"
- In reply to: Rupert: "Re: Basic argument, algebraic integers"
- Next in thread: David Kastrup: "Re: Basic argument, algebraic integers"
- Reply: David Kastrup: "Re: Basic argument, algebraic integers"
- Reply: Rupert: "Re: Basic argument, algebraic integers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
