Re: This Month's Thought on Fermat's Last Theorem: 1
From: Keckman (keckman_at_welho.com)
Date: 10/05/04
- Next message: Gerry Myerson: "Re: Smarter than Euler"
- Previous message: Andrew Usher: "Re: The real numbers, and general comments"
- In reply to: Randy Poe: "Re: This Month's Thought on Fermat's Last Theorem: 1"
- Next in thread: Will Twentyman: "Re: This Month's Thought on Fermat's Last Theorem: 1"
- Reply: Will Twentyman: "Re: This Month's Thought on Fermat's Last Theorem: 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 07:21:22 +0300
On 4 Oct 2004 07:42:01 -0700, Randy Poe <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Anyway, this statement:
>> If that's queue's length is supposed to be oo then there is item oo.
>
> is simply wrong. You keep saying it, but it's not true.
> That's what you're trying to PROVE, and you "prove" it
> by saying it over and over.
>
Lets put those queues to queue. Where we count as well as biggest item
_and_ amount of natural numbers.
1 = 1
1+1 = 2
1+1+1 = 3
.
.
.
Math today says that we get(if amount is supposed to be something that is
not finite)
1+1+1+1+...
Which if is infinite.
But math today says that there is oo amount of 1 in that queue allthough
the sum is finite.
So visible contradiction that any can be.
You can not prove to blind monkey nothing. Does it mean that nothing is
true?
-- Petri Keckman
- Next message: Gerry Myerson: "Re: Smarter than Euler"
- Previous message: Andrew Usher: "Re: The real numbers, and general comments"
- In reply to: Randy Poe: "Re: This Month's Thought on Fermat's Last Theorem: 1"
- Next in thread: Will Twentyman: "Re: This Month's Thought on Fermat's Last Theorem: 1"
- Reply: Will Twentyman: "Re: This Month's Thought on Fermat's Last Theorem: 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|