Re: naive question from a non-mathematician

On Sun, 28 May 2006 18:12:02 GMT, Stephen Montgomery-Smith
<stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

G.E. Ivey wrote:
It's hard for me to believe this has gone on so long. While every "quibble" is correct (and mathematicians love quibbles!) John Smith did say "mathematically equivalent", not "identical" or "the same" or "equal" so I would have no trouble at all accepting "Yes, they are mathematically equivalent".

That's a great answer. But I don't think it could be fully appreciated
without the long discussion that preceded it.

I think the question of whether this could be fully appreciated
without that long discussion is something that needs to be addressed.
At great length.


************************

David C. Ullrich
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SIGMA 1/(n^2 + 1)
    ... On Sun, 17 Oct 2004, David C. Ullrich wrote: ... > Trimble) wrote: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: "All" and "any"
    ... On Sun, 23 Dec 2007, David C. Ullrich wrote: ... x is right only when x is a Republican. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: integral(0,inf){ t k exp(-kt) }dt
    ... On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, David C. Ullrich wrote: ... continuous in the sigma compact rectangle x [c,oo) ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: naive question from a non-mathematician
    ... On Sun, 28 May 2006 15:17:21 GMT, Stephen Montgomery-Smith ... the problem with your way of defining the complex numbers is ... David C. Ullrich ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Rank (exercise in Kunen)
    ... On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, David C. Ullrich wrote: ... And you were complaining about the OP writing gibberish. ...
    (sci.logic)