Re: JSH: Short explanation, why error is so big
- From: jstevh@xxxxxxx
- Date: 9 Dec 2006 11:10:55 -0800
jankrihau@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
jstevh@xxxxxxx wrote:
Well, mathematicians over a hundred years ago when algebraic integers
were discovered, thought that what was true with algebraic integers was
true in general, so to them 7 is NOT a factor of a_2(x), and somehow
the 7 is getting split up, and they built mathematical ideas they
thought were proofs on the flawed belief.
Please provide a reference for this claim: "what is true with algebraic
integers is true in general".
---
J K Haugland
http://home.no.net/zamunda
Ok, maybe I'm wrong. I've been told this by posters on math
newsgroups, so let's check.
For the sake of argument, consider the result that whether or not an
algebraic integer has some number as a factor in the ring of algebraic
integers means nothing important mathematically.
Just like it doesn't matter that 2 is not a factor of 6 with evens
because we know it is a factor of 6 as 6 = 2*3. So let's say that now,
for the sake of argument, it is clear that the ring of algebraic
integers and results in that ring don't matter.
Would that impact any arguments accepted as proofs in the mathematical
field?
James Harris
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: JSH: Short explanation, why error is so big
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: JSH: Short explanation, why error is so big
- From: Tim Peters
- Re: JSH: Short explanation, why error is so big
- From: jankrihau
- Re: JSH: Short explanation, why error is so big
- References:
- Re: JSH: Short explanation, why error is so big
- From: jankrihau
- Re: JSH: Short explanation, why error is so big
- Prev by Date: Re: Galileo's Paradox
- Next by Date: Re: One mystery remains
- Previous by thread: Re: JSH: Short explanation, why error is so big
- Next by thread: Re: JSH: Short explanation, why error is so big
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|