Re: ** says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0

WM wrote:

On 23 Jun., 16:41, Franziska Neugebauer <Franziska-
Neugeba...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
WM wrote:
On 23 Jun., 13:13, Franziska Neugebauer <Franziska-
Neugeba...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
WM wrote:
We orthodox mathematicians [...]

Who?

Not those which you erroneously consider to be. But there are more
of us than you might expect.

But certainly not enough to outvote the authorities of orthox
mathematics.

Mathematics is not a matter of votes and definitions.

The body of _orthodox_ mathematics is exactly that what the authorities
of orthodox mathematics by their genuine power of being authorities
decide to. Hence if you want to know what orthodox mathematics entails
you must ask _them_.

If your think that a certain parts of orthodox mathematics shall not or
no longer be part of orthodox mathematics you shall discuss that with
these authorities directly.

"SUM {n = 1 to oo} 1/2^n is not larger than 1." This theorem holds not
by vote and not by definition, but by mathematics.

In contrast to the kind of voodoo performed in the general science
institute the authorities of orthodox mathematics even know _why_
sum_{i e N\{0}} i *equals* 1. And they even know that whithout any need
for the third eye of yours.

F. N.
--
xyz
.

Relevant Pages