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

WM wrote:

On 23 Jun., 18:19, Franziska Neugebauer <Franziska-
Neugeba...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I have stated:

,----[ <467d060f$0$97270$892e7...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ]
| Authorities of "orthodox mathematics" are those professionals of
| mathematics (n.b.: mathematics and not general sciences) who feel
| addressed by the term "authorities of orthodox mathematics". By
| simple majority they will certainly be able to judge whether this
| or that rule, definition or axiom belongs to the body of what they
| think "orthodox mathematics" is.

and asked:

| OK?
`----

No!. Of course not. Good heavens, then even you or those whom you call
"experts" would feel addressed. And further: mathematics is not an
issue of a majority, not even of orthodoxy or modernity, but only of
right or wrong.

Do I get you right that from your point of view authorities are those
people who share your view of what is "right" or "wrong" with you? Then
we obviously disagree about whom we consider authority and necessarily
about what orthodox mathematics comprises.

To sum up: There are at least two classes of people: a) one which
contains those who agree to you and b) a second which comprises those
who agree with my point of view. You may now speculate about the
cardinality of those classes.

We have not yet got any answer from you. Hence you are evading the
issue.

And in your and your company's opinion, a Cauchy proof of
divergence in R does not prove that there is no real limit, but
rather that a real limit may be chosen arbitrarily and, after
having done so, may not be subject to test by Cauchy's method?
Therefore I repeat:

Would you be so kind to answer just this point?

Would you be so kind to answer just this last question?

If you read and understand what I have written elsewhere you would
know that ***'s definition is not about limits but about an undefined
sum-Symbol and that it is the faulty reasoning of yours which
implicitly assumes some kind of "retroaction".

I consider your answer is "no", but notice that you don't dare to
answer my question straight forward.

You have any right to ask questions. It is my right not answer
"questions" which contain presumption which are irrelevant for the
issue under discussion. Since ***'s definition does not re-define or
define any limit but an undefined sum-symbol I consider your question
(!) senseless.

Anyhow you should try to read and understand what you have written
elsewhere. Then you would know that my definition

sqrt(2) = 7 (on mondays)
sqrt(2) = 77 (at X-mas)
sqrt(2) = 777 (after July 7, 2007)

In my view of mathematics there is no time in mathematics.

F. N.
--
xyz
.

Quantcast