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

On 7 Jul., 23:45, Virgil <vir...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Not every tautology is false.

But "If A and B then A" does not justify "A is true".

And that is exactly what WM is trying to argue.

A and B are true. Not even Euler took his -1/12 - result seriously.

So that WM fails logic.

"SUM(N) is not defined in R because
it cannot be defined in R" is cetrainly correct.

There are all sorts of things that are not defined in R because no one
has yet bothered to define them in R, so the "correctness" of
"SUM(N) is not defined in R because it cannot be defined in R"
requires proof. Which WM has not given.

But he still tries to argue that it is true because he says is true

It is true because any real result is false.

Regards, WM

.

Loading