Re: JSH: Now the fun part



In article <1186374261.051963.81310@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
JSH <jstevh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Assume I'm correct in that from the ring of objects you can prove that
units are being used in the ring of algebraic integers where they are
not units to wrap up constants like 7 so that you can divide them off
and remain in that ring.


Units are being used where they are not units? What the hell does that
mean? Are they units or not? Do you know that the sentence you wrote
above doesn't make any sense?
.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: JSH: what is the object ring ??
    ... amaze us with your math definition of an object ring. ... JSH somehow "proves" that 7 has to divide exactly one ... of the roots thereof. ... Factorization theorem to algebraic integers. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Understanding the rebuttal
    ... The rebuttal is about showing an inconsistency with the ring of ... algebraic integers where you can appear to prove something to be true ... that is false within that ring. ... An example of not learning is that fact tht JSH repeats ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Understanding the rebuttal
    ... algebraic integers where you can appear to prove something to be true ... that is false within that ring. ... An example of not learning is that fact tht JSH repeats ... The person you are arguing with moved to rationals, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Wrappers in ring of algebraic integers
    ... JSH wrote: ... CANNOT exist in the ring of algebraic integers when the g's are non- ... Isn't that kind of fascinating? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Now the fun part
    ... units are being used in the ring of algebraic integers where they are ... not units to wrap up constants like 7 so that you can divide them off ... and remain in that ring. ...
    (sci.math)

Quantcast