Re: #999...999: When is a textbook not a textbook? Was: new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards"
- From: Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum <QncyMI@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:47:10 -0800 (PST)
as opposed to a "mono****" -- I forgot,
the word for it -- AP is doing a monologue,
for his monocle.
seen a textbook in 30 years. So where are the exerciseswhat do you make of the fact that
your "isoceles triple" for 4, (2,1,1),
is a degenerate triangle with no area?
thus:
are you familiar with the proof, that
"all triangles are isoceles?"
thus:
p-adics have not been proven to have
any of the fuzzee math that you suppose,
nor have AP-adics; the run-on sentences that
you use do not convey any proof,
at any rate. you are saddled with your own,
exclusive nomenclature;
is their an AP-dictionary, yet?
we have no discernible meaning
for your infinitieth leftward digit, although
it might seem like a plausible notion; so,
What?... anyway, the only thing that is known
to be of real consequence is the digit-
*endings* of the p-adic integers,
the part next to the decimal point!,
which is mirrored in the analysis
of the ordinary decimals' digit-beginnings,
to the immediate left of the point. surely,
you've read of that, before.
what you failed to notice is that
one does not have to pretend to "do the math
to infinity" in actuality, since
the properties are the same as those
for the decimals; thus,
expressing the final digit is superfluous,
super-redundant, while having that last digit
to be different seems to be nonsequiter --
what can you plausibly mean?
yes, the only reason to list such digit, is
to perform some arithmetic upon it;
let us see, if you can!
how can we ever find the lid to the box, if
we don't even know what shape it is?... I mean,
your target audience of 6-year-olds is known
for a propensity to "read the encyclopedia"
-- too-often the British one, but --
you haven't provided such an entree for them; or,
really, for yourself. Shakespeare is laughing
at your attempted locution:
the Shakespeare that wrote Psalm 46 (unless,
taht was a set-up by the Oxfordians,
akin to the awful Bible Code).
(on the other hand,
reading is grossly overdone at such an early age,
mea culpa .-)
"They don't describe the set of numbers";
i.e., "the Peano Axioms model the wrong thing."
I mean self contradictory as anyone else
in mathematics means self contradictory
but I also mean that the Peano Axioms
do not model "finite integers",
so in a *fuller sense* I mean both.
--The Lyyn Cheeny Factor: 25 Hours til the campus jihad!
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2007/071107impeach_momentum.html
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing12/leidig_statement.pdf
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: #999...999: When is a textbook not a textbook? Was: new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards"
- From: Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
- Re: #999...999: When is a textbook not a textbook? Was: new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards"
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: 1^2 =3, Discovered
- Next by Date: Re: Proof of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem made short
- Previous by thread: #999...999: When is a textbook not a textbook? Was: new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards"
- Next by thread: Re: #999...999: When is a textbook not a textbook? Was: new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
