Re: the need for relevance
- From: Virgil <Virgil@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:49:49 -0700
In article <1a51e$478f29fe$82a1e228$16242@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
\
Prove that all numbers are small
Proof: 1 is small. If n is small then (n+1) is small ==> by mathematical
induction: all numbers are small.
If n+1 is allowed to be larger than n, what justifies your assumption
that "If n is small then (n+1) is small"?
.
- References:
- the need for relevance
- From: quasi
- Re: the need for relevance
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: the need for relevance
- From: Gonçalo Rodrigues
- Re: the need for relevance
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: the need for relevance
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: the need for relevance
- From: Tonico
- Re: the need for relevance
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: the need for relevance
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: the need for relevance
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: the need for relevance
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: the need for relevance
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: the need for relevance
- From: Han de Bruijn
- the need for relevance
- Prev by Date: Re: the need for relevance
- Next by Date: Re: Karzeddin's evolving conjectures ...
- Previous by thread: Re: the need for relevance
- Next by thread: Re: the need for relevance
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|