Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:27:13 +0100, Han de Bruijn
<Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Proof
-----
As an exercise for the interested reader ;-)

Bull***.

I've already said that this is false, so how do you dare omit the
proof?

But, as far as I can see, you HAVEN'T proved that they are NOT the same.

I guess, the problem is that you are a mathematical illiterate.

Of course WE have already presented valid proofs for the theorem

S[N] =/= lim S_n[N]. (*)
n

With other words, we have shown that (*) actually is a theorem in ZFC by
presenting proofs for it.


I agree with you that 90 percent a proof is not a proof, and that I HAVE
to proof the Lemma that was left as "an exercise to the reader". Though
you could have noticed my smiley .. Shall we conclude that the only flaw
in the purported proof is exactly _there_?

Exactly. (Or rather, there's the FIRST flaw, as far as *I* can see.)


Is there anything else wrong? If not, then I _only_ have to repair this
weakest link in the chain. OK?

Actually, all you have to do is to prove that (your) claim. Since it's
negation (*) has already been proved. This would mean that ZFC is
inconsistent (qed).


F.

--

E-mail: info<at>simple-line<dot>de
.