Re: Cardnality of integers > Cardnality of integers

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:46:37 -0700 (PDT), S_Paske@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Mar 20, 5:25 pm, quasi <qu...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:02:42 -0700 (PDT), S_Pa...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

let sp=set of primes.
let sp_1=set of primes but not those that have composite index.
let sp_2=set of sp_1 but not those that have composite index.
...
I have proven that an irrational number is just one whose prime
factors are sp_n as sp-->oo.

Gibberish.

You have no clue as to what would constitute a valid mathematical
proof.

But i do know how the ulam spiral and the zeta function are related to
the plane, even if i can not express it in your terms. Why don't you
help me clean it up?

And descend into your madness? No way!

Why don't you spend some time learning the basics of rigorous math?

As a prerequisite to a meaningful mathematical discussion, we need to
have at least a minimal common understanding of logic, and a basic
common understanding as to what constitutes to a valid mathematical
proof. As of now, we are not even close to that.

quasi
.

Relevant Pages