Recent content by LAVRANOS

  1. L

    How is reductio ad absurdum a valid proof method?

    O.K IWAITED to long and it is getting late .Here is aproof that 1+1=2 1)for all x and for all y(x +Sy =S( x+y)) A peano axiom 2) 1 +S(0) = S( 1+ 0) from 1 and using Univ.Elim. where we put x=1 and y=0 3) for all x (x + 0 =x ) A peano axiom 4) 1 + 0 = 1 from 3...
  2. L

    Discussion of 'Valid method of proof'.

    Deacon John i will wait until you finish the whole thread and i will answer afterwords
  3. L

    How is reductio ad absurdum a valid proof method?

    Sorry I Did Not Notice That You Want Me To Do 2x2=4 In Peano Arithmetic
  4. L

    How is reductio ad absurdum a valid proof method?

    O.K With such a small proof WHAT ABOUT THE FOLLOWING PROOF?? for all x and for all y(x>=0 and y>=0 -------> ( sqroot(xy)=sqroot(x).sqroot(y) )) CAN YOU DO IT STEP WISE?
  5. L

    How is reductio ad absurdum a valid proof method?

    if you cannot give a right proof i can give you one
  6. L

    How is reductio ad absurdum a valid proof method?

    OK STEPS 1 AND 2 ,BY WHAT LAW YOU GET 3 ALSO EXPLAIN <identity of indiscemibles>
  7. L

    How is reductio ad absurdum a valid proof method?

    Maybe not you CRGreathouse but in another thread where i was acussed of not knowing the number pi (the Greek invented number) when i responded back the got so ungry that they deleted my posts.
  8. L

    How is reductio ad absurdum a valid proof method?

    It means that you cannot apply contradiction if the theory is incosistent. Because in incosistent theories somewhere you will get a contradictory statement hence when you work by contradiction you will not know if you meet this particular statement and hence contadiction has no value.
  9. L

    How is reductio ad absurdum a valid proof method?

    I mean to explicitly mention the laws of logic involved in every step of your proof. Where is that?
  10. L

    How is reductio ad absurdum a valid proof method?

    if the theory is not consistent, then a contradiction doesn't work. I ask you again: Do you know how contradiction works? I will show you for the last time how contradiction works. In a proof by contradiction you ALWAYS END UP with 2 contradictory statements i.e. R \wedge \neg R Then study...
  11. L

    How is reductio ad absurdum a valid proof method?

    The point with you guys is that you write nonsense all the time and if somebody asks you a question with respect to your nonsense and illogical mumbling you get angry. What actually happens is the following: you read a couple of things in a couple of books and then you come here and you throw...
  12. L

    What is the Epsilon-Delta Definition of a Limit and How Does It Work?

    THE FUNCTION f(x)=2x+1 where f:N------->R HAS NO LIMIT AT X=2 BECAUSE X IS NOT A POINT OF ACCUMULATION ,BUT IT IS CONTINUOUS AT X=2. THE SECOND FUNCTION IS NOT MINE IT IS A PROFESSOR"S FUNCTION AND HE SAYS THAT THE FUNCTION CAN HAVE ALIMIT AT X=0 which is 1,and he proves that. I SUGGEST you...
  13. L

    How is reductio ad absurdum a valid proof method?

    The following will show you why Now we must be very careful to distinguish between an implication and a logical implication. We say P implies Q noted as P---->Q and this can be true or false depending on the values of p and q. And if p is false and q true then P--->Q is true A thing that...
  14. L

    What is the Epsilon-Delta Definition of a Limit and How Does It Work?

    Deacon John, can you tell me please using your definition of limit what IS the following limit. 1) lim 2x+1 as x-------> 2 where f:N------>R where N is the natural Nos and f(x)=2x+1 Does the following function has any limits within its domain and if yes how many? f={(1/n,1+2^-n):nεΝ}
  15. L

    Definition of Identity & Equation: Trig-Identity & Relation

    Sorry i wanted to say as well that i am going to give adefinition of an identity
Back
Top