Kabbalist

5 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by Kabbalist 3y ago

   Are you able to read and understand it though and is it the correct use of the principle of duality?
2. 2.▲
   Fermat's Last Theorem and the Principle of Duality

   2 points by Kabbalist 3y ago|2 comments
3. 3.▲
   In Category Theory Can the Dual of an Implication Be Its Converse?

   1 points by Kabbalist 3y ago|0 comments
4. 4.▲
   On Logical Implication as a Morphism in Category Theory

   2 points by Kabbalist 3y ago|1 comments
5. 5.▲
   Corrected Version of Maths Where the Pythagorean Triples Don't Exist

   1 points by Kabbalist 3y ago|0 comments
6. 6.▲
   Maths Where Fermat's Last Theorem Doesn't Hold

   3 points by Kabbalist 3y ago|3 comments
7. 7.▲
   On the Infinity of Prime Numbers

   1 points by Kabbalist 3y ago|1 comments
8. 8.▲
   Validity of Argument (Part 2)

   1 points by Kabbalist 3y ago|0 comments
9. 9.▲
   Validity of Argument (Part 1)

   1 points by Kabbalist 3y ago|0 comments
10. 10.▲
    by Kabbalist 3y ago

    Suppose I would pick K=2 though. What would happen then?
11. 11.▲
    by Kabbalist 3y ago

    Yes. You’re right. I should have written it like this: Let A,B,C, and K be elements of the Natural Numbers. 1. ∃K(K≤1∧∃A,B,C(A^K+B^K=C^K )) 2. ∃K(∃A,B,C(A^K+B^K=C^K )∧K≤1) 3. ∃K(∃A,B,C(A^K+B^K=C^K )→K≤1) 4. ∃K(K>1→∀A,B,C(A^K+B^K≠C^K ))
12. 12.▲
    Maths Where Pythagorean Triples Don't Exist

    9 points by Kabbalist 3y ago|9 comments