ebola1717

24 ms·

211.
by ebola1717 11y ago
The parts of the "distinctiveness" and "cultural identity" we'd lose are exactly the ones we don't want in the first place.
212.
by ebola1717 11y ago
Actually though. The repo owner is part of a company that boasts 4chan as a client.
213.
by ebola1717 11y ago
The natural way to encode an infinite binary tree into the real numbers is as the Cantor set, an uncountable totally disconnected set.
214.
by ebola1717 11y ago
A lot of the applications of measure theory are in fourier analysis and probability, where countable sums are necessary, and topology often isn't. Also, just because the topology on R yields a certain intuition doesn't mean it&#x
215.
by ebola1717 11y ago
>Let's imagine I had shown that something was either one or two. You seem to be claiming I could not take positive proofs assuming each of them and turn it into a full proof. When you break it down to the logical axioms, you can&#x2
216.
by ebola1717 11y ago
In that case, you have proven X by contradiction. If you're rigorous enough, you can rule out the 3rd option. As wondering if you're in a situation where your axioms are inconsistent, well that's actually the world mathemat
217.
by ebola1717 11y ago
I think "Proof by cases" uses proof by contradiction. You're proving that given A -> C and !A -> C, then C, which requires the axiom A v !A, i.e. proof by contradiction. In your proof, you've proven k=0 -> X !=
218.
by ebola1717 11y ago
It's not obvious that the statement "if x and y are different prime factorizations, they are not equal" can be proven without proof by contradiction.