From: Factitious (x40_at_pacbell.net)
Date: Wed Feb 06 2002 - 17:01:15 PST
>>>>>> The statement "fc + rc = (f+r)c unless c is a fantasy number" is false when f = j, r = 1, and c = 0. (Note that 0 is a real number and thus not a fantasy number.) To show this, I will use my favorite type of proof, Reductio Ad Absurdum. In other words, I will show that the statement reduces to a trivial contradiction, thus demonstrating it to be false. (j+1)*0 = j*0+1*0 (statement under consideration) (j+1)*0 = 1+1*0 (definition of j) (j+1)*0 = 1+0 (0 times a real number equals 0) (j+1)*0 = 1 (0 plus a real number equals that number) j+1 = 1/0 (divide both sides by 0) j+1 = j (definition of j) 1 = 0 (subtract j from both sides) 1 is, of course, not equal to 0. This system of math may be fantastic, but it should not be absurd. Since a counterexample exists, "fc + rc = (f+r)c unless c is a fantasy number" is false. QED. I like Reductio Ad Absurdum proofs so much that from now on, all valid odd-numbered rules must contain a proof of that type. To clarify, all integers must indeed be written out using the 10 hendigits. >>>>>> Note: I don't like reposts much, so I decided to add at least a sentence of new contribution. The term "hendigit" is by analogy with "hendecagon". Admittedly this is somewhat different from the process by which "digit" was coined, but I don't know of a Latin word for a person with an extra finger. "Polydactyl" might fit that, but it's Greek, so should not be casually mixed with Latin terminology. -- Rule Date: 2002-02-07 01:00:09 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST