Re: SF: Areas of confusion, infinity
From: C. Bond (cbond_at_ix.netcom.com)
Date: 04/14/05
- Next message: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: SF: Areas of confusion, infinity"
- Previous message: stush_at_rocketmail.com: "Re: SF: Areas of confusion, infinity"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "SF: Areas of confusion, infinity"
- Next in thread: Proginoskes: "Re: SF: Areas of confusion, infinity"
- Reply: Proginoskes: "Re: SF: Areas of confusion, infinity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:36:07 GMT
jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> One of the problems with surrogate factoring in terms of understanding
> it, is that it utilizes infinite sets, notably the set of rationals.
That is, indeed, a problem -- but not in the sense you suggest.. The reason
is that factoring, as is the term is used in mathematics, involves finding
*integer* factors, not rational divisors. Since you have completely
misunderstood the problem, there is no hope of your finding a solution.
[snip]
-- There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable -- and the obvious. -- Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle. -- http://www.crbond.com
- Next message: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: SF: Areas of confusion, infinity"
- Previous message: stush_at_rocketmail.com: "Re: SF: Areas of confusion, infinity"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "SF: Areas of confusion, infinity"
- Next in thread: Proginoskes: "Re: SF: Areas of confusion, infinity"
- Reply: Proginoskes: "Re: SF: Areas of confusion, infinity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Loading