Re: SF: Generalized SFT's
jstevh_at_msn.com
Date: 04/24/05
- Next message: C. Bond: "Re: SF: Abstracted SFT, issue of triviality"
- Previous message: jstevh_at_msn.com: "SF: Two Az's"
- In reply to: Justin: "Re: SF: Generalized SFT's"
- Next in thread: Timm Korte: "Re: SF: Generalized SFT's"
- Reply: Timm Korte: "Re: SF: Generalized SFT's"
- Reply: Proginoskes: "Re: SF: Generalized SFT's"
- Reply: Justin: "Re: SF: Generalized SFT's"
- Reply: Proginoskes: "Re: SF: Generalized SFT's"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 24 Apr 2005 14:27:04 -0700
Justin wrote:
> In sci.math jstevh@msn.com wrote:
>
> : They're rational. So it's easy and your request is strange.
> : Pick any rationals that fit.
>
> I tried, but every choice I make yields trivial factors. Please
could you
> show me an example where non-trivial factors emerge.
>
I don't have an example. I refuse to check by example.
But I do know that in mathematics, proof is more important than
examples.
Your failure to find a non-trivial factor can be because of many
things, which don't affect a mathematical proof.
My suggestion for those who wish to disagree with the SFT is to find
some reason for why it would do as you claim.
I'm looking for mathematical proof here.
No matter how many examples are given, they don't prove.
James Harris
- Next message: C. Bond: "Re: SF: Abstracted SFT, issue of triviality"
- Previous message: jstevh_at_msn.com: "SF: Two Az's"
- In reply to: Justin: "Re: SF: Generalized SFT's"
- Next in thread: Timm Korte: "Re: SF: Generalized SFT's"
- Reply: Timm Korte: "Re: SF: Generalized SFT's"
- Reply: Proginoskes: "Re: SF: Generalized SFT's"
- Reply: Justin: "Re: SF: Generalized SFT's"
- Reply: Proginoskes: "Re: SF: Generalized SFT's"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
