- #36
DonAntonio
- 606
- 2
voko said:This was not the question I asked. I asked for a theorem that cannot be cast in a specific predicate form. The Riemann hypothesis can be cast in that form.
No, it can't, and if you insist in "theorem", then piece of cake:
Th. 1: If a function is derivable at some point then it is continuous at that point
Th. 2: A continuous function defined on a closed, bounded interval is uniformly continuous there
Th. 3: A subgroup of a group is normal iff it is the kernel of a group homomorphism.
Th. 4: Any rectangle whose diagonals are perpendicular to each other is a square...
Now, you can try stretches like saying: in Th. 3 , for a subgroup of a group "find x=group homomorphism" s.t. its kernel is
that subgroup...or show that such doesn't exist", but I claim this bastardizes both the intention of what actual mathematics is and
also the deep meaning of it within some given realm.
"Solve for x" is merely an interpretation of this form, a valid one at that. If that is an interpretation you dislike for some reason, you should say just this, but you should not say that this interpretation is flawed.
Well, I think that by now it should be crystal clear I dislike that interpretation as I think it is a bastardizing one, isn't it? And my
reason for disliking it is because, as I already explained in length, I think it is not only deeply flawed but also it is deeply misleading.
And as "valid": this seems to depend on the eyes of the beholder. For me it is completely invalid.
DonAntonio