
#379
Dec209, 07:55 PM

P: 687

You are applying universal generalizations you know do not apply. 



#380
Dec209, 07:57 PM

P: 687

It is clear to me you do not know how to argue by Reductio ad absurdum. I do this all the time. 



#381
Dec209, 07:59 PM

P: 687

It is clear to me you do not know how to argue by Reductio ad absurdum. I do this all the time. The properties of the Integers is that if n belongs to the integers then n + 1 belongs to the integers. This is Peano arithmetic. 



#382
Dec209, 08:05 PM

P: 1,060

That there is no greatest integer is true. It is called the Archimedean property of numbers. It does not use this "proof". You are absolutely categorically wrong in your proof. It is a common mistake that many people make and is completely compatible with many of your arguments. You may get away with wordplay and ambiguityy with verbal atguments in relativity but you cannot get away with it in mathematics. Matheinste. 



#383
Dec209, 08:13 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 8,470





#384
Dec209, 08:20 PM

P: 687

Prove it is wrong. 



#385
Dec209, 08:28 PM

P: 1,060

I have learnt from experience that if you have decided you are correct, no amount of logical argument will convince you otherwise. However in this case there is no doubt, your proff is invalid. Matheinste 



#386
Dec209, 08:39 PM

P: 687

I cannot show you Reductio ad absurdum. 



#387
Dec209, 08:43 PM

P: 1,060

Matheinste. 



#388
Dec209, 09:07 PM

P: 687

Yea I know, you understand everything. 



#389
Dec309, 12:18 AM

P: 1,060

Matheinste. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Lorentz like contraction  Special & General Relativity  9  
LorentzFitzGerald Contraction  Special & General Relativity  8  
Fitzgerald Lorentz contraction  Special & General Relativity  64  
A Lesson on Lorentz Contraction  Introductory Physics Homework  4  
Lorentz Contraction  General Physics  13 