Results 16 to 18 of 18

- June 15th 2009, 02:05 AM #16

- Joined
- Jun 2009
- Posts
- 220
- Thanks
- 1

I don't agree that this discussion is tedious. I think your reply was rather tedious. Personally I don't beleive that , I think that this definition only holds for convenience in special cases.

It's not hard to think of examples where approach zero continuously, yet does not approach

I'm still interested in your rigorous proof though.

-pomp.

- June 15th 2009, 02:08 AM #17

- June 15th 2009, 11:38 PM #18
‘Lady’ Moo : … I like the way you refer to yourself... it would be more interesting to give an outline of the proof... (I've seen some, I'm thinking about anyone who reads this…)

pomp : … I don't agree that this discussion is tedious. I think your reply was rather tedious. Personally I don't believe that , I think that this definition only holds for convenience in special cases… I'm still interested in your rigorous proof though…

Mi past experience about the question suggests that for some people that is a sort of ‘tabu’ which ‘hits a nerve’… I wonder why but that is the true …

I likely accept the proposal of ‘Lady’ Moo and plomp to explain a rigorous proof of the fact that is at only one condition: a moderator [or more than one moderator..] will assume the role of ‘impartial judge’ and will decide if from the ‘mathematical point of view’ the ‘proof’ is correct or not… is someone disposable to that?…

Kind regards