Science Forums 2

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

There is no fallacy in my argument.

First of all, let's keep in mind that we are discussing the meanings of the expressions:

(1)^(0/0) and

(1)^(N/0), N>0

as they relate to my proof of the BC.

This is no way to address an opponents points in debating mathematical or scientific topics.

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

Please let me know what your answers to these questions are.

As you have failed to properly address many of my points and reply to my queries, I'm under no obbligation to do so despite that I could. It would not be worth the waste of time and I'm posting during breaks at work and limited time elsewhere and it's time consuming to parse your notation, copy it onto paper more readably and make certain I don't get the parentheses botched up. Folks have other things to attend to, if you fail to be cooperative and more compliant.

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

By the way, I disagree that:

(0/0)=N and (6/0)=(infinity)

is a "fair comparison", because while any number:

N*0=0,

there is no number called "infinity" such that:

(infinity)*0=6.

Please note that is also notoriously an indeterminate form; the comparison is a fair one. Wasn't that the reason why I said they are equally meaningless?

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

Clearly, if limits are not introduced, then the "blunt" equation:

(0/0)=N

still belongs in the realm of numbers, while:

(6/0)=(infinity)

remains entirely nonsensical.

No, they are both meaningless.

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

I also can't see how you can possibly claim that the implication:

51/3=2 (implies) N*0=0

is "formally true". The equation 51/3=2 is false, while the equation N*0=0 is true. How can something false imply, "formally" or otherwise, something true?

Don.

Ask a logician. My only remedy to this shall be to suggest you learn the basics of logic; you have fully confirmed your lack of grasp on them; my reply of yesterday to your point:

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

That's a "reasonable implication" because N*0=0 is a "true statement".

was overly cautious because it wasn't clear whether or not you meant the very fact that the consequent being identically true is sufficient condition for the implication being true. Apparently this isn't so, you are therefore quite convinced of the argument which I detailed for you in order to expose the fallacies.