Quote:
|
You are conjuring up constructs involving "extended reals" that have absolutely nothing to do with my discovery and are invoking a completely different branch of mathematics that has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever!
|
I am
not "conjuring up any constructs". Read a book on analysis, preferably Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis. I am arguing on the basis that this apparent discovery implies things we know to be false (ie. multiplication by one results in division by zero). If someone came up with a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis that implied 2 = 1 (in the integers of course), then what are we going to accept? 2 = 1 or this proof? It doesn't take a great amount of intellect to realize what's right and wrong. CraigD has already pointed out that it is an identity for an exponential function, but it does
not imply multiplication by 1 results in division by zero.
I was not working in the extended real number system. What I'm saying is that the "x/0" is not defined. Basically what you are saying is that a sequence that converges to a real number does, in fact, not converge. I can pick any concrete example, multiply it by one, and then still find a sequence that converges to it. I don't know why you are so insistent on this ridiculous statement.
Quote:
|
We are, at present, discussing algebraic terms as they apply to common factors
|
Yes, and the real numbers are an algebraic object--a field. This is basic field theory arithmetic.
