6h
comment Why not to extend the set of natural numbers to make it closed under division by zero?
It's fair to call $0/2$ the recripocal of $2/0$; but it wouldn't be fair to call it the inverse of $2/0$.
17h
comment Question about valuation rings of a rational function field
Have you considered yet if you can do anything with the minimal polynomial of $g$ over $E$?
18h
comment Infinitude of prime numbers
@Andreas: I don't doubt that that misuse is sufficiently common to make it into a dictionary -- but it is still a misuse that is one source of confusion people have about the topic, and worth correcting. (in particular, no mathematical usage of 'infinity' shares this meaning)
18h
comment Infinitude of prime numbers
"Infinitely many" or "an infinite set of", not "an infinity of".
23h
awarded Nice Answer
1d
comment How do you multiply infinite quantities?
From your descriptions, it sounds like it's not just taking a constructive view, but describing it in a deliberately misleading fashion.
1d
comment Why is the powerset axiom more acceptable than the axiom of choice?
@Conifold: To single out the measurable functions from all functions requires first being able to speak of all functions. Also, note that if one believes only measurable functions exist, that is no reason to believe there is a not a set of all measurable functions. And if only measurable functions exist in some set-theoretic universe, then the set of all functions is the set of measurable functions.
1d
answered Why is the powerset axiom more acceptable than the axiom of choice?
1d
comment Disproving the claim that the numbers 1+2+4, 1+2+4+8, 1+2+4+8+16... alternate between prime and composite
@nsanger: Thanks, fixed.
1d
revised Disproving the claim that the numbers 1+2+4, 1+2+4+8, 1+2+4+8+16... alternate between prime and composite
edited body
1d
answered Different method for the same question = different post?
1d
comment Proving that $\int \frac{1}{x} \mathrm dx = \ln(|x|) + C_1$
Aside: just in case you're unaware, $c_1$ is not a constant, but is instead "locally constant": specifically, it has the form $$c_1 = \begin{cases} c_2 & x < 0 \\ c_3 & x > 0 \end{cases} $$ where $c_2$ and $c_3$ truly are constants (with respect to $x$).
1d
answered If $a$ divides $bc$ and $\gcd(a,b) = d$ then $\frac a d$ divides c
1d
answered Disproving the claim that the numbers 1+2+4, 1+2+4+8, 1+2+4+8+16... alternate between prime and composite
2d
comment Logical argument
Your boldface sentence reads as "Argue that if $(\square \vee \square)\wedge(\neg \square \vee \square)$ is true" and so forth
2d
awarded Electorate
2d
comment limits using (ε,δ )-definition of limit
This is not much more than a "write out the definitions" exercise; if you're having trouble with a particular point, you should ask about it specifically. (and ideally in the form of "help me understand a concept" rather than "help me do my homework")
2d
comment limits using (ε,δ )-definition of limit
I speculate that what you really mean is that $f$ is a vector function, and $\| \cdot \|$ is the norm function on vectors?
Aug
19
comment Why are projective transformations $3$-transitive on points?
And wikipedia thinks that's what "projective transformation" means.
Aug
19
comment Why are projective transformations $3$-transitive on points?
You should give more context; e.g. where you saw this claim. I think I have reverse engineered your confusion, though: the question is asking about the projective general linear group $\mathrm{PGL_2}(F)$ which acts on the projective line over a field. (and, in fact, turn out to be precisely the Möbius transformations)
1 2 3 4 5