Silverchase to Math [email protected]English • 1 day agoProof by fucking obviousnesssh.itjust.worksimagemessage-square62fedilinkarrow-up1327arrow-down113
arrow-up1314arrow-down1imageProof by fucking obviousnesssh.itjust.worksSilverchase to Math [email protected]English • 1 day agomessage-square62fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish0•18 hours agoOne point on the line Take 2 points on normal on the opposite sides Try to connect it Wow you can’t
minus-square@davidagainlinkEnglish1•edit-210 hours agoOnly works for a smooth curve with a neighbourhood around it. I think you need the transverse regular theorem or something.
minus-squareerin (she/her)linkfedilinkEnglish6•17 hours agoThis isn’t a rigorous mathematic proof that would prove that it holds true in every case. You aren’t wrong, but this is a colloquial definition of proof, not a mathematical proof.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish1•17 hours agoSorry, I’ve spent too much of my earthly time on reading and writing formal proofs. I’m not gonna write it now, but I will insist that it’s easy
minus-squareerin (she/her)linkfedilinkEnglish1•17 hours agoOh trust me, I believe you. Especially using modern set theory and not the Principia Mathematica.
One point on the line
Take 2 points on normal on the opposite sides
Try to connect it
Wow you can’t
Only works for a smooth curve with a neighbourhood around it. I think you need the transverse regular theorem or something.
Grated
This isn’t a rigorous mathematic proof that would prove that it holds true in every case. You aren’t wrong, but this is a colloquial definition of proof, not a mathematical proof.
Sorry, I’ve spent too much of my earthly time on reading and writing formal proofs. I’m not gonna write it now, but I will insist that it’s easy
so… maybe its not worth proving then.
Oh trust me, I believe you. Especially using modern set theory and not the Principia Mathematica.