No. Says "Let r be any positive real number, then so is r/2. But (1/2)<1 implies (r/2)<r. So there can be no least positive real number". I think the all real numbers one is the one I should look over and understand better, since it says "Suppose there is a least real number r>2. Now 2<r implies 2+2<r+2. But 4<r+2 implies 2=(4/2)<((r+2)/2. So 2<((r+2)/2). Also 2<r implies r+2<r+r=2r. But r+2<2r implies ((r+2)/2)<2r/2=r. So 2<((r+2)/2)<r. Thus there is a real number s=(r+2)/2 and that 2<s<r, which contradicts the way we have chosen r". What I want to understand is the method behind drawing that conclusion. I'm not just going to memorize it. The way I say it is more or less the same thing, but it isn't as concrete of a proof as this one.
This post has been edited by Elnendil: Sep 9 2010, 07:30 PM
~~~
QUOTE Kenji: Where else would I could get beaten with a phone that would make me unable to remember it? The ass?
|