Silverchase@sh.itjust.works to Math Memes@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 1 month agoProof by fucking obviousnesssh.itjust.worksimagemessage-square60fedilinkarrow-up1378arrow-down114
arrow-up1364arrow-down1imageProof by fucking obviousnesssh.itjust.worksSilverchase@sh.itjust.works to Math Memes@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 1 month agomessage-square60fedilink
minus-squarehumblebun@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·edit-212 days agoRemoved by mod
minus-squareerin (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·1 month 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-squarelseif@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 month agoso… maybe its not worth proving then.
minus-squareerin (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 month agoOh trust me, I believe you. Especially using modern set theory and not the Principia Mathematica.
minus-squaredavidagain@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-21 month agoOnly works for a smooth curve with a neighbourhood around it. I think you need the transverse regular theorem or something.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
so… maybe its not worth proving then.
Oh trust me, I believe you. Especially using modern set theory and not the Principia Mathematica.
Only works for a smooth curve with a neighbourhood around it. I think you need the transverse regular theorem or something.
Removed by mod