Difference between revisions of "Talk:Trivial Inequality"
m (Talk:Trivial Inequality moved to Talk:Trivial inequality: capitalization) |
m |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
There is a constructive proof presented in Rudin's book ''Principles of Mathematical Analysis'' that does not use the method of contradiction. But, the proof itself is quite lengthy and depends on several basic propositions derived from the [[field]] axioms. Anyways, thank you so much [[User:1=2|1=2]].--[[User:10000th User|10000th User]] 11:58, 23 November 2007 (EST) | There is a constructive proof presented in Rudin's book ''Principles of Mathematical Analysis'' that does not use the method of contradiction. But, the proof itself is quite lengthy and depends on several basic propositions derived from the [[field]] axioms. Anyways, thank you so much [[User:1=2|1=2]].--[[User:10000th User|10000th User]] 11:58, 23 November 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I also think the proof is rigorous. ~[[Ddk001]] | ||
Latest revision as of 21:49, 13 January 2024
I'm just wondering if the proof presented is 'rigorous'... I'll need a 3rd reader to confirm this.--10000th User 16:47, 22 November 2007 (EST)
I think it is most certainly rigorous.--1=2 9:08, 23 November 2007 (EST)
There is a constructive proof presented in Rudin's book Principles of Mathematical Analysis that does not use the method of contradiction. But, the proof itself is quite lengthy and depends on several basic propositions derived from the field axioms. Anyways, thank you so much 1=2.--10000th User 11:58, 23 November 2007 (EST)
I also think the proof is rigorous. ~Ddk001
