To the guy from many years ago who said the infinite product of nonempty sets is nonempty, yes you can restate the AC that way. Doesn’t make it obvious.

Personally I despise even countable choice. Look at the proof of finite choice. You have a choice sequence of cardinality 1. Now if we are assuming (n-1)-choice is true, we can form the n-choice sequence by invoking the existence of (n-1)-choice to get an (n-1)-choice sequence for the first (n-1) sets, and then choose 1 more to get an n-choice sequence. So its an inductive proof of n-choice.

If we are to believe that the AC is obvious, then we are supposed to believe that the above proof was a complete waste of time. It doesn’t feel that way, it feels like the above proof was a full proper proof of a full proper theorem. So I absolutely refuse to accept as obvious a *generalisation* of it!!

]]>Unfortunate Mathematical Names | The Everything Seminar

]]>Do you know hoow to make your site mobile friendly?

My blog looks weird whe browsing from my iphone4.

I’m trying to find a template or plugin thaat might be able to correct this

problem. If you have anny recommendations, please share.

Cheers!

Odd Sums of Consecutive Odds | The Everything Seminar

]]>Furthermore instead of coin toss It could be a random element generator from any set. For example each person could Have a ordinal number.

]]>D-module Basics I | The Everything Seminar

]]>Odd Sums of Consecutive Odds | The Everything Seminar

]]>Odd Sums of Consecutive Odds | The Everything Seminar

]]>Odd Sums of Consecutive Odds | The Everything Seminar

]]>