Silverchase to Math Memes@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish • 1 month agoProof by fucking obviousnesssh.itjust.worksimagemessage-square65fedilinkarrow-up1378arrow-down114
arrow-up1364arrow-down1imageProof by fucking obviousnesssh.itjust.worksSilverchase to Math Memes@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish • 1 month agomessage-square65fedilink
minus-square@humblebun@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglish0•1 month agoOne point on the line Take 2 points on normal on the opposite sides Try to connect it Wow you can’t
minus-squareerin (she/her)linkfedilinkEnglish6•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-square@humblebun@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglish1•1 month 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•1 month agoOh trust me, I believe you. Especially using modern set theory and not the Principia Mathematica.
minus-square@davidagain@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglish1•edit-21 month agoOnly works for a smooth curve with a neighbourhood around it. I think you need the transverse regular theorem or something.
One point on the line
Take 2 points on normal on the opposite sides
Try to connect it
Wow you can’t
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.
Only works for a smooth curve with a neighbourhood around it. I think you need the transverse regular theorem or something.
Grated