home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!mips!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!csa2.lbl.gov!sichase
- From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
- Newsgroups: sci.math
- Subject: Re: An interesting limit problem.
- Message-ID: <24912@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
- Date: 26 Jul 92 20:40:29 GMT
- References: <1992Jul25.212844.1@lure.latrobe.edu.au> <1992Jul26.150627.14192@husc3.harvard.edu>
- Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
- Distribution: na
- Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
- Lines: 26
- NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
- News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4
-
- In article <1992Jul26.150627.14192@husc3.harvard.edu>, kubo@zariski.harvard.edu (Tal Kubo) writes...
- >
- >
- >See "Huygens, Barrow, Hooke and Newton" by V.I. Arnol'd.
- >He gives the above limit as an example of a problem
- >that mathematicians today simply can't solve quickly (in
- >contrast to their predecessors). He remarks that the only
- >exception known to him, G. Faltings, proves the rule.
-
- Then I am disappointed in Arnol'd who should know better about what the
- phrase "the exception proves the rule" means. The word "prove" does not
- mean "demonstrates" in this usage, but rather "tests" as in the
- "Proving Grounds" where they test nuclear weapons. The phrase "The
- exception proves the rule" means that if an exception can be found then
- then rule is shown to be false.
-
- Granted, most people don't understand this for some reason.
-
- -Scott
-
- --------------------
- Scott I. Chase "The question seems to be of such a character
- SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV that if I should come to life after my death
- and some mathematician were to tell me that it
- had been definitely settled, I think I would
- immediately drop dead again." - Vandiver
-