Timeline for Examples of common false beliefs in mathematics
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 5 at 3:40 | history | edited | LSpice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Name of "this question", while this is on the front page
|
| Jan 15, 2023 at 7:01 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
a minor typo
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Sep 1, 2015 at 18:31 | comment | added | Trevor Wilson | That being said, understanding why $\{x_0,x_1,\ldots\}$ isn't necessarily a set is similar to understanding why the argument isn't valid. | |
| Sep 1, 2015 at 18:30 | comment | added | Trevor Wilson | @columbus8myhw It's related to that, although it's possible for $\{x_0, x_1, \ldots\}$ to be a set for unrelated reasons. (For example, given a pointwise definable model of set theory, we can consider $\{x_0, x_1, \ldots\}$ from the outside, and see that it happens to equal a set in the model, namely $\mathbb{R}$ itself.) But in this case $(x_0,x_1,\ldots)$ will fail to be a sequence (of the model) and the argument will still fail (in the model). | |
| Sep 1, 2015 at 0:17 | comment | added | Akiva Weinberger | Is it because $\{x_0,x_1,\dots\}$ isn't necessarily a set? | |
| S May 5, 2015 at 17:56 | history | answered | Trevor Wilson | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| S May 5, 2015 at 17:56 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Trevor Wilson |