Difference between revisions of "Talk:Elementary proof"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
I suggest killing this article. It just isn't useful. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:11, 5 February 2007 (EST) | I suggest killing this article. It just isn't useful. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:11, 5 February 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | If the test were what is "useful", then most math articles should be deleted! | ||
| + | |||
| + | I'd love to see a proof that the following exists and is unique (plus and minus roots): | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::<big><big><math>\sqrt{-1}</math></big></big> | ||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:12, 6 February 2007 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 01:12, February 7, 2007
Who uses this concept?
I don't think that it is correct that anyone calls a proof "elementary" just because it does not use the square root of (-1). Nor is it true that an elementary proof is necessarily preferred.
It is not an assumption that (-1) can have a square root. It can be proved. Nor is the square root unique. (-1) has 2 square roots, if it has any.
I suggest killing this article. It just isn't useful. RSchlafly 00:11, 5 February 2007 (EST)
If the test were what is "useful", then most math articles should be deleted!
I'd love to see a proof that the following exists and is unique (plus and minus roots):
--Aschlafly 20:12, 6 February 2007 (EST)