Changes

Talk:Elementary proof (view source)

Revision as of 22:24, April 8, 2012

485 bytes added , 22:24, April 8, 2012

But if mathematicians insist on the rigor of this approach, then why not simply define God to exist? There is no contradiction that results from that definition.

Line 183: Line 183:

::::: That is how all of mathematics is. Objects are defined to exist. Then they are proved to be well-defined. It is the same for all other numbers, functions, spaces, and other mathematical objects. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:08, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

+

:::::: Defining the square root of -1 to exist is different from other mathematical definitions, because the square root of -1 is known not to exist. It is analogous to defining the square root of 2 to be rational without the immediate contradictions.

+

:::::: But if mathematicians insist on the rigor of this approach, then why not simply define God to exist? There is no contradiction that results from that definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:24, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly

Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators

126,231

edits