/sci/ - Science & Math

Also, I might add that the false dichotomy is as follows. He presents a choice between numbers being either "Archimedean" (as he has defined them) or being "nonstandard." However, the main result of my program, even more so than the RH result, is that there are numbers in standard analysis which do not have the property he associates with the word "Archimedean." Section 6.3 in my long paper (>>15434597, also pic) shows that he is not using the word "Archimedean" properly, and that all of the numbers I included in my standard analysis do have the Archimedes property according to Euclid's statement of the property. If you use Rudin's bastardized statement of the Archimedes property of real numbers, or some similarly bastardized statement as my counterparty has, then the numbers I use do not have the Archimedes property. According to Euclid, however, who is the author of the statement of that property, the numbers I use are Archimedean.