/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15300985
On the second line, you have assumed that (hat-b) has a multiplicative inverse. Did you make an axiom for that? I didn't make an axiom for that. Are you referring to the field axioms? If so, why are you doing that when I do not refer to them in the paper?

In fact, if you criticize the long paper with the most magnificent standard of rigor, and not the "quick" paper which emphasizes brevity, I show that such numbers cannot possibly have multiplicative inverses. If you would study what I wrote, you would see that only numbers in the neighborhood of the origin form a number field while numbers in the neighborhood of infinity are extra-special and have properties that are probably too hard for you. Because you have not studied, it doesn't seem stupid to you to implicitly invoke the field axioms in the neighborhood of infinity.

Basically, you are stupid. You're just trying to say my work is wrong without studying it first. You have decided it's wrong a priori so your opinion on it is worthless.