/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10208150
Dedekind altered the definition, and his definition is different than the one he learned in his own preliminary studies. He said that one wasn't good enough, but I say it was.

>you should be able to find it without much trouble
I'm not seeing much digitized technical source material from the early 19th century. Ask yourself this: why is there a variety of cut named after Dedekind? Is it not because cuts were a standard element of analysis in the time before Dedekind cuts existed?

choosing between 0.999...=1 and 0.999!=1 is an axiom that can be taken either way depending on the framework of analysis.

>http://2occatl.net/Physics/1703.0073v3.pdf