>>12509637>I’m an EE student not some rigor obsessed nigger like you>Just because I’m an EE doesn’t mean I don’t care about rigor,Interesting.
> I just understand that ultimately “rigor” is arbitrary What exactly do you mean by this? Do you think "rigor" is meaningless? Then what's the difference between Tao's textbook and any text on real analysis aimed specifically for engineers?
Also if you genuinely think Tao's definition of a function is satisfactory, you should easily be able to answer the following questions:
- If X=Y=N=the set of natural numbers, and P(x,y)="y=1 and x encodes a statement in first order arithmetic that is true" or "y=0 and x is false or not a well-formed statement about arithmetic", is P a property that encodes a function? Explain why.
- Are there functions f not encoded by a property P?
- Can the property P have an infinitely long definition?
- What is a set?
I'll be waiting for your answers.
