Comments for Victor Porton's Math Blog
https://portonmath.wordpress.com
Math research of Victor PortonTue, 04 Jul 2017 14:33:14 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/Comment on A new unexpected result (ERROR!) by A wrong result | Victor Porton's Math Blog
https://portonmath.wordpress.com/2017/07/04/unexpected-result/#comment-1485
Tue, 04 Jul 2017 14:33:14 +0000http://portonmath.wordpress.com/?p=2731#comment-1485[…] I’ve published in my blog a new theorem. […]
]]>Comment on New theorem about funcoids (ERROR!) by A new easy proposition about funcoids | Victor Porton's Math Blog
https://portonmath.wordpress.com/2017/06/29/new-theorem-about-funcoids/#comment-1483
Sun, 02 Jul 2017 22:14:41 +0000http://portonmath.wordpress.com/?p=2706#comment-1483[…] have proved (see new version of my book) the following proposition. (It is a special case of my erroneous theorem which I proposed […]
]]>Comment on Error in my theorem by Error in my theorem – found | Victor Porton's Math Blog
https://portonmath.wordpress.com/2017/06/30/error/#comment-1480
Fri, 30 Jun 2017 15:01:25 +0000http://portonmath.wordpress.com/?p=2709#comment-1480[…] found the exact error noticed in Error in my theorem […]
]]>Comment on New theorem about funcoids (ERROR!) by Error in my theorem | Victor Porton's Math Blog
https://portonmath.wordpress.com/2017/06/29/new-theorem-about-funcoids/#comment-1478
Thu, 29 Jun 2017 22:09:37 +0000http://portonmath.wordpress.com/?p=2706#comment-1478[…] It seems that there is an error in proof of this theorem. […]
]]>Comment on A conjecture about funcoids on real numbers disproved by porton
https://portonmath.wordpress.com/2017/05/22/funcoids-on-real-numbers-solved/#comment-1441
Tue, 23 May 2017 18:40:43 +0000http://portonmath.wordpress.com/?p=2693#comment-1441“The proof isn’t yet thoroughly checked for errors.” Yes, and I found an error in the proof. I am now working on correcting this error.
]]>Comment on Three (seemingly not so difficult) new conjectures by porton
https://portonmath.wordpress.com/2017/05/09/three-new-conjectures-2/#comment-1437
Tue, 09 May 2017 19:47:17 +0000http://portonmath.wordpress.com/?p=2663#comment-1437All three conjectures follow from the fact that is a sublattice of .
]]>Comment on Three (seemingly not so difficult) new conjectures by porton
https://portonmath.wordpress.com/2017/05/09/three-new-conjectures-2/#comment-1436
Tue, 09 May 2017 19:07:25 +0000http://portonmath.wordpress.com/?p=2663#comment-1436I’ve proved the first one. I am going to publish the (easy) proof soon.
]]>Comment on A new research project (a conjecture about funcoids) by porton
https://portonmath.wordpress.com/2017/04/11/research-in-the-middle-project/#comment-1428
Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:50:19 +0000http://portonmath.wordpress.com/?p=2642#comment-1428The proof at https://conference.portonvictor.org/wiki/Funcoid_bases/Disproof was with an error, but the proof idea was right. Now it contains the corrected proof.
]]>Comment on A new research project (a conjecture about funcoids) by porton
https://portonmath.wordpress.com/2017/04/11/research-in-the-middle-project/#comment-1427
Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:29:50 +0000http://portonmath.wordpress.com/?p=2642#comment-1427The conjecture was declined with a counter-example https://conference.portonvictor.org/wiki/Funcoid_bases/Disproof

It yet remains the question whether the condition “1” implies “2”.

]]>Comment on A new research project (a conjecture about funcoids) by porton
https://portonmath.wordpress.com/2017/04/11/research-in-the-middle-project/#comment-1425
Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:25:12 +0000http://portonmath.wordpress.com/?p=2642#comment-1425Can the same counter-example as in https://conference.portonvictor.org/wiki/Funcoid_bases/Failed_condition (the topic of the previous comment) be applied to some implications between conditions 1, 2, 3?
]]>