Search results

...tely, or state that it's not rigourous and tell the reader where to find a rigourous definition/construction of logarithms in a bibliography (which I'm hoping o

...This seems to imply that 0 is a positive integer (or the proof isn't quite rigourous or something; if 0 is allowed, maybe other things that are not positive in

...cover several different definitions, including at least one mathematically rigourous one (probably provided by someone other than me). It could mention definit

* {{search link|rigourous||ns0|ns14|ns100}} (rigorous)

...ge in the mind, though it's not necessary to break it into two cases for a rigourous proof. All that said, the current version is OK and possibly best. --[[Use

...on "greater than 1" which is left out in that version, making it not quite rigourous. I suggest changing to this: ''"(for example, its smallest divisor greate

...ss theorem casts doubt on the extent to which meta-mathematics can be made rigourous, but that's not an excuse not to do the best we can. Here's an attempt to

...ss theorem casts doubt on the extent to which meta-mathematics can be made rigourous, but that's not an excuse not to do the best we can. Here's an attempt to

...n its definition. So it seems that perhaps things are not being done in a rigourous order. ...at is not the only possible first step. Some people might prefer to see a rigourous definition as a first step. How about changing "The" to "A" or "Our"? --[[

...</ref> Fermat and Frenicle also did some work (some of it erroneous or non-rigourous<ref>Weil, op. cit., 80; Weil, op. cit., 91-92.</ref>) on other quadratic fo

rigourous->rigorous