Talk:Cousin's theorem
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Proof
[edit]I removed this section from the article, because it didn't make any sense. I'm assuming that someone was starting to write it and never finished it.
Proof
[edit]At first, only as a proper subset of will be studied.
![{\displaystyle \left[a,b\right]}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/f30926fb280a9fdf66fd931e14d4363cb824feaa)
Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 21:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a formalized proof here. There's also an informal proof here that resembles the traditional proof of the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem. But, Cousin's theorem supposedly requires more powerful axioms than B-W (or Heine-Borel),[1] and I haven't spotted the part of the proof where they enter. I believe the article should get a proof of the theorem and a discussion of the metamathematics. User:CBM hasn't been around in a while: can User:CommyMath help? Thanks. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
User:CommyMath here! I will take a stab at said proof in the New Year. This should be easy as a new (Normann-Sanders) proof , based solely on the least upper bound property of bounded subsets of the reals, has in the meantime appeared on the arxiv. —Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)