You are not logged in.
Convention.
The notation means that the first element in that set is 1. And so is the 2nd. And the third. That's how we define set notation.
If a number is not 0, it is either greater than or less than zero. In other words, a number must be greater than 0, equal to it, or less than. There is no other possibility.
Edit: In other words, show me a number that is not greater than 0, less than 0, or 0. It simply does not exist.
Infinity can have some weird properties. I invite people to post examples showing that this is true.
I'll start off with something we were doing today in Advanced Calculus:
Consider the set A = {1, 1, 1, ... , 2, 2, 2, ... , 3, 3, 3 ...}
Where "..." implies for infinity.
Believe it or not, A = {1, 1, 1...}
2, 3, 4... are never included in that set!
Going over that proof, I would have to say it is valid.
For the proof to be valid, it must be known that 0.999... is a rational number
I believe the proof is also valid for irrational numbers. For example, you can subtract pi from integers with no problem.
As long as 0.999... = 0.999..., then I see no problem.
Traesk, your objections stem from a misconception of infinite. Infinite shares almost no common properties as finite numbers. That you compare the properties of finte and assume they apply to infinity is sorely mistaken.
Infinity can be just plain weird. Roraborealis was right when he (she?) said that there would always just be another 9 to step up and take it's place.
infinite - 1 = infinite. Like I said, weird, but true.
I never did buy that proof, but I like this one better.
Consider the distance between .999... and 1. We will call this distance d.
We know d can't be less than 0, as this would result in a number that is less than .999...
Let's assume d > 0. By the Archimedian Principle, there exists an n∈N such that 1/n < d. But d is the distance from 0.999... to 1. That is, 0.999... + d = 1. However, I believe we can all agree (although I'm unsure how to strictly prove) that 0.999... + 1/n ≥ 1. But 1/n < d. So 0.999... + d > 1. Thus, d is not the distance, contradiction.
We shown that d is not greater than or less than 0, so the only thing we are left with is d=0:
0.999... + d = 1
0.999... = 1.
If you ran around in circles, your speed would be constant, but your velocity would be constantly changing. Your average velocity would be zero!
And so would your IQ.
Take that, track team.
Chemist, nothing is going to work for all functions. But (x,0) and (x,x) work for a whole lot, and they are easy.
If you plug in (x, mx) and get m, that is enought to say the function is not continuous.
SP #4: the ball is dropped, so it doesn't travel anywhere.
But seriously, by traveled, do you mean both positive and negative changes in height? In other words, do we count the ball going up and down?
yes, but the normal way to write that is:
y = 0 mod x.
Don't get me wrong, your way is perfectly fine too. I guess I'm just used to seeing the mod and 0 on the right.
Yes and no. By using these two, you are usually going to be showing that the limit does not exist. So you want to end up with is two limits not being equal.
Traveling in abnormal ways is a good thing, such as x^2 and mx. However, most functions have different limits when approached from the axis. And besides, normally the axis is easier.
I normally use (x, 0) and (x, x). These are sufficient for most non-continuous functions, and they are normally easy to plug in.
Let f ∈ F(A,B). Prove that if f is bijective, so is f-¹
Your notation looks a bit weird to me. Is that exactly from a question? What normal notation would be:
Let f:A⇒B. Prove that if f is bijective, so is f-¹
Well, we know that f is a function. Since f is a map:
For every element a∈A, there must exist a b∈B such that f(a) = b.
Applying an inverse to both sides, we get:
f-¹(f(a)) = f-¹(b)
Or:
a = f-¹(b)
For all a and some b. Thus, f-¹ must be onto.
Now let f-¹(b1) = f-¹(b2) for any b1, b2 in B. Since f is 1-1, f(f-¹(b1)) = f(f-¹(b2)). But f(f-¹(b1)) = b1 and f(f-¹(b2)) = b2. So b1 = b2. Thus, f-¹ is 1-1.
Let f ∈ F(A,B) and g ∈ F(B,C). prove that if f and g are invertible so is gf and that (gf)-¹ = f-¹g-¹
Notice how you can go from A->B and then from B->C. But remember, that f and g are invertible, so you can go from B->A and from C->B. Use this, and show that if an element is in C, then the element must correspond to some element in A.
Try this, and if you can get it, the thrid should become much easier.
| means divides.
2 | 4
3 | 30
The equivalent of:
x | y
is:
y = xk, where k is some integer
That is, y is a multiple of x (and k).
ryos, you'll know soon enough
MathIsFun, how similar is actionscript to java script? I know basic java script and I plan on learning Flash soon (I got a book, just haven't opened it yet, that's the next step). If it's pretty much the same, I can write psuedo code that should be easy to put in java script, and thus (hopefully) easy to put in action script.
If you are going to rewrite it in Flash, I can just work on more of a psuedo-algorithm. I'm guessing you can do the whole interface, it's just the solving algorithm that you need help with?
I have quite a few ideas for that, so I'll be working on that as well.
Here's basically what I was thinking:
Keep an array of numbers for every block in the board, which will hold a list of possible numbers.
If the array size is 1, then put that number in the board.
Then have a checkCol, checkRow, checkArea, which all check for certain patters such as two different boxes only having a 4 and 6, thus, those are the only places 4 and 6 can go, and then eliminating them from all other places.
That will at least narrow down the possibilities, if not solve the puzzle. Then use a brute force branching algorithm to guess at every possible solution and arrive at contradictions or final solutions.
I have spring break coming up, an entire week off from school with absolutely no plans. So I'll be working on it then.
The differences between integers, rationals, and reals don't really have to be well defined (bad pun...) to understand them. Just think of an integer as any whole number, without a decimal or fraction, a ration is anything that can be put in the form a/b (where a and b are integers), and real includes all the numbers without a complex part (i).
Ah, ok, didn't know about that Patrick.
Well Mathisfun? Aren't you going to put mine on that page as well?
How about something on sudoku for the website?
I'd be willing to write up a basic introduction to group theory and how it relates to sudoku, as well as a sudoku java app game.
What do you think?
mathyperson, think circle, as in never ending.
That will only make sense if you understand the reason to the sequence.
M: Mendel, Gregor
U : Uterus
Left are:
E, G, H, K, O
This sounds more like a science problem than statistics. There aren't really any outside factors when it comes to statistics, but when it comes to collecting data (science), there are (hypothetically) infinitely many.
To add on what mikau said about crop rotation, they also plant crops which puts nutrients back in the ground, such as peanuts.
But here are the things I would consider:
Enviornment: Could some plants get longer amounts of sunlight? Or more water? Is the soil composition mostly homogenous or is it heterogenous? Could there by varying amounts of humidity? How about oxygen/carbondioxide concentrations in air? Did these vary?
People: In any step that includes a person doing something (anything) there is the possibility for human error. But the specifics would be pretty much be methods for watering and measuring. Can you find any possible error in these?
Many of these are nit-picks, that is, they probably really don't matter. But even so, they could matter.
johny, I was just in a rush. Of course we'll help you. That was more of a joke, but I forgot things like that don't come across well with plain text.
I'll be making a post on this later tonight.
I made it. Just simpily and you should get:
y/(ab) = x/b + 1/a, which of course is y = ax + b
You have 8 feet of fencing, and are asked to enclose the largest area within that fence as possible. What do you do?
In Virginia, we use:
Where p is a prime number.