You are not logged in.
Thanks guys, I appreciate the help that I get here. And Jane, you are a genius and never cease to amaze me, I can tell you really love this stuff! I was just working through #2 and was trying the method that TheDude suggested and did get stuck because the contradiction in the proof of
is irrational arises because we assume and in have no common divisor greater than 1. At least that is how it is done in my text. But this does not occur in this case, and we do not arrive at a case where we can prove that or is any multiple of a number. So proving is irrational for all square-free positive integers is very useful.I may seem quite dense here, but where is the contradiction in each case? Is it just because we assumed that
is not a perfect square, and then found the square root of ? I guess I am just hung up on the fact that I considered only 4,9,16,25... to be perfect squares; integers. I guess I never considered or to be perfect squares!Thanks
Hey guys. I need some help on the following questions. Usually, for a given problem, like proving something is odd or even, there is a trick, or a pattern that you are looking for. I am not sure what to look for when trying to prove that something IRRATIONAL.
1. Prove that √2 + √3 is irrational
2. prove that √(n-1) + √(n+1) is irrational for every positive integer.
3. Prove that there is no rational number r such that (2^r)=3
Thanks
Thanks so much Ricky for all of your help. Since you have nearly done half of the work, it is only fair that I post my result for parts c, d, and e. I have the whole thing in word document, but this was the graphs inserted in the assignment. I found C(t) = integral(K1+K2W(t))+c = 2t/5 + W/10 + 1.
Hey Ricky. I do see that the calculator uses W^(1/4) - 3 as u for a substitution. But the calculator also factors the equation in a funny way so that the denominator is (w^(3/4))(w^(1/4) - 3) so that is where the calculator is getting that term. After you factor it this way, it is easier to see what the substitution for integration should be. Here is my final result (and the calculator concurs lol). I have taken the result to the 4th power and found that it does not ruin anything, plus I will need to graph W(t) and must explicitly solve for W to make this happen.
Now, is it at all apparent what I should substitute for dW/dt in part c? Or should I actually take the derivative of W(t) found in part b with respect to t to get dW/dt? Sorry if these questions seem elementary, but many of these notations are not 100% clear to me. Thanks again.
Thanks for catching that mistake. Okay, so I have found a decent equation here, but need to know what method to use to integrate the pictured integral. My calc gives the pictured solution to that integral, but I don't know HOW to get there.
Also, I know this is skipping ahead, but my calculator can also solve the differential equation directly (handy tool for checking answers, but not a replacement for knowledge) and it gives me an implicit solution W^(1/4)= c*e^(-5t/6) +3 rather than solving for W directly. So can I just take the solution to the 4th power to solve for W directly? Since I have an initial condition W(0)=1, it would seem that I must find an explicit solution for W(t) to find C when I am done.
Finally, in part C of the assignment, it says "W(t) is as determined in part b." But W(t) is not found in equation (3), only dW/dt is. So it would seem that I would substitute
Which would keep things quite complicated. Do you have any insight into what they are looking for in part C?I really appreciate the help Ricky. So you are telling me I should be able to find the integral seen here?
Now for part b I am given values for constants, but as you can see, the differential equation is much more complicated that in part a. How would I go about solving this equation for W(t)? Is it so simple that is still separable?
Okay, so I have found an equation for W(t), but the problem does not state the domain of alpha; I suppose it is rationals, but certainly not integers only. My concern is: if the 1-alpha term is even, then the solution is +/- the solution I have found. But I guess it wouldn't make much sense to have negative weight. Also, there are designated variables K and alpha, so what does my C variable represent? Any clues?
Edit: And do you think that the C variable is necessary here? thanks
Hi. I am starting an assignment in Diffeq, the questions and problems are in the following picture. Now I am just getting started here, but it seems that the equation (1) in question a) is separable, but what significance does alpha=1 in the question have? Can you guys see any things up front that may prove tricky? Please give me a hand here.
No, the calcualator has no problem performing calculus functions on these expressions, but the result is not similar to what you would see in a text book. Then taking second derivatives, and so forth results even stranger results. So I am saying that it seems that the calc does not work the problem out as a student would or should, it makes the result ambiguous. Also, when problems like this are presented in differential equations using initial conditions, the calculator will have a problem with the (t-100) term in the denominator, and gives an error rather than solve solvable differential equations. I mean the calc works wonders, but this is th the first time I have seen it manipulate the results of an input so much.
This conversion is QUITE inconvenient for differentiation/integration as the output is either not similar to the result found by standard methods (everything is written backwards ((100-t) vs (100-t)) and sometimes leads to failure to perform calculus functions on expressions. Can I prevent these conversions?
I am wondering why the calculator INSISTS on this representation.
Hi. My calculator is converting expressions such as
(100-t)^(-4)
to
1/((t-100)^(4))
This is causing problems when integrating/differentiating. Can anyone account for such a conversion.
Thanks
Hi. I need to show that the sequence √(a sub n) converges to √a. I don't even know how to begin this problem. Any help is appreciated.
Hi guys, I have a couple of bonus questions that would help me boost my grade in this class.
1. A function :R->R has a PROPER RELATIVE MAXIMUM VALUE at c if there exists d>0 such that f(x)<f(c) for all x that satisfy 0<|x-c|<d. Prove that the set of points at which has a proper relative maximum value is countable.
2. Determine whether the sequence{((-3)^n)/n!} converges and give a proof of your conclusion.
Thanks guys
Hi Jane, I thoroughly appreciate your help. Seeing how you broke things down to their definitions helps alot. But there seem to be tricks that you need along the way. I am still having a little trouble justifying step 3 in problem 1a though: I am not exactly sure what property I can pin this on. Thank you so much. I am glad there is someone out there that has actually seen this stuff before!
Hi. I have some homework problems in a Real Analysis class that I am taking. These are a couple of problems that I am having trouble with. This stuff is very difficult to understand. Thanks in advance.
Hi, I am new to the boards. I was wondering how people get their equation symbols into their posts, like Jane did above. You can also just cop and paste the symbols from the top of this page, correct?