You are not logged in.
If it's (1/2)b:
Or you can define abstract operators, which act as programs:
Take my thread.
(late)
But the expression is NOT defined when r=1
There is.
This follows immediately from the fact that the volume of a pyramid is exactly 1/3 of the volume of the prism, which can be proved by suitable disection of the prism into 3 pyramids, which must have equal volumes by the Cavalery (the name may be spelled incorrectly) principe.
Right!
Prakash Panneer wrote:1)Find the number of Rectangles on the chess board.
The number of rectangles that can be found on any checkerboard with dimensions n squares * m squares can be represented:
.... which is exactly:
So we have:
Ok here is another way, no Fourier:
It is evident that this formula always gives -1.Eg for 2.1 , the floor is 2, the ceiling is 3, and we are always taking the floor - ceiling, which is always going to be -1.
Thus the function simply reduces to f(x) = -1 for all x.
This makes the proof of the limit trivial.
Not so fast!
if x is integer, then
I think the code is random.
"Creative"?
What do you mean?
(give an example of some "creative" names)
OK. I'll try.
You already know the Pythagorean's.
Good.
Are you sure?
Let'z zee...
Zach?
And devz?
this sounds good...
devz?
What's this animal IQ test?
Absolutely right.
Graphically:
Oh sorry.
Now I misunderstood.
But sorry. If you don't like my comments, I'll stop posting.
But there are also K and L that are known. You don't use those. I don't understand why not.
Because in my example it doesn't matter what K and L are.
They can be any.
(I'm tlking about a particular case, when M+N+Q+P≠ 2S. I'm not talking about the whole problem.)
I like these z-s!
Espeon, you're a part of the Z-team!
I gave you a formula!
OK I'll try another.
Using:
M=A+C
N=B+D
Q=A+D
P=B+C
S=A+B+C+D
We have:M+N+Q+P=A+C+B+D+A+D+B+C= (A+B+C+D)+(A+B+C+D)=2S.
So M+N+Q+P=2S should be right.
But if you pick some values for M,N,Q,P and S, for which
M+N+Q+P=2S
is false, then the system will have no solutions for the chosen M,N,Q,P and S.
clear now?
I don't think "mirror squares" is best, because we should name the numbers, not their squares.
But we can take 2 names - for example "passerby" for the numbers, and "mirror squares" for their squares.