Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ ¹ ² ³ °
 

You are not logged in. #27 20090523 05:58:04
Re: Kurre's ExercisesHi Kurre; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #29 20090523 13:27:34
Re: Kurre's ExercisesHi Bo Li; Anyway, how does this prove # 14 In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #31 20090523 22:31:08
Re: Kurre's Exercises
it does not hold for all m and n #32 20090523 22:37:58
Re: Kurre's ExercisesThanks Kurre for providing the answer to #7. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #33 20090525 19:40:00
Re: Kurre's Exercises#15let k,n be positive integers, a a nonzero real, k<n+1 . Show that: both with real analysis and by using residue calculus edit: i did a mistake so i dont know if its possible to do this using residues, but that does not mean it must be impossible Last edited by Kurre (20090526 04:43:09) 