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

You are not logged in. #1 20060204 09:04:26
integer proofI've been trying to solve this for a while, but without any good result. I could definitely need some help :] #3 20060204 09:37:42
Re: integer proofEdit: Ah, spotted a large error in my proof, fixing it right now. Last edited by Ricky (20060204 09:41:21) "In the real world, this would be a problem. But in mathematics, we can just define a place where this problem doesn't exist. So we'll go ahead and do that now..." #4 20060204 09:55:54
Re: integer proofp is any number? Only integers, right? "The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..."  Leon M. Lederman #5 20060204 10:07:23
Re: integer proofI've tried the induction proof, but I didn't get too far with it (I'm still not too comfortable with it btw). I might try something similar to what Ricky posted before he edited his post, though I was confused with one of the steps he provided. #6 20060204 10:14:15
Re: integer proofI was skeptical at first, but it seems that induction is the way to go on this one. Inductive assumption, 216, and 600 are all divisible by 4. Last edited by Ricky (20060204 10:24:26) "In the real world, this would be a problem. But in mathematics, we can just define a place where this problem doesn't exist. So we'll go ahead and do that now..." #7 20060204 10:16:39
Re: integer proofI think Enfy said any number greater than or equal to zero. I dont think that there is anything to prove otherwise. If p is an integer, then p + 1 would also be an integer the equation would only produce a series like; Last edited by irspow (20060204 10:30:04) #8 20060204 10:21:44
Re: integer proof
Let n = 1: Last edited by Ricky (20060204 10:22:42) "In the real world, this would be a problem. But in mathematics, we can just define a place where this problem doesn't exist. So we'll go ahead and do that now..." #9 20060204 10:55:12
Re: integer proofThanks Ricky, I got it now :] #10 20060204 11:01:51
Re: integer proofOh, and I meant to say integer larger or equal to 0 in my post, since this was about integers and nothing else. Sorry if that confused you, irspow. #12 20060204 11:17:07
Re: integer proofWhen you have experience with proving statements like this, you know what the poster means even if (s)he doesn't say it.
Was this a question that a teacher/professor gave you? It should be worded 9^p and 25^p for p ≥ 1, aka, natural numbers. "In the real world, this would be a problem. But in mathematics, we can just define a place where this problem doesn't exist. So we'll go ahead and do that now..." 