You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
anyone see any errors in this?
is meant to doesn't divide, since \nmid doesnt work hereThe Beginning Of All Things To End.
The End Of All Things To Come.
Offline
The proof is valid. However, why did you write the entire thing in symbol notation? It is a lot easier to read and write if it's written out in words. Typically, formal proofs are not written with any symbols.
There is one typo I believe:
Should be:
Same thing with the second to last line.
"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..."
Offline
no, i was right with the primes.
because otherwise that statment would mean that there are no rational numbers according to the proposition, because 1 is a member of the integers, and 0.5 can be written 1/2, and if you say integers, then both of them can be divided by an integer, so the proposition would be false?
And i just like symbols
The Beginning Of All Things To End.
The End Of All Things To Come.
Offline
anyone see any errors in this?
is meant to doesn't divide, since \nmid doesnt work here
Offline
no, i was right with the primes.
because otherwise that statment would mean that there are no rational numbers according to the proposition, because 1 is a member of the integers, and 0.5 can be written 1/2, and if you say integers, then both of them can be divided by an integer, so the proposition would be false?
And i just like symbols
Ok, so you meant primes. I would be right if it was:
"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..."
Offline
It basically means that if √2 is a rational, than there exist integers a,b, (a,b)=1, such that a^2=2b^2, so 2/a^2, but 2 is prime, so 4/a^2. But then 2/b^2, so 2/b, and we ,have 2/a and 2/b ,so (a,b)>=2, which is contradiction.
IPBLE: Increasing Performance By Lowering Expectations.
Offline
Pages: 1