You are not logged in.
We could take that square root but it just would not be a polynomial.
Yes, but that's what I find weird... I don't see the logic behind it. But if it's the way it is, to play the game of mathematics, then we have to consider it that way.
Mmmh... Okay. I just find it weird that we can't take the square rooth even if it doesn't have a number (two in this case) raised as a power...
We have the 3 geometric figures : A,B,C
With the information given: A congruent to B, B congruent to C
So, inversely, we will have :
B congruent to A, because A is congruent to B, so, its inverse must necessarely also be true, because if it wasn't we would a contradiction with the information given to us that A congruent B, but we know that it isn't the case, so the only option left is B is really congruent to A
C congruent to B
For the same reason has the above statement.
So, we have 3 geomtric figures congruent, because A is congruent to B, and having proved the inverse of B congruent C, that is, C congruent to B, we see that the two geometric figures are also congruent to the same figure (B), and that...
A is congruent to C
Hi : http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/9800/hviw.png
I was wondering, I undestand what the text in the given link says, but I don't understand why we don't consider square rooth of variables valid?
It says that a polynomials can only be constructed with addition, divison and substraction. The square rooth of two is a number, like any other, which can be used to construct a polynomial with these basic operation. Why can't we consider it in the same manner with square rooths of variables ????
Thank you.
Show that if a geometric figure is congruent to another geometric figure, which is in its turn congruent to a third geomtric figure, then the first geometric figure is congruent to the third.
We have the 3 geometric figures : A,B,C
With the information given: A congruent to B, B congruent to C
So, inversely, we will have :
B congruent to A, because A is congruent to B, so, its inverse must necessarely also be true, because if it wasn't we would a contradiction with the information given to us that A congruent B, but we know that it isn't the case, so the only option left is B is really congruent to A
C congruent to B
For the same reason has the above statement.
So, we have 3 geomtric figures congruent, because A is congruent to B, and having proved the inverse of B congruent C, that is, C congruent to B, we see that the two geometric figures(A and C) are also congruent to the same figure (B), and that...
A is congruent to C
ok Thank you for your help ! It was great !
But for the semi-cylinder, you didn't count the rectangle ????
Yes, I copied the question word for word
Well, it's originaly a russian book, but it's in english. (If I understood correctly your question?)
ok, so i've got half a cylinder. which is composed of two half a circle and one rectangle.
half a cone which is composed of one triangle and half a circle
and half a sphere with only one circle
is this it ??
Well yes that's it. If we decompose it, we get 3 surfaces.
Two: cone
three: Cylinder
Four: Pyramid with triangular base
I thought also for the first one half a sphere, if we only count it's base but not its lateral surface.. (Because im not sure if the lateral face of a sphere is a plane or not...)
Give examples of geometric solids bounded by one, two ,three , four planes (or parts of planes)
I only need help with the 1 plane one.
I'm not sure of it but the only one I can come with is a sphere. I know that it's surface isn't flat( the question doesn't mention that it needs to be flat) , or I'm not even sure that it's composed of a plane since it can't be decomposed.
SO my real question would be : Can we consider the sphere composed of only 1 plane or not ? Even if we can't decompose it ?
Any suggestions ?
I don't want the answer to the question, just hints-suggestions. Thank you
The trivial and non trivial factors...
Ok, and what is the purpose of it ?
Can somebody tell me what are non trivial factors ?
Thanks
I don't think the problem was meant to be that complicated lol But it's good to try, and like bobbym said, wait for more people to answer.
Good ! Sadly i don't have the solution ^^
Ah ok.
Wait you mean from me or other members?
Are the father of the son of NN and the son of the father of NN the same person ?
i say yes, and it's NN. Am i right ???
NN Father
Son NN
This how I imagined it. thanks
ok, anyway, ill be going, if i have any other question, they will be here ! thank you for your support
That m=p1pn2+1 is prime
In fact, I'm not in agreement with this. How can this be accepted ? WE have many odd numbers not primes.........
Mmmhh...it seems rather risky, don't you think ? It has a chance, but this is risky.
so m=p1p2pn+1 is odd