Prove that the numbers q and r are unique
Q: http://prntscr.com/vkjz31
If q and r where both 0 then a = (0 x 0) + 0 where b = 0
This is a contradiction as b > 0.
Is that good enough or do I need show a contradiction for every instance where q = r?
If q and r where both 0 then a = (0 x 0) + 0 where b = 0
This is a contradiction as b > 0.
Is that good enough or do I need show a contradiction for every instance where q = r?
Original post by TSR360
Q: http://prntscr.com/vkjz31
If q and r where both 0 then a = (0 x 0) + 0 where b = 0
This is a contradiction as b > 0.
Is that good enough or do I need show a contradiction for every instance where q = r?
If q and r where both 0 then a = (0 x 0) + 0 where b = 0
This is a contradiction as b > 0.
Is that good enough or do I need show a contradiction for every instance where q = r?
Thats not good enough.
You need every instance.
Original post by TSR360
Q: http://prntscr.com/vkjz31
If q and r where both 0 then a = (0 x 0) + 0 where b = 0
This is a contradiction as b > 0.
Is that good enough or do I need show a contradiction for every instance where q = r?
If q and r where both 0 then a = (0 x 0) + 0 where b = 0
This is a contradiction as b > 0.
Is that good enough or do I need show a contradiction for every instance where q = r?
If q=r=0, then a=0, so you're attempting to show that zero can be written uniquely in the form bq+r. With this method you'll then need to do 1, 2, ..., and possibly the negative integers depending on what values a can take.
It also fails as you then assume b=0 and say this contradicts b>0. Well don't assume b=0 then - it's not a valid value.
I would suggest looking up the proof and fully understanding the logic of it, otherwise this thread is likely to run for a very long time.
PS: I am somewhat surprised this is A-level. The logic involved is only solidly taught in first year uni.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by RDKGames
Thats not good enough.
You need every instance.
You need every instance.
How about this http://prntscr.com/vkpmxg
I'm assuming q1 means q1 has the same properties as q but they're not identical.
Original post by ghostwalker
If q=r=0, then a=0, so you're attempting to show that zero can be written uniquely in the form bq+r. With this method you'll then need to do 1, 2, ..., and possibly the negative integers depending on what values a can take.
It also fails as you then assume b=0 and say this contradicts b>0. Well don't assume b=0 then - it's not a valid value.
I would suggest looking up the proof and fully understanding the logic of it, otherwise this thread is likely to run for a very long time.
PS: I am somewhat surprised this is A-level. The logic involved is only solidly taught in first year uni.
It also fails as you then assume b=0 and say this contradicts b>0. Well don't assume b=0 then - it's not a valid value.
I would suggest looking up the proof and fully understanding the logic of it, otherwise this thread is likely to run for a very long time.
PS: I am somewhat surprised this is A-level. The logic involved is only solidly taught in first year uni.
There's questions a lot harder than this in my A level textboook. I'm using a beginner number theory textbook to help me understand the proofs more thoroughly, so there might be some overlap between a-level and uni maths but I don't see any other way of being able to do the proofs in a-level as it just isn't very logical.
Original post by TSR360
There's questions a lot harder than this in my A level textboook. I'm using a beginner number theory textbook to help me understand the proofs more thoroughly, so there might be some overlap between a-level and uni maths but I don't see any other way of being able to do the proofs in a-level as it just isn't very logical.
The thing is, there are differences in the way in which proof is approached at uni from what is acceptable for A level (not to mention the dependence on intermediate results - or "lemmas" - plus the use of formal axioms), so you may confuse yourself even more by trying to use a uni textbook.
Can you give an example of an A level proof that you think is "more difficult" than this?
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by TSR360
There's questions a lot harder than this in my A level textboook. I'm using a beginner number theory textbook to help me understand the proofs more thoroughly, so there might be some overlap between a-level and uni maths but I don't see any other way of being able to do the proofs in a-level as it just isn't very logical.
I'm not the best person to analyse what your particular issue is and advise, but if you're struggling with the logic of A-level proofs, I seriously doubt looking at a number theory book is going to help you; if anything, it's likely to be a bit of a culture shock.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by TSR360
There's questions a lot harder than this in my A level textboook. I'm using a beginner number theory textbook to help me understand the proofs more thoroughly, so there might be some overlap between a-level and uni maths but I don't see any other way of being able to do the proofs in a-level as it just isn't very logical.
I'm going to add to the chorus of voices saying "mixing a university textbook and an A-level textbook is probably a mistake". Although it does depend a bit on the exact textbooks.
As far as this actual proof goes, you don't seem to understand what you're actually trying to prove. A proof of this would normally begin something like:
"Suppose that and , with and . Then ..."
(or alternatively, instead of "Then..." you might have "Suppose (for contradiction) that...").
You don't even mention and , and instead talk about "if q and r are identical", which doesn't really make any sense at all. I think you're trying to talk about two representations
and
where the q, r in the 2nd representation are different from in the 1st representation. If so, all I can say is that using the same letter to mean two different things is going to be a fast track to madness, here.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- STEP Maths I, II, III 1993 Solutions
- STEP I, II, III 1999 solutions
- STEP Maths I, II, III 1996 Solutions
- Binomial Question
- STEP 2006 Solutions Thread
- Drift Velocity Q
- STEP 2016 Solutions
- Edexcel AS further maths - Core Pure 1 (15th May 2023)
- STEP I, II, III 2010 Solutions
- Math Proof Questions
- STEP maths I, II, III 1990 solutions
- Which paper is this question from?
- Help with this Combined resistor circuit problem?
- Stuck on exponential modelling question where the initial value isnt given
- STEP 2005 Solutions Thread
- 2023 STEP 3 Math
- Summations: CP1 - Further Maths
- Help a level maths urgent
- Level 2 Further Maths - Post some hard questions (Includes unofficial practice paper)
- Maths question
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Did Cambridge maths students find maths and further maths a level very easy?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Edexcel A Level Mathematics Paper 2 unofficial mark scheme correct me if wrongMaths
71
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Did Cambridge maths students find maths and further maths a level very easy?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Edexcel A Level Mathematics Paper 2 unofficial mark scheme correct me if wrongMaths
71
