The Student Room Group

A Summer of Maths

Scroll to see replies

Reply 600
Original post by Lord of the Flies
x=±3x=\pm 3 means +3 OR -3 so there is no contradiction.

Edit: didn't see the above post! :tongue:


Thanks, confused myself. What I don't like that it means, x=3 => x= +/- 3. You know, it's like saying that a green car is green or orange, lol. Need to get used to proper maths, and stop asking silly questions. :biggrin:
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Dog4444
Thanks, confused myself. What I don't like that it means, x=3 => x= +/- 3. You know, it's like saying that a green car is green or orange, lol. Need to get used to proper maths, and stop asking silly questions. :biggrin:


Well if you think about, the only other option is AND - which really doesn't make sense!
Reply 602
Original post by Lord of the Flies
Well if you think about, the only other option is AND - which really doesn't make sense!


Indeed, but isn't it x=3 or -3 or both?
Original post by Dog4444
Indeed, but isn't it x=3 or -3 or both?


generally, if someone says "or" they are referring to the inclusive "or" (the union) in which case the "both" case is implicit. Make some logic gates with redstone to get the idea.
Reply 604
Ok, last question and I will vanish,

If there's a question "solve: x-2=0" is it not technically correct to write x-2=0 => x=2 and finish here. x could be 2, but it doesn't mean that it is, so in order to get it right we must write: x-2=0 <=> x=2?
Reply 605
Original post by Dog4444
Indeed, but isn't it x=3 or -3 or both?


When we write xx what we're doing is giving a name to a number. In an equation like x2=9x^2=9 what we're saying is that this number squares to give 9. Equations like this don't tell us for sure what the number is; they just give us conditions on what the number can be. In this case, if xx is a number that satisfies x2=9x^2=9, then we know that xx must be either 3 or -3, but the equation alone doesn't give us enough information to determine exactly which it is. Writing x=±3x = \pm 3 is just a lazy way of expressing this fact; ±3\pm 3 is not a value that a number can take.

However, a number is a number. A number is not two numbers, so it does not make sense to say "x equals 3 and -3", because that would imply that 3=3-3=3, which is ridiculous!
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Dog4444
Ok, last question and I will vanish,

If there's a question "solve: x-2=0" is it not technically correct to write x-2=0 => x=2 and finish here. x could be 2, but it doesn't mean that it is, so in order to get it right we must write: x-2=0 <=> x=2?


As I said previously, \Leftrightarrow is a short cut for \Leftarrow AND \Rightarrow

So it doesn't make sense to say ABA\Leftrightarrow B is true but ABA\Rightarrow B isn't.

About your example, x2=0x-2=0 and x=2x=2 say the same thing. They are equivalent - and both say that x must equal two for the equality to be satisfied. So I don't understand what you mean when you say "x isn't necessarily 2", it is: remember, x2=0x-2=0 does not represent a function, x is not a variable. It is a single number denoted by the letter x.
Original post by DamoclesAustria
Wow, it took me a whopping two weeks to get around to writing a solution to your problem...again.
At least I have a legit excuse: I was in Bulgaria participating in the IMC, where I got a Second Prize :smile:

In return, I have another very nice group question:
Show that every group of even order contains an element of order two.


That's a tough one, but I liked it and it does improve one's understanding on homomorphisms.
I know this competition, is it not only for undergraduate students? Congratulations though!

Spoiler



Original post by nohomo
Prove that, for any integers a,b,ca,b,c, there exists a positive integer nn such that n3+an2+bn+c\sqrt{n^3+an^2+bn+c} is not an integer.


Welcome! Attempted the first question, didn't go very far. This one is doable, so I thought I would provide the hints.

Useful results:

Spoiler


Hint:

Spoiler



_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I'm chewing on some Ideals, so I thought I would drop a basic result.

Let aa and bb be non-zero relatively prime integers. Show that 1ab\displaystyle \frac{1}{ab} can be written as

1ab=xa+yb\displaystyle \frac{1}{ab} = \frac{x}{a} + \frac{y}{b}

for some integers xx and yy.

Hint:

Spoiler




If you want some fun, here are 17 proofs of the infinitude of primes by Tomohiro Yamada.
(You might want to check the references, or find some of the proofs elsewhere.)
Here is a fun question.....i dont want to give hints as it will give it away

Q. Prove no three positive integers a, b, and c can satisfy the equation a^n + b^n = c^n for any integer value of n greater than two.
Original post by David_Skiller
Here is a fun question.....i dont want to give hints as it will give it away

Q. Prove no three positive integers a, b, and c can satisfy the equation a^n + b^n = c^n for any integer value of n greater than two.


Just found a marvelous proof of this!

(which this post is too narrow to contain...)
Original post by Lord of the Flies
Just found a marvelous proof of this!

(which this post is too narrow to contain...)


its only a few lines :s-smilie: what the hell did you do :eek:
Original post by Lord of the Flies
Just found a marvelous proof of this!

(which this post is too narrow to contain...)


Original post by David_Skiller
its only a few lines :s-smilie: what the hell did you do :eek:


Alas I only have a proof for n=4 :tongue:
The following is a beautiful argument for the infinitude of primes, that I decided to share here.


There are infinitely many prime numbers.

Proof:

Let P={2,3,5,7,...}\mathbb{P} = \{2, 3, 5, 7, ... \} be the set of primes. Suppose P\mathbb{P} is finite, and let pp be the largest prime number.
We will consider the Mersenne number 2p12^p - 1, and show that any of its prime factors is larger than pp.

Let qq be a prime dividing 2p12^p - 1, so that we have 2p1 (mod q)2^p \equiv 1\ (mod\ q).

Since pp is prime, the element 22 has order pp in the multiplicative group Zq{0}\mathbb{Z}_q \setminus \{0\} of the field Zq\mathbb{Z}_q. This group has q1q - 1 elements.
By Lagrange's theorem, the order of every element of a group divides the order of the group. That is, pq1p \mid q - 1, and therefore p<qp < q.


Remark: Occasionally, the Mersenne number 2p12^p - 1 turns out to be prime itself, and is called a Mersenne prime.
To date, it is not known whether there are infinitely many Mersenne prime numbers, and they are very difficult to find (we know ~ 50 of them).
__

Surprisingly, every ingredient required for this proof can be found in the FP3 book of OCR MEI board.
(If anyone needs a clarification on some of the details, I'm willing to provide it.)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

You may like it, or you might not, but it's worth the shot.

Beethoven's 5 Secrets - OneRepublic (Cello/Orchestral Cover)
Original post by jack.hadamard

If you want some fun, here are 17 proofs of the infinitude of primes by Tomohiro Yamada.
(You might want to check the references, or find some of the proofs elsewhere.)


I like this one.
Reply 614
Original post by David_Skiller
Here is a fun question.....i dont want to give hints as it will give it away

Q. Prove no three positive integers a, b, and c can satisfy the equation a^n + b^n = c^n for any integer value of n greater than two.


Looking at your other posts, I don't think you've managed to say quite what you wanted.

Suppose there are three positive a,b,c such that a^n + b^n = c^n for any integer value of n greater than two.
then
c^4+2a^2b^2=(a^2+b^2)^2
=c^4
so either a or b is zero. contradiction
Original post by jj193
Looking at your other posts, I don't think you've managed to say quite what you wanted.

Suppose there are three positive a,b,c such that a^n + b^n = c^n for any integer value of n greater than two.
then
c^4+2a^2b^2=(a^2+b^2)^2
=c^4
so either a or b is zero. contradiction


I think his post was a joke.
Original post by ben-smith
I like this one.


It looks good, but I have to admit that I needed Idris Mercer's note. :tongue:

I like things involving arithmetic progressions in general. They are not as innocent as they appear to be.
The other day, I found an algebraic proof for a special case of Dirichlet's theorem (b=1b = 1 in this link).



Here is a nice result, with a nice proof, that is used to prove the above.

Lemma. The non-zero values, for xNx \in \mathbb{N}, of the non-constant polynomial

f(x)=anxn+an1xn1+...+a0,   aiZf(x) = a_nx^n + a_{n-1}x^{n-1} + ... + a_0, \ \ \ a_i \in \mathbb{Z}

are divisible by infinitely many primes.

Not stated in the most precise, or even correct, way.


Does anyone believe it? Or find it obvious?

I can give the proof or consecutive hints, depending on whether people are interested.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by jack.hadamard

Let aa and bb be non-zero relatively prime integers. Show that 1ab\displaystyle \frac{1}{ab} can be written as

1ab=xa+yb\displaystyle \frac{1}{ab} = \frac{x}{a} + \frac{y}{b}

for some integers xx and yy.

Hint:

Spoiler




This one is straightforward, so lets kill it.

Spoiler

Reply 618
Original post by jack.hadamard
Here is a nice result, with a nice proof, that is used to prove the above.

Lemma. The non-zero values, for xNx \in \mathbb{N}, of the non-constant polynomial

f(x)=anxn+an1xn1+...+a0,   aiZf(x) = a_nx^n + a_{n-1}x^{n-1} + ... + a_0, \ \ \ a_i \in \mathbb{Z}

are divisible by infinitely many primes.


To me, that statement doesn't make any sense. At least, it doesn't as written. As written, it says that if xNx \in \mathbb{N} and f(x)0f(x) \ne 0 then f(x)f(x) is divisible by infinitely many primes. (This is clearly nonsense since no non-zero integer is divisible by infinitely many primes!)

Do you mean that the set of primes pp for which pf(x)p\, |\, f(x) for some xNx \in \mathbb{N} is infinite? I could be persuaded to believe that.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 619
Original post by jack.hadamard
It looks good, but I have to admit that I needed Idris Mercer's note. :tongue:

I like things involving arithmetic progressions in general. They are not as innocent as they appear to be.
The other day, I found an algebraic proof for a special case of Dirichlet's theorem (b=1b = 1 in this link).



Here is a nice result, with a nice proof, that is used to prove the above.

Lemma. The non-zero values, for xNx \in \mathbb{N}, of the non-constant polynomial

f(x)=anxn+an1xn1+...+a0,   aiZf(x) = a_nx^n + a_{n-1}x^{n-1} + ... + a_0, \ \ \ a_i \in \mathbb{Z}

are divisible by infinitely many primes.


Does anyone believe it? Or find it obvious?

I can give the proof or consecutive hints, depending on whether people are interested.


Can you link to the page where you found the proof?

Quick Reply

Latest