# Prove that the numbers q and r are unique

Watch
#1
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?
0
9 months ago
#2
(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?
Thats not good enough.

You need every instance.
0
9 months ago
#3
(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=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.
Last edited by ghostwalker; 9 months ago
0
#4
(Original post by RDKGames)
Thats not good enough.

You need every instance.
I'm assuming q1 means q1 has the same properties as q but they're not identical.
0
#5
(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.
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.
0
9 months ago
#6
(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?
Last edited by davros; 9 months ago
0
9 months ago
#7
(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.
Last edited by ghostwalker; 9 months ago
0
9 months ago
#8
(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.
0
X

new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

### Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Why not re-start the conversation?

see more

### See more of what you like onThe Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

### Poll

Join the discussion

#### Feeling behind at school/college? What is the best thing your teachers could to help you catch up?

Extra compulsory independent learning activities (eg, homework tasks) (5)
3.73%
Run extra compulsory lessons or workshops (23)
17.16%
Focus on making the normal lesson time with them as high quality as possible (24)
17.91%
Focus on making the normal learning resources as high quality/accessible as possible (19)
14.18%
Provide extra optional activities, lessons and/or workshops (39)
29.1%
Assess students, decide who needs extra support and focus on these students (24)
17.91%