Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Composites, and neat relation
Replies: 18   Last Post: Sep 14, 2004 3:38 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Paul Murray Posts: 50 Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Composites, and neat relation
Posted: Sep 13, 2004 3:54 AM

In article &lt;3c65f87.0409121727.2ef5c7a8@posting.google.com&gt;, James Harris wrote:
&gt; jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) wrote in message news:&lt;3c65f87.0409121043.5988edb8@posting.google.com&gt;...
&gt;&gt; So someone pointed out that there's the trivial relation
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; [x] + [x + 1/2] = [2x] where you're in reals,
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; and I started thinking about
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; [x] + [x + 1/k] = [2x]
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; also in reals, with k&gt;1, and it turns out you need x&gt;1 as well, which
&gt;&gt; I was thinking about didn't put down before.
&gt;
&gt; You can have x less than 1 as what's needed is
&gt;
&gt; xk + 1 &gt;= k

Still false.
Counterexample (similar to one posted already): x = 1.75, k = 100
xk + 1 = 176
k = 100
=&gt; xk + 1 &gt;= k

[x] + [x + 1/k] = 2
[2x] = 3
=&gt; !([x] + [x + 1/k] = [2x])

Date Subject Author
9/12/04 JAMES HARRIS
9/12/04 The Last Danish Pastry
9/12/04 Jim Burns
9/12/04 Tim Smith
9/13/04 David C. Ullrich
9/12/04 Nate Smith
9/12/04 C. BOND
9/12/04 Dik T. Winter
9/12/04 Dik T. Winter
9/12/04 JAMES HARRIS
9/13/04 Paul Murray
9/13/04 JAMES HARRIS
9/13/04 C. BOND
9/13/04 Jim Burns
9/14/04 Nate Smith
9/13/04 Dik T. Winter
9/14/04 Paul Murray
9/13/04 Dik T. Winter
9/13/04 David C. Ullrich