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 ]
 JAMES HARRIS Posts: 9,787 Registered: 12/4/04
Re: Composites, and neat relation
Posted: Sep 13, 2004 6:06 PM

Paul Murray &lt;paul@murray.net&gt; wrote in message news:&lt;fnc1d.1286704\$y4.226290@news.easynews.com&gt;...
&gt; In article &lt;3c65f87.0409121727.2ef5c7a8@posting.google.com&gt;, James Harris wrote:
&gt; &gt; jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) wrote in message news:&lt;3c65f87.0409121043.5988edb8@posting.google.com&gt;...
&gt; &gt;&gt; So someone pointed out that there's the trivial relation
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; [x] + [x + 1/2] = [2x] where you're in reals,
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; and I started thinking about
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; [x] + [x + 1/k] = [2x]
&gt; &gt;&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;&gt; I was thinking about didn't put down before.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; You can have x less than 1 as what's needed is
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; xk + 1 &gt;= k
&gt;
&gt; Still false.

You're right. The requirement is that x&gt;=1.

James Harris

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