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 ]
 Dik T. Winter Posts: 7,899 Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Composites, and neat relation
Posted: Sep 13, 2004 7:55 PM

In article &lt;3c65f87.0409131406.6b756f08@posting.google.com&gt; jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) writes:
&gt; Paul Murray &lt;paul@murray.net&gt; wrote in message news:&lt;fnc1d.1286704\$y4.226290@news.easynews.com&gt;...
...
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; and I started thinking about
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; [x] + [x + 1/k] = [2x]
&gt; &gt; &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;&gt; I was thinking about didn't put down before.
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; You can have x less than 1 as what's needed is
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; xk + 1 &gt;= k
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; Still false.
&gt;
&gt; You're right. The requirement is that x&gt;=1.

Still wrong. But as you apparently do not read what I write...
I have posted a counterexample already (x = 5/3, k = 6).
Moreover, it has already been proven that if the relation holds
for a value x, it also holds for x-1.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; <a href="http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/">http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/</a>

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