Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

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

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Paul Murray

Posts: 50
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Composites, and neat relation
Posted: Sep 14, 2004 3:38 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply


In article <3c65f87.0409131406.6b756f08@posting.google.com>, James Harris wrote:
> Paul Murray <paul@murray.net> wrote in message news:<fnc1d.1286704$y4.226290@news.easynews.com>...
>> In article <3c65f87.0409121727.2ef5c7a8@posting.google.com>, James Harris wrote:
>> > jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) wrote in message news:<3c65f87.0409121043.5988edb8@posting.google.com>...
>> >> So someone pointed out that there's the trivial relation
>> >>
>> >> [x] + [x + 1/2] = [2x] where you're in reals,
>> >>
>> >> and I started thinking about
>> >>
>> >> [x] + [x + 1/k] = [2x]
>> >>
>> >> also in reals, with k>1, and it turns out you need x>1 as well, which
>> >> I was thinking about didn't put down before.
>> >
>> > You can have x less than 1 as what's needed is
>> >
>> > xk + 1 >= k
>>
>> Still false.
>
> You're right. The requirement is that x>=1.

The counterexample I gave *had* x>=1
It is still false.




Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.