Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


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




Re: Composites, and neat relation
Posted:
Sep 14, 2004 3:38 AM


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.



