Recent content by soulflyfgm

ok i have proven this so far (SI-A)L(e^(At)) = Identity...but i do not how to prove that this is equal to \sum^{n}_{k=1}Z_{k} Any hints? thank you so much

hi, can some one give me any hints how to solve this problem? thank you i tried to type it here but it dint come up so i uploaded http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2hgtqoz&s=3" with the problem. Thank you so much Recall that for an nxn matrix A with distinct eigenvalues \lambda...

i have this so far..please tell me if this is right..do u think this prove is correct Let P(n) be the statement that for any n in the natural numbers N, nCr is an element of N for every r with 0<= r<= n nCr = n!/(r!(n-r)!) 0Cr = o!/(r!(0-r)!) = 0( here i don't know wat r is..im guessing r...

is this right? is this the right negation of the statement above? \exists\epsilon>0 \forall \delta>0 : |x-a|<\delta \wedge\|f(x)-L|\geq\epsilon i am also using this fact ~(P=>Q) = P^~Q how can i illustrate this negation? would it be a function that is not continuous at a point such...

so am i right in this prove stated above? anyone...thank you so much

so is that a good negation of the defenition of the limit? A function f with domain D doesn't not have limit L at a point c in D iff not for every number E > 0 there is a corresponding number G >0 such if |F(x) - L| <E then is not the case 0< |x-a|<G am i right? wat am i doing wrong? thx...

so is that a good negation of the defenition of the limit? A function f with domain D doesn't not have limit L at a point c in D iff not for every number E > 0 there is a corresponding number G >0 such if |F(x) - L| <E then is not the case 0< |x-a|<G am i right? wat am i doing wrong?

question well the question is Explain using only the defenition and formal logic, wat would be needed to be done to show that , for a particular function f(x) and real number L, L is not the limit of f(x) as x approaches a. [hint : at least get as far as carefully negating the definition of...

A function f with domain D has limit L at a point c in D iff For all e > 0, there exists d > 0 such that for all x in D, 0 < |x-c| < d implies |f(x) - f(c)| < e The negation of this statement would be something like this? A function f with domain D does not have a limit at point C in D...

here so am i right?

here is another try not for every number E > 0 there is a corresponding number G >0 such that |F(x) - L| <E whenever 0< |x-a|<G not for every number E>0 there isn't corresponding numbers G>0 such that if |F(x) - L| <E then 0< |x-a|<G not for every number E>0 there isn't a corresponding...

Rule 1: example: "It is not true that all umbrellas are black" is the same as "There exists an umbrella that is not black" Rule 2: = Vx E P: ~Q example: "There does not exist a person that is 10 feet tall" is the same as "There exist all people that are not 10 feet tall" Rule 3...

yes yes i know wat it is and i also know how to solve it.. but i don't see how am i suppost to use the euc alg to solve this problem. any hint? thank u

For Zn = { 0, 1 ,...,n-1}, the algebraic structure (Zn, +, . ) is a "ring", i.e., it has nearly all of the usual properties of addition and multiplication that we use unconsciously most of the time(where the opertaions are defined by performing them in Z and then recording the remainder on...

I found this in another threat however i do not know wat he means by convergent sequences. Is something like when u trying to take the limit at an ASYMPTOTE of a fuction? i know that the limit doesn't not exist( or goes to infinitive i cannot recall) is that wat he means by convergent sequence...