Question about rectangles in R^n

  • Thread starter Thread starter JG89
  • Start date Start date
JG89
Messages
724
Reaction score
1
I know that by definition the cartesian product of [a1, b1], [a2,b2], ..., [an. bn] is a rectangle in R^n. Are we "allowed" to call the cartesian product [a1] * [a2, a2] * ... * [an, an] a rectangle in R^n? I know that by definition [a,b] = {x: a <= x <= b}. The set [a1,a1] = {x: a1 <= x <= a1} which is just the singleton set {a1}. Thus the rectangle [a1] * [a2, a2] * ... * [an, an] is just the cartesian product a1*a2*a3*..*an, where each ai is a real number, which hardly looks like a rectangle if we draw it in say, R^2 or R^3.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You could call it a degenerate rectangle. It is convenient to extend definitions to degenerate cases, because they occur naturally. In that way you do not need to explicitly mention them whenever you talk about an n-dimensional rectangle.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
38
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
7K
Back
Top