Understanding Theory: Solving Real Number Problems with Ease

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1+1=1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Member
1+1=1
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
i know I've only been on for couple of months, but i was always afraid of asking for help. thanks to this site, i now understand all of this theory stuff!

?'s

prove that [alpha] + [alpha + 1/3] + [alpha + 2/3] = [3 alpha] for all reals alpha.

prove [alpha] + [beta] <= [alpha + beta] alpha/beta are real.

i honestly do not know what to do for these, could anyone provide a beacon of light?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
And what does [alpha] mean? Can't be the absolute value of alpha, since none of those statements are true then.
 
i suspect it means floor. the second on requires no proof being quite obvious, the first one, hmm, i can't think of anything other than a brute force way of doing it; someone must be able to spot a nice argument for it. In case 1+1=1 is wondering, the brute force method is to let alpha = n+r where r is a number in the interval [0,1) there are then three cases to consider, r in [0,1/3), [1/3,2/3) and [2/3,1) and so that [alpha]=n.
 
Last edited:
1. Consider x - [x] in [0,1/3) , [1/3, 2/3) and [2/3, 1) and prove separately for each case. Perhaps this is what matt means by 'brute force'...

2. The "no proof" for this could be done by writing alpha = N + n, where N is an integer and n is in [0,1).

EDIT : Didn't read matt's post completely - this is redundant.
 
Last edited:
sorry all as i said i am new and i still need to do A LOT of clarifying. the [] means the greatest integer. as far as the brute force, that is the least painful way of doing this? i appreciate all of this! yes i do understand the brute force method.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top