You are not logged in.
I worked out the proof
I stop here because I don't know how to show the inverse must be in the intersection of H1 and H2.
And anoher question , show that the union of H1 and H2 is not a group , I think I need to use contradiction right?
I'll try all of them.
I use Apostol's text now ~ I think if I review the theorem and definition more often , I can finally get hold of it.
WOW , thanks for the Topbook ! It's really good
I want to make a paper of summary of definitions and theorems and print it .Which software should I use , (besides Microsoft office, cuz it's just crashed)
and second , How do u guys manage to conquer Topology , I can barely understand the proof for theorem , not to talk about applying them.
I like 37 ~lol
Wait , I got one more , if it's acute triangle with 45 dg both angles , the polygon can be a triangle .
I consider three kind of triangles 1.right triangle 2.obtuse triangle 3.acute triangle
But all I got are if not 4 sides then 6 sides polygons.
Do various problem and learn different kinds of method.
I was in a math contest once , I couldnt do anything with time limited. lol
Wow , that is simple!!!
Look at my textbook (really confusing)
I read the definition , but I am not sure what it is . Can u give an example of a matrice of this kind and explain it to me thx! . (it's not really the latter)
I don't quite understand what is Row-Reduced Echelon Matrices . I know what Row-Reduced means , and I've already read the definition of Row-Reduced Echelon Matrices , but my english won't allow me to have a full understanding of what it is. An example will be great appreciated.
Dimensions entwine
Distorting the Space and Time
Philosophy dies.
Math
Like to study exotic culture ,
heavy metal music , cult movie
you must know that the distance between directrix and vertex equal vertex to focus.
then we can locate , that the focus is F=( -2 ,1 )
Also , any point on this parabola ,say P . The distant between P to F is equal to P to directrix
so
oh , I see , I recall that there was a mathematician (I dont remember his name) said that some basic theorem? or Axiom?? can't be proved.(I read this in a book about Fermat last theorem )
Note that
We can use a true Statement to push forward and get a new theorem or so, but how can we prove the very first of theorems? and also , if a,b,c are statements , a--> b -->c -->a, if these statements form a circle themselves , how can we determine whether they are valid?
I want some basic point set topology exercise , since all my textbooks contain no answers, I am looking for some online exercise resource about it. Greatly appreciate it.
OH , I don't know , maybe it's not true that
I just thought , i,j,k's range are equal , (i,j,k)=(1,1,21),(1,2,20) , by switching the place (i,j,k)=(21,1,1) or (1,21,1) , so I think , i can have one 21 , j can , k can also , so their sums are equivalent?
To #7 , I thought of something , don't know it's valid tho.
Can you prove what Gravity is!?
Errr,hmmm. They believe any force is transmitted by particle. But gravity seems to be an exception.So they assume that there's a kind of particle that transmitts gravity . But they havent proven its existence yet.
Yah , thought about that , but Luca's answer is the same . so..~haha