You are not logged in.
Just wanted to note that stating the sum converges because 1/n^2 does is rigorous.
Ahh right, okay. I thought I might have to write out some |a_n| < |b_n| things mentioned on that wiki page.
Thanks
I don't even know why I asked this, it obviously converges.
Called a comparison test? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_test
Is it okay to (unrigorously) state that
converges because does?Thanks.
No problem
Draw a diagram. Draw a radius from O to A and from O to B. Let the radius be of length r.
The area of the larger part is equal to the area of the larger sector + the area of the triangle AOB.
The area of the smaller part is equal to the area of the smaller sector - the area of the triangle AOB.
Remember that the area of a sector is
and the area of a triangle is (where a and b = r here).Also note that the angle of the large sector = 2pi - theta.
i dont get these jokes, what do they mean?
There are rather a lot. Choose one and we'll explain?
I see.
Thank you Jane. I don't like square one
A, B and C are three angles in a triangle, though? Why can't we order them arbitrarily?
It was stated in the initial conditions that x,y,z > 0.
Why does that initial assumption lose generality though?
Okay, I've got it.
WLOG let
, with k>0 and where A, B and C are the three angles of a right-angled triangle.From my post above, we see that:
WLOG let
and thus letIn this interval, tanC is increasing
Using the identity for tan(A+B), I managed to get:
When arctanx + arctany + arctanz = pi, x + y + z - xyz = 0 ⇒ x+y+z = xyz
Not entirely sure where to go from here, as you cannot say that A < B ⇒ tanA < tanB.
LOL - tesco... HA!
Lol - More... - Less... Roflol!
These aren't the jokes!
I suggest clicking "more" at the top of the page.
My favourite is probably: "Any theorem in Analysis can be fitted onto an arbitrarily small
piece of paper if you are sufficiently obscure."
I think some of these are rather funny:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a … 467255.ece
What is the world coming to?
A useful algebraic identity:
Until you're at the stage of understanding the rigorous definition Jane mentions above, think of getting an answer like 0/0 as 'we can't get the answer this way, as 0/0 is not defined. It could really be anything'.
One way you can do it is by mathematical induction. Do you know what mathematical induction is?
I've always found this result rather surprising, and unfortunately induction isn't much of a 'why' method of proving things.
Solve? that isn't an equation.
Write m = 2k and n = 2r + 1.
Show us what you've done so far?
Eurgh, why do this by induction. Just let n = 2k + 1.