You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Hey guys.I have a little question or just a personal wonder about them.
Last edited by Yusuke00 (2014-02-09 04:57:39)
Offline
Hi;
Please adjust the latex.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Done yeah cool now i found out how it works. hehe
Offline
Hi;
How can K be an element of R?
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
It's N* sorry math. I don't really know how to write N* or R*+.How you do that?
Offline
You can just put N or R. You can use
http://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php
for all ypur latexing.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Not any opinions/ideas yet?
Offline
Hey guys.I have a little question or just a personal wonder about them.
Question is: Is for any ?
What about ?
Fixed the post a bit.
Why would you think they cannot be positive?
Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.
Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment
The knowledge of some things as a function of age is a delta function.
Offline
You got it wrong.
In my opinion the first one is always positive for any x real but i don't really know how to prove it.
Offline
Hi;
That is the gf for that sum. It is obviously positive when x >=0. You might now try to prove that the numerator and denominator have the same sign for x<0.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
That would be quite hard.
I know the problem is to prove that x does not have roots on (-1,0) because it's easy to see on the other cases.Ideas?
Offline
Hi;
Is it really that hard?
Take the numerator when x<0. It is obvious that x^(2k+1) is always negative and therefore x^(2k)-1 is always negative.
Now the denominator is obviously negative for x<0, so we have (-) / (-) which is always positive.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Indeed,good point you are right.
http://www.mathsisfun.com/data/function-grapher.php?func1=sqrt%28x%29&func2=2
Offline
Or, you could just say that, for any integer n, x^(2n)>0.
Also, I was confused by the question. It seems, by what you wanted, that it should have been "Is f>0 for every x in R?".
Last edited by anonimnystefy (2014-02-10 15:22:08)
Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.
Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment
The knowledge of some things as a function of age is a delta function.
Offline
Pages: 1