I don't see how it could be anything but what -t said. Unless I'm missing something....
Yeah, I could do that, but I'm paralyzed with not caring very much.
Spike ,'Showtime'
Natter 40: The Nice One
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
tommyrot - Dec 04, 2005 8:26:05 am PST #9187 of 10006
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
-t - Dec 04, 2005 8:31:15 am PST #9188 of 10006
I am a woman of various inclinations and only some of the time are they to burn everything down in frustration
Ganked from [link]
The least upper bound, called the supremum, of a set S, is defined as a quantity M such that no member of the set exceeds M, but if ? is any positive quantity, however small, there is a member that exceeds M - ?.
I think it's 2/3. I don't think I can prove it.
(The ?s are epsilons)
tommyrot - Dec 04, 2005 8:32:43 am PST #9189 of 10006
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
I don't think I can prove it.
Can you assume it's not true, and then show that assumption results in a contradiction?
-t - Dec 04, 2005 8:35:41 am PST #9190 of 10006
I am a woman of various inclinations and only some of the time are they to burn everything down in frustration
I think all that needs to be shown is that for any positive x, there exists a member of the described set between 2/3-x and 2/3. The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.
Emily - Dec 04, 2005 8:36:46 am PST #9191 of 10006
"In the equation E = mc⬧, c⬧ is a pretty big honking number." - Scola
Oh, okay. Using that definition, I think it does work. I was looking at
If a property M does not belong to all values of a variable x, but does belong to all values which are less than a certain u, then there is always a quantity U which is the greatest of those of which it can be asserted that all smaller x have property M
and not getting it. Although now I look at it... I guess it does say the same thing. It was that "a variable x" that was confusing me. Thanks, guys! Now I have to attack Dedekind cuts and paradoxes. My brain really isn't up to this stuff.
Eddie - Dec 04, 2005 8:40:47 am PST #9192 of 10006
Your tag here.
Let A be the set of numbers in (3/5,2/3) that have decimal expansions containing only finitely many zeros and sixes after the decimal point and no other integer. Find the least upper bound of A. (prove your answer)
My head hurts, and I can't help but wonder what is the practical value of the question. Good luck.
-t - Dec 04, 2005 8:41:34 am PST #9193 of 10006
I am a woman of various inclinations and only some of the time are they to burn everything down in frustration
Can't help you there. Dedekind cuts always made my brain hurt. Good luck!
Emily - Dec 04, 2005 8:42:52 am PST #9194 of 10006
"In the equation E = mc⬧, c⬧ is a pretty big honking number." - Scola
My head hurts, and I can't help but wonder what is the practical value of the question.
Practical value? Did you miss the part where I said History of Math? Practical, shyeah! I do homework on things that were proved impossible 500 years ago!
God I'll be glad when this class is over. The homework just never gets any easier.
Laura - Dec 04, 2005 8:42:59 am PST #9195 of 10006
Our wings are not tired.
Mooooooooom I think they're talking math again.
Cashmere - Dec 04, 2005 8:46:42 am PST #9196 of 10006
Now tagless for your comfort.
Practical value? Did you miss the part where I said History of Math? Practical, shyeah! I do homework on things that were proved impossible 500 years ago!
BWAH! This one is getting passed on to DH.