I don't think I can prove it.
Can you assume it's not true, and then show that assumption results in a contradiction?
'The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco'
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.
I don't think I can prove it.
Can you assume it's not true, and then show that assumption results in a contradiction?
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.
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.
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.
Can't help you there. Dedekind cuts always made my brain hurt. Good luck!
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.
Mooooooooom I think they're talking math again.
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.
I shouldn't mention how often I like to consider different approaches for trisecting the angle, huh?
Mooooooooom I think they're talking math again.
No, no! Not really! This is history, see? The people who wrote this stuff? All dead!
I shouldn't mention how often I like to consider different approaches for trisecting the angle, huh?
You're a rebel, and you'll never ever be any good.