Reputation
358
Top tag
Next privilege 500 Rep.
Access review queues
Badges
3 15
Impact
~17k people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 0 helpful flags
  • 34 votes cast
Nov
14
comment Absolute Value Properties
Forgot about the most basic case somehow..
Nov
14
asked Absolute Value Properties
Oct
14
awarded  Popular Question
Sep
18
awarded  Popular Question
Jul
29
revised “Fixed $k$” in Mathematical Induction
grammar correction
Jul
29
accepted “Fixed $k$” in Mathematical Induction
Jul
28
answered “Fixed $k$” in Mathematical Induction
Jul
26
comment “Fixed $k$” in Mathematical Induction
What is the justification for proving a universal statement by means of providing a proof for a single $k$?
Jul
26
suggested rejected edit on “Fixed $k$” in Mathematical Induction
Jul
17
comment When do I use “arbitrary” and/or “fixed” in a proof?
Are you confusing arbitrary and fixed with free and bound variables?
Jul
17
comment “Fixed $k$” in Mathematical Induction
@GitGud: Are you saying the same or opposite thing as Qiaochu Yuan math.stackexchange.com/a/46728/11444 ?
Jul
17
revised “Fixed $k$” in Mathematical Induction
changed tag
Jul
17
comment “Fixed $k$” in Mathematical Induction
I don't understand your answer.
Jul
17
comment “Fixed $k$” in Mathematical Induction
Is that the case? Why does he say "arbitrary but fixed" instead of just "let $k$ be an integer"?
Jul
17
asked “Fixed $k$” in Mathematical Induction
Jun
10
comment Prove Satisfiability of Property by Set
I'd love to chat whenever you're up to it: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/9178/satisfiability
Jun
9
comment Prove Satisfiability of Property by Set
I thought that was the meaning of my question. :( My question was based on an exercise in Apostol's book. Now I'm not certain my understanding of the terminology is correct. I did not understand "is satisfied by the rational numbers" to mean "is true of the rational numbers"; I understood it to mean "no reals beyond the rationals are needed for the property hold". Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Jun
9
comment Prove Satisfiability of Property by Set
@amWhy: I'm trying to prove that there is no implication from the archimedean property that there are real numbers which are not rational, are we on the same page?
Jun
9
comment Prove Satisfiability of Property by Set
You are proving "For all rational a,x,y, if a≤x<a+y/n for all positive integers n, then a=x." I'm trying to show that there is no implication from the archimedean property that there are real numbers which are not rational.
Jun
7
comment Prove Satisfiability of Property by Set
Given the context I provided, I don't see how, by definition, the rationals satisfy the archimedean property.