338 reputation
215
bio website
location
age
visits member for 3 years, 6 months
seen Oct 28 at 13:26

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.
Jun
7
awarded  Informed
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.
Jun
7
revised Prove Satisfiability of Property by Set
Clarified background
Jun
7
asked Prove Satisfiability of Property by Set