175 reputation
9
bio website
location
age
visits member for 2 years, 7 months
seen Jul 31 at 15:15

Jul
28
comment Diagonal matrices and integrals
Sorry, let me try to get a better example. Say it is $\frac{1}{B+xI}$
Jul
28
comment Diagonal matrices and integrals
Oops, I didn't finish the bottom correctly. I fixed it.
Jul
27
comment Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and limit
Ahh, caught it. Thanks!
Dec
6
comment Divergence of the series $2^{-1/n}$
Yes, I should probably explain the error. Thank you for that. The word "fathom" is a little strong in this context, that is all I was saying. Upon first reading of your comment I interpreted it as "I have no idea how you possibly got this limit wrong" which is clearly not constructive to learning any subject.
Dec
6
comment Divergence of the series $2^{-1/n}$
I'm not sure how I got the limit I did but I see the solution. I edited my solution above. Thank you for your help.
Dec
6
comment Divergence of the series $2^{-1/n}$
It was an error in the calculation. I believe I fixed the solution. A little advice though, saying "I cannot fathom how you got 1" is very discouraging to someone learning mathematics.
Nov
18
comment $\left<2,x\right>$ is a maximal ideal of $\Bbb Z[x]$
Oh, I think I see it now. Are you thinking of using the 1st iso theorem? If I did the work correctly, the kernel of this mapping $\left<2,x\right>$, correct?
Nov
18
comment $\left<2,x\right>$ is a maximal ideal of $\Bbb Z[x]$
I'm sorry, but the notation here "$\widehat{P(0)}$" means what exactly? I like that you said this because I thought about this but didn't think it would work.
Nov
18
comment $\left<2,x\right>$ is a maximal ideal of $\Bbb Z[x]$
I see! This problem has been bugging me for a couple of days. Thank you for the assistance.
Nov
18
comment $\left<2,x\right>$ is a maximal ideal of $\Bbb Z[x]$
That's the thing, I'm not sure how to make that 2nd isomorphism work. Should I just do it from straight definition?
Nov
17
comment How to show $\mathbb{Z}[w]/(2,w) \simeq \mathbb{Z}_2$?
I had a similar question to this and this response was insightful. I follow all of the steps except for the very first isomorphism. It looks like the 3rd isomorphism theorem but (2) isn't an ideal in $Z[w]$. Do you mind elaborating on how you arrived at the first iso from above? Again, this helped me see this problem clearer other than this snag.
Nov
4
comment Squeeze Theorem conclusion
Oh shoot you're right! I wasn't thinking of the right function.
Aug
26
comment Proof of Non-Ordering of Complex Field
I'm such an idiot. I didn't read the "for each $x \epsilon F$."
Aug
26
comment Proof of Non-Ordering of Complex Field
"The square of 0 is not $−1$" but what does that have to do with finding a subset of $C$? $0+0 \epsilon P, 0*0 \epsilon P$ So doesn't this work?
Aug
26
comment Proof of Non-Ordering of Complex Field
Why doesn't $0$ work here? If $z\epsilon P$ such that $z=0$, then doesn't that satisfy these properties? Also, who is to say that there isn't another subset out there where we could choose different numbers and make it work? I just don't get the point of choosing -1 and showing that since that doesn't work, then nothing will work. Any help explaining this?
Nov
21
comment Proof on limits using Cauchy sequences
Since the values in the domain of the function are tending toward a specific value, c, and $x_n$ and $y_n$ $\to c$ shouldn't $f(z_n) \to L_1$ and $L_2$?
Nov
21
comment Proof on limits using Cauchy sequences
I'm sorry, I had to type this on my phone since I will be away from my computer today. I'll use LaTeX next time. Thank you for editing it for me.
Sep
6
comment Geometry, equating two sets
I think I need to find a way to make ABCD true and let Kevin's idea play a role.
Sep
6
comment Geometry, equating two sets
Sorry, I'm meaning true in the sense that it is a fact derived from axioms. See that's also a thought that I had, but I'm not sure what the theorem is even stating.
Sep
3
comment Points being collinear
I'm not sure how to draw a picture on here... do you? I think the basic picture is that there are points $A$,$B$,$C$, and $D$ and they are collinear and we know that $A$$B$$C$ and $A$$B$$D$ are true. Then $D$ is between either $B$ and $C$ or $C$ is between $B$ and $D$. Does that make sense?