1,466 reputation
1542
bio website
location Valdosta, ga
age 22
visits member for 2 years, 1 month
seen yesterday

I am just a man who has an insatiable desire for knowledge.

"For the rest, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is worthy of reverence and is honorable and seemly, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely and lovable, whatever is kind and winsome and gracious, if there is any virtue and excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think on and weigh and take account of these things [fix your minds on them]."~ Philippians 4:8


Nov
22
comment Four Isosceles Trapezoids
Oh, wait! When I wrote the problem statement, I forgot to write that $x$ and $y$ are assumed to be positive integers. How does that change things? Could I immediately infer that $\displaystyle A = \frac{y+x}{2} \cdot \frac{y-x}{2}$ means that $A$ has to be factored into two positive integers?
Nov
17
comment Four Isosceles Trapezoids
I do not understand why I have to argue that $\frac{y+x}{x}$ and $\frac{y-x}{2}$ must be integers. I want them to be integers, so I compel them to be integers; and for each fraction to evaluate to an integer, the numerator must be some multiple of $2$. Is this the sort of proof you had in mind? If not, I do not see how it is possible to prove that they must be integers.
Jul
15
comment Proving the Well-Ordering Property
Why not? You just do the same comparison that I did in the case of two and three elements.
Jul
15
comment Proving the Well-Ordering Property
But I am proving that $S$ is well-ordered, and eventually, after having added enough elements to $S$, won't I get that $S = \mathbb{Z}^+$? So, because the two sets are equivalent, any property that one thing possess, the other thing must possess, right? In particular, $S$ possess the property that it has a minimal element; so, by the equality, $\mathbb{Z}^+$ has a minimal element.
Jul
15
comment Proving the Well-Ordering Property
Why isn't it clear what $S$ is supposed to be? Didn't I specify that it was some subset of $\mathbb{Z}^+$, and only contained the two elements $a,m \in \mathbb{Z}^+$? Isn't that clear enough? All I am doing in my proof is continually adding more elements from the set $\mathbb{Z}^+$ into $S$. How is that any less clear than what you said about $A$ in your post?
Jul
13
comment Proof About Division of Integers
That is what I figured, that the problem was concerned with existence, but I was not exactly certain.
Jul
11
comment Inductive proof of inequality $a\le ab$ for nonnegative integers
I have another question, then. How does one prove that the sum of two positive integers yields a number greater than the individual numbers.
Jul
11
comment Inductive proof of inequality $a\le ab$ for nonnegative integers
Yes, we are dealing with $\mathbb{N}$. So, my reasoning is correct?
Jun
25
comment Considering Vectors Geometrically
You seem to be saying that the geometric picture follows from the way in which vector addition is defined, and the fact that $\mathbb{R}^n$ itself has a geometric interpretation?
Jun
13
comment The role of 'arbitrary' in proofs
I particularly like when you said "This just means we are not assuming anything about x..." That's an interesting idea.
May
23
comment Fourier's Heat Law In Integral Form
Why wouldn't we use Fourier's law to find the total heat flow? I used the Heat Equation (the PDE) to find the temperature distribution $T(x,t)$; then I was going to use Fourier's law to find the total heat flow. Isn't your final equation just the Heat Equation integrated over $x$? I still don't see how that would give the heat flow.
May
23
comment Fourier's Heat Law In Integral Form
I'm sorry, but I do not quite see how I can determine the amount of heat that has flown from (or into) the rod during a certain time interval from the final equation.. Could you help me with that?
Feb
8
comment Integrating With Respect To $x$
So, it would not be correct to use the differential of $y$, $dy = \frac{dy}{dx} dx$?
Dec
28
comment Satisfiability Problem: Determining Which People To Invite
I don't believe that that is so. According to the answer key, which you seem to agree with, if Kanti attends the party, then Samir MUST attend--and there is no exception. But still, the answer key claims that p only if q is the same as q implies p, yet the people who answered my question given in the link state that p only if q is the same as p implies q. Essentially my question is, how can the answer key be correct, it would appear that it is incorrect.
Dec
25
comment Conditional Statements: “only if”
This is a very interesting answer, something of which I was seeking.
Dec
24
comment Conditional Statements: “only if”
Okay, I believe I am beginning to understand now. Thank you.
Dec
24
comment Conditional Statements: “only if”
Why introduce the negations? Isn't that what you are doing, "arbitrarily" introducing negations? Why can't the statement be translated as is?
Dec
24
comment Conditional Statements: “only if”
So, the word "only" introduces a negation? Why is that so?
Dec
24
comment Conditional Statements: “only if”
I have read them carefully, and probably have done so for over a year. I understand what sufficient conditions and necessary conditions are. I understand the conditional relationship in almost all of its forms, except the form "q only if p" What I do not understand is, why is p the necessary condition and q the sufficient condition. I am not asking, what are the sufficient and necessary conditions, rather, I am asking why.
Dec
24
comment Conditional Statements: “only if”
This is the problem I am having. When you have the statement "q if p," it translates to "p implies q;" and this makes sense: q can only be true if p is true. Now, when I see the statement "p only if q," I simply see this as a stronger version of "q if p," and should thus be translated in the same way.