#math - Fri 9 Mar 2007 between 14:13 and 14:17

NY Lost Funds



Safrole2 of them are wrong.
CopterYou are just being a smartass ninja to be a hero
gg
x1= 2007 THEN THE SEQUENCE ISNT BOUNDED ABOVE by 1, THATS FUCKING RETARDED.
gg
chessguyhaha
Coptergo learn math
;o
SafroleHe's a troll
Copterstfu u r a troll
SafroleThere's no way this guy is fucking serious
chessguySafrole: yeah, i'm leaning that direction now too
FangzCopter: Do you know *why* that proof could work?
CopterFangz: its works people got all the points proving it properly.
And believe me those 2 proffesors are nazis
so they arent giving points for "being in the direction" or other crap.
SafroleCan we get a kick?
FangzI mean, why does the proof that 1/n -> 0 using 1/n>0 wroks?
chessguy@op
mbotMaybe you meant: . id map pl rc v wn yow
chessguybah
Littlebobwhat is the equation for finding a matrix' inverse?
SafroleThere is no equation Littlebob
It's rather an algorithm
sorjedet(A) = A * adj(A)
Littlebobthats what i ment hehe
FangzLooking at it now, the proof given by the professors is correct
but there is a step missing
CopterFangz: its my proof, it is flawed.
SafroleWhat's correct about it Fangz?
....
Copterand yes it is missing somethign i wanna know what
FangzSafrole: The fact that x<1 means that it is monotonically increasing
Copter3X_n/3X_n <=1 but thats "trivial" i thought i dont have to do that.
Safroleno it doesn't.
CopterYea Fangz is lost too, gg :D
SafroleA sequence can be bounded and not monotically increase
It shows nothing
Fangzthe difference between successive terms is (-x^2 + 2x - 1)/(x^2 + x + 1)
SafroleIn this case, a subsequence is bounded by 1

Page: 1 8 15 22 29 36 43 

IrcArchive

NY Lost Funds