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

### NY Lost Funds

 Safrole 2 of them are wrong. Copter You are just being a smartass ninja to be a heroggx1= 2007 THEN THE SEQUENCE ISNT BOUNDED ABOVE by 1, THATS FUCKING RETARDED.gg chessguy haha Copter go learn math;o Safrole He's a troll Copter stfu u r a troll Safrole There's no way this guy is fucking serious chessguy Safrole: yeah, i'm leaning that direction now too Fangz Copter: Do you know *why* that proof could work? Copter Fangz: its works people got all the points proving it properly.And believe me those 2 proffesors are nazisso they arent giving points for "being in the direction" or other crap. Safrole Can we get a kick? Fangz I mean, why does the proof that 1/n -> 0 using 1/n>0 wroks? chessguy @op mbot Maybe you meant: . id map pl rc v wn yow chessguy bah Littlebob what is the equation for finding a matrix' inverse? Safrole There is no equation LittlebobIt's rather an algorithm sorje det(A) = A * adj(A) Littlebob thats what i ment hehe Fangz Looking at it now, the proof given by the professors is correctbut there is a step missing Copter Fangz: its my proof, it is flawed. Safrole What's correct about it Fangz?.... Copter and yes it is missing somethign i wanna know what Fangz Safrole: The fact that x<1 means that it is monotonically increasing Copter 3X_n/3X_n <=1 but thats "trivial" i thought i dont have to do that. Safrole no it doesn't. Copter Yea Fangz is lost too, gg :D Safrole A sequence can be bounded and not monotically increaseIt shows nothing Fangz the difference between successive terms is (-x^2 + 2x - 1)/(x^2 + x + 1) Safrole In this case, a subsequence is bounded by 1