
Chap 3 - 05
... Estimate square roots – Figure out which two perfect squares the number is between. Name the square root that is closest. 79 is between ...
... Estimate square roots – Figure out which two perfect squares the number is between. Name the square root that is closest. 79 is between ...
Game Theory: Logic, Set and Summation Notation
... Since we assumed nothing about y except that it was one element of [Y ∩ Z], we can use universal generalization to conclude that (∀x ∈ [Y ∩ Z])[x ∈ Y ∪ Z]. This gives us (1). The proof for (2) is similar. Sets are very useful for expressing order or duplication. For example, to represent a point on ...
... Since we assumed nothing about y except that it was one element of [Y ∩ Z], we can use universal generalization to conclude that (∀x ∈ [Y ∩ Z])[x ∈ Y ∪ Z]. This gives us (1). The proof for (2) is similar. Sets are very useful for expressing order or duplication. For example, to represent a point on ...
Full text
... {1,2,..., &}, so we count the w-tuples formed "using" all the numbers 1,2,..., k. To form an w-tuple with the numbers 1,2,..., k, we use the number 1 xx times, the number 2 x2 times, and so on up to the number k xk times, so that xx + x2 + —h xk = m and xt > 1 for i = 1, 2,..., k. For each solution ...
... {1,2,..., &}, so we count the w-tuples formed "using" all the numbers 1,2,..., k. To form an w-tuple with the numbers 1,2,..., k, we use the number 1 xx times, the number 2 x2 times, and so on up to the number k xk times, so that xx + x2 + —h xk = m and xt > 1 for i = 1, 2,..., k. For each solution ...
SECOND-ORDER LOGIC, OR - University of Chicago Math
... these more philosophical questions. We may know more mathematics than Kant, but this does not exclude the possibility that his theory of its foundations does not remain more correct. To history, then, without further apology. Mathematics today conforms to a self-conception that is relatively new (ce ...
... these more philosophical questions. We may know more mathematics than Kant, but this does not exclude the possibility that his theory of its foundations does not remain more correct. To history, then, without further apology. Mathematics today conforms to a self-conception that is relatively new (ce ...
Chapter 8 Number Theory
... (2t-1)-(2s-1)= 2t-2s=2s(2t-s-1)=(q2- q1)m. ∵ m is odd, ∴ gcd(2s,m) =1. Hence m︳2t-s-1, and the result follows with n=t-s. Eg. An inventory consists of a list of 80 items, each marked “available” or ‘unavailable”. There are 45 available items. Show that there are at least 2 available items in the lis ...
... (2t-1)-(2s-1)= 2t-2s=2s(2t-s-1)=(q2- q1)m. ∵ m is odd, ∴ gcd(2s,m) =1. Hence m︳2t-s-1, and the result follows with n=t-s. Eg. An inventory consists of a list of 80 items, each marked “available” or ‘unavailable”. There are 45 available items. Show that there are at least 2 available items in the lis ...
C1 Scheme of Work Outline
... Now cover the formula for the equation of a line through (x1, y1) with gradient m. Although students seem happier with y = mx + c (given m, substitute in the given (x, y) to find c) it is more convenient to use y – y1 = m(x – x1) in some applications, such as work with parametric co-ordinates. Give ...
... Now cover the formula for the equation of a line through (x1, y1) with gradient m. Although students seem happier with y = mx + c (given m, substitute in the given (x, y) to find c) it is more convenient to use y – y1 = m(x – x1) in some applications, such as work with parametric co-ordinates. Give ...
Solutions to exam 1
... (b) If gcdpa, pi q 1 then api 1 1 pmod pi q by Fermat’s little theorem. Since pi 1 | n 1, we have n 1 ki ppi 1q. Therefore an1 (c) If gcdpa, pi q a pmod pi q. ...
... (b) If gcdpa, pi q 1 then api 1 1 pmod pi q by Fermat’s little theorem. Since pi 1 | n 1, we have n 1 ki ppi 1q. Therefore an1 (c) If gcdpa, pi q a pmod pi q. ...
Properties of Independently Axiomatizable Bimodal Logics
... − ⊗ − : (EK)2 → EK2 . ⊗ is a -homomorphism in both arguments. There are certain easy properties of this map which are noteworthy. Fixing the second argument we can study the map − ⊗ M : EK → EK2 . This is a -homomorphism. The map −2 : EK2 → EK : L 7→ L2 will be shown to almost the inverse of − ...
... − ⊗ − : (EK)2 → EK2 . ⊗ is a -homomorphism in both arguments. There are certain easy properties of this map which are noteworthy. Fixing the second argument we can study the map − ⊗ M : EK → EK2 . This is a -homomorphism. The map −2 : EK2 → EK : L 7→ L2 will be shown to almost the inverse of − ...
CHAPTER 10 Gentzen Style Proof Systems for Classical Logic 1
... Hilbert style systems are easy to define and admit a simple proof of the Completeness Theorem but they are difficult to use. By humans, not mentioning computers. Their emphasis is on logical axioms, keeping the rules of inference at a minimum. Gentzen systems reverse this situation by emphasizing th ...
... Hilbert style systems are easy to define and admit a simple proof of the Completeness Theorem but they are difficult to use. By humans, not mentioning computers. Their emphasis is on logical axioms, keeping the rules of inference at a minimum. Gentzen systems reverse this situation by emphasizing th ...
Theorem
In mathematics, a theorem is a statement that has been proven on the basis of previously established statements, such as other theorems—and generally accepted statements, such as axioms. The proof of a mathematical theorem is a logical argument for the theorem statement given in accord with the rules of a deductive system. The proof of a theorem is often interpreted as justification of the truth of the theorem statement. In light of the requirement that theorems be proved, the concept of a theorem is fundamentally deductive, in contrast to the notion of a scientific theory, which is empirical.Many mathematical theorems are conditional statements. In this case, the proof deduces the conclusion from conditions called hypotheses or premises. In light of the interpretation of proof as justification of truth, the conclusion is often viewed as a necessary consequence of the hypotheses, namely, that the conclusion is true in case the hypotheses are true, without any further assumptions. However, the conditional could be interpreted differently in certain deductive systems, depending on the meanings assigned to the derivation rules and the conditional symbol.Although they can be written in a completely symbolic form, for example, within the propositional calculus, theorems are often expressed in a natural language such as English. The same is true of proofs, which are often expressed as logically organized and clearly worded informal arguments, intended to convince readers of the truth of the statement of the theorem beyond any doubt, and from which a formal symbolic proof can in principle be constructed. Such arguments are typically easier to check than purely symbolic ones—indeed, many mathematicians would express a preference for a proof that not only demonstrates the validity of a theorem, but also explains in some way why it is obviously true. In some cases, a picture alone may be sufficient to prove a theorem. Because theorems lie at the core of mathematics, they are also central to its aesthetics. Theorems are often described as being ""trivial"", or ""difficult"", or ""deep"", or even ""beautiful"". These subjective judgments vary not only from person to person, but also with time: for example, as a proof is simplified or better understood, a theorem that was once difficult may become trivial. On the other hand, a deep theorem may be simply stated, but its proof may involve surprising and subtle connections between disparate areas of mathematics. Fermat's Last Theorem is a particularly well-known example of such a theorem.