
x - 1 I x3 + 2x2 - x3 + lxl
... The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra states that every polynomial has at least one root. Thus, there is at least one value a such that j(a) = O. This a may be real, imaginary, rational, or irrational, but the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra assures us that at least one such root exists. Unfortunately t ...
... The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra states that every polynomial has at least one root. Thus, there is at least one value a such that j(a) = O. This a may be real, imaginary, rational, or irrational, but the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra assures us that at least one such root exists. Unfortunately t ...
New York Journal of Mathematics A prime number theorem for finite
... Corollary 2.2. Let F/Q be a Galois extension of prime degree with corresponding field norm N and let O be the ring of integers of F . Let α ∈ O. If α is a prime element of O, then one of the following must hold: (1) |N (α)| is prime. (2) α = pu, where u is a unit of O and p is a prime not of the for ...
... Corollary 2.2. Let F/Q be a Galois extension of prime degree with corresponding field norm N and let O be the ring of integers of F . Let α ∈ O. If α is a prime element of O, then one of the following must hold: (1) |N (α)| is prime. (2) α = pu, where u is a unit of O and p is a prime not of the for ...
Reciprocity Laws and Density Theorems
... This article is a written version of my 2007 Shaw Lecture. It is meant to explain the related ideas of reciprocity laws (such as quadratic reciprocity and the Shimura-Taniyama conjecture) and of density theorems (such as Dirichlet’s theorem and the Sato-Tate conjecture) to a general audience. I disc ...
... This article is a written version of my 2007 Shaw Lecture. It is meant to explain the related ideas of reciprocity laws (such as quadratic reciprocity and the Shimura-Taniyama conjecture) and of density theorems (such as Dirichlet’s theorem and the Sato-Tate conjecture) to a general audience. I disc ...
Number Theory Exam 2
... Solution. Let a be a primitive root of n and let a1 , . . . , aφ(n) be the φ(n) incongruent elements less than or equal to n and relatively prime to n. Since primitive roots have orders, but orders are only defined for relatively prime elements, the remaining primitive roots must live in {a1 , . . . ...
... Solution. Let a be a primitive root of n and let a1 , . . . , aφ(n) be the φ(n) incongruent elements less than or equal to n and relatively prime to n. Since primitive roots have orders, but orders are only defined for relatively prime elements, the remaining primitive roots must live in {a1 , . . . ...
Prime Numbers in digits of `e`
... primitive with 52 bits available for fraction storage and l1 bits for exponents.1 This means that the smallest number that can stored in a double 4.94065645841246544e-324 with 18 digits of significant figures. If e was calculated using a double primitive the program could only test 7 possible value ...
... primitive with 52 bits available for fraction storage and l1 bits for exponents.1 This means that the smallest number that can stored in a double 4.94065645841246544e-324 with 18 digits of significant figures. If e was calculated using a double primitive the program could only test 7 possible value ...
A Contraction-free and Cut-free Sequent Calculus for
... is well-defined. Indeed, there are several equivalent axiomatisations of P DL (see for example [4, 7]), each of which is obtained by adding to classical propositional logic: (i) the distribution axiom schema, that now has the form: [α](A → B) → ([α]A → [α]B), for each program α; (ii) modus ponens and ...
... is well-defined. Indeed, there are several equivalent axiomatisations of P DL (see for example [4, 7]), each of which is obtained by adding to classical propositional logic: (i) the distribution axiom schema, that now has the form: [α](A → B) → ([α]A → [α]B), for each program α; (ii) modus ponens and ...
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.