Hey,
I have the following question. I've reached the conclusion, and part of my conclusion was that the structure of complete induction (the four steps) ensures a simple application of the proof. Now I'm wondering if I'm allowed to write this, because it might be subjective. So I'd like to know what you think.
Thank you very much and I wish you a relaxing Sunday!
(2 votes)
Loading...2(1+a)+4(1+2a)+5(2,5a)=d I got a=-6:22.5, but that is wrong please with calculation method
So this is the solution
I've already inserted everything, but I don't understand how to shorten the last part.
what is the radius of the earth in earth radii
No matter which method I use to calculate the vertex form (x|y), the result should always be the same, but not here. Why is that? I did the first method with quadratic completion and I get x= 2 and y=4.5 I gave the following function: Method 1: Completing the square -2x²+8x=-3.5 -> = -2*(x²-4x) =-2*(x²-2*2x+2²…
Is the calculation on the right mathematically correct? If not, why? It involves extracting partial roots.
"Complete induction" is a strategy that leads to very straightforward proofs… there are probably other strategies… but "complete induction" is often simpler…
So would you say it's okay?
I would rather write “leadership” instead of “application”…
or am I misunderstanding the context?
Ps: do you have an example where a different method of proof would be suitable instead of the vI?
yes… with the Gauss formula :
you can use VI…
Or you just babble… that you rearrange the n numbers… so that you always end up with pairs whose sum is (n+1)… and either with even n you have n/2 pairs, or with odd n you have a "pair" in the middle that isn't a pair at all (so the sum of this improper pair is (n+1)/2)….
or?
was meinst du mit „Anwendung des Beweises“? meinst du vllt „Anwendung des Beweisverfahrens v.I.“?
It's more about whether I can simply write that the VI is simple in this sense (in conclusion). That shouldn't be subjective, but it is proven that it is simple (4 steps, always the same…).