ByWalker52
Good evening,
for the divisor rule
āš,š,š ā Zā¶ š | š and š ā¤ š ā š ā¤(š+š)
Should I use an indirect proof? Unfortunately, I don't know what I should "change" to make it a proof by contradiction.
I would really appreciate any help! Thanks!
(1 votes)
Loading...A car has a new value of 40,000 euros. The car loses 15% of its value annually. a) State the equation that describes the value development of the car. b) Calculate the respective value of the car after one, two and three years. c) Calculate when the car will be worth only half of its…
Well, I don't have any fixed ethics or morals, I'm morally flexible, sometimes this way, sometimes that way. My ethics are also very much based on my emotional state. I'm also very selfish and have trouble with empathy and connecting with others. I feel lonely, even when I'm surrounded by people. As if I have…
Can someone help me with the task? The area covered by duckweed (in m^2) on a pond is described by the function f with f(t) = 40 ā¢ 1.08^t (t in days since the start of observation). After how many days is 50 m^2? After how many days has the covered area increased by 30m^2?
Hey, can someone help me solve this problem? I don't understand it. Thanks in advance.
I roughly understand why we divide A by 0.75, since A is 75% of M… But why does the whole thing equal 100% if we divide the amount of 75% by 75%, so to speak? I don't quite understand. Can someone write a written explanation or show me a proof of why this is always…
This was a problem in our math test. Does anyone have the solution? Ignore my scribble.
Accepted (a | b) and (a | (b+c)), then there is a k,l ā¬ Z with
(I) a*k = b
(II) a*l = b + c
(II) is followed by b = a*k:
a*l = a*k + c
a*l – a*k = c
a*(l – k) = c
This follows (a | c), for (l-k) ā¬ Z
Objection to (a ā¤ c)
From a | b follows the existence of a k ā¬ Z with a * k = b
From a ā¤ c follows the existence of an x ā¬ R with a * x = c
This follows
b+c = a*k + a*x
b+c = a*(k + x)
This follows a ā¤ (b+c), for (k+x) ā¬ R
Thank you!
The opposite is assumed, i.e. a | (b+c).
According to the first condition, a | b applies, it can be concluded directly with the assumption that:
a | (b+c) – b), i.e. a | c,
in opposition to the second condition.