Posted April 12, 2018
nightcraw1er.488
Pale & Bitter
Registered: Apr 2012
From United Kingdom
Lifthrasil
Bring the GOG-Downloader back!
Registered: Apr 2011
From Germany
Posted April 12, 2018
Since negative integers aren't larger than 1, they can't be prime by definition.
dtgreene
vaccines work she/her
Registered: Jan 2010
From United States
Posted April 12, 2018
Here's another proof I came up with, in which I prove that i (the square root of -1) is a real number.
Suppose x is real. Then x is either 0 or not 0. If x is 0, sqrt(x) is clearly 0, which is a real number.
Now, if x != 0, then either x > 0 or x < 0. Without loss of generality, take x > 0 (in other words, x is positive). Since x is positive, it has 2 square roots, both real.
Hence, since x is either 0 or not 0, x must clearly have a real square root.
Now that we've established that every real x has at least one real square root, we let x = -1; hence, we conclude that -1 must have a real square root. Hence, i, the square root of -1, must be real.
QED.
Suppose x is real. Then x is either 0 or not 0. If x is 0, sqrt(x) is clearly 0, which is a real number.
Now, if x != 0, then either x > 0 or x < 0. Without loss of generality, take x > 0 (in other words, x is positive). Since x is positive, it has 2 square roots, both real.
Hence, since x is either 0 or not 0, x must clearly have a real square root.
Now that we've established that every real x has at least one real square root, we let x = -1; hence, we conclude that -1 must have a real square root. Hence, i, the square root of -1, must be real.
QED.
PoppyAppletree
"New" "User"
Registered: Jan 2010
From Other
Elvis is Dead
Find me in STEAM OT
Registered: Dec 2012
From Other
Posted July 24, 2018
6 + 4 + 3 = 2
Lets see how long it takes someone to get that....WITHOUT GOOGLE! ::P
I know damn well no one in Arlington, Philadelphia, or St. Louis is going to get it.
Lets see how long it takes someone to get that....WITHOUT GOOGLE! ::P
I know damn well no one in Arlington, Philadelphia, or St. Louis is going to get it.
Post edited July 24, 2018 by tinyE
Jinh_Molton
New User
Registered: Oct 2012
From Other
Posted July 24, 2018
B = A then multiply both sides by A
AB = A^2 then subtract B squared from both sides
AB - B^2 = A^2 - B^2 Reduce the expression
B(A-B) = (A+B) (A-B) Cancel out the like elements
B = A+B Since A equals B, restate
B = 2B Divide by B
1 = 2
B(A-B) = (A+B) (A-B) Cancel out the like elements
Division by 0.
Post edited July 24, 2018 by Arundir
dtgreene
vaccines work she/her
Registered: Jan 2010
From United States
Posted July 24, 2018
Lets see how long it takes someone to get that....WITHOUT GOOGLE! ::P
I know damn well no one in Arlington, Philadelphia, or St. Louis is going to get it.
Here's another one:
To fairly divide a pizza between 2 people, one person cuts the pizza, and the other one chooses a side to take.
To fairly divide a pizza between 1 person, that person "cuts" the pizza, and then chooses one out of the one pizzas.
How do you fairly divide a pizza between 0 people?
(By the way, dividing a pizza between 3 or more pizzas can't be done this easily, particularly if you adopt the (reasonable) rule that any person't portion of the pizza must be in a single slice, and no part of the pizza can go unclaimed.)
Elvis is Dead
Find me in STEAM OT
Registered: Dec 2012
From Other
Posted July 24, 2018
Lets see how long it takes someone to get that....WITHOUT GOOGLE! ::P
I know damn well no one in Arlington, Philadelphia, or St. Louis is going to get it.
Here's another one:
To fairly divide a pizza between 2 people, one person cuts the pizza, and the other one chooses a side to take.
To fairly divide a pizza between 1 person, that person "cuts" the pizza, and then chooses one out of the one pizzas.
How do you fairly divide a pizza between 0 people?
(By the way, dividing a pizza between 3 or more pizzas can't be done this easily, particularly if you adopt the (reasonable) rule that any person't portion of the pizza must be in a single slice, and no part of the pizza can go unclaimed.)
blotunga
GrumpyOldGamers.CyringOutMiserably
Registered: Apr 2012
From Other
Posted July 24, 2018
Late to the party but: The sequence 2, 4, 6, 10, 14, 22, 26, 34, 38, ... (OEIS A001747) consisting of the number 2 together with the primes multiplied by 2 is sometimes also called the even primes, since these are the even numbers n=2k that are divisible by just 1, 2, k, and 2k. From here.
Anyway proof is really simple. Let's say we have 2 "even primes", p = 2k, q = 2l. So naturally q - p = 2l - 2k, resulting q - p = 2 (l -k) thus m-n is even.
Anyway proof is really simple. Let's say we have 2 "even primes", p = 2k, q = 2l. So naturally q - p = 2l - 2k, resulting q - p = 2 (l -k) thus m-n is even.