
July 7th, 2009, 07:59 PM
|
| Junior Member | | Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 31
Country: Thanks: 15
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandad Hello everyone -
I don't think any of the proofs so far are really complete, although simplependulum has all but done it - without adequately testing the initial hypotheses. (Where, for instance, is the requirement that ?)
I'm afraid ProveIt's last line doesn't work. Just because is not an integer and is not an integer doesn't necessarily mean that is not an integer.
May I suggest the following.
Using the notation , and the proofs so far offered, we know that   . Call this equation (1)
If we now replace by in this equation we get:   
Therefore if is not a multiple of , then isn't either.
So, provided and are not multiples of , we have sufficient to show that is not a multiple of for all integers . is not a multiple of    , for  (using equation (1) with )   , for 
And that completes the proof, I think.
Grandad | Thanks Grandad for the proof but I do not know anything about modulus and its operations.Is there any other alternate solution for this? |