Thread: Problem 21
View Single Post
  #18  
Old May 10th, 2007, 01:03 PM
ecMathGeek's Avatar
ecMathGeek ecMathGeek is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 436
Country:
Thanks: 29
Thanked 151 Times in 142 Posts
ecMathGeek will become famous soon enoughecMathGeek will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainBlack View Post
Yes, because the inductive step does not hold as you have the product
of the first k r's equal to 1, the k+1 st r must be 1. So this proof only works if
all the roots are -1, but this is in general not true.

RonL
I wasn't arguing that the r_{x} roots must be 1 (that is that every root must be 1), but that if the roots for the n = k case are r_1, r_2, ..., r_k, where r_1, r_2, ..., r_k are real numbers, and that the first "k" roots of the n = k + 1 case are r_1, r_2, ... , r_k, where r_1, r_2, ..., r_k are the same values from the n = k case, then the r_{k + 1} root must be 1.

[Edit] There is a problem with this logic that just occurred to me: The roots of n = k + 1 don't have to be the same as those of n = k.

Last edited by ecMathGeek; May 10th, 2007 at 01:58 PM.