| 
November 5th, 2009, 03:05 PM
| | Junior Member | | Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 44
Country: Thanks: 17
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| | Show that if m > n then ((a^2)^n) + 1 divides ((a^2)^m)− 1 Working through a question i got to this stage where i need to:
Show that if m > n then ((a^2)^n) + 1 divides ((a^2)^m)− 1
Should i be looking to expand ((a^2)^n) + 1?
Last edited by sirellwood; November 5th, 2009 at 03:17 PM.
| 
November 5th, 2009, 03:13 PM
| | MHF Contributor | | Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,164
Thanks: 52
Thanked 399 Times in 377 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by sirellwood Working through a question i got to this stage where i need to:
Show that if m > n then ((a^2)^n) + 1 divides ((a^2)^n)− 1
Should i be looking to expand ((a^2)^n) + 1? |
You realize there is no m in your mathematical expressions, right?
Tonio | 
November 5th, 2009, 03:16 PM
| | Junior Member | | Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 44
Country: Thanks: 17
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| | argh sorry. my bad. edited :-) | 
November 7th, 2009, 05:25 AM
|  | Super Member | | Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 791
Thanks: 152
Thanked 427 Times in 360 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by sirellwood Show that if m > n then ((a^2)^n) + 1 divides ((a^2)^m)− 1 | If  ,  and  then  ,  but 17 does not divide 63. | 
November 7th, 2009, 05:37 AM
| | Senior Member | | Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 369
Country: Thanks: 40
Thanked 98 Times in 82 Posts
| | Exponents not Associative Sirellwood:
The operator "^" is NOT associative, that is, a^(2^n) does not equal (a^2)^n in general -- in Latex,
Theorem: For 
Proof:  ...
Continue factoring the successive differences of squares k times until  . QED
Your theorem is quite true, if rendered to the page in proper notation.
__________________ "A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems." ~Paul Erdős | | The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Media_Man For This Useful Post: | |  | 
November 7th, 2009, 05:38 AM
| | MHF Contributor | | Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,164
Thanks: 52
Thanked 399 Times in 377 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by sirellwood argh sorry. my bad. edited :-) |
I'm almost sure that you must require quite a bit more, namely: not only m > n but in fact n | m...check this.
Tonio | 
November 7th, 2009, 05:45 AM
| | MHF Contributor | | Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,164
Thanks: 52
Thanked 399 Times in 377 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Media_Man Sirellwood:
The operator "^" is NOT associative, that is, a^(2^n) does not equal (a^2)^n in general -- in Latex,
Theorem: For 
Proof:  ...
Continue factoring the successive differences of squares k times until  . QED
Your theorem is quite true, if rendered to the page in proper notation.  |
I supposed that if the OP had wanted  he could have writte a^(2^n) and not (a^2)^n, which means  . OTOH, he could have simply written a^(2n) and thus I think you're right and he meant  .
Even using simple ASCII one must be careful or even describe things by words when mathematical notation is cumbersome.
Tonio | 
November 7th, 2009, 06:05 AM
| | Senior Member | | Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 369
Country: Thanks: 40
Thanked 98 Times in 82 Posts
| | On language Quote: |
one must be careful or even describe things by words when mathematical notation is cumbersome.
| Funny, if you read pre-twentieth century math books and proofs, they rarely rely on notation and speak almost solely in plain english words. "One more than an integer raised to a power of two must evenly divide one less than that same number raised any higher power of two..." Mathematical notation is a language unto itself that has extremely strict rules of grammar.
__________________ "A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems." ~Paul Erdős | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:19 PM. | | |