Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Euler, when setting 0 0 = 1, mentioned that consequently the values of the function 0 x take a "huge jump", from ∞ for x < 0, to 1 at x = 0, to 0 for x > 0. [14] In 1814, Pfaff used a squeeze theorem argument to prove that x x → 1 as x → 0 +. [8]
Cancelling 0 from both sides yields =, a false statement. The fallacy here arises from the assumption that it is legitimate to cancel 0 like any other number, whereas, in fact, doing so is a form of division by 0. Using algebra, it is possible to disguise a division by zero [17] to obtain an invalid proof. For example: [18]
Then P(n) is true for all natural numbers n. For example, we can prove by induction that all positive integers of the form 2n − 1 are odd. Let P(n) represent " 2n − 1 is odd": (i) For n = 1, 2n − 1 = 2 (1) − 1 = 1, and 1 is odd, since it leaves a remainder of 1 when divided by 2. Thus P(1) is true.
Description. The simplest and most common form of mathematical induction infers that a statement involving a natural number n (that is, an integer n ≥ 0 or 1) holds for all values of n. The proof consists of two steps: The base case (or initial case): prove that the statement holds for 0, or 1. The induction step (or inductive step, or step ...
We prove commutativity (a + b = b + a) by applying induction on the natural number b. First we prove the base cases b = 0 and b = S(0) = 1 (i.e. we prove that 0 and 1 commute with everything). The base case b = 0 follows immediately from the identity element property (0 is an additive identity), which has been proved above: a + 0 = a = 0 + a.
Euler's formula, named after Leonhard Euler, is a mathematical formula in complex analysis that establishes the fundamental relationship between the trigonometric functions and the complex exponential function. Euler's formula states that, for any real number x, one has where e is the base of the natural logarithm, i is the imaginary unit, and ...
Cantor's diagonal argument (among various similar names [note 1]) is a mathematical proof that there are infinite sets which cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence with the infinite set of natural numbers – informally, that there are sets which in some sense contain more elements than there are positive integers.
Simplifications. Some of the proofs of Fermat's little theorem given below depend on two simplifications. The first is that we may assume that a is in the range 0 ≤ a ≤ p − 1. This is a simple consequence of the laws of modular arithmetic; we are simply saying that we may first reduce a modulo p.