Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
An important special case is when the index set is , the natural numbers: this Cartesian product is the set of all infinite sequences with the i-th term in its corresponding set X i. For example, each element of ∏ n = 1 ∞ R = R × R × ⋯ {\displaystyle \prod _{n=1}^{\infty }\mathbb {R} =\mathbb {R} \times \mathbb {R} \times \cdots } can ...
In mathematics, a proof by infinite descent, also known as Fermat's method of descent, is a particular kind of proof by contradiction [1] used to show that a statement cannot possibly hold for any number, by showing that if the statement were to hold for a number, then the same would be true for a smaller number, leading to an infinite descent and ultimately a contradiction. [2]
As Fermat did for the case n = 4, Euler used the technique of infinite descent. [50] The proof assumes a solution (x, y, z) to the equation x 3 + y 3 + z 3 = 0, where the three non-zero integers x, y, and z are pairwise coprime and not all positive. One of the three must be even, whereas the other two are odd.
Any solutions to the Beal conjecture will necessarily involve three terms all of which are 3-powerful numbers, i.e. numbers where the exponent of every prime factor is at least three. It is known that there are an infinite number of such sums involving coprime 3-powerful numbers; [11] however, such sums are rare. The smallest two examples are:
Some sources allow convergence to 0 if there are only a finite number of zero factors and the product of the non-zero factors is non-zero, but for simplicity we will not allow that here. If the product converges, then the limit of the sequence a n as n increases without bound must be 1, while the converse is in general not true.
P. Oxy. 29, one of the oldest surviving fragments of Euclid's Elements, a textbook used for millennia to teach proof-writing techniques. The diagram accompanies Book II, Proposition 5. [1] A mathematical proof is a deductive argument for a mathematical statement, showing that the stated assumptions logically guarantee the
In the case of a linear system, the system may be said to be underspecified, in which case the presence of more than one solution would imply an infinite number of solutions (since the system would be describable in terms of at least one free variable [2]), but that property does not extend to nonlinear systems (e.g., the system with the ...
Then show that for any counterexample there is a still smaller counterexample, producing a contradiction. This mode of argument is the contrapositive of proof by complete induction. It is known light-heartedly as the "minimal criminal" method [citation needed] and is similar in its nature to Fermat's method of "infinite descent".